- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,197
- Reaction score
- 36
I would replace the current system with a match process, similar to that for choosing your residency.
oh god no.
I would replace the current system with a match process, similar to that for choosing your residency.
Good idea!Have a binding Early Decision option that doesn't delay all of your other applications until October (or whenever it is). If accepted Early all your remaining apps get withdrawn automatically. With so many schools focused on whether they are really your first choice, this seems like a no-brainer.
I completely disagree, not to step on your toes too blatantly.<br />
<br />
If you want the prestige of being a physician..you better be ready to start somewhere. There are many things to learn from changing bed linens. Like: how to deal with sick people, how to deal with emergency situations, how to network. It's what you make of it. <br />
<br />
And shadowing? OMG.. of course it is necessary and might as well be mandatory. Honestly, you will look like a complete fool if you go through medical school not knowing what you're getting into. Volunteering and shadowing do both these things for you. And, who said parents had to network for you? I've made many a friend through extracurriculars that are VERY successful physicians completely willing to give undergrads a chance.
NO MATH IN BCPM GPA!
Keep it at BCP. 😀
Oh, and have the application dates start at July or August instead of June.
Roll undergraduate and medical education into a combined 6 year program. Students spend two years on basic physical sciences, then must pass an MCATesque test to advance to medical school proper. Those who do not gain competitive scores are released with the possibility to pursue a more conventional degree (and credits that transfer), and the option to reapply if they choose.
Bonus points for associating with local universities to let students co-enroll without applying if they fail to graduate the two year program.
Medical education should be more vocational and less of a crapshoot.
Roll undergraduate and medical education into a combined 6 year program. Students spend two years on basic physical sciences, then must pass an MCATesque test to advance to medical school proper. Those who do not gain competitive scores are released with the possibility to pursue a more conventional degree (and credits that transfer), and the option to reapply if they choose.
Bonus points for associating with local universities to let students co-enroll without applying if they fail to graduate the two year program.
Medical education should be more vocational and less of a crapshoot.
Not everyone knows they want to go to medical school right out of high school..
Many countries that use this system have alternative pathways to enter medicine.
If you think the personal statement is useful to admissions committees, you would be wrong. Most of them are pretty useless.
I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I agree fully. Every other country has this sort of 6-year program, which helps reduce healthcare costs in the end because docs don't have never-ending debt to make up and charge for. I've taken Immunology, Microbiology, Physiology, Genetics, Anatomy, and a whole bunch of other upper-division classes in order to get my Bio degree that I'm just going to have to take again in medical school. Step back and ask yourself, how backwards is that?
So true. Awhile ago when I was a PS editor on here, I got some absurdly bad essays to "edit" (if you want to call telling someone to start completely over editing). Agree that for the vast majority of people, the PS is a neutral factor, though.They're very useful. You'd be surprised how lousy a PS can be; very useful for culling the applicant pool.
I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I agree fully. Every other country has this sort of 6-year program, which helps reduce healthcare costs in the end because docs don't have never-ending debt to make up and charge for. I've taken Immunology, Microbiology, Physiology, Genetics, Anatomy, and a whole bunch of other upper-division classes in order to get my Bio degree that I'm just going to have to take again in medical school. Step back and ask yourself, how backwards is that?
I would replace the current system with a match process, similar to that for choosing your residency.
I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I agree fully. Every other country has this sort of 6-year program, which helps reduce healthcare costs in the end because docs don't have never-ending debt to make up and charge for. I've taken Immunology, Microbiology, Physiology, Genetics, Anatomy, and a whole bunch of other upper-division classes in order to get my Bio degree that I'm just going to have to take again in medical school. Step back and ask yourself, how backwards is that?
Some of the replies suggest that people want a more objective process. I would have to say the opposite - I would like to see a more subjective process.
My suggestions:
-No silent rejections (Must have a concrete interview invite or rejection within 'x' weeks after application has been submitted)
-More screening to reduce wasted secondary application fees (and the time of the applicants who spend hours revising their essays with a false glimmer of hope in their eyes)
-A webcam-based interview option to cut the cost of hotel, airfare, cab, etc. Of course, the traditional interview would still be available, but a webcam-based interview could be useful for students who would like to apply to more schools, but can't necessarily afford to travel to all the interviews
-More general transparency in the process
-Increased focus on extracurriculars and other parts of the app. I believe we are at a point in medical school admissions where there are people who are certainly intelligent enough to be doctors, but don't necessarily have the competitive stats - simply because of an increased number of applicants and not a proportional increase in medical school seats. I would like to see a shift away from the stats game that admissions has become.
-A webcam-based interview option to cut the cost of hotel, airfare, cab, etc.
Is it just me or is this guy probably batmanUgh, that would kill the only enjoyable aspect of the entire grueling application process.
Schools these days are tossing aside objective measures like gpa, mcat, and ECs and largely going with the utterly subjective concept of candidate "fit," whatever that's supposed to mean. You might as well turn the tables on them and see if the school and it environment is a good "fit" for you, and that's something you'd never learn from a webcam.
When I look back on the interview season, I think of the lobsters in Boston, the blues clubs in Chicago, cheap scotch and poker in a smoky dive in Reno, a ski trip to Bozeman, and the arts & brews festivals in Boulder. I have an upcoming interview in New Orleans, and I booked a room in the middle of the French Quarter for a whole week. There is so much you can learn about a school and surroundings by interviewing them in person, and in the long run the costs are negligible.
My suggested change would to delay the whole rolling process at rolling schools. Right now it is such a seller's market, the schools have way too many qualified candidates for their limited slots, and I'm not comfortable with how they allocate their limited resource of acceptances. By doing rolling admissions, they are rewarding students for an odd measurement (time of application) far and away above other measurements. Obviously a system that sells or auctions acceptances to the highest bidder would be even more repugnant. Allocating acceptances at random amongst the vast pool of qualified applicants seems to be the most palatable option.
Is it just me or is this guy probably batman
I would try to figure out a way to make it so that applicants wouldn't have to send information in secondary apps that's already in one's AMCAS application.
I'd try to figure out a way to discourage people from writing flashy personal statements. Just answer the question "why medicine?" with a minimum amount of fluff.
Other than that... I know I absolutely hated the subjective nature of the process, but I can't think of anything better, and the more I think about it, the more I can't see admissions being a purely objective process, either. *shrug*
The first thing for sure. I hated having to re-enter and re-enter my pre-reqs. I would also add the, Will you be a student this academic year, if not, please explain how you will be spending your time? to the primary. Every school wanted to know this. It's really
Annoying to have to repeat oneself.
You didn't have to be a bio major or take all of those classes before med school.I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I agree fully. Every other country has this sort of 6-year program, which helps reduce healthcare costs in the end because docs don't have never-ending debt to make up and charge for. I've taken Immunology, Microbiology, Physiology, Genetics, Anatomy, and a whole bunch of other upper-division classes in order to get my Bio degree that I'm just going to have to take again in medical school. Step back and ask yourself, how backwards is that?
Why would you want to put soo much stress on timed reading comprehension and reasoning, instead of the sciences? I certainly wouldn't get into med school if it was your way.No prerequisites. Just the MCAT (which would be a reading comprehension and logic based test, not unlike the LSAT.) Wouldn't that be wonderful 🙄
Well, I've always liked those type of tests tbh. However, I can't stand Chemistry/Physics (love Biology though). Besides, I thought the current MCAT tests reading comprehension/logic and background knowledge (Bio/Chem/Physics)Why would you want to put soo much stress on timed reading comprehension and reasoning, instead of the sciences? I certainly wouldn't get into med school if it was your way.
...snip...
With that being said, I don't think moving to a 6-year program after high school is the way to go. I prefer the college --> med school route, personally.
The first thing for sure. I hated having to re-enter and re-enter my pre-reqs. I would also add the, Will you be a student this academic year, if not, please explain how you will be spending your time? to the primary. Every school wanted to know this. It's really
Annoying to have to repeat oneself.
Roll undergraduate and medical education into a combined 6 year program. Students spend two years on basic physical sciences, then must pass an MCATesque test to advance to medical school proper. Those who do not gain competitive scores are released with the possibility to pursue a more conventional degree (and credits that transfer), and the option to reapply if they choose.
Bonus points for associating with local universities to let students co-enroll without applying if they fail to graduate the two year program.
Medical education should be more vocational and less of a crapshoot.
When I look back on the interview season, I think of the lobsters in Boston, the blues clubs in Chicago, cheap scotch and poker in a smoky dive in Reno, a ski trip to Bozeman, and the arts & brews festivals in Boulder. I have an upcoming interview in New Orleans, and I booked a room in the middle of the French Quarter for a whole week. There is so much you can learn about a school and surroundings by interviewing them in person, and in the long run the costs are negligible.
Could you elaborate as to why you prefer the current route?
My opinion is that much of the undergraduate education is at best redundant and at worst totally inapplicable to clinical practice as a whole. Combined with the opaque application process and the frustratingly nebulous "soft requirements," four-year undergraduate seems to be little more than a filter to medical school. We shouldn't expect hopeful doctors to pay $X0,000+ just to see if they even can be a doctor. Maybe.
Even then, many of those who do everything right (and really, who knows what that even is?) don't get in until the second or third application cycle. The socioeconomic barriers to medical school are enormous and really shocked me when I started to realize how high they stacked. We need a streamlined process that can test the mettle of our country's would-be physicians, and then give them some modicum of security once they've begun it.
Look, it took me several years into undergraduate to decide I wanted to be a doctor and I verge on non-traditional as a result. What I'm advocating certainly wouldn't help me at all - but I think it's a superior system. With so much hubbub about medical waste and out-of-control costs, the entire medical school application process is laughably inefficient.
I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I agree fully. Every other country has this sort of 6-year program, which helps reduce healthcare costs in the end because docs don't have never-ending debt to make up and charge for. I've taken Immunology, Microbiology, Physiology, Genetics, Anatomy, and a whole bunch of other upper-division classes in order to get my Bio degree that I'm just going to have to take again in medical school. Step back and ask yourself, how backwards is that?
Could you elaborate as to why you prefer the current route?
My opinion is that much of the undergraduate education is at best redundant and at worst totally inapplicable to clinical practice as a whole. Combined with the opaque application process and the frustratingly nebulous "soft requirements," four-year undergraduate seems to be little more than a filter to medical school. We shouldn't expect hopeful doctors to pay $X0,000+ just to see if they even can be a doctor. Maybe.
Even then, many of those who do everything right (and really, who knows what that even is?) don't get in until the second or third application cycle. The socioeconomic barriers to medical school are enormous and really shocked me when I started to realize how high they stacked. We need a streamlined process that can test the mettle of our country's would-be physicians, and then give them some modicum of security once they've begun it.
Look, it took me several years into undergraduate to decide I wanted to be a doctor and I verge on non-traditional as a result. What I'm advocating certainly wouldn't help me at all - but I think it's a superior system. With so much hubbub about medical waste and out-of-control costs, the entire medical school application process is laughably inefficient.
But how would we know who the personality-deprived or remarkably conceited ones are among the piles of applications? Serious question.No interview 🙁
No interview 🙁
1- Make financially binding agreements that give preferential treatment to applicants who promise to practice a specified number of years in underserved areas, stay in state, primary care, etc. Talk is Cheap, and folks genuinely committed to what we need most should absolutely get a leg up if they sincerely mean it.
2- Limit the number of schools applicants can apply to. Neuroticism runs deep, and if everyone didn't dilute the pool and apply to 25+ schools, then schools would know who's really interested. Shouldn't change the odds in theory, and should help applicants get an interview at the school they're most interested in.
3- Require the PS to be about anything other than medicine. The sheer act of taking the pre-reqs, the MCAT, and applying shows way more commitment than writing a fluffy piece. Would make interviewing more fun and interesting for everyone involved too. Put applicants more in the driver seat during interviews too.
4- Grades older than 5 years ago shouldn't count towards your application GPA. I've known a few 'second time around schoolers' who work their tails off, and would've made phenomenal docs, but will never get the chance cause they partied too hard 10-15 years ago when they were freshman and sophomores in college.
Interviews are goof for that, but I think that's all they should be good for. That is, they shouldn't hold much more weight than screening out crazy people. But do the minute differences in interview performance and how they may be viewed by different interviewers really correlate well with who will be more successful in med school and make a good doctor? Do they really give a good indicator for job performance in any job that isn't something like public speaking? I have serious doubts.But how would we know who the personality-deprived or remarkably conceited ones are among the piles of applications? Serious question.
1- Make financially binding agreements that give preferential treatment to applicants who promise to practice a specified number of years in underserved areas, stay in state, primary care, etc. Talk is Cheap, and folks genuinely committed to what we need most should absolutely get a leg up if they sincerely mean it.
I know some states practice this type of system now. My state tried it for a while, and the results were a lot of disgruntled doctors and poor patient care until the doctors' obligations were up and they could get the hell out of here.
Our current system is one where students getting the state taxpayer benefit are required to chip in to a fund (to the tune of $5K / year), and these funds are distributed to any physician who chooses to practice here no matter where they come from. It works a lot better for us.