How to approach the typical non-trad question?

[TheMightyAngus]

I spoke to a couple doctors who do med school interviewers and told them about my nontrad background. Basically they said that nontrads that have had graduate training in other fields, i.e. JD, PharmD, PhD, etc., have a difficult time gaining acceptances. Adcoms have to justify allowing someone who has already consumed X amount of resources for one field, only to turn it down and try to pursue something else that will make them "happier." Unless you plan to combine your training in both fields into a career, this poses a significant obstacle for many nontrads. If asked, "why should we let you into med school after you already went to _______ school and now decided to change careers and go into medicine?" What will you say?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

i've been thinking about this once for a while -- if you see my profile, you can tell that this is definitely an issue that's going to come up in interviews. partially, it irritates me that adcoms will have this suspicion of nontrads because it just speaks of stodginess and a lack of imagination on their part. also, it's very different from the rest of the academic world where nontrads are welcomed with open arms. believe me, when applying to law school, any past degrees you have are an asset, not a detriment, and no one has the unrealistic expectation that applicants should have been committed to the law since they were 8 or 18 or whatever.

as for an answer, i'm just going to be honest. i'm going to explain that i didn't really do the right thing in going to law school in that i didn't ask tough questions about what the practice of law entailed and whether or not it would fit with what i'm good at and what i'm well-suited for. however, even though i didn't like it, i persevered in that i graduated with honors and gained some wonderful experiences like working on a journal. also, law school boosts anyone's critical thinking skills, and it shows that i'm capable of rigorous academic work under stressful conditions.

since law school, i've devoted lots of time, thought and energy to figuring out what would suit me best. in that way, i'm better than lots of traditional med school applicants because i've already made a grad school mistake and now know exactly what pitfalls to look out for. in my position in life based both my age and financial circumstances, i cannot afford to go medical school and then wind up hating it and not practicing, so i've committed to doing everything possible to assure myself that medicine is the right choice. if i wasn't convinced, believe me, i wouldn't be applying.

also, i think i should get some props for the fact that i've held my current job for nearly three years, showing that i'm a fairly stable person who doesn't just hop for one pursuit to the next. these are the things i'm going to emphasize, and i hope adcoms will take me seriously. if not, they're wrong, and i guess there's always the caribbean.

i'm still irked that it's considered better to have no other life experiences.

 

[Febrifuge]

I disagree -- I don't see it as a problem that we've had other experiences; the OP mentioned it's those of us who *obtained advanced degrees* in something else, and/or spent a lot of time building a successful career in another area, and who are now giving it all up to begin a medical career, who face a particular question.

I do agree with you that it should be viewed as a positive that you followed through on your original plan, and came to a measured, careful decision that this new route was the right one. Still, I can't fault an adcom for asking, in essence, how you can assure them now that you won't someday decide medicine isn't a good fit either.

If it helps, you should know that people like me, who did not go to grad school, and who did okay but not great in the previous professional life, face the other edge of that same sword. We get asked about why we think medicine is going to be the one thing we can do with passion and skill for the rest of our working lives, given that we never really went out and took the world by storm in the past. Either way, as a success in your previous life or not, there's a way for them to challenge you about it now.

I think the most important thing to remember is there will very likely be a fair amount of questions like these, questions with no right answer, and with discomfiting implications and allusions behind them. In many cases, our answers won't be as important as how we formulate our answers. If we can be calm and poised under the pressure, and show that we understand what's being implied without agreeing with it, we can demonstrate a lot of the higher-order intellectual and emotional maturity that we nontrads are supposed to have.

In other words, they make everybody sweat, but with us they have some powerful ways to do it.

Oh, and PS: I think the answer you describe is a great one. As to the issue of previous experience being a negative, I need to believe med schools are smarter than that. Maybe I'm being stubborn, but I don't want to dignify with my participation a system where adcoms really do prefer a total lack of experience. So, all I can do is hope some med school justifies that faith, someday.

 

[njbmd]

Hi there,
My advanced degrees did not seem to have any bearing on my acceptance to medical school. I was seldom asked about career changing during any of my interviews. The focus of most of my questions was about my research (cell-cell communication) and about my plans for my medical career. I was accepted by all six of the medical schools that I applied to.

I am not sure how having an advanced degree qualifies as "consuming resources". I contributed a huge amount of work and energy getting my research completed and my dissertation written. I believe I contributed far more than I consumed especially since I taught at both the graduate and undergraduate level.

I was accepted by two law schools last year for their J.D. programs. At no time was I questioned about changing careers. Again, my interview questioning focused more on how having an J.D would enhance my career path and what my plans for utilizing my J.D. would be (healthcare legislation and policy).

During your application and interview for medical school, it is up to you to demonstrate why you would be a good medical student and physician rather than why you are changing careers. Every experience that you bring to medicine makes you better able to relate to your patients and to getting their problems solved.

It sounds a little like the OPs physician friends are practicing a bit of age discrimination. After all, they probably would not ask a traditional medical student about "consumption of resources in another field". How about people who start out with one major only to change their minds and major in something else? Are they consuming resources too?

I guess I was fortunate to have only applied to medical schools that found a more experienced applicant might be an asset as opposed to a liablity. My six schools sort of liked my life experiences.

njbmd

 

[Twitch]

I don't see it as a problem and people I've talked to feel the same way (in my case). Perhaps if the education was paid for by the govt or the school gave me a free ride it may be a different story.

Since I was working fulltime and went to classes in the evening, they said we're not eligible for any scholarships/aid (loans, however were okay). They figured we have a day job since we're going to school in the evening. I paid for my private graduate school out my paycheck and boy was it expensive. Students who attend full time (during the day) do have a substantial portion of their tuition bill taken care of.

At one point my employer did help, though when we were bought out by another company I started off a clean slate. The new company however didn't have tuition re-imbursement.

 

[Febrifuge]

It sounds like NJB is illustrating a similar principle to what I was trying to get at: it's up to you to set the tone, and make it clear that your previous experience is an asset. If you don't take the time to do that, you may leave yourself open to someone else's assumption or bias about it being a detriment. The best defense is a good offense, so get in there first, and talk about how you're eager to merge your successes in the past with your new direction.

And in an aside to NJB -- if you had a good enough app that you only applied to six schools, I give you much-deserved props for talent and hard work. But at the same time, that means your sample size was pretty small. I would think it likely that you, like anyone, would have applied to institutions where you already knew they would be receptive to you and your plans. Many of us will be forced to apply to 25+ schools, and farther down the list many of them may not be the very best fit in terms of philosophy or direction. Surely in that scenario, there will be at least one interview out of, let's say, 15, where some bonehead tries to rattle us with a line about non-trads being "indecisive" or "flighty." Just because it's stupid and demonstrably untrue doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for it.

 

[TheMightyAngus]

Hi there,
My advanced degrees did not seem to have any bearing on my acceptance to medical school. I was seldom asked about career changing during any of my interviews. The focus of most of my questions was about my research (cell-cell communication) and about my plans for my medical career. I was accepted by all six of the medical schools that I applied to.

I am not sure how having an advanced degree qualifies as "consuming resources". I contributed a huge amount of work and energy getting my research completed and my dissertation written. I believe I contributed far more than I consumed especially since I taught at both the graduate and undergraduate level.

I was accepted by two law schools last year for their J.D. programs. At no time was I questioned about changing careers. Again, my interview questioning focused more on how having an J.D would enhance my career path and what my plans for utilizing my J.D. would be (healthcare legislation and policy).

During your application and interview for medical school, it is up to you to demonstrate why you would be a good medical student and physician rather than why you are changing careers. Every experience that you bring to medicine makes you better able to relate to your patients and to getting their problems solved.

It sounds a little like the OPs physician friends are practicing a bit of age discrimination. After all, they probably would not ask a traditional medical student about "consumption of resources in another field". How about people who start out with one major only to change their minds and major in something else? Are they consuming resources too?

I guess I was fortunate to have only applied to medical schools that found a more experienced applicant might be an asset as opposed to a liablity. My six schools sort of liked my life experiences.

njbmd

From the perspective of graduate/professional schools, consumption of resources is a legitimate concern. Their mentality: "We accepted you and rejected someone else because you appeared to have a better chance to succeed in the field of law/medicine/pharmacy/biotech/etc. Since you are already trained to work in this field, it makes more sense to give your position in the incoming medical school class to someone else who hasn't been formally trained for another career."

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

I consumed resources. I went to grad school on a teaching assistantship and then dropped out. THe thing is, humanities graduate programs have a dropout rate that is something like 60 or 70%. It is a haven for the undecided. Now that's NOT what I'm going to say in interviews. But I wish I could sometimes. I spend so much time in my head figuring out an answer to this question, I begin to feel like I'm wearing a scarlet letter.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I consumed resources. I went to grad school on a teaching assistantship and then dropped out. THe thing is, humanities graduate programs have a dropout rate that is something like 60 or 70%. It is a haven for the undecided. Now that's NOT what I'm going to say in interviews. But I wish I could sometimes. I spend so much time in my head figuring out an answer to this question, I begin to feel like I'm wearing a scarlet letter.

well, hey, it's not like there's a shortage of humanities ph.d.'s from an employment perspective. if they're not gonna give you jobs, should they reasonably expect you to devote all that time and effort? i used to wish i went the history ph.d. route, but i don't regret not doing it now. i've got a sister with a ph.d. in comparative literature who was so very lucky to get a tenured position and then had to quit because of a geographic change (husband got transferred). now, she's going to teach some classes as an adjunct, making pretty much no money with no benefits, and has no legitimate prospects in the area to get a job comparable to the one she gave up.

for my degree (law), it's not like there's a shortage of lawyers. why should i feel compelled to practice? of course, i'm also not going to mention that in interviews.

 

[Law2Doc]

well, hey, it's not like there's a shortage of humanities ph.d.'s from an employment perspective. if they're not gonna give you jobs, should they reasonably expect you to devote all that time and effort? i used to wish i went the history ph.d. route, but i don't regret not doing it now. i've got a sister with a ph.d. in comparative literature who was so very lucky to get a tenured position and then had to quit because of a geographic change (husband got transferred). now, she's going to teach some classes as an adjunct, making pretty much no money with no benefits, and has no legitimate prospects in the area to get a job comparable to the one she gave up.

for my degree (law), it's not like there's a shortage of lawyers. why should i feel compelled to practice? of course, i'm also not going to mention that in interviews.

I'm not following or buying the consumption of resources concept either. (But am pretty sure I gave back far more than I used up at any rate ). I've certainly heard that medicine doesn't like to poach people from other health fields (i.e. nursing), which makes sense, but I'm not sure why medicine would have the same desire to protect the legal profession. And not all professional training is a financially draining exercise; it probably costs medical schools more money than the tuition to mint a new doctor, but I doubt that's true for law, business, etc. And maybe the distinction is people who have trained but not worked yet???

At any rate, I think that one's advanced degree could be looked at as an asset or a liability, depending on whom interviews you, and how well you can spin your past experiences. People who are coming from a non-cookie cutter (i.e. 3.5/30 bio major right out of college) mold often have to do a better job of selling themselves, as they are difficult to compare with the hordes of other applicants. Their distinctions can make them stand out positively and add class diversity or can hurt them negatively.
It will all come down to your reasons for the change, and your "back story". Schools don't want to hear that you made a mistake on a whim, went to many years of grad school, and now have decided that you misstepped and want to try medicine instead. That kind of candidate concerns adcoms, as they worry that the person will be in the same position in four years applying to some other discipline. You need a back story that suggests other than a career student or someone who is still finding themselves (at the expense of a professions resources).

As an aside, I would suggest to the prior poster (NJBMD) who is an MD now looking at JD programs that the JD adcoms will necessarilly have a lesser concern about prior careers then med school adcoms, as unlike medicine, law schools do not consider themselves to have a "gatekeeper" of the profession role or obligation. Law schools will let in as many people as are financially feasible for such school, and leave it to the state bar (and employers) to regulate the number who actually get licensed and allowed to practice (the weeding out occurs after schooling) -- in medicine, the number of people let into med school is closely limited and it is expected that a very high percentage of those entering will become licensed residents and then practicing physicians. In most states (with some variation) I believe around a third of the people who take the bar do not pass. And most law school advisors happilly espouse the multitude of non-law type jobs one can also do with a law degree. So the experience of applying to law school isn't exactly going to be analogous.

 

[pseudoknot]

From the perspective of graduate/professional schools, consumption of resources is a legitimate concern. Their mentality: "We accepted you and rejected someone else because you appeared to have a better chance to succeed in the field of law/medicine/pharmacy/biotech/etc. Since you are already trained to work in this field, it makes more sense to give your position in the incoming medical school class to someone else who hasn't been formally trained for another career."

While this perspective is not utterly insane, I think it may not be that common. I've spoken to people in the admissions system and who have applied to med school with PhDs, and they've all indicated that having a PhD was seen as a positive element. I've heard that in some cases questions will be raised about why an applicant is switching fields, but this is true for anyone changing careers, and "traditional" applicants are also asked about their reasons for choosing medicine.

For myself, I think I can make a stronger case, because in the past five years I've learned a lot about what does and does not make me happy in a career. I certainly think that having an advanced degree will help me both directly and indirectly in medicine. Have I wasted resources? I've been productive as a graduate student (my paper was the first out of my advisor's lab), and I never signed a contract saying I would go into basic science research. Everyone on my committee was supportive when I told them about my decision to apply to med school, so if they don't have a problem with it, why should the med schools?

I'm not sure if I'm making much sense (I've been up all night), but that's part of my perspective.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

Look folks, the key is that you HAVE AN ANSWER for why you are changing careers. It's not about "protecting resources" or some such claptrap (although you're certainly consuming YOUR resources of time and money!)
It's about demonstrating that you've thought this through, that you have reasons for your actions, that you won't be changing your mind again after they've given you a slot it their med school.

Lighten up.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I'm not following or buying the consumption of resources concept either. (But am pretty sure I gave back far more than I used up at any rate ). I've certainly heard that medicine doesn't like to poach people from other health fields (i.e. nursing), which makes sense, but I'm not sure why medicine would have the same desire to protect the legal profession. And not all professional training is a financially draining exercise; it probably costs medical schools more money than the tuition to mint a new doctor, but I doubt that's true for law, business, etc. And maybe the distinction is people who have trained but not worked yet???

At any rate, I think that one's advanced degree could be looked at as an asset or a liability, depending on whom interviews you, and how well you can spin your past experiences. People who are coming from a non-cookie cutter (i.e. 3.5/30 bio major right out of college) mold often have to do a better job of selling themselves, as they are difficult to compare with the hordes of other applicants. Their distinctions can make them stand out positively and add class diversity or can hurt them negatively.
It will all come down to your reasons for the change, and your "back story". Schools don't want to hear that you made a mistake on a whim, went to many years of grad school, and now have decided that you misstepped and want to try medicine instead. That kind of candidate concerns adcoms, as they worry that the person will be in the same position in four years applying to some other discipline. You need a back story that suggests other than a career student or someone who is still finding themselves (at the expense of a professions resources).

As an aside, I would suggest to the prior poster (NJBMD) who is an MD now looking at JD programs that the JD adcoms will necessarilly have a lesser concern about prior careers then med school adcoms, as unlike medicine, law schools do not consider themselves to have a "gatekeeper" of the profession role or obligation. Law schools will let in as many people as are financially feasible for such school, and leave it to the state bar (and employers) to regulate the number who actually get licensed and allowed to practice (the weeding out occurs after schooling) -- in medicine, the number of people let into med school is closely limited and it is expected that a very high percentage of those entering will become licensed residents and then practicing physicians. In most states (with some variation) I believe around a third of the people who take the bar do not pass. And most law school advisors happilly espouse the multitude of non-law type jobs one can also do with a law degree. So the experience of applying to law school isn't exactly going to be analogous.

my problem is that i can't say anything about having loved law school or been really serious about going without lying through my teeth, and i'm not a good liar. i think it's better to be honest and admit a mistake made six years ago and yet focus on all the aspects of my application that show that i'm stable applicant (completed school and did well, and most importantly, have held my current job for a long d@mnn time). if i were a professional student, i would be in fulltime school right now instead of working fulltime. i think that my career stability since law school should show adcoms that i'm a serious person who's committed to what i'm doing. i focused my ps on my job, and i'm going to try to make that the focus on interviews, too.

as for law schools caring, they don't. it's a numbers racket -- do well on your lsat, and they'll let you regardless of anything else in your past. i was a pretty mediocre applicant with a pretty awesome lsat and got in to some pretty outstanding schools. also, the socratic method was designed solely so law school could admit the maximum number of students, so it's not like there's limited slots.

 

[Law2Doc]

my problem is that i can't say anything about having loved law school or been really serious about going without lying through my teeth, and i'm not a good liar.

I still think you should be able to find a way to spin your prior education/degree (short of lying) in a non-negative way and get some advantage from it, rather than point to it as an admission of how confused you once were. Just bear in mind that for your background to add diversity, you are going to make adcoms see it as a positive attribute. If you convey it as negative, a three year mistake you regretted from the onset, there is no way they will be able to consider it otherwise.
Looks like you have really solid numbers and are applying to a ton of places, so you'll probably do fine, but I personally really think you can make this asset work for you instead of be a hurdle.

 

[1Path]

I think whether or not it matters depends on what your advanced degrees are in. For advanced degrees completed in areas like Biochemistry, ect, it's "complimentary" to a medical career. For degrees outlined by the OP in law, pharmacy, dentistry, and even nursing, I hear it's a problem to some adcoms.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

I think whether or not it matters depends on what your advanced degrees are in. For advanced degrees completed in areas like Biochemistry, ect, it's "complimentary" to a medical career. For degrees outlined by the OP in law, pharmacy, dentistry, and even nursing, I hear it's a problem to some adcoms.

do you have any idea if any specific schools are more likely to view it as a problem? i'm just wondering where you got your info, and if it's tied to any school in particular? or is it just a general medical school bias?

bleh, this is totally depressing me. it depressed me about two years ago, then i got over it. now, it's coming back. it's just cr@ppy to have spent already $10k on this whole process (mcat prep course, classes and apps) just be shut down because of small-minded adcoms. anyway, i'm ranting.

 

[Doctor Bagel]

hey law2doc,
how did you spin it in your interviews? it seems like your strategy was successful. also, i'm sort of worried about getting questions about things like tort reform because of my background. i actually don't support tort reform as it's commonly proposed (caps), and i guess i'll have to be honest about that one, too.

in one aspect, i think my background will be an asset because i don't have an inherent distrust of lawyers that you see frequently among medical professionals and even premeds. lawyers aren't all the bad guys, and any doctor who's faced a malpractice suit i'm sure knows to appreciate the lawyers who defend them.

 

[Law2Doc]

hey law2doc,
how did you spin it in your interviews? it seems like your strategy was successful. also, i'm sort of worried about getting questions about things like tort reform because of my background. i actually don't support tort reform as it's commonly proposed (caps), and i guess i'll have to be honest about that one, too.

in one aspect, i think my background will be an asset because i don't have an inherent distrust of lawyers that you see frequently among medical professionals and even premeds. lawyers aren't all the bad guys, and any doctor who's faced a malpractice suit i'm sure knows to appreciate the lawyers who defend them.

My own situation is probably not going to work for everyone, because I practiced for quite a while, so not as much jumping from school to school (career student) concerns. But I played up the having learned how to be a professional and the responsibilities that entails, working closely with clients (analogous to patients) and being a confidante with respect to their private information, working long hours, and working in high stress environments, angles. These are all things which I suggest translate directly to medicine, and so my having successful experiences in these areas I think was viewed by adcoms as an asset. (at least that's how I packaged it).
You might also play up the increasing regulation of medicine and the value to a school in having people with legal backgrounds around to assist their peers in muddling through. I personally stayed away from any discussion of malpractice law from either side (not relevant to my area of practice anyhow)-- I felt it safer and smarter to simply distance myself from that form of law. But if you have this experience, there are ways you can probably spin it.
I was never asked anything about tort reform (but I certainly have strong views on it, and experience with one quasi form of it, so I wouldn't really have minded).

 

[1Path]

do you have any idea if any specific schools are more likely to view it as a problem? i'm just wondering where you got your info, and if it's tied to any school in particular? or is it just a general medical school bias?

After looking at your profile, I really don't think you'll have too much of a problem getting accepted somewhere. In general, I'd say that schools known to admit nontrads are probably going to look at your previous career positively. By definition that means all the DO schools and it looks like you've applied to them all. Honestly, I think a lot of the prejudice toward laywers in general has to do with the general perception of lawyers and the malpractice issue. I'd just be THROUGHLY prepared for a tough interview at MD schools.
Good Luck!!!

 

[TripleDegree]

I spoke to a couple doctors who do med school interviewers and told them about my nontrad background. Basically they said that nontrads that have had graduate training in other fields, i.e. JD, PharmD, PhD, etc., have a difficult time gaining acceptances. Adcoms have to justify allowing someone who has already consumed X amount of resources for one field, only to turn it down and try to pursue something else that will make them "happier." Unless you plan to combine your training in both fields into a career, this poses a significant obstacle for many nontrads. If asked, "why should we let you into med school after you already went to _______ school and now decided to change careers and go into medicine?" What will you say?

Personally, I wouldn't stress if I were you. I think its a bunch of baloney that adcoms have their minds set against you - if they did, you wouldn't be at that interview. As long as you can tell a coherent and compelling story as to how your past experiences have helped you make a decision, and that you can convince them that you're not a professional career-changes, then if everything else is in order, you're OK

 

[Jaguar]

For me, it was all about the realization that although my previous career path was very successful in terms of challenge and monetary rewards, it held few intrinsic rewards. I was honest with my adcom about that - that at the end of the day, I had come to realize that I just wasn't contributing anything to the betterment of anyone other than shareholders. I also had been through some significant life events - illness and death of a parent, several miscarriages, and giving birth to my children. Each of these brought me more focus.

I tried to spin my critical thinking skills and ability to work under intense pressure in the most positive light. And I focused on my strong people skills and the diversity I would add to the class.