How much can a high MCAT offset a low GPA for an ORM prospective MD?

[working_hard1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am an ORM and go to a top 10 school. I did really bad my first year, better my second year, and plan to do pretty well during my next two years. I expect my cGPA to be around 3.6 and my sGPA to be around 3.5 by the time I graduate. I am pretty sure I will do well on the MCAT (at least 95th percentile) and am planning to apply during the spring of my senior year so that med schools have my full transcript. Will a high MCAT be enough to make up for my low GPA? The rest of my application is great: I have research, publications, volunteering (clinical and non-clinical), club sports, and various leadership and mentorship roles at my school. The only thing that isn't good is my GPA. I would really like to go to medical school and am really hung up on my low GPA.

Also: by really bad, I mean REALLY bad. I nearly failed OChem 2 freshman year and am retaking it.

 

[907914]

I am an ORM and go to a top 10 school. I did really bad my first year, better my second year, and plan to do pretty well during my next two years. I expect my cGPA to be around 3.6 and my sGPA to be around 3.5 by the time I graduate. I am pretty sure I will do well on the MCAT (at least 95th percentile) and am planning to apply during the spring of my senior year so that med schools have my full transcript. Will a high MCAT be enough to make up for my low GPA? The rest of my application is great: I have research, publications, volunteering (clinical and non-clinical), club sports, and various leadership and mentorship roles at my school. The only thing that isn't good is my GPA. I would really like to go to medical school and am really hung up on my low GPA.

Also: by really bad, I mean REALLY bad. I nearly failed OChem 2 freshman year and am retaking it.

If it helps, I have a 3.67 cGPA and a 2 year streak of consistently around 3.2-3.4, but my MCAT is a 521 and you can’t have a stronger upward trend. Have not had a single negative statement about the app. Weird statements, but nothing negative.

So to directly address you question, I would say as long as your gpa is >3.5, if your MCAT is sufficiently elevated then no one will care.

 

[deleted972488]

as long as your gpa is >3.5, if your MCAT is sufficiently elevated then no one will care.

Eh, I think schools where 3.5 is <10th percentile will care.

FWIW, I have an undergrad GPA of <3.7 and an MCAT of >522 and some other things going for me but I don't expect to get interviewed at Harvard or Hopkins.

Edit: OP can still get accepted to a medical school. Maybe just not every medical school.

 

[Goro]

I am an ORM and go to a top 10 school. I did really bad my first year, better my second year, and plan to do pretty well during my next two years. I expect my cGPA to be around 3.6 and my sGPA to be around 3.5 by the time I graduate. I am pretty sure I will do well on the MCAT (at least 95th percentile) and am planning to apply during the spring of my senior year so that med schools have my full transcript. Will a high MCAT be enough to make up for my low GPA? The rest of my application is great: I have research, publications, volunteering (clinical and non-clinical), club sports, and various leadership and mentorship roles at my school. The only thing that isn't good is my GPA. I would really like to go to medical school and am really hung up on my low GPA.

Also: by really bad, I mean REALLY bad. I nearly failed OChem 2 freshman year and am retaking it.

It doesn't

 

[907914]

Eh, I think schools where 3.5 is <10th percentile will care.

FWIW, I have an undergrad GPA of <3.7 and an MCAT of >522 and some other things going for me but I don't expect to get interviewed at Harvard or Hopkins.

Edit: OP can still get accepted to a medical school. Maybe just not every medical school.

I meant then no one will care about the low GPA.

 

[deleted972488]

I meant then no one will care about the low GPA.

I know. I'm just saying some schools will care about GPAs in that range.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

What if OP had a 4.0 and a 499 mcat? A high GPA and a low mcat? The mcat is one criteria to evaluate students, along with GPA , ECs, volunteering, leadership, interview performance, etc. A rising gpa certainly would be a benefit. The last one we took with a high mcat and mediocre grades was indeed just bright and lazy. Always pulling the right score on the final exam to advance.

 

[deleted972488]

What if OP had a 4.0 and a 499 mcat? A high GPA and a low mcat? The mcat is one criteria to evaluate students, along with GPA , ECs, volunteering, leadership, interview performance, etc. A rising gpa certainly would be a benefit. The last one we took with a high mcat and mediocre grades was indeed just bright and lazy. Always pulling the right score on the final exam to advance.

What is the cutoff for mediocrity, though?

 

[907914]

I know. I'm just saying some schools will care about GPAs in that range.

Gotcha, my bad. I read what you had as “where 10% is <3.5” thus my confusion.

Let me reword my initial statement to be more in line with reality:

The GPA and MCAT are not evaluated together as a single metric but are two separate things measuring different qualities. A high MCAT does not make up for a low GPA and a high GPA does not make up for a low MCAT. They are evaluated independently in the context of the rest of the application.

However, an applicant with a 3.5 and a 522 will be evaluated with a higher regard than an applicant with a 3.5 and a 511. The MCAT doesn’t directly influence how the low GPA is perceived, but the MCAT does help the applicant overall.

 

[EasyEveryoneWouldDoIt]

there are plenty of re-inventor stories out there and I am one of them. schools will look at trends. how badly did you mess up freshmen year? you said you failed O-chem so does it mean freshmen year was under 2.0? or sub-3.0? were you able to identify why you did so poorly your first two years? and plan on fixing it now? everybody plans on doing better in school after a few poor years, but not eveyone actually does do it. same with the MCAT. have you done any FL practice test to be able to gauge that you will be able to get in the 95%? if you can pull off what you plan on doing you will be able to get into a medical school. there are plenty of schools that will look at the big picture, if you can ace your class from now out and do well on the MCAT.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

What is the cutoff for mediocrity, though?

Mediocre? Unimpressive? Below our average? Why do you ask?

 

[907914]

Mediocre? Unimpressive? Below our average? Why do you ask?

I feel like the intent is “What does it take from an applicant to no longer be considered?” Conversely “What types of applicants do we find in the <10% to 25%?”

 

[deleted972488]

Mediocre? Unimpressive? Below our average? Why do you ask?

Well, you said the last mediocre grades / high MCAT person you took was smart but lazy. Would you consider OP's theoretical 3.6 mediocre? Or is mediocre lower than that?

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Well, you said the last mediocre grades / high MCAT person you took was smart but lazy. Would you consider OP's theoretical 3.6 mediocre? Or is mediocre lower than that?

No.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I feel like the intent is “What does it take from an applicant to no longer be considered?” Conversely “What types of applicants do we find in the <10% to 25%?”

Not to be considered would be a very low metric on the app, gpa,mcat, no ECs or volunteering, IAs, etc. Most school will screen for these. A level of concern develops when one metric does not correlate with the others., i.e. 3.9 GPA and 501 mcat.
I think the answer to your question is straightforward, people in the 10- 25%tile for our metrics usually don't get an invitation to interview.

 

[907914]

Not to be considered would be a very low metric on the app, gpa,mcat, no ECs or volunteering, IAs, etc. Most school will screen for these. A level of concern develops when one metric does not correlate with the others., i.e. 3.9 GPA and 501 mcat.
I think the answer to your question is straightforward, people in the 10- 25%tile for our metrics usually don't get an invitation to interview.

So what types of students do get those interview invites? For instance, I am 10th - 25th percentile cGPA at almost every school on my list, but 75%+ for sGPA and MCAT. Are us weirdos considered/are these the types of students that account for those 10-25%?

 

[Goro]

So what types of students DO get those interview invites? For instance, I am 10th - 25th percentile cGPA at almost every school on my list, but 75%+ for sGPA and MCAT. Are us weirdos considered/are these the types of students that account for those 10-25%?

At my school, the Dean likes high MCATs. We're not alone in this regard.

 

[MyOdyssey]

At my school, the Dean likes high MCATs. We're not alone in this regard.

What does your Dean consider a "high MCAT"?

 

[907914]

What does your Dean consider a "high MCAT"?

That probably varies by school. A State school might like a 516+. Harvard might like 524+

 

[Goro]

What does your Dean consider a "high MCAT"?

As high as possible.

 

[lalalallala]

I think you should take the MCAT and then come back for advice after that. Even with practice tests you never know how you will do. It is also important for you to think critically about what sort of school you think you would fit well at. If you really have your heart set on a T10 school, for example, then perhaps you would be better off taking a year of advanced post-bac classes to keep boosting the gpa. (But even with a great gpa you can never be sure you'll get invites to those top schools)

I don't think your GPA seems like it will be a killer

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Pretty much stuff we already knew from the old MCAT.

1. Score of < 500 is much higher risk for delay in graduation
2. MCAT is a decent predictor of Step I passing, especially with a 505
3. MCAT score correlates with Step I score, but the error bars are HUGE
4. If you can get a 500 on the MCAT, then it's likely you can pull a 220 on Step I
5. MCAT + GPA are better predictors for preclinical performance than either alone

~11% of scorers with 518+/3.8+ GPA fail to get admitted to any medical school. The lower the GPA, even with a high MCAT, the lower the chance of success. This reiterates that a high MCAT does not salvage a weak GPA.

Poorer (as in $) students have less access to MCAT prep.
Students are poorer colleges also have less access to MCAT prep.

It smells like AAMC is trying to convince Adcoms that people in the 500 range can handle med school, and that's where you can scoop up the most URM and/or disadvantaged candidates. ie, you can have diversity and competent medical students as well, despite an MCAT at 500ish. BTW, this is something that DO schools already know.

Anyone wishing to turn this into a URM vs ORM debate can go visit the SPF, which is that way ->

@Goro gives a nice breakdown of the new MCAT. This is from the thread New medical school bridge program(graduate) in the Pre med DO forum thread #132. Check the link http//www.aamc.org/download/493340/data/Isl2018validity.pdf

As for what kind of students in the lower percentiles might get interviewed and accepted? I would think you would need some extraordinary items in your app, health issues, military service, non-trad first career, TV star, professional athlete,, URM, underprivileged status, etc. Some low 10-25%tile students get accepted, but the N is small.

 

[curbsideconsult]

I am an ORM and go to a top 10 school. I did really bad my first year, better my second year, and plan to do pretty well during my next two years. I expect my cGPA to be around 3.6 and my sGPA to be around 3.5 by the time I graduate. I am pretty sure I will do well on the MCAT (at least 95th percentile) and am planning to apply during the spring of my senior year so that med schools have my full transcript. Will a high MCAT be enough to make up for my low GPA? The rest of my application is great: I have research, publications, volunteering (clinical and non-clinical), club sports, and various leadership and mentorship roles at my school. The only thing that isn't good is my GPA. I would really like to go to medical school and am really hung up on my low GPA.

Also: by really bad, I mean REALLY bad. I nearly failed OChem 2 freshman year and am retaking it.

As a fellow ORM, I say to you: relax. What's done is done. Learn from your mistakes and move on. There's a fine line between reflection and rumination and it sounds like you're doing more of the latter, which gets you into trouble. The med school admissions process is a complete mind***k but trust that adcoms aren't stupid. They can see an upward trend and will forgive the mistakes you make at 18.

 

[deleted972488]

I would think you would need some extraordinary items in your app, health issues, military service, non-trad first career, TV star, professional athlete,, URM, underprivileged status, etc.

We are extraordinary, @MemeLord. 🙂

 

[907914]

We are extraordinary, @MemeLord. 🙂

 

[Cornfed101]

@Goro gives a nice breakdown of the new MCAT. This is from the thread New medical school bridge program(graduate) in the Pre med DO forum thread #132. Check the link http//www.aamc.org/download/493340/data/Isl2018validity.pdf

As for what kind of students in the lower percentiles might get interviewed and accepted? I would think you would need some extraordinary items in your app, health issues, military service, non-trad first career, TV star, professional athlete,, URM, underprivileged status, etc. Some low 10-25%tile students get accepted, but the N is small.

I am lacking on the military service, TV star, professional athlete, URM... I should probably take another gap year, especially for the last one

 

[deleted972488]

I am lacking on the military service, TV star, professional athlete, URM...

I'm technically a movie star, but I didn't include it on my app. Oops.

 

[907914]

I'm technically a movie star, but I didn't include it on my app. Oops.

I did a background voiceover for Fanboy and ChumChum when I was 15 and was on Slime Time Live when I was 6...do those count? Lol

 

[mwsapphire]

I did a background voiceover for Fanboy and ChumChum when I was 15 and was on Slime Time Live when I was 6...do those count? Lol

I honestly can't tell if this is a joke or not...

 

[mwsapphire]

As high as possible.

I always thought for most DO programs, an MCAT of 510+ is considered very very good, and 513+ would be considered high.

 

[Goro]

I always thought for most DO programs, an MCAT of 510+ is considered very very good, and 513+ would be considered high.

Very true

 

[907914]

I honestly can't tell if this is a joke or not...

If you can find a video of the slime time live episodes from October 28-November 2 of 2002, then I can find myself in there somewhere lol All I remember is I got slimed for the incorrect answer of “Phil and Dill” instead of “Phil and Lil” when asked a rugrats question.

And if you listen through all of the episodes of Fanboy and Chum chum for a really creepy ‘screeeeee’ and a really creepy ‘potatooooo’ then that’s your boy Elmo. They are in the background if they are there at all (don’t even know, online contest - sent in the voicework and got $200).

 

[el_duderino]

GPA and MCAT aren't simply additive. Each one is a measure of something different. One can't make up for the other. A large discrepancy between the two is a cause of concern, no matter how high either is, because it implies that the candidate has a significant deficit.

 

[907914]

GPA and MCAT aren't simply additive. Each one is a measure of something different. One can't make up for the other. A large discrepancy between the two is a cause of concern, no matter how high either is, because it implies that the candidate has a significant deficit.

And is what is considered “a large discrepancy” dependent on the applicant and the school? Like, to me a 3.6 with a strong upward trend (30+ credits of 3.9+) and a 520+ would seem to have no discrepancy between the two. Is that still where the ‘holisthicc’ approach comes in to play?

 

[el_duderino]

And is what is considered “a large discrepancy” dependent on the applicant and the school? Like, to me a 3.6 with a strong upward trend (30+ credits of 3.9+) and a 520+ would seem to have no discrepancy between the two. Is that still where the ‘holisthicc’ approach comes in to play?

That wouldn't be a discrepancy.

People really, really love to try to break candidates into discrete little chunks and metrics to figure out how the measure up. Or, more accurately, they're trying to break themselves up into little chunks to either convince themselves they're really ok or justify their feelings of inadequacy.

Reality is that no one really gets evaluated that way. It really is a whole picture. The GPA, GPA trend, MCAT, college, hometown, volunteering, and experiences tell a story. It doesn't take long to glance through an application and see the story.

What you generally don't want is someone to glance through that app and think "huh.... wonder why this guy's GPA is so low when the rest of their app looks solid." That's generally the story of an underachiever and that's worrisome. Nor do you want someone to see a high GPA and great experiences with a poor MCAT. That's the story of a hard worker who might struggle with the material. Nor do you want someone with a stellar GPA and MCAT with mediocre experiences. That's someone who is not interested in contributing to society or helping others; someone who has squandered their gifts.

There are a ton of highly qualified applicants out there with very solid, well-rounded applications. You don't want to be the app that screams "I really screwed up somewhere." I had that kind of application and got very lucky, but I also had a decade plus of proving I had learned from those mistakes and came out the other end as a far superior human being.

 

[mwsapphire]

That wouldn't be a discrepancy.

People really, really love to try to break candidates into discrete little chunks and metrics to figure out how the measure up. Or, more accurately, they're trying to break themselves up into little chunks to either convince themselves they're really ok or justify their feelings of inadequacy.

Reality is that no one really gets evaluated that way. It really is a whole picture. The GPA, GPA trend, MCAT, college, hometown, volunteering, and experiences tell a story. It doesn't take long to glance through an application and see the story.

What you generally don't want is someone to glance through that app and think "huh.... wonder why this guy's GPA is so low when the rest of their app looks solid." That's generally the story of an underachiever and that's worrisome. Nor do you want someone to see a high GPA and great experiences with a poor MCAT. That's the story of a hard worker who might struggle with the material. Nor do you want someone with a stellar GPA and MCAT with mediocre experiences. That's someone who is not interested in contributing to society or helping others; someone who has squandered their gifts.

There are a ton of highly qualified applicants out there with very solid, well-rounded applications. You don't want to be the app that screams "I really screwed up somewhere." I had that kind of application and got very lucky, but I also had a decade plus of proving I had learned from those mistakes and came out the other end as a far superior human being.

What would you consider mediocre experiences?

 

[907914]

What would you consider mediocre experiences?

When an applicant only has the Pre-MED club, their fraternity, and thinks just having 1000+ hours of research will suffice without any other significant ECs

Or literally 0 shadowing

Or minimal if any volunteering

Or little if any clinical exposure

 

[907914]

When an applicant only has the Pre-MED club, their fraternity, and thinks 1000+ hours of research will suffice.

Or literally 0 shadowing

Or minimal if any volunteering

Or little if any clinical exposure

Basically it is evident when an applicant thinks that their numbers alone will get them in somewhere.

 

[Goro]

Basically it is evident when an applicant thinks that their numbers alone will get them in somewhere.

Or high MCAT alone, or numbers + research.

 

[907914]

Or high MCAT alone, or numbers + research.

Etc.

 

[MyOdyssey]

When an applicant only has the Pre-MED club, their fraternity, and thinks 1000+ hours of research will suffice.

Or literally 0 shadowing

Or minimal if any volunteering

Or little if any clinical exposure

I have to disagree here.

What you've shown here are worse than mediocre experiences. To me, "mediocre" means average or slightly below average. I guess I have a hard time believing that people, who care enough about getting medical school to get high GPAs and/or MCAT scores, would have essentially nada on all the other elements of their application; thus the profile you've described would be worse than mediocre.

I would think mediocre experiences would be

* no leadership experience
* 100 hours or less of clinical experience comprised largely of "wayfarer" work (showing patients how to find their rooms) or other work that doesn't involve face to face contact with patients done in the context of the administration of medical care
* research comprised entirely of being a lab procedure robot
* volunteering that shows no long term commitment to/passion about anything
* shadowing only superspecialties with no exposure to primary care

Oh wait, that looks just like my profile (.... joking ....)

 

[907914]

I guess I have a hard time believing that people, who care enough about getting medical school to get high GPAs and/or MCAT scores, would have essentially nada on all the other elements of their application

You are grossly overestimating the foresight and planning capabilities of many premeds.

Your evaluation of mediocre is a common occurrence however basically no ECs of significance is probably just as common if not more so (particularly among high stats applicants).

 

[mwsapphire]

But....do you really think it's non clinical? All my advisors have said it's clinical, and it seems that the general consensus here is it is? I mean I could put it in as non clinical, but it seems like most people think it's clinical , so the other way around seems to be where most people would have issue?

I have to disagree here.

What you've shown here are worse than mediocre experiences. To me, "mediocre" means average or slightly below average. I guess I have a hard time believing that people, who care enough about getting medical school to get high GPAs and/or MCAT scores, would have essentially nada on all the other elements of their application; thus the profile you've described would be worse than mediocre.

I would think mediocre experiences would be

* no leadership experience
* 100 hours or less of clinical experience comprised largely of "wayfarer" work (showing patients how to find their rooms) or other work that doesn't involve face to face contact with patients done in the context of the administration of medical care
* research comprised entirely of being a lab procedure robot
* volunteering that shows no long term commitment to/passion about anything
* shadowing only superspecialties with no exposure to primary care

Oh wait, that looks just like my profile (.... joking ....)

You are grossly overestimating the foresight and planning capabilities of many premeds.

Your evaluation of mediocre is a common occurrence however basically no ECs of significance is probably just as common if not more so (particularly among high stats applicants).

- But do people who are that level of mediocre get into med school in the end? I think they do, more often than not, and SDN makes it seem like they don't.
Also, plenty of clinical activities involve face-to-face contact with patients, but not when a doc/nurse is present. Is that your definition of mediocre? I think you're being a little harsh here.

 

[MyOdyssey]

- But do people who are that level of mediocre get into med school in the end? I think they do, more often than not, and SDN makes it seem like they don't.
Also, plenty of clinical activities involve face-to-face contact with patients, but not when a doc/nurse is present. Is that your definition of mediocre? I think you're being a little harsh here.

I agree that they do get in especially if they're high stat applicants who haven't limited themselves to only T20 med schools.

 

[907914]

But do people who are that level of mediocre get into med school in the end? I think they do, more often than not, and SDN makes it seem like they don't.

Do people with no shadowing get in? Yes, but they probably worked as a scribe for over a year. Do people with no volunteering get in? Yes, but they probably had military service or worked as a hospice nurse for X years. Do people with no clinical exposure AT ALL get in? Yes, but they probably have a substantial amount of non-clinical volunteering, were a patient themselves, are URM...

Overall, people with missing ECs do get in, but they are going to have some substantial stand out part of their application.

As far as just being subpar in most ECs? I would wager that those types of applicants, while they do get in, probably don’t get in a whole lot Save for if there is something else stand out about them.

Think about it: there are 50,000 applicants and only 20,000 seats. If we don’t even think about stats and JUST look at ECs, the top 40% of ECs are going to get in. Now let’s factor in stats. If you fall in the top 10 percent of stats then there are still 5,000 people just like you or better. Now what if you are in the top 10 percent of stats and the bottom half of ECs? That means there are still 2500 people that are better than you. Now, you aren’t competing for all 20,000 seats - you are in the top 10% of stats and are likely competing for the top 10% of seats. There are 2500 people better than you and you are competing for 2,000 seats. If you just have so-so ECs, there are 2,500 people who are looked at more favorably for those 2,000 seats.

That is why it is always better to be the best applicant you can be. Who cares about ‘what are the minimums I need to compete”? Just do all that you can.

Also, plenty of clinical activities involve face-to-face contact with patients, but not when a doc/nurse is present. Is that your definition of mediocre? I think you're being a little harsh here.

As far as clinical goes, Let me put it like this:

You are a roller coaster operator. The theme park has a free day just for cancer patients and their families. No strings attached. You are benefiting the well being of cancer patients. Is that clinical work?

Not trying to be harsh, just realistic.

Roller coaster operator would still be a cool and stand out EC, but it would not be clinical.

 

[mwsapphire]

Do people with no shadowing get in? Yes, but they probably worked as a scribe for over a year. Do people with no volunteering get in? Yes, but they probably had military service or worked as a hospice nurse for X years. Do people with no clinical exposure AT ALL get in? Yes, but they probably have a substantial amount of non-clinical volunteering, were a patient themselves, are URM...

Overall, people with missing ECs do get in, but they are going to have some substantial stand out part of their application.

As far as just being subpar in most ECs? I would wager that those types of applicants, while they do get in, probably don’t get in a whole lot Save for if there is something else stand out about them.

Think about it: there are 50,000 applicants and only 20,000 seats. If we don’t even think about stats and JUST look at ECs, the top 40% of ECs are going to get in. Now let’s factor in stats. If you fall in the top 10 percent of stats then there are still 5,000 people just like you or better. Now what if you are in the top 10 percent of stats and the bottom half of ECs? That means there are still 2500 people that are better than you. Now, you aren’t competing for all 20,000 seats - you are in the top 10% of stats and are likely competing for the top 10% of seats. There are 2500 people better than you and you are competing for 2,000 seats. If you just have so-so ECs, there are 2,500 people who are looked at more favorably for those 2,000 seats.

That is why it is always better to be the best applicant you can be. Who cares about ‘what are the minimums I need to compete”? Just do all that you can.

As far as clinical goes, Let me put it like this:

You are a roller coaster operator. The theme park has a free day just for cancer patients and their families. No strings attached. You are benefiting the well being of cancer patients. Is that clinical work?

Not trying to be harsh, just realistic.

Roller coaster operator would still be a cool and stand out EC, but it would not be clinical.

Bruh. I worked in the ED of a sububran hospital. I sat with patients , gave them food/water/ blankets, talked with them, while they were waiting to be seen by a Doc/Nurse, but I wasn't in the room with them when the doc nurse was there. That's what I meant. It could be that that's what you define as " in the context" of doc/nurse/patient interactions.

I'm having a bit of an issue with finding more shadowing, but I have plenty of solid EC's. I'm pretty sure I'm not the minimum, and I was just trying to make a point that SDN may be a bit too negative.

 

[mwsapphire]

I agree that they do get in especially if they're high stat applicants who haven't limited themselves to only T20 med schools.

Or modest stat applicants who applied lower tier MD/DO where they were at/above median.

 

[907914]

Bruh. I worked in the ED of a sububran hospital. I sat with patients , gave them food/water/ blankets, talked with them, while they were waiting to be seen by a Doc/Nurse, but I wasn't in the room with them when the doc nurse was there. That's what I meant. It could be that that's what you define as " in the context" of doc/nurse/patient interactions.

This is clinical. Aiding patients in a hospital/clinic context. When did someone say this wasn’t clinical?

 

[mwsapphire]

This is clinical. Aiding patients in a hospital/clinic context. When did someone say this wasn’t clinical?

Sorry I got confused by somebody else saying that interacting with patients without the doctor meant that if the doc isn't present it doesn't count as much...ugh nvm.I just got confused. my bad.

 

[MyOdyssey]

Sorry I got confused by somebody else saying that interacting with patients without the doctor meant that if the doc isn't present...ugh nvm.I just got confused. my bad.

I didn't quite say that.

I just said that being a hospital wayfarer or hospital receptionist, even if those posts sometimes involve face to face contact with a patient, are weak sauce as clinical experience because they're not closely tied enough to the patient receiving medical care.