If I ruled the world...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BlondeDocteur

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
293
Question: If you ruled the world, what is ONE realistic thing you would change to the medical education/match/residency training process?


If I ruled the world....

I would require that everyone take the MCAT, get good grades, AND work for at least 6 months in a defined job [i.e. something you're qualified for with a Bachelor's; shadowing doesn't cut it] in a health care setting full-time before admission to medical school. Why? I think schools, particularly allopathic schools, are stacked with smart, talented people who have done research, volunteered in Kenya and done other glamorous, I-get-the-credit sorts of things to prepare them for medicine (in addition to taking the required courses and doing well). I think they are so vastly unprepared for the less glamorous, *work* side of medicine-- and hold romantic notions of the intellectual rigor each day in the hospital supposedly represents-- that they become soul-suckingly cynical, bitter, unprepared residents. The DO world seems to be much more open to people from allied health backgrounds transitioning over, and I've never seen an ex-ER/trauma nurse-turned intern quit because they were unprepared. Of my classmates, only those of us with relatives in medicine have escaped the clinical years with idealism and good attitude intact.

Runner up: I would seriously price medical school more affordably, paying attention to its true cost drivers, and let the associated university endowment/research dollars subsidize costs much more heavily than they are already doing. Needn't explain why.
 
If I ruled the world, I would do the exact opposite. A bachelor's degree is a waste of time for a premed. All medical schools would become 6 year programs, with the first 2 years taking undergraduate courses off campus at an affiliated undergraduate university. These courses would be designed as weed outs, with STANDARDIZED EXAMS. Meaning, no matter what 6 year med school program you started, you would face the same exams as anyone else anywhere in the country for the first 2 years, and many would get weeded out.

To start the 6 year programs, there would be modest requirements that anyone, including URMs, could reasonably meet. Such as top 25% in high school and a 1250 SAT or equivalent.

There would be no selection based on anything but whether you managed to score a certain GPA from the courses you took the first 2 years, and whether you meet basic requirements for spoken english and lack of physical handicaps that would require any more than slight accomodation. Learning disabilities requiring accomodation are also a total disqualification : learning disabilities are caused by faults in the brain, and doctors should be chosen from people without such flaws. It may be horrible to be born dyslexic, but patients should not have to risk care under a doctor who cannot read rapidly or who transposes crucial numbers.

If you failed the first 2 years of the program, you get credit from the courses you did finish that can be transferred elsewhere, and your grades are boosted by one letter grade for GPA purposes in another major.

Finally, these programs would be set to produce a slight oversupply of doctors, so that society has slightly more than it needs. This would both lower the prices for medical care, and make it possible to revoke the licenses or otherwise restrict bad doctors, instead of being forced to let them practice due to a shortage.

Also, pay would be much more modest, and comparable to other professions with similar education and training. Thus, there would not be 20 premeds in the first 2 years for every seat that needed to be weeded out.

Residency would pay on a scale that reflects the value of the resident, and would increase considerably with each year of post graduate education. PGY-10 residents, for instance, would likely make $150,000 a year or more.
 
Last edited:
they become soul-suckingly cynical, bitter, unprepared residents

I disagree. Work experience isn't going to help with this. If anything, there are those who realize they will oddly get more respect as a straight out of high-school/college minimum wage worker at McDonalds than many hospitals.

What turns people into soul-suckingly cynical, bitter, and unprepared monsters? Our school has done extensive research (I have no idea how. But I am serious that they do psychological profiling and have a research team dedicated solely for this project) and have found this attitude peaks in 3rd year of medical school and internship.

I'd wager being treated like scum has a lot more to do with it than a sense of disenchantment after seeing what medicine is really like.
 
If... I would implement a training system that incorporates basic and clinical sciences from day one. No more didactics. From day one, you are in the medical setting. Your day consists of a group of scientists and physicians making their way from patient to patient. As you proceed, in small groups, the physiologist explains the dynamics of a backward heart failure while the pathologist shows slides on a 9 inch laptop of the damage done to the heart and liver while the cardiologist teaches auscultation of the heart and the clinical pharmacologist explains the MOA of drug A vs B and the internal medicine doc orders and explains the necessary tests while the pulmologist explains the lungs... and so on. Each team sees perhaps 5 patients per day initially. There is a laundry lists of must-sees before graduation. Procedural training occurs in the mean time. Advancement is dependent upon competency with simulators. Careful attention is paid to monthly reports indicating who still needs to see what; special efforts are made to ensure those conditions are seen. Something like that anyway...
 
Also, pay would be much more modest, and comparable to other professions with similar education and training.

This kind of statement makes me think you're not in medical training.

I once had a massage therapist argue with me that doctors should never make above 100k, because "she works just as hard and the training is the same." She works 40hr/wk and did as many as 60/wk during training-- but somehow thought she could understand what its like to work 110+hr/wks for months on end. (Yes, my med school was hardcore.)

Doc pay is comparable to other professions with similar training-- its just there really isn't much to actually compare with.
 
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMn2cCBwH18[/YOUTUBE]
 
This kind of statement makes me think you're not in medical training.

Well, I'm not. I just got accepted. It's hard to say how much doctors should be paid, but what is clear is that if the amount were closer to the 'market price', given no artificial shortages of schooling, then by definition other career tracks would be equally attractive.


In theory, at least. I wrote a whole paragraph on free market economics and how theoretically the long term equilbrium would have 'just enough' doctors to balance supply and demand and other shizzit. But I realize that in practice, even if med school seats were more readily available, other complexities would make such an approach doomed to failure.

Well, I won't say doomed : but it wouldn't be easy to get the right number of doctors trained.

And since prices for services aren't determined by the free market either, God only knows what the 'right' answer is.
 
Last edited:
If I could make all the changes I wanted to the medical education/training field…working backwards. (And this is coming from a pre-med with obvious bias mind you)


I would enact significant cuts in reimbursement for specialities while giving a modest increase in reimbursements for cognitive/primary care stuff. The rest of the money saved would be used to fund more residencies in specialities that the nation needs most. To supplement this, I would allow American medical graduates to fund their own residencies if need be in select govt. approved specialties.

In terms of medical education, I would do away with having to do premed and instead turn medical school into 6 years after high school. The schools would teach basic sciences in years 1-3 and in those years you will have weed-out exams (similar to the Concourse system in France) that takes out 20-35% of the class (those who score poorest) after years one, two, and three. The last three years will be spent on clinical education, rotations, etc with crazy weeding out as well. There will be extremely high risk of financial ruin the longer he/she attends med school but is unable to graduate. This will make medicine more of a vocational career.

In order to get into medical school, you have to take an MCAT-like exam (in lieu of the SATs/ACTs), that has bio and chemistry, so kids will either have studied for them in high school or have done it after high school.

Basically we should be egalitarian and let a ton of people study medicine but let only the best medical students graduate. Also, pump out a ton of graduates to crowd out all FMGs, (and Americans will not need to go to offshore schools since it will be very easy to get into the basic sciences portion of a domestic school)
 
I would enact significant cuts in reimbursement for specialities while giving a modest increase in reimbursements for cognitive/primary care stuff. The rest of the money saved would be used to fund more residencies in specialities that the nation needs most. To supplement this, I would allow American medical graduates to fund their own residencies if need be in select govt. approved specialties.

Primary care and other non-procedural based specialities are underpaid, of that I have no doubt. But I never understood why people think that because one group is underpaid that the other group is overpaid.
 
Well the money to raise reimbursements to primary care has to come from somewhere. Since I don't want to bankrupt medicare any earlier, I'm trying to play a zero-sum game here.
 
Some of you guys sound like you'd like to destroy medicine. The physician shortage is the reason why doctors have high salaries, in part. If we fixed that problem, we'd have a massive drop in compensation. Lower compensation > people of lower caliber flocking to medicine, less competent doctors and poorer outcomes.

A better system might be to drop the pre-clinical years from the curriculum in medical school and integrate them into universities. In other words, have major universities provide real medical school classes in physio, path, pharm, etc. That would enable students to be parallel "med" majors and double major in something else they're interested in. If they decide medicine is not for them, they can always diverge off elsewhere. Every course would be accompanied with a shelf-style NBME exam and the grade would be determined from that. The students would then take the USMLE Step 1 (instead of the silly MCAT) at the end of their course of study, either during a break in college or at the end of college (and then take a year off).

By removing Step 1 and preclinicals from all that med school debt, the student would be better poised to determine the intense effort required for medical school (and beyond) and better determine, given their step 1, whether they really want to pursue FP or would they rather drop medicine if they can't be an ENT.

Admission to "medical schools" would be based largely on the standardized preclinical courses (you could even have course readings designed or selected from classic textbooks by the NBME) and the Step 1. This way we don't have to deal with all the preliminary BS courses like organic chemistry and calculus physics, nor the MCAT (what does that test test, anyway?). Medical schools would then be 3 years of rigorous clinical training in a wider variety of fields than we have currently and perhaps longer rotations. Students would be exposed to the entire range of specialties - rad onc, derm, urology and all the other extraneous specialties as well as the bread-and-butter IM, surgery, and ob/gyn. The last of the three years would essentially be the intern medicine/surgery year. The student can then go off to residencies with reduced curricula (with the intern year lopped off). By the time they get the MD, they would have had all three steps of the USMLE.

In the end, I think my "program" would be better because it would give students more checkpoints throughout the process, cut out lots of the hoops and BS they face in the pre-med process, reduce false expectations, dashed hopes, loss of money, and would reduce the whole process by about 2 years.
 
Someone brought up the question of reimbursement.

Since we are NOT in a free-market system and since reimbursement is determined by insurance companies and ultimately medicare, the whole reimbursement "problem" of medicine could be solved if things were done fairly.

Reimbursement should be based on 1.) the seriousness of the condition diagnosed and/or treated medically and/or surgically; 2.) the risk involved in the therapy (clearly many surgical procedures are risky); 3.) the expertise required, as determined by the objective rigor of the residency, and the residency and fellowship time.

There is simply no reason a cardiologist ought to make the same money as the dermatologist. There's a difference in training time, in residency rigor, in breadth of knowledge required to adequately manage the patient, and in the seriousness of the conditions dealt with (and yes, I know about melanoma, but that's more the exception than the rule). (Disclaimer: I have no interest in cardiology as a career, so there's no self-interest here).
 
These courses would be designed as weed outs, with STANDARDIZED EXAMS. Meaning, no matter what 6 year med school program you started, you would face the same exams as anyone else anywhere in the country for the first 2 years, and many would get weeded out.

What sort of courses and tests would you recommend for weed outs? What material would they cover?
 
What sort of courses and tests would you recommend for weed outs? What material would they cover?

He doesn't know. He has no medical training. And his views on being "weeded out" will probably change significantly after his first exam.
 
He doesn't know. He has no medical training. And his views on being "weeded out" will probably change significantly after his first exam.

That's mean. I'm in a master's program at a medical school, and I have taken the exams. Oddly enough, I have not been weeded out...I have been ranking #1 in the class of 250...

Granted, I have more time to study than the 187 medical students, but I've also been out-scoring the students in the same master's program as me.
 
Also, looking at the above, I have noticed that at least 3 posts basically call for the same thing that I do, with moderate differences.

The consensus seems to be that it should be possible to get started on the basic sciences part of medical school itself without having to jump some arbitrary hurdle : whether you get to continue depends on how you do in those courses.

Moreover, the consensus seems to be that all 'pre-meds' everywhere should take the exact same exams for the grade, none of this bs the way it is now, where every premed has their GPAs compared but no-one took the same tests in college.

And the consensus seems to be that there should be more residency spots in specialties that a shortage exists in.
 
That's mean.

Apologies. I was on my way back to delete that post.

I don't know how to fix medical education-- if I did, I would. Kudos to all of you who have the energy to even discuss it.

(Still, I find it weird when people who haven't gone through some of the more intense parts of training and the significant loan burdens call for pay cuts. I recently heard that it takes the average doc 7 years to pay off loans after residency-- but this comes without a source. At least with the 80 hr caps, we make almost $10/hr now!)
 
maybe other schools do this already, but mine didn't so here goes:
i think medical schools should do a special session at the end of second year where they go through how to write a soap note, how to write an ICU note, how to write orders, etc- basic things you need to know in the hospital. it wouldn't hurt to offer ACLS and PALS training at this time, either- or at least require second years to have read the manuals before starting wards, as they contain a lot of helpful information, such as vascular access, intubation, etc
 
Last edited:
(Still, I find it weird when people who haven't gone through some of the more intense parts of training and the significant loan burdens call for pay cuts.

The average American worker makes $37,000 per year. There are fields in medicine where the average doctor is paid $370,000 per year. "Coincidentally", lines at doctors offices for that specialty are long, and it's very difficult to match into that residency. It kind of looks like pay is being driven up by an artificial shortage.

Now, I will add this caveat : since insurance companies are an oligopoly, you basically have one monopoly (the doctors of a particular specialty) fighting another (medicare/medicaid and friends). It becomes impossible to say why pay is where it is, or if it is too high or too low, when there really isn't a market economy happening for these services at all.
 
The average American worker makes $37,000 per year. There are fields in medicine where the average doctor is paid $370,000 per year.

There are some doctors that make $370K. I don't know any field where you can be ASSURED of an average annual salary of $370K.

I say give it time. I had similar thoughts when I was a premed regarding the future of healthcare. 4 years later, I'm looking to selfishly grab my own piece of the pie, healthcare system be d@mned.

Of course, I'm also hoping you are a better person than I am 😛
 
Orthopods?

That high? I was under the impression it was a lot closer to 300 than 400. (Of course, this is hard to ascertain with the range varying widely between pediatric orthopods and spine surgeons)
 
That high? I was under the impression it was a lot closer to 300 than 400. (Of course, this is hard to ascertain with the range varying widely between pediatric orthopods and spine surgeons)

http://www.studentdoc.com/salaries.html

(lowest - avg - highest)

Ortho: 228k - 459k - 1.352k
ENT: 194k - 311k - 516k
Derm: 195k - 308k - 452k

Those are just a few examples, but you can look up a bunch of other specialties as well; not sure about the accuracy.

We actually just had a Health Care Management class where they talk about physician compensation, what to look for in contracts, ect. I forgot the book there was, but there is a company that publishes avg. salaries every year for every specialty and sub-specialty. When I looked at ortho the avg salaries were like 850k for spine, 700k for joints, 650k for hands, 590k for sports, ect.

I'll try to look it up and give a link. Here is the website of the company that publishes the book: http://www.mgma.com/
 
Last edited:
Granted, Orthopedic surgery is hard work. It requires years of schooling, talent that not everyone has, and maybe 50% more hours worked per week versus the average worker. (aka 60-70 for orthopod versus 40-50 avg worker)

So it's difficult to say if such an individual is worth 10 fold the average. Sure, patients are willing to pay lots for a surgeon, but that's more a function of supply and demand (aka if there were surgeons competing for business, prices might be lower).
 
Last edited:
Some of you guys sound like you'd like to destroy medicine.

I agree. Some of the posters here seem to imply, and others strongly suggest, that candidates with disabilities, foreign candidates, and even candidates without relatives in the medical field are somehow inferior. Luckily, money, family connections and an U.S. birth certificate are not the only things that make U.S. medicine tick. Hard work on U.S. soil, and interracial and international cultural experience and tolerance, however, do.
 
I agree. Some of the posters here seem to imply, and others strongly suggest, that candidates with disabilities, foreign candidates, and even candidates without relatives in the medical field are somehow inferior.

So you would give this valuable training slot without considering how well they will repay the investment? If someone has a disability that makes them significantly less efficient as a doctor, then society will not get as much return on investment. Furthermore, certain disabilities increase the chance that the doctor screws up and kills someone. Even one extra dead patient over a career is too many when you could have given the same training slot to a candidate with slightly lower scores but no disability. A disability that requires you get extra time on a test should be a disqualifier : dying patients won't give you extra time. As for foreign candidates : why should our society waste resources training someone from another society? Relatives in the medical field : well, I agree here, since children are not clones of their parents, and won't necessarily have the same talents.

The problem with the whole push for 'equal opportunity everywhere' is that it creates a society of both mediocrity, and one where certain choices that make sense are not made. Discrimination is only discrimination when someone is choosing based on a factor that is not relevant to the problem at hand. You shouldn't be allowed into med school, for instance, if you have cancer or are old. Sure, it sucks to be that person...but society should not have to pay to train a doctor who will not pay the investment back in the average case.
 
Last edited:
There are disabilities that require extra time on certain kinds of tests, not on all tests. Also, not everyone with disabilities plans to work in the ER, surgery, anesthesia, critical care etc.; in fact most physicians-in-training with disabilities have a pretty good grasp of their own limitations and aim at medical fields that require a different set of skills, especially those that allow one to deep-think and diagnose, such as pathology, psychiatry etc. Certainly there are psychiatric emergencies, but you wrongly assume physicians with disabilities cannot be trained to address certain subsets of emergencies.

As for FMGs, programs that have a hard time filling their slots (inner city, primary care, psychiatry, community) need them. They would rather take a respectful FMG who scored 240 in both steps, already passed Step 3 and has his heart set on psychiatry over a resentful U.S. senior who scored 220 in Step 1, hasn't taken Steps 2 and 3 yet, and for whom psychiatry is a back-up specialty.

Can you blame these programs, and how exactly are they wasting national resources by casting a wide international net to select and train the most motivated and best prepared candidates, most of whom will end up settling in the U.S. after their training and giving back to U.S. society?
 
I say annihilate the MD and DO degree and offer an MBBS, same path of course, like the rest of the world. In all honesty, our degrees aren't any superior and don't make us any better physicians. Undergraduate in the country is a huge money maker for all these people who want to become doctors but can never make it.

Each school should have entrance exams for admission.
 
There should be no more residency slots than there are U.S. graduates (D.O. + allopathic)

If an FMG out-competes an American then, yeah he or she can have the residency.
 
There should be no more residency slots than there are U.S. graduates (D.O. + allopathic)

If an FMG out-competes an American then, yeah he or she can have the residency.

This would be to the advantage of U.S. seniors and to the disadvantage of residency programs. Neither U.S. seniors, nor FMGs rule the Match/prematch process, aka "the world." Residency programs or their representatives, however, did have a word to say in the set-up of this process, which is probably why it is not likely to change anytime soon.
 
Here's my idealized system. I think it would be a considerable improvement for both traditional and nontraditional students but it requires tearing things down to the brass tacks.

First, medical school is now three years. I'll get to the structure of this later, but the basic thing is the first basic science year is mostly either dropped or integrated into what is typically the second year classes during the "new system" first year (anatomy and physiology would be discussed here in both the context of normal and abnormal, for example. Normal histology would be taught along with pathology)

So, classes like biochem, genetics, embryology, etc. would now be considered prerequisites for medical school. So, let's start how this affects traditional students. So, this requires a fundamental change at the undergraduate level. Now, with increasing requirements for entry many undergraduate campuses start offering an official "Premedicine" major. The prototypical premedicine major would be pretty open during the first and second years of undergraduate, with the typical student would start taking the basic science classes (Bio/Chem/Physics) as well as other classes to meet university/college graduation requirements like English/Composition, History, Sociology, Art, etc. Because students are free to pick their own classes, it's common for them to focus in an area they like and use that for a minor second major. Double Majors in History/Premed or Finance/Premed as well as Premed with a minor in Spanish, for example, are pretty common and add to individuality. Also, the premed "Major" would work similar to an honors college with set academic standards...if the students are not meeting certain GPA standards they asked to find a new major.

The third and fourth years of the premed major are basically the basic science first year of medical school divided into two years. So students take embryo, basic micro, maybe an introduction to/basics of sanatomy/physiology (although these are still integrated into the new first year, see above) biochemistry, etc. etc. However, students are also given "real life" medicine exposure during the third and fourth year of the premed major. For example, a class like "Introduction to Medical Systems" would have students spend days with doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, etc. Hopefully, this exposure to clinical medicine as well as the upper level classes in undergraduate would allow students to make a more informed decision about their career.

So, that's pretty much it for the traditional premeds. But what about nontrads? Well, they would be required to take increasing prerequisites, but they would get the benefit of decreasing medical school to three years. The prerequisites could be taken either as a dedicated special masters program, but for those who don't want to give up their career while they're working on the prereqs they can take one or two classes at a time. The introduction to medical systems type class would be optional, especially for those who are working in allied health professions. In addition, the system would weigh the grades in these new prerequisite classes to help nontraditional students who may not have had as an impressive undergraduate GPA.

The MCAT would stay mostly the same...maybe move some things around but it will still test biological and physical science as well as an interprative section. Drop the writing section though.

So, this is getting long, so how does the three year medical school work?

New First Year: Basically, this is the old second year. However dissection would still be integrated into an organ systems approach. Physiology would be taught along the lines of Pathophysiology. We move all classes on ethics and such into didactic sections that are taught in their respective clerkships. For example, informed consent may be taught in surgery, end of life care in internal medicine, etc.

At the end of this year, students are given a summer break they use to prepare for the "Basic Science" Licensure exam, which basically takes the place of Step 1.

New Second and Third Year (First half): We move away from the old system which basically forces students into following a generalist path in third year. All students are required to start with a "Core" rotation however: Medicine, Family Medicine, Pediatrics, Surgery etc. to get them used to working in a hospital, writing notes, etc. After that, students are free to rotate through whatever they want. You want to see ENT? Go for it. You want to try some radiology? They'd love to show you. Interested in Emergency? Nothing's stopping you.

However, there are a few caveats. You have to rotate through all core clerkships before you graduate. There is also a "Clinical Medicine" licensure exam you must take before you graduate, basically taking the place of Step 2, so many try to take all of their core stuff before they have to take it.

Second half of third year: Interview season is now moved to January, February and March. This allows students more time to rotate through all areas they want before committing to a field. Note, however, the interview season is much more compressed, and uniform across specialties. In addition, the time between end of interviews, rank list date, and match day is also compressed. So the new match day is the first Thursday in April.

Now obviously many students are going to use their vacation time during the interview months, and students also have the option to continue rotating through different fields or meeting their core clerkship requirements. However, now schools start offering some more "practical medicine" classes. They teach how insurance medicaire work, how to be a succesful businessman, how to invest/save, malpractice etc.

Why do I think this system is better
1) Less first year doldrums as well as less redundency for typical premeds.
2) Undergraduate students are given a formalized exposure to medicine and hospital systems during premed
3) Decreased cost by dropping a year
4) Dropping the assumption that all students are going to be general medicine or FP doctors by how we have them rotate. I think this will actually make more students INTERESTED in being primary care, because currently we are forcing them to rotate through it first and then basically "Hiding" subspecialties for as long as we can, and then they start seeing subspecialty fields in an idealized way. If we give them freedom to make their own decisions, I think you'll find more students come to FP or IM of their own free will.
5) Going along with 4, students get better exposure to all areas of medicine and make a more informed choice about what field they want to pursue.
6) The classes at the end of third year better prepare students for the realities of healthcare and how to be succesful.

Wow, that ended up long.
 
I'm very much impressed by the thoughts expressed here! Let's get you guys onto a couple of these committees that can actually effect a change!

In response to the OPs question, if I had ONE thing to change immediately, the phrase "So, what questions do you have for me?" would be a Match violation during the interview day process, other than when asked once in a defined (and very short) period of time at the end of the interview day.

dc
 
So you would give this valuable training slot without considering how well they will repay the investment? If someone has a disability that makes them significantly less efficient as a doctor, then society will not get as much return on investment. Furthermore, certain disabilities increase the chance that the doctor screws up and kills someone. Even one extra dead patient over a career is too many when you could have given the same training slot to a candidate with slightly lower scores but no disability. A disability that requires you get extra time on a test should be a disqualifier : dying patients won't give you extra time. As for foreign candidates : why should our society waste resources training someone from another society? Relatives in the medical field : well, I agree here, since children are not clones of their parents, and won't necessarily have the same talents.

The problem with the whole push for 'equal opportunity everywhere' is that it creates a society of both mediocrity, and one where certain choices that make sense are not made. Discrimination is only discrimination when someone is choosing based on a factor that is not relevant to the problem at hand. You shouldn't be allowed into med school, for instance, if you have cancer or are old. Sure, it sucks to be that person...but society should not have to pay to train a doctor who will not pay the investment back in the average case.

Wow. Just wow. :scared:

You should run for president on those platforms.
 
Janette : just because something sounds unpopular to granola eating hippies doesn't mean it is a good idea.

If you have most cancers, statistically, you are not going to live long enough to pay pack the resources sunk into medical training.

The same goes if you are old.

If a candidate has dyslexia or ADD so severe they need special accomodation, exactly why should they be given charge of living patients?

Finally, almost all medical schools receive massive funding from local and state governments. Ultimately, that means tax dollars paid by American citizens. I want any kids that I have who want higher education to not have to 'compete' for slots with foreigners who aren't Americans.
 
I want any kids that I have who want higher education to not have to 'compete' for slots with foreigners who aren't Americans.

If your kids are inferior (and I can guarantee they will be if you're comparing them to "dem foreigners". That's a big pool to swim against), that would run contrary to your desire not to allow medicine/higher education sink into "mediocrity"
 
all 'pre-meds' everywhere should take the exact same exams for the grade, none of this bs the way it is now, where every premed has their GPAs compared but no-one took the same tests in college.
.

All medical schools would become 6 year programs, with the first 2 years taking undergraduate courses off campus at an affiliated undergraduate university. These courses would be designed as weed outs, with STANDARDIZED EXAMS. Meaning, no matter what 6 year med school program you started, you would face the same exams as anyone else anywhere in the country for the first 2 years, and many would get weeded out.

.........
Finally, these programs would be set to produce a slight oversupply of doctors, so that society has slightly more than it needs. This would both lower the prices for medical care, .

Having a glut of medical doctors would do little to lower prices. A large part of costs is due to factors such as R&D and malpractice. A physician paying >$100,000 in malpractice is not going to lower his prices to Jack-in-the-Box fast food levels simply to attract patients. Hospitals will not lower their prices by having access to a larger number of doctors - in large part because of malpractice and liability costs. You have to see alot of patients just to pay the heavy malpractice.

As well the research and development costs drive medical prices up. The FDA requires millions to be spent to push a new drug or new device to market, and the costs have to be made up or there is no way new drugs and other new technologies can be created. Patients are going to pay for the cost of R&D - if you want your doctor to have access to the latest technologies, patients are going to have to pay for it.

If a primary care physician cut his costs by 40% he could pay for his malpractice, needed technologies, office and staff and then he would have zero zip zilch nada left over for income. Maybe half or less of doctors fees actually go to pay his salary. More doctors will not lower the fixed costs of malpractice, R&D etc.

Having standardized exams for medicine is still arbitrary since the tasks required to be a good Psyche is different than the tasks required to be a good surgeon - one requires much less tweezer and pincher dexterity than the other. Testing to determine fitness for certain specialties might be more appropriate, but then you end up with sort of a Bee's nest communism where people are selected to be gymnasts or surgeons based on testing of talents - instead of letting them try and become what they can. But to have a test for "medicine" based on medical knowledge may not be appropriate for people wanting to be bone carpenters, which is what an ortho is - and vice versa.

I think a 9 month school year, and the grading scale of A-B-C-D-F is old-school and antiquated concept for school from kindergarten up. It imposes artificial barriers and constraints.
 
If your kids are inferior (and I can guarantee they will be if you're comparing them to "dem foreigners". That's a big pool to swim against), that would run contrary to your desire not to allow medicine/higher education sink into "mediocrity"

Yes, and no. I don't want them to compete with foreigners who have years to study to 'game the system'. For instance, for residency slots a foreigner can study for 5 years for Step 1 and Step 2 and show up with a 'perfect' score out of the blue. U.S. allopathic/osteopathic students are heavily discriminated against if they take more than 4 years to finish medical school (as they should be). Granted, so are these foreign applicants, but not always.
 
Having standardized exams for medicine is still arbitrary

Yes, but at least everyone is being measured against the same ruler, rather than the current system where some people are measured relative to a 10 foot high pole, and others a 5 foot. (like the difference between going to Joe Sixpack state school and Harvard and Caltech. The state school will be tough on grading, Harvard will inflate everyone's GPA, and at Caltech, geniuses will end up with 3.0s)

Ultimately, every form of standardized test only affects the probability that someone will be good at what the test is measuring. For instance, people with higher MCAT scores have a dramtically higher probability of passing the boards, and doing well on third year clinical rotations. The same rule goes for people with high USMLE scores and hard residencies.

But, that's all you'll ever get. You can make the tests more accurate, but they are never going to be anything but a predictive value. Just like criminal background checks : someone who has a past record does have a much higher probability of committing a future crime, but everyone who committs a crime had a clean record at one point...
 
Yes, and no. I don't want them to compete with foreigners who have years to study to 'game the system'. For instance, for residency slots a foreigner can study for 5 years for Step 1 and Step 2 and show up with a 'perfect' score out of the blue.

You said earlier in the thread that you're the top student of your 250 person class because you're in a different program which allows you more time to study than others have. Now you're saying that "those bloody foreigners" might have an unfair advantage over your kids one day. (paraphrasing)

Don't make me take back my apology for being mean to you. I am trying so, so hard to be nice this year.
 
Last edited:
Get rid of Medicare, thereby also ending EMTALA.

-The Trifling Jester
 
You said earlier in the thread that you're the top student of your 250 person class because you're in a different program which allows you more time to study than others have. Now you're saying that "those bloody foreigners" might have an unfair advantage over your kids one day. (paraphrasing)

Don't make me take back my apology for being mean to you. I am trying so, so hard to be nice this year.

When he/she and his/her loved ones game the system, it's okay. When others do it, not okay.

I remember learning about this in kindergarten. It's called selfishness.

👎
 
And it's what makes America great 🙂
 
And it's what makes America great 🙂

made

The times, they are a-changin.

bear-market.jpg
 
So you would give this valuable training slot without considering how well they will repay the investment? If someone has a disability that makes them significantly less efficient as a doctor, then society will not get as much return on investment. Furthermore, certain disabilities increase the chance that the doctor screws up and kills someone. Even one extra dead patient over a career is too many when you could have given the same training slot to a candidate with slightly lower scores but no disability. A disability that requires you get extra time on a test should be a disqualifier : dying patients won't give you extra time. As for foreign candidates : why should our society waste resources training someone from another society? Relatives in the medical field : well, I agree here, since children are not clones of their parents, and won't necessarily have the same talents.

The problem with the whole push for 'equal opportunity everywhere' is that it creates a society of both mediocrity, and one where certain choices that make sense are not made. Discrimination is only discrimination when someone is choosing based on a factor that is not relevant to the problem at hand. You shouldn't be allowed into med school, for instance, if you have cancer or are old. Sure, it sucks to be that person...but society should not have to pay to train a doctor who will not pay the investment back in the average case.

What about doctors in non-critical care specialties? Psychiatry? Pathology? Perhaps some primary care fields? I think we need all kinds of people in medicine because everyone will thrive in various environments and situations.
 
You said earlier in the thread that you're the top student of your 250 person class because you're in a different program which allows you more time to study than others have. Now you're saying that "those bloody foreigners" might have an unfair advantage over your kids one day. (paraphrasing)

The program I am in isn't medical school. It is just a creative way to waste a year for a chance to get into med school (which I didn't need, thank god)
 
The program I am in isn't medical school. It is just a creative way to waste a year for a chance to get into med school (which I didn't need, thank god)

That's exactly my point! Here's how it seems to me:

(a) You have a time advantage that you would like to deny others. Its not okay for "foreigners" to have more time to study for US exams, lest they beat out your more deserving children.

(b) You feel that you know more about how the medical system should function despite having no experience within it, and despite numerous people being offended by your positions.

(c) You believe that people with disabilities that do not currently prevent them from being admitted to and graduating from medical school should be limited in the future.

Now, these are the opinions I get from you having read this thread. I sincerely hope that I'm mistaken.
 
That's exactly my point! Here's how it seems to me:

(a) You have a time advantage that you would like to deny others. Its not okay for "foreigners" to have more time to study for US exams, lest they beat out your more deserving children.

Apples and oranges, completely separate scenarios.
 
(b) You feel that you know more about how the medical system should function despite having no experience within it, and despite numerous people being offended by your positions.

I'm in basic sciences today, and I know that I could have done this stuff after maybe 1 year of college. Heck, it would have been tougher, but I could have done this stuff straight out of high school. All the rest of the time I was forced to spend was a total waste, both to me and to society.

Most of my posts are about that. Most of the other people agree as well : med school should be integrated with undergrad, and these years should not be wasted. Furthermore, admissions factors like GPAs should be standardized across all colleges by having all premeds take the same exams.
 
(c) You believe that people with disabilities that do not currently prevent them from being admitted to and graduating from medical school should be limited in the future.

Medical schools used to have a cutoff age for new students of 30. They used to not give any sort of accomodation to people with learning or other disabilities. Both those standards make a lot of sense. I am suggesting that those two rules be rolled back into place.

Nearly every doctor out there is in a position where a serious error is fatal to the patient. That's sort of where the line has been drawn between MD/DOs and other professionals. Each new doctor trained costs society something, not only in dollars and the time of existing doctors, but also in additional mistakes inevitably made when you put n00bs in charge. The 'perfect doctor' for society would be someone who never aged, so that he or she needed to be trained only once. Hence, training older people or people with a disease that significantly shortens life expectancy is a horrible decision.
 
Last edited:
Each new doctor trained costs society something, not only in dollars and the time of existing doctors, but also in additional mistakes inevitably made when you put n00bs in charge. The 'perfect doctor' for society would be someone who never aged, so that he or she needed to be trained only once. Hence, training older people or people with a disease that significantly shortens life expectancy is a horrible decision.

You're making the mistaken assumption that the med school's ONLY responsibility is to society. It isn't.

And you're also assuming that the only acceptable reason to become a physician is to pay back some poorly defined moral debt to society. Again, it isn't. There's no reason why a person can't become a physician out of purely "selfish" reasons - personal satisfaction, intellectual curiosity, etc.
 
Top