I need a clear-cut answer. ADCOMS only, please.

[Rogert]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Not all patients are in hospitals and hospitals are not the only place to gain clinical experience. Ambulatory care is a large portion of clinical care these days and many students have very good experiences in outpatient settings including family planning clinics, suitcase clinics and private practice offices.

No one says you have to play bingo with nursing home residents and I, for one, have caused some consternation by arguing that folks living in nursing homes are RESIDENTS, not patients, just as babysitting is not a type of clinical pediatrics.

Can you stand being around sick and /or injured people and/or people seeing preventive services? If you haven't been around them, how can you say in all honesty that you want to spend your career around them? You are in the application cycle, if I understand correctly, and it is either going to work out for you or it isn't. If it does not, you may need to bite the bullet and find some patients to spend time with.

I'm in complete agreement with you on value of "clinical experience" in nursing homes. The bingo thing was supposed to be a crack at it.

For someone living in a reasonably sized city and who doesn't have to work for a living, those all would definitely be reasonable things for me to do. Unfortunately, those options either aren't available within a reasonable driving distance or don't have hours that fit my work schedule. And whether this cycle works out for me or not, I should prepare for the worst and I am working on trying to figure something out. Though I am concerned because I am very clearly just box checking at this point.

And its not like I've never seen a patient before. I've done shadowing. I just don't have the availability or resources to devote myself to any sort program. But having seen what I have, it doesn't take a lot of thought to extrapolate different kinds of patients and whether I'd want to work with them. This is, of course, completely disregarding anything any of the various providers I work with have told me about patients. If I feel like I can handle all the patients they complain about, I can pretty comfortably say I want to work with patients.

 

[mehc012]

I'm in complete agreement with you on value of "clinical experience" in nursing homes. The bingo thing was supposed to be a crack at it.

For someone living in a reasonably sized city and who doesn't have to work for a living, those all would definitely be reasonable things for me to do. Unfortunately, those options either aren't available within a reasonable driving distance or don't have hours that fit my work schedule. And whether this cycle works out for me or not, I should prepare for the worst and I am working on trying to figure something out. Though I am concerned because I am very clearly just box checking at this point.

And its not like I've never seen a patient before. I've done shadowing. I just don't have the availability or resources to devote myself to any sort program. But having seen what I have, it doesn't take a lot of thought to extrapolate different kinds of patients and whether I'd want to work with them. This is, of course, completely disregarding anything any of the various providers I work with have told me about patients. If I feel like I can handle all the patients they complain about, I can pretty comfortably say I want to work with patients.

It's a heck of a lot easier to coach from the armchair than it is to actually deal with a situation in your real life. Most people feel like they could handle almost anything...as long as they don't have to actually do so in reality. I used to think I could handle all of the academia BS and late-night self-motivation required for a lab research career, until I actually got close to having that be my career, and then it was suddenly 'Nope! Nononono, let's find something else to do.' Similarly, I was leery that I'd be able to put up with nitpicking clinical paperwork and the constant energy of a 12hr ED shift until I did it, and found out that it was just the right level of personal interaction and intellectual prompting to amp me up and turn my brain on.

If getting actual clinical experience is something you can't do, then stop worrying about it - you can't change it.
If it's something you don't want to do, at least not badly enough to shift your schedule around or to put up with a time commitment, a full shift, or the hoops you have to jump through to get there, well...that may be a reason to go ahead and put in the effort to do so anyway, before you pull the trigger and dedicate 10yrs of your life it.

 

[Rogert]

Yes but why would you take someone who hasn't experienced it at all, and therefore can't craft an opinion? That is the point we are making. You HAVE to work with patients to accomplish that.

It isn't the only place you can show altruism. No one said that. But it is the place where you can show altruism AND work with patients. Working with patients is not exactly the same as working with people and you have to be aware of that. Customer service is not at all indicative. They are two very different environments. There is a difference between a customer and a person with terminal cancer who has been in the hospital for months. I know this because I've worked with both.

I am well aware of the point being made. I'm saying that there is more than one way to demonstrate the skills/personality traits required. Lack of first hand experience != ignorance. Your question is like asking why you would trust the opinion of a historian when she wasn't there to experience the event in question. The popular opinion here seems view things with such a narrow scope.

Maybe it's not what you intended, but you certainly seemed to imply that it's the only place you can show altruism:

You need to actually interact with patients to show you are altruistic and enjoy directly working with sick people.

If you just look at the surface of things, sure, patients and customers are different and certainly have different environments. But they still have overlapping skill sets such as empathy and professionalism.

 

[Rogert]

It's a heck of a lot easier to coach from the armchair than it is to actually deal with a situation in your real life. Most people feel like they could handle almost anything...as long as they don't have to actually do so in reality. I used to think I could handle all of the academia BS and late-night self-motivation required for a lab research career, until I actually got close to having that be my career, and then it was suddenly 'Nope! Nononono, let's find something else to do.' Similarly, I was leery that I'd be able to put up with nitpicking clinical paperwork and the constant energy of a 12hr ED shift until I did it, and found out that it was just the right level of personal interaction and intellectual prompting to amp me up and turn my brain on.

If getting actual clinical experience is something you can't do, then stop worrying about it - you can't change it.
If it's something you don't want to do, at least not badly enough to shift your schedule around or to put up with a time commitment, a full shift, or the hoops you have to jump through to get there, well...that may be a reason to go ahead and put in the effort to do so anyway, before you pull the trigger and dedicate 10yrs of your life it.

I've handled the stress of the military, poverty, academia, and fast food. I feel pretty comfortable in my ability to handle whatever patients throw at me. Knives and food trays included.

"Can't" is a very nebulous term to me. Lots of people say they "can't" do things. For instance, my friends say they can't leave the military, but going AWOL is clearly an option. A better way to say it would be that it is "unreasonable" to do something. For instance, I would consider it unreasonable to give up my ability to pay rent to work for free. My job is unfortunately not flexible. If there was any, I used it all up convincing them not to fire me when I went back to school part time. I did try doing things after work once. I ended up seeing my wife for a grand total of 45 minutes over the course of a week. I would consider it unreasonable to force my marriage into that position again for any length of time. So I do feel as though I can't change anything. However, the adcoms on here imply that my chances at admission are near 0% unless I get this box checked. Having determined after my series of life experiences that patient health care is the only career that suits my personality and that physicians provide the best care a single person can provide, you can understand my frustration at the topic at hand.

 

[LizzyM]

You are going to need to give up a lot to go to medical school. We are only suggesting that you get face-to-face with patients before you make the leap. Could you borrow $1000 to free up some time you'd otherwise be working in order to have time to do something clinical? If you are going to borrow tens of thousands to go to medical school, it would seem foolish not to borrow a fraction of that amount to test whether face to face interaction with the sick is a good fit for you, particularly given that you are non-traditional and already in and out of work experiences that you have found suboptimal. Maybe going to school and working and applying all at the same time was not a good idea. I wish you'd found us sooner.​

 

[mehc012]

I've handled the stress of the military, poverty, academia, and fast food. I feel pretty comfortable in my ability to handle whatever patients throw at me. Knives and food trays included.

...none of those things is the same as dealing with patients and healthcare bureaucracy day in and day out. I have little doubt that you can handle it as in 'physically get through it,' but that's not really the level of consideration I intend when discussing choosing a lifelong career. Is it something that you actually want to do? How do you know?
For example, here you state that you have 'handled' fast food. Cool beans. If simply being able to get through something is what we're considering here, why not have that be your career?

"Can't" is a very nebulous term to me. Lots of people say they "can't" do things. For instance, my friends say they can't leave the military, but going AWOL is clearly an option. A better way to say it would be that it is "unreasonable" to do something. For instance, I would consider it unreasonable to give up my ability to pay rent to work for free. My job is unfortunately not flexible. If there was any, I used it all up convincing them not to fire me when I went back to school part time. I did try doing things after work once. I ended up seeing my wife for a grand total of 45 minutes over the course of a week. I would consider it unreasonable to force my marriage into that position again for any length of time. So I do feel as though I can't change anything. However, the adcoms on here imply that my chances at admission are near 0% unless I get this box checked. Having determined after my series of life experiences that patient health care is the only career that suits my personality and that physicians provide the best care a single person can provide, you can understand my frustration at the topic at hand.

Again, if you truly "can't", then don't and no need to worry about things you cannot change.

However, like you, I find it to be a nebulous term. There are so many routes to every outcome that it is likely that one would work for your situation. It may be that those routes have such a high cost that it is unpalatable to you (though if 'being extremely busy' is one of those costs, it seems to me that it would be valuable to work those issues out now rather than later anyway).

Keep in mind, though, that aside from the critical risk you take in finding out that the reality of clinical medicine doesn't live up to your assumed version, you are also risking having a slightly less competitive app. Those risks may be worthwhile - I myself found the risks entailed by not pulling my GPA higher to be more acceptable than continuing to burn myself out on this postbacc - but know that you are taking them. From there, you just have to make your decision.

 

[Goro]

Over on the Non-trad forum, there are plenty of people who who have posted that they can do all this. Time mgt is a crucial skill for medical students.

Maybe going to school and working and applying all at the same time....

 

[claduva94]

I am well aware of the point being made. I'm saying that there is more than one way to demonstrate the skills/personality traits required. Lack of first hand experience != ignorance. Your question is like asking why you would trust the opinion of a historian when she wasn't there to experience the event in question. The popular opinion here seems view things with such a narrow scope.

Maybe it's not what you intended, but you certainly seemed to imply that it's the only place you can show altruism:

If you just look at the surface of things, sure, patients and customers are different and certainly have different environments. But they still have overlapping skill sets such as empathy and professionalism.

They aren't the same thing. Medical school is different. When a medical school chooses to accept you, they simultaneously choose to invest in you. They make a risk. Their goal is to make sure all of their students successfully enter the medical profession and enjoy it. They don't want people who will burn out. Now who will be the riskier acceptances? They are the ones that don't fully comprehend what they are getting into. How can this happen? Well one way is not having experiencing enough patient interaction enough to acknowledge not only that you can tolerate working under those conditions for over 30 years but that there is no other thing you would rather do. Medical school is a lifelong commitment. Its not as simple as quitting in the middle if you realize you don't like it as much as you though. You have to do that soul searching in the form of ECs. You need to have the proper experiences to back up your desire to make such a profound commitment. Without having direct patient interaction it is difficult to do that.

No if you look at what you quoted I clearly used an "and" in there. Implying you need to show altruism AND work with sick people.

Sure there is overlap. But just because there is overlap doesn't mean one is a sufficient substitute for the other. Suggesting that I can work with patients because I can work in, say, the fast food industry, would not serve me well at an interview.

 

[Rogert]

You are going to need to give up a lot to go to medical school. We are only suggesting that you get face-to-face with patients before you make the leap. Could you borrow $1000 to free up some time you'd otherwise be working in order to have time to do something clinical? If you are going to borrow tens of thousands to go to medical school, it would seem foolish not to borrow a fraction of that amount to test whether face to face interaction with the sick is a good fit for you, particularly given that you are non-traditional and already in and out of work experiences that you have found suboptimal. Maybe going to school and working and applying all at the same time was not a good idea. I wish you'd found us sooner.​

If I wasn't willing to give everything up, I wouldn't have started on this journey. Maybe this wasn't the best time, but when I started I thought I was going to have everything done at a level that made me at least a subpar applicant and I feel like I accomplished that. This clinical experience thing has just thrown a wrench in the plans that I didn't see coming. As I said above, my friends who got into med school never worked with patients either so they didn't know to mention it to me. If I need to take out a loan and take a break from work to get this ready for next cycle (I can still hoping for a yes for this year) that's what I'll do after I'm done with school. Thank you for helping me.

...none of those things is the same as dealing with patients and healthcare bureaucracy day in and day out. I have little doubt that you can handle it as in 'physically get through it,' but that's not really the level of consideration I intend when discussing choosing a lifelong career. Is it something that you actually want to do? How do you know?
For example, here you state that you have 'handled' fast food. Cool beans. If simply being able to get through something is what we're considering here, why not have that be your career?
Again, if you truly "can't", then don't and no need to worry about things you cannot change.
However, like you, I find it to be a nebulous term. There are so many routes to every outcome that it is likely that one would work for your situation. It may be that those routes have such a high cost that it is unpalatable to you (though if 'being extremely busy' is one of those costs, it seems to me that it would be valuable to work those issues out now rather than later anyway).

Keep in mind, though, that aside from the critical risk you take in finding out that the reality of clinical medicine doesn't live up to your assumed version, you are also risking having a slightly less competitive app. Those risks may be worthwhile - I myself found the risks entailed by not pulling my GPA higher to be more acceptable than continuing to burn myself out on this postbacc - but know that you are taking them. From there, you just have to make your decision.

I mentioned above this above, but this wasn't my first career choice. I came here after trying to get into clinical psychology, but I came to the conclusion that that job wasn't doing enough to help to help people in the way I wanted. So I was going to work patients, just not the kind that wear gowns. I had no problem with patients then and I have none now. And considering I'm working as part of bureaucracy that gives docs grief, I know I can handle the BS I dish out.

That fast food part was mostly a joke. Arson, murder, and jaywalking etc. It is high stress though.

 

[Rogert]

Over on the Non-trad forum, there are plenty of people who who have posted that they can do all this. Time mgt is a crucial skill for medical students.

Are you at all familiar with the service academies? My classmates from there were of the opinion that med school is easier because all they have to do is go to class/work and they still had time for a social life. I was right there with them until I decided the Army wasn't for me. I know how to manage time.

Also, I would appreciate if you did not speak in such a condescending tone. I understand you are a wealth of admissions related knowledge, but that should a be reason to act more professional, not less, when someone disagrees with you.

They aren't the same thing. Medical school is different. When a medical school chooses to accept you, they simultaneously choose to invest in you. They make a risk. Their goal is to make sure all of their students successfully enter the medical profession and enjoy it. They don't want people who will burn out. Now who will be the riskier acceptances? They are the ones that don't fully comprehend what they are getting into. How can this happen? Well one way is not having experiencing enough patient interaction enough to acknowledge not only that you can tolerate working under those conditions for over 30 years but that there is no other thing you would rather do. Medical school is a lifelong commitment. Its not as simple as quitting in the middle if you realize you don't like it as much as you though. You have to do that soul searching in the form of ECs. You need to have the proper experiences to back up your desire to make such a profound commitment. Without having direct patient interaction it is difficult to do that.

No if you look at what you quoted I clearly used an "and" in there. Implying you need to show altruism AND work with sick people.

Sure there is overlap. But just because there is overlap doesn't mean one is a sufficient substitute for the other. Suggesting that I can work with patients because I can work in, say, the fast food industry, would not serve me well at an interview.

They're making an investment in me?? I'm paying $200k+! Their only risk is that I might default on my loans. I'm making an investment in them that they provide me the resources to be a competent physician. And if dislike of the job after 30+ years is a reason to not accept someone, most of the doctors I work with should have had their acceptances revoked. It's been a while since I saw the stats, but IIRC nearly half of doctors say they wouldn't choose medicine again or are at least dissatisfied with their work. You're setting a ridiculous bar for modern medicine. No one is going to understand if they'll like medicine in 30 years unless they've worked in medicine for 30 years. EC's are, at best, going to say you liked working with patients for the 100+ hours or whatever you did. Assuming you aren't lying which I'm sure a good number are.

I wasn't trying to say they are exact substitutes. I was showing an example where the skills of one activity overlap with the desired skill set. If you take a bunch of such activities, like the kind you get from working several different fields and having several years of real world experience, you can display a skill set that fully encompasses the desired skill set.

 

[BillrothI]

They're making an investment in me?? I'm paying $200k+! Their only risk is that I might default on my loans. I'm making an investment in them that they provide me the resources to be a competent physician.

I won't address your other points, but I believe the cost of training a medical student is much greater than the money recovered via tuition. However, I'm not sure how funding works exactly, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Bill

 

[mehc012]

Wait, let's just break this down here:

- Clinical exposure is considered by many, including several adcoms, to be one of the most important components of the application.
- The reasons for this have been expounded upon several times throughout this thread, often by those far more educated on the matter than myself
- People do get in with minimal clinical experience; however, it is not uncommon for applicants who are otherwise excellent to do poorly due to limited clinical exposure. When applying with little to no clinical exposure, you risk falling into that latter category regardless of the rest of your app. Clearly, having a solid app otherwise lessens your risk.
- If you can address the points which are typically covered by traditional clinical exposure through other means, that may also help lessen your risk, however, nothing is as good at demonstrating (to yourself) that you actually enjoy the reality of working with patients quite as well as actually working with patients. It is important that you have proven this to yourself, because this perspective is one of the things adcoms are looking for in essays and interview responses.


At the end of the day, know that clinical exposure is given serious weight, know why, and try to make sure that your app covers that 'why'. If you cannot find a way or are not willing to sacrifice the time to get actual exposure, make the decision to forgo it knowing all the facts. Recognize that it may be detrimental to your app and consciously work to mitigate the concerns raised by low clinical exposure.

I'm not sure what else is really up for discussion here, unless you are looking for everyone to review your entire application and go 'yeah, no, you are one of the only applicants who is incurring zero risk by having little clinical exposure.' 👍

...the odds of that happening are low. That doesn't mean you are screwed or that people think poorly of you or that we know your life story and somehow know better than you whether you are prepared mentally and logistically for medicine. Our feedback simply shows you what concerns are raised by a quick review of the situation (which may be all an adcom has to give to your app) - it gives you an idea of what points to address proactively, as well as the sort of activities which may be worth adding into your app if you unfortunately end up in a situation of shoring it back up.

 

[claduva94]

I won't address your other points, but I believe the cost of training a medical student is much greater than the money recovered via tuition. However, I'm not sure how funding works exactly, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

-Bill

Precisely. That and, given the physician shortage, they want a 100% success rate.

Are you at all familiar with the service academies? My classmates from there were of the opinion that med school is easier because all they have to do is go to class/work and they still had time for a social life. I was right there with them until I decided the Army wasn't for me. I know how to manage time.

Also, I would appreciate if you did not speak in such a condescending tone. I understand you are a wealth of admissions related knowledge, but that should a be reason to act more professional, not less, when someone disagrees with you.



They're making an investment in me?? I'm paying $200k+! Their only risk is that I might default on my loans. I'm making an investment in them that they provide me the resources to be a competent physician. And if dislike of the job after 30+ years is a reason to not accept someone, most of the doctors I work with should have had their acceptances revoked. It's been a while since I saw the stats, but IIRC nearly half of doctors say they wouldn't choose medicine again or are at least dissatisfied with their work. You're setting a ridiculous bar for modern medicine. No one is going to understand if they'll like medicine in 30 years unless they've worked in medicine for 30 years. EC's are, at best, going to say you liked working with patients for the 100+ hours or whatever you did. Assuming you aren't lying which I'm sure a good number are.

I wasn't trying to say they are exact substitutes. I was showing an example where the skills of one activity overlap with the desired skill set. If you take a bunch of such activities, like the kind you get from working several different fields and having several years of real world experience, you can display a skill set that fully encompasses the desired skill set.

I see your point. And I agree. It certainly isn't foolproof. But some experience is better than no experience. Admissions are idealistic because they have to be. Their job is to aim for 100% satisfaction, even though they fall far from achieving it. Thats the whole reason there are these "pseudo-required". But I guarantee you, if they accepted every person with strong stats and ECs without regard for clinical experience, the number of dissatisfied doctors would be much higher. Otherwise I envision far more people would be disillusioned with what they are getting into.

Well what would you say is DIRECTLY comparable to working with and comforting, say, a terminally ill patients with cancer on a regular basis? And having to admit that the best you can even offer them is comfort? I just think there are some things, in medicine certainly, that there is no substitute for so you have to work with patients directly. Nothing I have done even came close to preparing me or being the same as working with an 18-year-old diagnosed with terminal cancer. But it was good that I experienced it so that i knew what I may be doing on a daily basis. If you can give me specific situations that will mirror what working with patients, and all of the things specifically associated with that, then I will concede. Otherwise I maintain that the way you can show your commitment to medicine is by spending hundreds of hours learning what it is like to work with patients directly.

 

[Goro]

I am losing patience because all I keep seeing from you are excuses. You wanna be a doctor? Earn it.

Also, I would appreciate if you did not speak in such a condescending tone. I understand you are a wealth of admissions related knowledge, but that should a be reason to act more professional, not less, when someone disagrees with you.

 

[Promethean]

They're making an investment in me?? I'm paying $200k+! Their only risk is that I might default on my loans.

Opportunity cost, you are forgetting opportunity cost. There are only so many seats. When they allocate a seat to one student, it means another didn't get it. Yes, you are paying for the seat, but the other student would have, too. When you get in, you will be using up scarce resources, precious access to educational experiences that only so many people get to have. If you fail to make the most of it, then you will have wasted the opportunity that might have been better given to someone else.

Even if your tuition paid for all the cost of a medical education (which it generally does not), opportunity cost will always mean that the school is investing at least as much in you as you are putting in via tuition and hard work.

EDIT: As for why the school should care about the outcomes of its students: You should recognize the concept from your military experience... the mission. Producing competent physicians who are happy with their choice to join the profession is the ultimate mission of the school. Selecting the right candidates is one of the most important actions toward the accomplishment of the mission.

 

[JPSmyth]

If you can effectively write a personal statement attesting to your desire and commitment to medicine and medical training and convince a reasonable person (ie. admissions committee members) that medicine is the right path, then you have enough clinical experience. If you can't do that, then you are a liability to a medical school and you are increasing your own chances of ending up in a very bad position. When people are told, "you don't have enough clinical experience" it means one of two things. #1 You haven't convinced us that you are ready for medical school and you are too high a risk for us to use one of our limited spots on or #2 Overall your application isn't strong enough, but people will keep bugging us unless we give them a discreet reason. I don't like it when we tell people #2, but it happens.

Fluffing an application (as you advocate) under the guise of 'covering bases' is very transparent. We see it all the time and yes, it does reflect very poorly on the applicant.

@mimelim Would you mind answering a question for me? I plan on doing some volunteer work rebuilding houses in areas affected by a natural disaster. I know that this is a painstakingly typical volunteer experience that I'm sure plenty of people do just to check in the box, but I have family ties to the area, I attended school nearby, and I actually feel that I have a reason to be volunteering there for more than simply checking the box. When you see something like this on an application, do you try to bring it up in the interview to see if they can speak on it meaningfully? I don't want ADCOMs to immediately think that I am just trying to fluff up my application. Thank you

 

[Rogert]

Wait, let's just break this down here:
.

I wasn't expecting to even bring up my personal history when I started posting in this thread and I certainly wasn't here looking for approval. Goro and gyngyn told me what they thought about it months ago and I've accepted that. I think I've said from the outset that I was going to find a way to get experience to satisfy the requirement and I certainly haven't I refused to do it. At worst, I've said that it would be difficult given personal circumstances. I started posting because I thought two adcoms were posting conflicting info and continued because they're using an incredibly flawed (in my opinion) criteria as a make or break for applications and I wanted to voice my concerns.

I am losing patience because all I keep seeing from you are excuses. You wanna be a doctor? Earn it.

Excuse infers that I'm somehow trying to get out of this. I've said multiple times I'm going to find a way to get experience. I just refuse to accept that experience is anything beyond a nice thing to have a on a resume. It is in no way a perfect indicator and is therefore a ridiculous thing to make or break someone's app. The fact that a simple disagreement with a random stranger is making you lose patience and act the way you are doesn't exactly speak well of you. I respect you for your knowledge but you have made it very difficult to respect you beyond that.

EDIT: As for why the school should care about the outcomes of its students: You should recognize the concept from your military experience... the mission. Producing competent physicians who are happy with their choice to join the profession is the ultimate mission of the school. Selecting the right candidates is one of the most important actions toward the accomplishment of the mission.

I think you're giving the military a lot more credit than it deserves. Just as a generalization from my experience, NCOs care about maintaining the status quo and usually also care about the mission. Usually. Officers care about promotions and covering their own ass. Again, just generalization from personal observation. The "mission" is basically a PR stunt. In non-combat zones they're meaningless and in combat zones they're unaccomplishable. Either way they make the officer who made it sound like they're doing something. I'm still looking for evidence that civilian world is much different. At best, it seems less transparent.

To address the point of your post, just about everything you said makes sense which I is why I have yet to advocate the admission of subpar students. My argument is that a lack of patient contact is not the same as being subpar. I would add that the value of a seat to them is only as valuable as the alumni donations they can get afterwards. Also, you make it sound like they're going broke trying to educate the poor students when they are very clearly not which, while probably not intentional on your part, is pretty disingenuous.

It certainly isn't foolproof.

Well what would you say is DIRECTLY comparable to working with and comforting, say, a terminally ill patients with cancer on a regular basis?If you can give me specific situations that will mirror what working with patients, and all of the things specifically associated with that, then I will concede.

I agree. Some experience is better than no experience. I will not claim that clinical experience is a useless activity, only that it isn't strictly necessary and the fact that it isn't producing 100% results should be proof of that. Why continue to use an imperfect measurement or, at the very least, hold it as the end-all be-all? It just doesn't make any sense.

Directly? Well, nothing. There is only the exact scenario that you describe. And if every doctor had to do that I could see that being a useful bar, but they don't. I can think of some situations that are similar in that there's nothing you can do. From my own experience, just because that's what's most easily available, comforting someone who just lost their leg to an IED and losing a companymate in combat.

Before we can tackle that last part, we first need to define "all of the thing specifically associated with that." It would be fairly difficult for me to build a boat when I don't know what kind of boat I'm trying to build.

 

[mehc012]

I wasn't expecting to even bring up my personal history when I started posting in this thread and I certainly wasn't here looking for approval. Goro and gyngyn told me what they thought about it months ago and I've accepted that. I think I've said from the outset that I was going to find a way to get experience to satisfy the requirement and I certainly haven't I refused to do it. At worst, I've said that it would be difficult given personal circumstances. I started posting because I thought two adcoms were posting conflicting info and continued because they're using an incredibly flawed (in my opinion) criteria as a make or break for applications and I wanted to voice my concerns.

Which is exactly why I posted what I did. We were getting away from the nitty-gritty useful information portion and concern-voicing and into the part of the thread where everyone talks frustrated circles around each other thinking 'what do you want from me?'
I didn't say what you have or haven't done, nor what you plan to. I was simply restating the actual pertinent portions of the thread and showing how they could be used going forward. I'm trying to point out that, while the guidelines are pretty black-and-white (as to what is helpful and what is a risk), actual applications are shades of grey. You'll break some of the 'rules' and meet others...at the end of the day, what is important to take away is what the adcoms are trying to accomplish with each criterion. Yes, some of the adcoms on here have different approaches when it comes to the details, but all of them have been in agreement as to the purpose of clinical exposure. Focus on that and don't get caught up in the exact details of how each individual goes about assessing them - all you can do is your best and you won't meet everyone's standards on this or any other aspect.

 

[Rogert]

Which is exactly why I posted what I did. We were getting away from the nitty-gritty useful information portion and concern-voicing and into the part of the thread where everyone talks frustrated circles around each other thinking 'what do you want from me?'
I didn't say what you have or haven't done, nor what you plan to. I was simply restating the actual pertinent portions of the thread and showing how they could be used going forward. I'm trying to point out that, while the guidelines are pretty black-and-white (as to what is helpful and what is a risk), actual applications are shades of grey. You'll break some of the 'rules' and meet others...at the end of the day, what is important to take away is what the adcoms are trying to accomplish with each criterion. Yes, some of the adcoms on here have different approaches when it comes to the details, but all of them have been in agreement as to the purpose of clinical exposure. Focus on that and don't get caught up in the exact details of how each individual goes about assessing them - all you can do is your best and you won't meet everyone's standards on this or any other aspect.

Gotcha. I may have taken that more personally that I should have. Your summary was very good and I'm glad you brought it back.

 

[Promethean]

I'm trying to point out that, while the guidelines are pretty black-and-white (as to what is helpful and what is a risk), actual applications are shades of grey. You'll break some of the 'rules' and meet others...at the end of the day, what is important to take away is what the adcoms are trying to accomplish with each criterion..

This.

The allergy to check-boxing is that results in an applicant who is not particularly well-rounded. An inexperienced 21-year old who has run from one station of the med school application relay race to the next with no appreciation of the overall pattern is not just subpar, but dangerous to themselves and others.

OP, you are not that kid. You have a lot going for you. If you have the rhetorical stamina to pick as many holes in people's well meaning advice as you have done in this thread then I have confidence that you will find ways to communicate adequately regarding your readiness for medical school and the challenges of a career in medicine.

 

[claduva94]

I wasn't expecting to even bring up my personal history when I started posting in this thread and I certainly wasn't here looking for approval. Goro and gyngyn told me what they thought about it months ago and I've accepted that. I think I've said from the outset that I was going to find a way to get experience to satisfy the requirement and I certainly haven't I refused to do it. At worst, I've said that it would be difficult given personal circumstances. I started posting because I thought two adcoms were posting conflicting info and continued because they're using an incredibly flawed (in my opinion) criteria as a make or break for applications and I wanted to voice my concerns.



Excuse infers that I'm somehow trying to get out of this. I've said multiple times I'm going to find a way to get experience. I just refuse to accept that experience is anything beyond a nice thing to have a on a resume. It is in no way a perfect indicator and is therefore a ridiculous thing to make or break someone's app. The fact that a simple disagreement with a random stranger is making you lose patience and act the way you are doesn't exactly speak well of you. I respect you for your knowledge but you have made it very difficult to respect you beyond that.



I think you're giving the military a lot more credit than it deserves. Just as a generalization from my experience, NCOs care about maintaining the status quo and usually also care about the mission. Usually. Officers care about promotions and covering their own ass. Again, just generalization from personal observation. The "mission" is basically a PR stunt. In non-combat zones they're meaningless and in combat zones they're unaccomplishable. Either way they make the officer who made it sound like they're doing something. I'm still looking for evidence that civilian world is much different. At best, it seems less transparent.

To address the point of your post, just about everything you said makes sense which I is why I have yet to advocate the admission of subpar students. My argument is that a lack of patient contact is not the same as being subpar. I would add that the value of a seat to them is only as valuable as the alumni donations they can get afterwards. Also, you make it sound like they're going broke trying to educate the poor students when they are very clearly not which, while probably not intentional on your part, is pretty disingenuous.



I agree. Some experience is better than no experience. I will not claim that clinical experience is a useless activity, only that it isn't strictly necessary and the fact that it isn't producing 100% results should be proof of that. Why continue to use an imperfect measurement or, at the very least, hold it as the end-all be-all? It just doesn't make any sense.

Directly? Well, nothing. There is only the exact scenario that you describe. And if every doctor had to do that I could see that being a useful bar, but they don't. I can think of some situations that are similar in that there's nothing you can do. From my own experience, just because that's what's most easily available, comforting someone who just lost their leg to an IED and losing a companymate in combat.

Before we can tackle that last part, we first need to define "all of the thing specifically associated with that." It would be fairly difficult for me to build a boat when I don't know what kind of boat I'm trying to build.

I honestly think it all comes back to the question of what could do better? I'm not convinced any other type of informal screening could do any better, although it certainly could do worse. It is an unfortunate reality but nonetheless, thus is the state of current medical school admissions. I wish I could give a better answer but I can't. No system is perfect and this one is quite ingrained so to some extent it is easier to bite the bullet and do what it suggests.

 

[Rogert]

OP, you are not that kid. You have a lot going for you. If you have the rhetorical stamina to pick as many holes in people's well meaning advice as you have done in this thread then I have confidence that you will find ways to communicate adequately regarding your readiness for medical school and the challenges of a career in medicine.

It may not come across this way, but I really do appreciate how helpful people are on this forum. But if I'm not voicing my concerns here, where am I going to voice them?

I honestly think it all comes back to the question of what could do better? I'm not convinced any other type of informal screening could do any better, although it certainly could do worse. It is an unfortunate reality but nonetheless, thus is the state of current medical school admissions. I wish I could give a better answer but I can't. No system is perfect and this one is quite ingrained so to some extent it is easier to bite the bullet and do what it suggests.

This doubt is all I was trying to express. What could do better? Beats me. But we can acknowledge that the system is flawed without having all of the answers. And you are 100% that it's easier to bite the bullet than fight it and that is exactly the reason that we need to be aware of the system's flaws. You (and hopefully me) might be someone who influences admissions in the future. We may not be able to change anything right now, but we can still think critically about how everything works.

 

[Promethean]

It may not come across this way, but I really do appreciate how helpful people are on this forum. But if I'm not voicing my concerns here, where am I going to voice them?

Totally get that.

I only break out phrases like "rhetorical stamina" for people I like. If I thought you were a jerk who was just arguing for the sake of it, I would have said it that way instead.

 

[Rogert]

Totally get that.

I only break out phrases like "rhetorical stamina" for people I like. If I thought you were a jerk who was just arguing for the sake of it, I would have said it that way instead.

Not gonna lie, felt good on my ego. 😀 I'm a fan of yours as well. Here's hoping I end up your classmate.

 

[ILOVEMED123]

Why has no one answered me? Is a dayhab working with pple with developmental disabilities clinical experience?

I knew this was going to turn into a WWIII, but I seriously need an answer to this!

 

[deleted480308]

Why has no one answered me? Is a dayhab working with pple with developmental disabilities clinical experience?

I knew this was going to turn into a WWIII, but I seriously need an answer to this!

If one of them had an odor, would you be close enough to smell it?

 

[candbgirl]

OP I personally wouldn't consider them patients. But you want to do it for convenience and have it count so It "covers the bases". Nobody here is going to stop you. It is certainly volunteering. I'm just not convinced it is clinical in nature and it doesn't give any indication of what a doctor's day is like or how it feels to be a part of a medical team.
Besides even if everyone here said it counts what are you going to do if Adcoms at schools you apply to think differently? Only you can make the decision what to do. I think your attitude that you are doing it to check the boxes and cover your bases is a bad idea. If during an interview someone asks why you selected that particular EC are you going to say it was convenient, it helped cover the bases on my application and Adcoms on SDN said it was okay?
Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk 2