How does one become an adcom?

[stereotypeasianpremed]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Are adcom positions open to all attendees?
If you specialize in like psychiatry or emergency medicine can u become an adcom with proper credentials?

Thanks

 

[Goro]

At my school, ALL Faculty are expected to serve on the Adcom.

Some schools will "invite" Faculty members onto the committee.

Being an Adcom member has nothing to do with one's specialty, but rather, Faculty status.

A number of schools may even have students on the Adcom.

Are adcom positions open to all attendees?
If you specialize in like psychiatry or emergency medicine can u become an adcom with proper credentials?

Thanks

 

[gyngyn]

It's an onerous faculty responsibility that is both unpaid and unappreciated.
Faculty members run as if from the plague when approached for service.
The only faculty expressing any interest are often (suspiciously) found to have offspring about to graduate from college...

 

[Rekt]

1. PhD/DO/MD.
2. Be completely devoid of any personality or be over the top uncomfortably quirky.

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

It's an onerous faculty responsibility that is both unpaid and unappreciated.
Faculty members run as if from the plague when approached for service.
The only faculty expressing any interest are often (suspiciously) found to have offspring about to graduate from college...

That's super interesting because I thought it was the other way around. That it was a highly selective group of people since you guys are playing "God".

But I'm sure y'all have better things to do than worry about pre meds.

Reminds me of researchers here in my school who are called in for teaching duty. you get what you pay for.

It's annual and there is no policy against relationship bias? Odd.

Politics is so yummy

 

[Goro]

We're NOT "playing God"; we take this VERY seriously. We have to teach these people and know that they're going to be touching someone's mom or kids someday. We also realize that people's dreams are at stake.

That's super interesting because I thought it was the other way around. That it was a highly selective group of people since you guys are playing "God".

But I'm sure y'all have better things to do than worry about pre meds.

Reminds me of researchers here in my school who are called in for teaching duty. you get what you pay for.

It's annual and there is no policy against relationship bias? Odd.

Politics is so yummy

 

[yeasureyoubetcha]

It's an onerous faculty responsibility that is both unpaid and unappreciated.
Faculty members run as if from the plague when approached for service.

I guarantee you that us accepted students are pretty appreciative of your service!

 

[gyngyn]

It's annual and there is no policy against relationship bias? Odd.

Politics is so yummy

We have a conflict of interest affirmation that must be signed before beginning service. That how we find out! The only ones eager to serve are the ineligible...

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

We have a conflict of interest affirmation that must be signed before beginning service. That how we find out! The only ones eager to serve are the ineligible...

Funny.

Why don't they make this a profession? Expend more time at it and specialize in picking the best candidates lol. I'm sure their are doctors who realized that their speciality isn't what they wanted to do. Then again there are other things like teaching professions

I wouldn't mind doing something like this. Afterall I am completely 100% objective :/

 

[mathnerd88]

Funny.

Why don't they make this a profession? Expend more time at it and specialize in picking the best candidates lol. I'm sure their are doctors who realized that their speciality isn't what they wanted to do. Then again there are other things like teaching professions

I wouldn't mind doing something like this. Afterall I am completely 100% objective :/

Because faculty members do other things like teach. Or do research. After all, this isn't just limited to medical schools. Graduate schools are the same way.

Making it into a profession costs more $$$ for the school. Plus the faculty members actually know the school, teaches the students, and serves as mentors sometimes. They're the ones who are actually "specialized" in picking applicants. There's really no need to make it into a profession when they're good enough doing it part time.

 

[IslandStyle808]

Because faculty members do other things like teach. Or do research. After all, this isn't just limited to medical schools. Graduate schools are the same way.

Making it into a profession costs more $$$ for the school. Plus the faculty members actually know the school, teaches the students, and serves as mentors sometimes. They're the ones who are actually "specialized" in picking applicants. There's really no need to make it into a profession when they're good enough doing it part time.

Different strokes for different folks. My state MD school have used community physicians and faculty outside of the medical school (but within the university system) to pick their medical students. A few of whom barely know the school and students.

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

Because faculty members do other things like teach. Or do research. After all, this isn't just limited to medical schools. Graduate schools are the same way.

Making it into a profession costs more $$$ for the school. Plus the faculty members actually know the school, teaches the students, and serves as mentors sometimes. They're the ones who are actually "specialized" in picking applicants. There's really no need to make it into a profession when they're good enough doing it part time.

Teaching and knowing the school has no relevance in picking out competent candidates. Teaching is teaching and knowing your school is knowing your school. What does this have to do with picking students? As gyngyn has stated, they way they do it is through mandatory service. What USUALLY happens when people do things they don't want to do? Give n take, some people suck it up and do it and do it well because they know they are responsible for it and that it will affect others. Most half ass it because they don't give a rats ass. I am not stating this because it solely has personally affected me but because it's simply the truth. My genetics professor was the topdog of biology and my other bio professor was a Chinese international researcher. Neither cared because it wasn't their "job" they weren't incentivized, they didn't want to teach us, they weren't good teachers. Topdog guy didn't give a **** he was topdog? Chinese barely spoke English. 99% sure no one knew what in the world they were even saying. No one said anything because, well we can't. Plus we're afraid. After seeing this countless times it's pretty depressing. Let the teachers be teachers. The researchers be researchers. And the admissions committee be admissions committee. If the researchers ARE being incentivized for their duty as teachers, cut that part of the pay and hire actual teachers, or make it an option for those who WANT To do both. I don't want to have to see anyone bust their ass for 4 years to have a 70 year old unmotivated unprepared researcher glance at an application and determine their fate. Esp if ones gpa is on the lower end because of the reason above?

One thing I learned from being premed is that motivation and passion is one of, the if not the strongest factor in doing something. Brute force only goes so far and leads to ****ty outcome.

Idk, just a thought. Way too much bad variance in the education system imo. I'm not saying school is bad but I definitely think there are ways it can be dramatically improved. Maybe schools have tried to compensate for somethings and allowed more freedom, but humanity is just ****ty so it doesn't work? Idk that's beyond my knowledge. I do believe however that school attracts certain types of people while others have to adapt. They're called the structured mindless sheep doers. School- Just Do It. I'm kidding, of course.

How do you know they're "good enough" doing it part time? Where's your source? The idea I stated above can potentially save money, if your school is large enough. You're telling an amateur poker player to play professionally and make millions. They know the rules and have played before right? So why can't they make millions? Adcoms take time to pick which is why we wait for acceptance letters, because it's hard picking 200 out of 8000. Goro stated that they take it "seriously". 3 things I can point out from the information. 1. If the same phenomenon that occurs in my school occurs with adcoms in any school, that's bad. 2. If it takes time and seriousness to complete a task it's probably because it's hard and complex. 3. If it's hard and complex chances are somethings will go wrong when u force someone to do something that they aren't even really good at. You want someone to be good at complex things. So good that they have devised their own personal formula and don't need to think because they've done it for so long. A newbie has none of those characteristics.

we ask ourselves why we are so behind in education compared to other countries. when people bring up money when we are talking about things like professional schooling and graduate studies, not the lowest but the highest level of education. It definitely makes me scratch my head. Anything that is monetized turns to trash. Look what happened to Facebook. As bill gates says your number one learning source is the customers. If they fixed some things of the education system I bet people would be more motivated to actually do **** instead of memorizing. Yes money makes the world go round I get it. But with this logic what stops a genius college student in chemistry and mathematics from going to into medical school and going derm to get paid 400k to do nothing? Jk sorry derm.

There has to be a cutoff line. Right?
We train people to compete against each other for 8 years in order to provide optimal care for others for the rest of their lives. I've heard stories of gunners sabotaging other students in order to get what they want. What a great doctor he's going to be

 

[mathnerd88]

Teaching and knowing the school has no relevance in picking out competent candidates. Teaching is teaching and knowing your school is knowing your school. What does this have to do with picking students? As gyngyn has stated, they way they do it is through mandatory service. What USUALLY happens when people do things they don't want to do? Give n take, some people suck it up and do it and do it well because they know they are responsible for it and that it will affect others. Most half ass it because they don't give a rats ass. I am not stating this because it solely has personally affected me but because it's simply the truth. My genetics professor was the topdog of biology and my other bio professor was a Chinese international researcher. Neither cared because it wasn't their "job" they weren't incentivized, they didn't want to teach us, they weren't good teachers. Topdog guy didn't give a **** he was topdog? Chinese barely spoke English. 99% sure no one knew what in the world they were even saying. No one said anything because, well we can't. Plus we're afraid. After seeing this countless times it's pretty depressing. Let the teachers be teachers. The researchers be researchers. And the admissions committee be admissions committee. If the researchers ARE being incentivized for their duty as teachers, cut that part of the pay and hire actual teachers, or make it an option for those who WANT To do both. I don't want to have to see anyone bust their ass for 4 years to have a 70 year old unmotivated unprepared researcher glance at an application and determine their fate. Esp if ones gpa is on the lower end because of the reason above?

we ask ourselves why we are so behind in education compared to other countries. when people bring up money when we are talking about things like professional schooling and graduate studies, not the lowest but the highest level of education. It definitely makes me scratch my head. Anything that is monetized turns to trash. Look what happened to Facebook. As bill gates says your number one learning source is the customers. If they fixed some things of the education system I bet people would be more motivated to actually do **** instead of memorizing. Yes money makes the world go round I get it. But with this logic what stops a genius college student in chemistry and mathematics from going to into medical school and going derm to get paid 400k to do nothing? Jk sorry derm.

There has to be a cutoff line. Right?
We train people to compete against each other for 8 years in order to provide optimal care for others for the rest of their lives. I've heard stories of gunners sabotaging other students in order to get what they want. What a great doctor he's going to be

We aren't. We're ahead of any other country when it comes to colleges and graduate schools and research. Why do you think a lot of foreigners want to go train at our colleges? In fact, all the other countries follow America when it comes to treatments in healthcare. Our treatment books are all published in different languages for all the other countries to utilize. Know that we spend more than ANY OTHER COUNTRY in research. It is cheaper for the other countries to just...copy us and utilize our ideas. I agree we're behind when it comes to our public school system from elementary to high school, but that's also partly due to the fact the culture. Also, anything monetized "for-profit" in education generally turns into trash. The non-profit places are fine. They just prioritize their spending elsewhere. For example, research or classroom upgrades instead of hiring adcoms. But then, again, for-profit is also what accelerates R&D. Look at all the technology America has invented.

Also, it isn't really that difficult to pick out candidates. At least one school I know of, a computer system ranks the applicants by MCAT and GPA, while a group of adcoms reads through the rest of EC's, PS's, etc. Then they pick candidates which they feel are most qualified and invite them to an interview. What do you think a dedicated admissions team will do differently than what they're doing now?

The process isn't THAT difficult to find applicants who are qualified. It just has a lot of red tape and sheer amount to go through that people generally don't like.

Cutting a researcher's salary, or a professor's salary, or whatever your suggestion is a bad idea. They don't make that much already to start with, considering how long they've worked in their field. A lot of them are not tenured and are supported by their own grants. They also bring money to the school through grants. As I adequately put it, the issue is money. Schools don't have a lot of money to hire a whole dedicated team. You're probably talking about over a million dollars in just salaries they have to come up with. Add their health benefits, school perks, etc, and you're probably talking about $1.5 million extra they need.

Again, this is different for every school, but you're making it sound like adcoms are not good at their jobs. There's always a pro and con, and schools are always finding ways to balance out their finances.

Also, the point is, you need to show yourself to be better than other applicants. Why should an adcom choose you? The best way to do it is not just "passion and motivation." You need good grades and a good MCAT on top of those too. Medicine is already a very competitive field. Gunners will be everywhere, even in other countries in highly competitive fields. This isn't just limited to America.

 

[starspells]

It's an onerous faculty responsibility that is both unpaid and unappreciated.
Faculty members run as if from the plague when approached for service.
The only faculty expressing any interest are often (suspiciously) found to have offspring about to graduate from college...

All the pre-meds on SDN definitely appreciate you!!!!

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

We aren't. We're ahead of any other country when it comes to colleges and graduate schools and research. Why do you think a lot of foreigners want to go train at our colleges? In fact, all the other countries follow America when it comes to treatments in healthcare. Our treatment books are all published in different languages for all the other countries to utilize. Know that we spend more than ANY OTHER COUNTRY in research. It is cheaper for the other countries to just...copy us and utilize our ideas. I agree we're behind when it comes to our public school system from elementary to high school, but that's also partly due to the fact the culture. Also, anything monetized "for-profit" in education generally turns into trash. The non-profit places are fine. They just prioritize their spending elsewhere. For example, research or classroom upgrades instead of hiring adcoms. But then, again, for-profit is also what accelerates R&D. Look at all the technology America has invented.

Also, it isn't really that difficult to pick out candidates. At least one school I know of, a computer system ranks the applicants by MCAT and GPA, while a group of adcoms reads through the rest of EC's, PS's, etc. Then they pick candidates which they feel are most qualified and invite them to an interview. What do you think a dedicated admissions team will do differently than what they're doing now?

The process isn't THAT difficult to find applicants who are qualified. It just has a lot of red tape and sheer amount to go through that people generally don't like.

Cutting a researcher's salary, or a professor's salary, or whatever your suggestion is a bad idea. They don't make that much already to start with, considering how long they've worked in their field. A lot of them are not tenured and are supported by their own grants. They also bring money to the school through grants. As I adequately put it, the issue is money. Schools don't have a lot of money to hire a whole dedicated team. You're probably talking about over a million dollars in just salaries they have to come up with. Add their health benefits, school perks, etc, and you're probably talking about $1.5 million extra they need.

Again, this is different for every school, but you're making it sound like adcoms are not good at their jobs. There's always a pro and con, and schools are always finding ways to balance out their finances.

Also, the point is, you need to show yourself to be better than other applicants. Why should an adcom choose you? The best way to do it is not just "passion and motivation." You need good grades and a good MCAT on top of those too. Medicine is already a very competitive field. Gunners will be everywhere, even in other countries in highly competitive fields. This isn't just limited to America.

I guess I've been a little bias in my statement, for personal reasons. We value numbers so much in such an honorable field that it's cringeworthy imo. I'm sure you understand many of the variables that play in undergrad. That the MCAT can be learned. That classes like music, art history, history, or any gen Ed has no relation to medicine but still determines competence is silly. Looking back, sure those classes can teach some new general information and different ways to study etc. but it promotes lazy thinking. It promotes one to go for the grade and not for the learning. That may be a persona issue for me but I think it's true. Many pre meds does WHATEVER it takes to get good grades, most fall into the trap of memorizing and not understanding. Relating back to the MCAT, what differs this test from any other test. It still can be learned. Anyone with half a brain and motivation can learn it.

Explain how replacing a foreign researcher who can't speak English with a regular teacher is a bad idea.

Explain to me why a scientific researcher being underpaid with mandatory teaching requirements would not go into medicine. Nowadays.

I propose a theory that if we are the leading country in professional academics, it is because of the money. Not that we have the most brightest students, statistically that would be China and India, but because we have the capability to fund it, which is why they are here.

I read in one of my classes that the only thing that schools look for is memory/ analytics. Now obviously there are other factors that contribute to being a good worker. Idk something annoys me when u determine people by 2 numbers, and where a checklist of pre med to do lists are available, where you just gotta "do it".

Oh and a school can hire a dedicated team. A public school would have around 1000 staff? While graduate schools have like ~200? Cut like 10k for any duty and that would be a lot of money, enough to hire a team of 10-20. If high school to college has it why wouldn't college to graduate school have it, it would sound more logical.

Undergrad follows a certain pattern that works for all classes. Memorize.(level 1 class). Memorization and scientific problem solve (level 2 class). If you understand what's going on why does someone have to spend 4 years to prove to some people that they are "good enough". Doctors out there, honestly how much undergrad do you apply in your profession. Physics Orgo? Chem bio I get. Idk for some I can definitely see how undergrad can be tedious when one could be doing more productive things.


Essentially you guys are giving us the easy way out. Telling us the facts to regurgitate it. Requires no thinking or how to think. As a matter of fact don't think. Just Do as I say, and you will be on your way. master test taking and following directions.

Decided to take some 400 level physics courses but got D's? Bad boy. Decided to take the easy way out and get A's? I love A's good boy

I'm sure there are many creative and innovative leaders in the field of medicine after 8 years of thinking that way.

What about a program in undergrad for medicine of 8 years or even 6. Directed solely for medicine with more application, practicality, and a specialty in innovative research? Let the weeding work itself the same way. Schools will still make tons of money. I mean honestly, is this the best way to create the best doctors? Or are we all just lying to ourselves. I see some bright students who really know how to efficiently maximize their time and work optimally but when you look outside yourself and at the curriculum is this the best we got? Hey, as long as we're happy right?

Premed. The master of the hit it and quit it.

Eh, maybe I'm just being a little bitch. Idk. Enjoy the discussion though thanks for the insight

 

[mathnerd88]

I guess I've been a little bias in my statement, for personal reasons. We value numbers so much in such an honorable field that it's cringeworthy imo. I'm sure you understand many of the variables that play in undergrad. That the MCAT can be learned. That classes like music, art history, history, or any gen Ed has no relation to medicine but still determines competence is silly. Looking back, sure those classes can teach some new general information and different ways to study etc. but it promotes lazy thinking. It promotes one to go for the grade and not for the learning. That may be a persona issue for me but I think it's true. Many pre meds does WHATEVER it takes to get good grades, most fall into the trap of memorizing and not understanding. Relating back to the MCAT, what differs this test from any other test. It still can be learned. Anyone with half a brain and motivation can learn it.

I would agree that the MCAT can be learned, but the question is how long? Some students can learn the MCAT and score a 35+ within a month, while others might take 7-8 months. I would say that it takes a certain type of mind to succeed on the MCAT. Not everyone can do it, no matter how hard they try. Everyone's brain is wired differently in how they learn.

Also, MCAT tests on your ability to critically think. Not everyone can do that. There are things on the MCAT that aren't so easy. Most of the questions are asking "why and how" and not the "what." The why and how aren't directly written in the passage. You have to come up with it through the answer choices you're given, and most of the wrong answer choices kind of make sense if you don't have a good solid sense of the background or what you're reading.

The classes you mentioned above are just non-science GPA, which many schools don't weigh on heavily. They usually weigh more heavily on your sGPA.

I can tell you this- those with some more heavy research backgrounds and who also take upper level science classes WILL succeed on the MCAT with less studying time than those who don't. Those classes have prepared them to critically think how to solve a problem more than your average level 101 science courses.

If what you say is true, then everyone should be scoring a perfect score on the MCAT. Obviously this doesn't happen. The MCAT isn't so easy that "anyone with half a brain" can do well on.

 

[Mad Jack]

Funny.

Why don't they make this a profession? Expend more time at it and specialize in picking the best candidates lol. I'm sure their are doctors who realized that their speciality isn't what they wanted to do. Then again there are other things like teaching professions

I wouldn't mind doing something like this. Afterall I am completely 100% objective :/

Because the faculty actually has to teach the damn kids once they matriculate, so they may as well have some say in what people they bring on board. I'd gladly volunteer if I were on staff at a school, simply to have a hand in the quality control of the incoming students. It's worth the time invested.

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

Because the faculty actually has to teach the damn kids once they matriculate, so they may as well have some say in what people they bring on board. I'd gladly volunteer if I were on staff at a school, simply to have a hand in the quality control of the incoming students. It's worth the time invested.

But the truth is you're not. The adcom said it himself. No one wants to do it. But, Im sure the adcoms are thinking the same way as you.

 

[mathnerd88]

But the truth is you're not. The adcom said it himself. No one wants to do it. But, Im sure the adcoms are thinking the same way as you.

I have a question for you. What do you want in life? You can't have everything your way. Faculty members are probably 90-95% happy with their job, and the other 5-10% unhappiness is probably serving on the admissions committee. (I'm just generalizing here, not specifically calling anyone out.)

Nobody is 100% happy with their job. There will always be some gripes with something. You just have to deal with it. I can tell you not every physician is 100% happy with their jobs. There will be times where they hate dealing with a specific scenario with a patient. Would that mean that the physician is doing a "bad job?"

You're trying to make it sound like those faculty members absolutely hate it and will "do a bad job" picking candidates. That's not the case here. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you'll do a bad job on it. Same goes with the MCAT. Nobody enjoys taking the MCAT, but there will be people who do well on it, regardless of how much they hate it.

 

[Mad Jack]

But the truth is you're not. The adcom said it himself. No one wants to do it. But, Im sure the adcoms are thinking the same way as you.

I'll have to ask a few of the adcoms at my school, but it's my impression that they are largely a dedicated group of volunteers, but I could very well be wrong. The student interviewers are volunteers that do it because they want to help pick the new class though. As students, we can't actually override a given person in the interview, but we can provide our impression of a candidate and how well we believe they'll fit in. Personally, I was far too busy with other projects to do interviewing this year, and I'm too much of a softy for it anyway, but the ones that did it really seemed to enjoy it.

Regardless, as to paid adcoms: why pay people to do what you're having other people do just fine for free?

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

I have a question for you. What do you want in life? You can't have everything your way. Faculty members are probably 90-95% happy with their job, and the other 5-10% unhappiness is probably serving on the admissions committee. (I'm just generalizing here, not specifically calling anyone out.)

Nobody is 100% happy with their job. There will always be some gripes with something. You just have to deal with it. I can tell you not every physician is 100% happy with their jobs. There will be times where they hate dealing a specific scenario with a patient.

You're trying to make it sound like those faculty members absolutely hate it and will "do a bad job" picking candidates. That's not the case here. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you'll do a bad job on it.

If you haven't figured out by now it's not about me but reforming and improving for people. What's the point in your generalized statistic?

We aren't talking about some gripes or something you simply deal with. We're talking about 8 years of schoolwork and debt.

I never said anything negative about them I'm simply questioning and having a discussion.

If we lived with a just deal it motto we wouldn't have gotten this far on earth now would have we?

Underpaid teachers not doing their job in CPS. Inability to read slides in proper English followed by the restriction of slides for students. These are facts.

 

[Mad Jack]

If you haven't figured out by now it's not about me but reforming and improving for people. What's the point in your generalized statistic?

We aren't talking about some gripes or something you simply deal with. We're talking about 8 years of schoolwork and debt.

I never said anything negative about them I'm simply questioning and having a discussion.

If we lived with a just deal it motto we wouldn't have gotten this far on earth now would have we?

Underpaid teachers not doing their job in CPS. Inability to read slides in proper English followed by the restriction of slides for students. These are facts.

What I'm really curious about is what your interest in all of this stems from. Seems like you've got some personal something going on that's got you particularly frustrated. So I guess my question for you is: why does this topic interest you so much?

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

I'll have to ask a few of the adcoms at my school, but it's my impression that they are largely a dedicated group of volunteers, but I could very well be wrong. The student interviewers are volunteers that do it because they want to help pick the new class though. As students, we can't actually override a given person in the interview, but we can provide our impression of a candidate and how well we believe they'll fit in. Personally, I was far too busy with other projects to do interviewing this year, and I'm too much of a softy for it anyway, but the ones that did it really seemed to enjoy it.

Regardless, as to paid adcoms: why pay people to do what you're having other people do just fine for free?

Soft competitive antagonist. I like that.
As one of the adcoms stated before they are mandatory duties, like teaching at a university. If I made it mandatory for you to clean up my toilet, would you do it? Would u do it well?

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

What I'm really curious about is what your interest in all of this stems from. Seems like you've got some personal something going on that's got you particularly frustrated. So I guess my question for you is: why does this topic interest you so much?

U got me 🙁

 

[mathnerd88]

If you haven't figured out by now it's not about me but reforming and improving for people. What's the point in your generalized statistic?

We aren't talking about some gripes or something you simply deal with. We're talking about 8 years of schoolwork and debt.

I never said anything negative about them I'm simply questioning and having a discussion.

If we lived with a just deal it motto we wouldn't have gotten this far on earth now would have we?

Underpaid teachers not doing their job in CPS. Inability to read slides in proper English followed by the restriction of slides for students. These are facts.

According to you. Some premeds are fine with it. Not even sure why this topic brings out so much interest from you.

Some people think it is better to sacrifice 8 years of schoolwork and debt to have 40 years of a stable high paying job vs going to another job that might not be as stable and not as high paying. All the hard work is put at the front end.

 

[mathnerd88]

Soft competitive antagonist. I like that.
As one of the adcoms stated before they are mandatory duties, like teaching at a university. If I made it mandatory for you to clean up my toilet, would you do it? Would u do it well?

I would do it well if my job depended on it. As long as I don't do it on a daily basis and it isn't worth it to me anymore.

 

[Goro]

Gyngyn ' school may be the anomaly. At my school, we Faculty LIKE being on the Adcom. We're vested in its success.

I'll have to ask a few of the adcoms at my school, but it's my impression that they are largely a dedicated group of volunteers, but I could very well be wrong. The student interviewers are volunteers that do it because they want to help pick the new class though. As students, we can't actually override a given person in the interview, but we can provide our impression of a candidate and how well we believe they'll fit in. Personally, I was far too busy with other projects to do interviewing this year, and I'm too much of a softy for it anyway, but the ones that did it really seemed to enjoy it.

Regardless, as to paid adcoms: why pay people to do what you're having other people do just fine for free?

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

.

 

[Mad Jack]

Gyngyn ' school may be the anomaly. At my school, we Faculty LIKE being on the Adcom. We're vested in its success.

I think it might be one of those MD/DO differences. DO faculty tend to have less research and other responsibilities when compared to the faculty at MD schools, which likely means they've got a hell of a lot more on their plate to worry about than some DO school professors (and I'm not saying that there's no research going on, just that, on average, MD school faculty very likely have more/more involved research going on at any given time than at the average DO school). I mean, if gyngyn is a triple faculty/clinician/researcher, she's probably got 900 more things she'd rather be doing than setting aside a few hours each week during interview season to interview candidates.

At least that's my theory as to why our interviewers seem to enjoy the job- I could very well be off by a long shot.

 

[IslandStyle808]

I think it might be one of those MD/DO differences. DO faculty tend to have less research and other responsibilities when compared to the faculty at MD schools, which likely means they've got a hell of a lot more on their plate to worry about than some DO school professors (and I'm not saying that there's no research going on, just that, on average, MD school faculty very likely have more/more involved research going on at any given time than at the average DO school). I mean, if gyngyn is a triple faculty/clinician/researcher, she's probably got 900 more things she'd rather be doing than setting aside a few hours each week during interview season to interview candidates.

At least that's my theory as to why our interviewers seem to enjoy the job- I could very well be off by a long shot.

Whenever I asked the following question during my DO interviews ", Why did you come to school X?" The number 1 answer that comes up is that they like to teach and hate being forced to do research. A lot of the reason's why faculty come to DO schools is to escape the research quotas they had to meet when teaching in an MD school. I really do believe your correct in saying being a faculty member at a DO school is less stressful (of course it doesn't mean they don't have a lot on their plate, but just a lot more flexibility).

 

[Mad Jack]

Whenever I asked the following question during my DO interviews ", Why did you come to school X?" The number 1 answer that comes up is that they like to teach and hate being forced to do research. A lot of the reason's why faculty come to DO schools is to escape the research quotas they had to meet when teaching in an MD school. I really do believe your correct in saying being a faculty member at a DO school is less stressful (of course it doesn't mean they don't have a lot on their plate, but just a lot more flexibility).

Pretty much the same reason I had professors in undergrad with PhDs from big-name universities teaching at my little private liberal arts school as well- they wanted to teach, not do research, so they set down roots at the sort of place that was conducive to that.

 

[TUVIX]

Gyngyn ' school may be the anomaly. At my school, we Faculty LIKE being on the Adcom. We're vested in its success.

It's the DO difference!

 

[cassis_Cake]

I guess I've been a little bias in my statement, for personal reasons. We value numbers so much in such an honorable field that it's cringeworthy imo. I'm sure you understand many of the variables that play in undergrad. That the MCAT can be learned. That classes like music, art history, history, or any gen Ed has no relation to medicine but still determines competence is silly. Looking back, sure those classes can teach some new general information and different ways to study etc. but it promotes lazy thinking. It promotes one to go for the grade and not for the learning. That may be a persona issue for me but I think it's true. Many pre meds does WHATEVER it takes to get good grades, most fall into the trap of memorizing and not understanding. Relating back to the MCAT, what differs this test from any other test. It still can be learned. Anyone with half a brain and motivation can learn it.

Explain how replacing a foreign researcher who can't speak English with a regular teacher is a bad idea.

Explain to me why a scientific researcher being underpaid with mandatory teaching requirements would not go into medicine. Nowadays.

I propose a theory that if we are the leading country in professional academics, it is because of the money. Not that we have the most brightest students, statistically that would be China and India, but because we have the capability to fund it, which is why they are here.

I read in one of my classes that the only thing that schools look for is memory/ analytics. Now obviously there are other factors that contribute to being a good worker. Idk something annoys me when u determine people by 2 numbers, and where a checklist of pre med to do lists are available, where you just gotta "do it".

Oh and a school can hire a dedicated team. A public school would have around 1000 staff? While graduate schools have like ~200? Cut like 10k for any duty and that would be a lot of money, enough to hire a team of 10-20. If high school to college has it why wouldn't college to graduate school have it, it would sound more logical.

Undergrad follows a certain pattern that works for all classes. Memorize.(level 1 class). Memorization and scientific problem solve (level 2 class). If you understand what's going on why does someone have to spend 4 years to prove to some people that they are "good enough". Doctors out there, honestly how much undergrad do you apply in your profession. Physics Orgo? Chem bio I get. Idk for some I can definitely see how undergrad can be tedious when one could be doing more productive things.


Essentially you guys are giving us the easy way out. Telling us the facts to regurgitate it. Requires no thinking or how to think. As a matter of fact don't think. Just Do as I say, and you will be on your way. master test taking and following directions.

Decided to take some 400 level physics courses but got D's? Bad boy. Decided to take the easy way out and get A's? I love A's good boy

I'm sure there are many creative and innovative leaders in the field of medicine after 8 years of thinking that way.

What about a program in undergrad for medicine of 8 years or even 6. Directed solely for medicine with more application, practicality, and a specialty in innovative research? Let the weeding work itself the same way. Schools will still make tons of money. I mean honestly, is this the best way to create the best doctors? Or are we all just lying to ourselves. I see some bright students who really know how to efficiently maximize their time and work optimally but when you look outside yourself and at the curriculum is this the best we got? Hey, as long as we're happy right?

Premed. The master of the hit it and quit it.

Eh, maybe I'm just being a little bitch. Idk. Enjoy the discussion though thanks for the insight

I suggest you think a little broader on why the US is the leader in education and research. More than financial power, there are other reasons why such as the environment and culture here. I currently work in academic research and have worked with many researchers from other countries, mainly China. I'll tell you that the reason why everyone of them are here is not because there is funding. In fact, China is spending a huge amount of money right now on science research funding. I agree that students K-12 from other countries seem more prepared academically, but they still lack some intrinsic or extrinsic quality that I can't quite put my finger on..

 

[mathnerd88]

I suggest you think a little broader on why the US is the leader in education and research. More than financial power, there are other reasons why such as the environment and culture here. I currently work in academic research and have worked with many researchers from other countries, mainly China. I'll tell you that the reason why everyone of them are here is not because there is funding. In fact, China is spending a huge amount of money right now on science research funding. I agree that students K-12 from other countries seem more prepared academically, but they still lack some intrinsic or extrinsic quality that I can't quite put my finger on..

The problem in China's education system is that in their younger years, they are taught to just memorize and spit information out, follow their superiors/elders, but not to think to figure out issues on their own. When they grow older, they rely on the "higher ups" to handle everything, but are not allowed to deviate or do things on their own. That's why traditionally, they're known to copy other technology instead of making their own. There is less sense of "independence there." Also, it is expected in their culture to always respect their elders, even if they're wrong. The younger generation are expected to be financially responsible for their older generation. This is from my own experience and from me speaking with other foreigners from Asian countries.

Contrast that with the American education system and culture, and you'll see a difference. Independence is emphasized throughout our lives. The elder generation do not have to depend as much on the younger generation. Independent success is very much rewarded.

I'm not trying to say one is better or worse than another, but that's where the difference is. As for the education system, truly, the American system comes out on top. Maybe the Asian education system is better from K-12, but in the end, they fail to catch up to us. It's the end result that really matters. America is only 240 years old, but other Asian countries are FAR older.

 

[IslandStyle808]

The problem in China's education system is that in their younger years, they are taught to just memorize and spit information out, follow their superiors/elders, but not to think to figure out issues on their own. When they grow older, they rely on the "higher ups" to handle everything, but are not allowed to deviate or do things on their own. That's why traditionally, they're known to copy other technology instead of making their own. There is less sense of "independence there." Also, it is expected in their culture to always respect their elders, even if they're wrong. The younger generation are expected to be financially responsible for their older generation. This is from my own experience and from me speaking with other foreigners from Asian countries.

Contrast that with the American education system and culture, and you'll see a difference. Independence is emphasized throughout our lives. The elder generation do not have to depend as much on the younger generation. Independent success is very much rewarded.

I'm not trying to say one is better or worse than another, but that's where the difference is. As for the education system, truly, the American system comes out on top. Maybe the Asian education system is better from K-12, but in the end, they fail to catch up to us. It's the end result that really matters. America is only 240 years old, but other Asian countries are FAR older.

A very good analysis of both cultures. During the initial stage of education, it is usually better to have them remember a certain technique when doing math, science, social studies, english etc. This is because the youth are still in the development phase of their growth. It becomes extremely overwhelming since a lot of information is new and it can lead to poor retention if too much independent learning/ critical thinking is done. For example, the multiple ways to do math that is currently done in grade schools is a system I don't support. It pushes the mind to learn too much at once and doesn't focus on being solid in one particular style of math. This could potentially lead to poor understanding of basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Rote memory of facts and details is still necessary at this stage.

However, as people get older the emphasis on independent and critical thinking becomes far more useful. This is why the American system starts to become superior than other systems that focus too much on rote memory. It is also probably why a lot of foreign students come here to learn also.

 

[gyngyn]

I guess some refinement of my post is indicated.
Even though it is an honor to serve on the admissions committee, it is still difficult to find active clinicians whose time away from patient care can be justified to their Chairs. It is unpaid time away from their primary responsibilities. They do seem to like it but they can't even tell others that they serve on the committee (to avoid duress). Those who do serve, generally do a superb job. If they do not, they are let go. The PhD's seem to have more flexibility with their time commitments and are somewhat more reliable in attendance. All of us have skin in the game since we will have to teach them and the administration has to make sure that they can Match well.

 

[DoctorSynthesis]

I'll have to ask a few of the adcoms at my school, but it's my impression that they are largely a dedicated group of volunteers, but I could very well be wrong. The student interviewers are volunteers that do it because they want to help pick the new class though. As students, we can't actually override a given person in the interview, but we can provide our impression of a candidate and how well we believe they'll fit in. Personally, I was far too busy with other projects to do interviewing this year, and I'm too much of a softy for it anyway, but the ones that did it really seemed to enjoy it.

Regardless, as to paid adcoms: why pay people to do what you're having other people do just fine for free?

I thought about working in the admission committee. Decided not too though! I would have liked to have been interviewed by mad jack 🙂

 

[stereotypeasianpremed]

The problem in China's education system is that in their younger years, they are taught to just memorize and spit information out, follow their superiors/elders, but not to think to figure out issues on their own. When they grow older, they rely on the "higher ups" to handle everything, but are not allowed to deviate or do things on their own. That's why traditionally, they're known to copy other technology instead of making their own. There is less sense of "independence there." Also, it is expected in their culture to always respect their elders, even if they're wrong. The younger generation are expected to be financially responsible for their older generation. This is from my own experience and from me speaking with other foreigners from Asian countries.

Contrast that with the American education system and culture, and you'll see a difference. Independence is emphasized throughout our lives. The elder generation do not have to depend as much on the younger generation. Independent success is very much rewarded.

I'm not trying to say one is better or worse than another, but that's where the difference is. As for the education system, truly, the American system comes out on top. Maybe the Asian education system is better from K-12, but in the end, they fail to catch up to us. It's the end result that really matters. America is only 240 years old, but other Asian countries are FAR older.

.