interesting lawsuit

[gdk]

---

Members do not see this ad.

i posted this over in the mcat forum, but hardly anybody is reading that one lately. this was bound to happen eventually:

edited to note this is quoted from another source

from WSJ opinion article:

"Operation Illiteracy
Here's a story to cheer you up the next time you need major surgery: "Four learning-disabled students sued the organization that administers the medical school admission test, alleging they were denied extra time to take the exam in violation of California's disability laws," the Associated Press reports from Oakland:

The discrimination lawsuit, filed Monday in Alameda County Superior Court, argues that students who have trouble reading can learn to practice medicine if they receive enough time and a distraction-free setting in which to complete the Medical College Admission Test."



http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=230993

 

[stinkycheese]

i posted this over in the mcat forum, but hardly anybody is reading that one lately. this was bound to happen eventually:


Operation Illiteracy
Here's a story to cheer you up the next time you need major surgery: "Four learning-disabled students sued the organization that administers the medical school admission test, alleging they were denied extra time to take the exam in violation of California's disability laws," the Associated Press reports from Oakland:

The discrimination lawsuit, filed Monday in Alameda County Superior Court, argues that students who have trouble reading can learn to practice medicine if they receive enough time and a distraction-free setting in which to complete the Medical College Admission Test.



http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=230993

Charming how you added those comments in the beginning. Why does having a learning disability make one illiterate in your mind? Do you think this has a bearing on the kind of physician or surgeon these people can become?

 

[Keberson]

Honestly I'm a little offended by your comments. Just because somebody has problems with reading without a "distraction free" inviroment doesn't mean they can't be a doctor. These people aren't stupid.

 

[Peter Griffin]

Charming how you added those comments in the beginning. Why does having a learning disability make one illiterate in your mind? Do you think this has a bearing on the kind of physician or surgeon these people can become?

Take a deep breath. It's a f***ing joke. Get over it.

 

[papertiger]

I'm sick of this Political Correctness BS. If you had a surgeon who had trouble reading, would you really want him to perform on you. What about all the stuff you have to read in med school. Should we give them extra time just because they have a hard time reading. Why can't some people understand that others just aren't cut out for the job.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I'm sick of this Political Correctness BS. If you had a surgeon who had trouble reading, would you really want him to perform on you. What about all the stuff you have to read in med school. Should we give them extra time just because they have a hard time reading. Why can't some people understand that others just aren't cut out for the job.

Speaking the truth!

 

[BklynWill]

I'm sick of this Political Correctness BS. If you had a surgeon who had trouble reading, would you really want him to perform on you. What about all the stuff you have to read in med school. Should we give them extra time just because they have a hard time reading. Why can't some people understand that others just aren't cut out for the job.

Are you a physician? If not, I don't think you're qualified to make this statement.

 

[papertiger]

Are you a physician? If not, I don't think you're qualified to make this statement.

Why do I have to be a physician? Who are you to tell me what I'm qualified about or not. Anyway, I'm telling it from the patients point of view. If there was a surgeon who couldn't read(and one of the four has ADD), I would not want them to operate on me.

 

[fun8stuff]

I'm sick of this Political Correctness BS. If you had a surgeon who had trouble reading, would you really want him to perform on you. What about all the stuff you have to read in med school. Should we give them extra time just because they have a hard time reading. Why can't some people understand that others just aren't cut out for the job.

Agreed

 

[fun8stuff]

Are you a physician? If not, I don't think you're qualified to make this statement.

I really don't think you have to be a physician to make a decision of who you would or would not want to opperate on you..... 🙄

So when would this stop? Extra time to learn the med school material? Will they get extra time for the USLME? Extra time to make an important decision during a brain surgery... delivering a baby.... to look up the right drug to give a patient? Being a physcian requires that you are awesome at learning and absorbing material and I believe this is an important trait (not the only one) in making someone an effective doctor.

 

[MacGyver]

This is a BS lawsuit. Being a doctor should require high standards. We shouldnt let ******s get into the profession. This is a joke.

I'm sorry but if you cant read, then you cant be a doctor.

 

[BklynWill]

Why do I have to be a physician? Who are you to tell me what I'm qualified about or not. Anyway, I'm telling it from the patients point of view. If there was a surgeon who couldn't read(and one of the four has ADD), I would not want them to operate on me.

If you were a physician you would know what the job entails. Your lack of being a physician and failure to work with a dyslexic physician makes your comment unfounded in evidence or experience.

By the way, how would you know that your surgeon can't read? Is this a typical question a patient asks their doctor before surgery?

 

[Keberson]

the post didn't say they couldn't read it just said they wanted an undistracted enviroment to take the test. They can read

 

[honsano]

I think that taking the MCAT with extra time is a bit unfair. I haven't taken a course at medical school (hopefully one day I will though) but from what you hear FROM EVERYBODY is that it is a lot of reading and studying. I just don't understand how these people are going to survive in that enviroment. How could you possibly accomodate them in that situation? I don't know. I think that bending the rules a bit are okay in some situations, but not here. What if a person with ADD were to object to the length of the test and their inability to concentrate throughout the ordeal. Would they then recieve a shortened version? Would they be able to take it over two or maybe even three days?

 

[fun8stuff]

If you were a physician you would know what the job entails. Your lack of being a physician and failure to work with a dyslexic physician makes your comment unfounded in evidence or experience.

By the way, how would you know that your surgeon can't read? Is this a typical question a patient asks their doctor before surgery?

I think it can be agreed that in order to be an effective physician, you must be able to read and must be good at learning and absorbing new material. Afterall, many people go into the profession because of the lifelong learning that is required. Someone who is learning disabled, is probably not 100% qualified. Sure, there are many other traits that would make someone a good doc, but when you are dealing with people's lives in a career that requires you to be able to absorb material and make quick decisions I don't think they make things easier for them.

 

[papertiger]

If you were a physician you would know what the job entails. Your lack of being a physician and failure to work with a dyslexic physician makes your comment unfounded in evidence or experience.

By the way, how would you know that your surgeon can't read? Is this a typical question a patient asks their doctor before surgery?

You can have knowledge of a profession even if you are not in it. I personally know a surgeon and he said they spend a lot of their time with paperwork.

Do you have to be a president of one country to criticize Bush. By your logic, all these citizens who criticize Bush or politicians shouldn't be allowed to since they are not in politics themselves.

 

[gdk]

sorry to offend. the comments at the begining weren't mine. i subscribe to the OpinionJournal's "Best of the Web" email and those were the comments from the editor.

anyway, i included them just as an intro.

 

[BklynWill]

You can have knowledge of a profession even if you are not in it. I personally know a surgeon and he said they spend a lot of their time with paperwork.

Do you have to be a president of one country to criticize Bush. By your logic, all these citizens who criticize Bush or politicians shouldn't be allowed to since they are not in politics themselves.

Who in particular are you criticizing? No one in particular, and only by assumption. That is the problem I have with your statement.

 

[stinkycheese]

This is a BS lawsuit. Being a doctor should require high standards. We shouldnt let ******s get into the profession. This is a joke.

I'm sorry but if you cant read, then you cant be a doctor.

My understanding is that they can read, but need a bit more time. I don't think this qualifies them as "******s", although people with severe written and spoken language difficulties may be considered to have a lower verbal IQ in some cases. Most of the time, however, overal IQ is not correlated to reading difficulties as long as the person is treated for the disability through training and is given modest accomodations.

 

[trex92499]

I think the most troubling part of their request was for a 'distraction free enviroment' I'm a 4th year med student and i can honestly tell you that in order to be effective, you need to be able to handle distractions. You also need to be efficient....and not a whiny lawsuit filing crybaby...or you will crash and burn

 

[Preet]

Why are some people such bigots. A ?little trouble reading? does not necessarily mean that the person can?t remember or comprehend by any means. I think people with any type of reading or learning disability have enough obstacles in their way to overcome and can decide whether or not they would like to pursue medicine. NO ONE is oblivious to the fact how much effort med school will take. Instead of criticizing someone, I would appreciated if the ?future doctors? on this site showed a little more concern rather than biased scrutiny. People who don't show their undying support to their peers... I've got a term for you. Stop being so ?emotionally disabled? all the time.

 

[papertiger]

Who in particular are you criticizing? No one in particular, and only by assumption. That is the problem I have with your statement.

Im saying that you don't have to be in a profession to know about that profession.

It's pretty funny that your trying to use logic yet have absolutely none. Spock would not be happy.

 

[BklynWill]

Im saying that you don't have to be in a profession to know about that profession.

It's pretty funny that your trying to use logic yet have absolutely none. Spock would not be happy.

My logic is this:
You are not a physician, do not do the job, and do not have any evidence of who can and can't do the job.
Therefore:
You can not decide who is and who is not cut out for the job.
You can not criticize someone if you do not know them or have never worked with them, regardless of their disability.

 

[papertiger]

My logic is that:
you are not a physician, do not do the job, and do not have any evidence of who can and can't do the job.
Therefore:
You can not decide who is and who is not cut out for the job.

I think its pretty well known that you have to be able to read and focus on what your doing even with distractions to be a good doc.
Therefore:
Someone who has admitted that they have trouble reading and get easily distracted probably wont' make that good of a doc when there are other people out their without any problems who can make excellent docs.

You can not criticize someone if you do not know them or have never worked with them, regardless of their disability.

This is where my analogy of politicians comes in. Most people have never worked with most politicians yet why do we always criticize them. According to you, we shouldn't be allowed to.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

This learning disabled logic is an incredible case of slippery slope logic and just general idiocy. First off, is being mentally ******ed a learning disability? How about having a 60 IQ? Where exactly do you draw the line between learing disability who gets accomdations and learning disability who gets no accomodations and is basically f*cked in terms of ever achieving academic success? Second off, time pressure is a major component of many exams. I had plenty of 50-minute organic chemistry exams when I had to absolutely run through the last few questions because I only had five minutes left. It is grossly unfair that anyone would get double time on these types of exams and undermines their intent. Pretty much everyone who has experienced these types of exams would have obtained higher undergraduate grades if they received this type of accomodation consistently.

Finally, as has been mentioned, are you going to get double time to read orders and charts when you're doing an emergency transplant case or any other quick, high-pressure activity? Didn't notice the host-donor blood type mismatch on the medical record, guess my learning disability was kicking in! Quick reading and processing of information is required not just during the pre-clinical coursework phase of medicine, but throughout the clinical years and during residency. Should these people get half the patients that their colleagues do (but the same money, of course, to keep things fair) because they can't process information as fast and can't handle distractions?

Life is unfair! Deal with it.

 

[premedgeek]

I am ESL student. It takes me little longer to read "english stuff". Would I get 10 more minutes on Verbal Reasoning section? 🙄



j/k

 

[WestTexasRambler]

Life is unfair! Deal with it.

Works both ways.

 

[hakksar]

This learning disabled logic is an incredible case of slippery slope logic and just general idiocy. First off, is being mentally ******ed a learning disability? How about having a 60 IQ? Where exactly do you draw the line between learing disability who gets accomdations and learning disability who gets no accomodations and is basically f*cked in terms of ever achieving academic success? Second off, time pressure is a major component of many exams. I had plenty of 50-minute organic chemistry exams when I had to absolutely run through the last few questions because I only had five minutes left. It is grossly unfair that you would get double time. Pretty much everyone who has experienced these types of exams would have obtained higher undergraduate grades if they received this type of accomodation consistently.

Finally, as has been mentioned, are you going to get double time to read orders and charts when you're doing an emergency transplant case or any other quick, high-pressure activity? Didn't notice the host-donor blood type mismatch on the medical record, guess my learning disability was kicking in! Quick reading and processing of information is required not just during the pre-clinical coursework phase of medicine, but throughout the clinical years and during residency. Should these people get half the patients that their colleagues do (but the same money, of course, to keep things fair) because they can't process information as fast and can't handle distractions?

Well, for starters if the student knows all the info why does it matter how long it takes them to take the test? It is not like they are being fed answers or are being allowed to look things up. I say if they have the knowledge in the brain that is all that matters. I disagree that all undergrads would receive better grades if they were given double time. I finished every exam in undergrad with time to spare (sometimes a lot of time to spare) so I for one would of not done better. As for the argument about the 60 IQ thing it is pretty clear that a person with this IQ would not have the knowledge in their head to pass the test.

As for the argument about the liver transplant surgeon needing to be able to read quick in order to ensure the correct match on blood type I think that is a poor argument. Liver transplants are procedures that have time to ensure a match (afterall they have to harvest the organ before it can be transplanted). Second, as long as the system is working (which in some cases it isn't like the Duke Heart-Lung fiasco a couple years back) it should never be left to the surgeon to make the match in blood type (the surgeon should be the final confirmation of the match but it should be matched long before the surgeon has to). I would argue that learning disabled Physicians would actually make better surgeons than the average. This is because studies have shown that learning disabled students are often stronger in tactile and procedure based skills while still having the same intelligence (I have a friend who is severely learning disabled but is one of the most intelligent Astrophysics PhD students I know).

In addition, through personal experience with the learning disabled people I know they seem to be very good at "protocol" thinking. My friends at least are often good at recognizing a situation and the appropriate response in emergencies (I have these friends through Search and Rescue so we respond to emergencies when the situation is hectic and the correct response is not always clear) which is a very good trait in a physician.

Finally, I agree there are specialties that would not be "right" for a learning disabled students just as there are specialties that would not be "right" for the non-learning disabled student. However, I think it would be a mistake to prevent these students from becoming physicians when their strengths and expertise might make the whole profession better.

 

[SailCrazy]

Someone who has admitted that they have trouble reading and get easily distracted probably wont' make that good of a doc when there are other people out their without any problems who can make excellent docs.

I hope that you were being sarcastic when you used the grammatically-butchered phrase "probably wont' make that good of a doc" while criticizing those who don't read (or perhaps write?) well enough to be an effective physician!

 

[papertiger]

Hope they give me extra time on the verbal section. 😉

 

[Gleevec]

"Pierce, who has dyslexia and attention deficit disorder."

The interesting thing is, the few dyslexics I know have long since learned the battery of tricks to read at a speed almost equivalent to what most non-dyslexics can.

And with ADD, you don't need to go farther than some of the posters on SDN to find some adderall.

The AAMC has pretty strict criteria on what qualifies as a disability meriting extra time and what does not, and its likely that criteria is based on evidence.

But if we are going to get pissy, can I sue the AAMC for not having a distraction free environment because a girl in my room kept flipping the pages extremely loudly?

Im all for people with disabilities leading normal lives, but if you cant read or focus with noise around you, are you going to sue the hospital for being too loud for you to work in?

 

[SailCrazy]

I think many here are illustrating a problem that turns out many more poor physicians than learning disabilities - arrogant pricks becoming doctors.

Too many doctors (or premeds, for that matter) think that because they're smart, or worked hard to get into med school, or get paid good money, or etc.... that they somehow are borderline omnipotent and *always* know what is best for themselves, their patients, the practice of medicine, etc - no room for other thought, opinions or input.

Did any of you who immediately branded the learning disabled as unfit for medicine actually know of or look at any research that led you to this conclusion? I suppose your super-human intelligence allowed to you to reach this infallible conclusion without much more than 30 seconds of thought. (Read the post above by hakksar for details of why this is not necessarily a vaild conclusion.)

We probably shouldn't even talk about those of you who immediately turned "slow reader" into "illiterate" or "******ed." You have obviously demonstrated your inability to read (or listen) and absorb information in an effective manner. Borrowing your own logic, you will obviously have a huge problem mis-diagnosing your patients due to your "relatedness" that prevents you from effectively listening, understanding and using the information that is presented to you. Please do the general population a favor and abandon your quest to become a doctor - especially when there are so many more qualified people out there to do the job.

There is a new Dermatologist in my area who went through Intaflex (sp?) at the University of Michigan (combined undergrad / med school) and received awards as a top dermatology resident, etc. He is obviously a very smart, talented individual.

He recently spent over a year "treating" a local high school girl who complained of itchiness, etc. Long story short, he ended up telling her to do to counseling because she clearly was manufacturing her symptoms. Guess what... it turns out she had cancer! Rather than assuming that he was infallible and surely correct, if that m*ther F'er had assumed that maybe, just maybe, there was a chance that he could be wrong, this patient might have started receiving proper treatment much sooner. (Same doctor was speaking loudly in the hallway to a nurse recently about a patient. The quote went something like "if she's going to be that stupid, let her call Ann Arbor." Nice respect for the patient...)

Remember no one - not even you - knows it all.

 

[dynamicrhythm17]

Something to also consider, the very basis of their lawsuit is that by way of California?s test taking laws, they are entitled. The very basic fact that you all should consider for this case is, whether or not those laws apply in a nationally administered and controlled test.

Them saying that they have various difficulties, is itself irrelevant to the case alone. You all have wasted your time and shown little in the way of reading comprehension. Furthermore, something in the way of political correctness has drummed up enough disdain for the person and subject that it has distracted you from the real case.

Heh... something you all should consider while in the operation room

And yes, I know I will get a lot of backlash for my comments, but? they are true, no?

 

[velo]

wow, this is an interesting OP that got completely hijacked! 🙂

Back to the question at hand, no, someone with dyslexia and ADD should not be given extra time on the test. These conditions are surely a disadvantage, but since they're part of who the person is they are something he needs to learn to cope with and overcome.

We don't give extra time to ESL students who have to deal with the challenge of taking a test written in a non-native language. I also hear people complain all the time that they are "naturally slow test takers" should they be given extra time so that they can put their best foot forward? Of course not.

Its a standardized test, everyone should take the same basic test, with the same time limits, and find a way to overcome their own personal obstacles.

 

[Gleevec]

I think many here are illustrating a problem that turns out many more poor physicians than learning disabilities - arrogant pricks becoming doctors.

Remember no one - not even you - knows it all.

Did ya ever think that your logic applies to the person SUING the AAMC? Maybe he thinks he's god's gift to mankind and that he is immune from the strict criteria the AAMC use to define a learning disability?

But the fact is, people HAVE had extra time on the MCAT before for their disabilities. Its just this guy couldnt prove it or he wasnt severe enough.

Also, SailCrazy, your statements are very hypocritical. You dont know any more about the case than we do, yet you just start slurring against everyone. Itll be pretty funny if in the end, this turns out to be some guy with very very minor issues that sued because he is an egomaniacal jerk and didnt score well enough on the MCAT. Because lets face it, its pretty easy to shop around to get someone to diagnose you with ADD. And the dyslexia thing, well, the people I know with it can read as fast as most once they learn the shortcuts.

So I guess, SailCrazy, that ESL students get extra time on VR and the younger you are, the more time you should get?

 

[papertiger]

I agree that just because someone is disabled does not mean that they should not become a doctor. However it does depend on the disability. If someone has no legs, they may still become a great surgeon but if someone has no arms or is blind, should we let them become a physician.

This case was about the students having some trouble with reading and ADD. Now I don't know how bad their problem was but this is what the article said:
Pierce and the other students allege that they asked the Association of American Medical Colleges to give them more time to take the MCATs in April but were turned down because the organization said their disabilities were not severe enough to qualify for special treatment.

If they can become great doctors even with the problems they have, good for them. It seems like they just wanted extra time so they could do better.

 

[fun8stuff]

I think many here are illustrating a problem that turns out many more poor physicians than learning disabilities - arrogant pricks becoming doctors.

Too many doctors (or premeds, for that matter) think that because they're smart, or worked hard to get into med school, or get paid good money, or etc.... that they somehow are borderline omnipotent and *always* know what is best for themselves, their patients, the practice of medicine, etc - no room for other thought, opinions or input.

Did any of you who immediately branded the learning disabled as unfit for medicine actually know of or look at any research that led you to this conclusion? I suppose your super-human intelligence allowed to you to reach this infallible conclusion without much more than 30 seconds of thought. (Read the post above by hakksar for details of why this is not necessarily a vaild conclusion.)

We probably shouldn't even talk about those of you who immediately turned "slow reader" into "illiterate" or "******ed." You have obviously demonstrated your inability to read (or listen) and absorb information in an effective manner. Borrowing your own logic, you will obviously have a huge problem mis-diagnosing your patients due to your "relatedness" that prevents you from effectively listening, understanding and using the information that is presented to you. Please do the general population a favor and abandon your quest to become a doctor - especially when there are so many more qualified people out there to do the job.

There is a new Dermatologist in my area who went through Intaflex (sp?) at the University of Michigan (combined undergrad / med school) and received awards as a top dermatology resident, etc. He is obviously a very smart, talented individual.

He recently spent over a year "treating" a local high school girl who complained of itchiness, etc. Long story short, he ended up telling her to do to counseling because she clearly was manufacturing her symptoms. Guess what... it turns out she had cancer! Rather than assuming that he was infallible and surely correct, if that m*ther F'er had assumed that maybe, just maybe, there was a chance that he could be wrong, this patient might have started receiving proper treatment much sooner. (Same doctor was speaking loudly in the hallway to a nurse recently about a patient. The quote went something like "if she's going to be that stupid, let her call Ann Arbor." Nice respect for the patient...)

Remember no one - not even you - knows it all.

🙄 Oh yes, and I am sure you would have have been able to instantly recognize a rare cancer. Because, after all you are infallible and never make mistakes. Give the guy a break, people make mistakes. So you have some contempt because you aren't a superstar student- let it go.

I can hardly stand people that believe that they are "disadvantaged" and deserve special treatment. They go through life believing that the have been harmed thinking, "Oh poor me", and believe they should have everything handed to them. We all have faced are own unqiue challenges and have certain "disabilities", but that doesn't mean we are entalied to this treatment. Wake up and smell the coffee! For every one person who actually has a valid disability there are 15-20 people lying that they have the same problem.

There is a reason for the MCAT; there is a reason it is timed. Experts have made this test the way it is because they seem to think it is valid for screening out people who might not be able to handle the academic challenges of med school.

Given the challenges of medicine and the shear importance that physicians deal with everyday- other people's lives- I do not think people should be let in because they have a hard time learning and assimilating facts. These 2 things are important in a career as a physcian! I think I will back AAMC's decision since they are the experts, not you people that feel you deserve everything on a platter! 🙄

 

[drlisa0318]

Question: Did anyone who's posted so far actually click on the link and read the article? I'm thinking at least some of you did not, because some of your arguments (pro and con) show a lack of understanding of the entire article.

First, these four people are not "******s" (a term which, by the way, is not used in the medical profession, and its use shows a lack of understanding of mental ******ation and a profound lack of compassion.) At least one of the students has a bachelors in psychology (the article did not elaborate on the other three students.) This certainly does not indicate any degree of mental ******ation.

Second, one of the major points of the article is in fact a point of law. The lawsuit was filed in California, and California law "defines disability more broadly than the federal Americans With Disabilities Act." The article states that the students were turned down because the Association of American Medical Colleges said the students' disabilities weren't severe enough to qualify for special treatment under the law.

Third, it is extremely disappointing to read so many posts which show so little understanding and compassion, not to mention the apparent dismissal of research and thoughtfulness before replying. Too many of the replies were full of emotion (much of it negative) and little else. Doctors must be able to master the clinical, non-emotional view of their patients - not to the point of being Mr. Spock, but enough to be able to see the problem as it really is without it being colored by emotion. To do otherwise will greatly detract from a doctor's ability to be able to treat his patients effectively. Doctors must also be able to suspend their own judgement of their patients lest they allow that to negatively affect their treatment of them.

In none of this post have I indicated where I stand on the issue of the students' lawsuit. Without knowing more than what is stated in the article I tend to side with the AAMC since by their account, they are abiding by the federal law. Also, per the AAMC, the students' disabilities aren't severe enough warrant special treatment under the law. That being said, I have ADD, which my doctor treats with adderall. It works quite well for me. I have never asked for special consideration because of my ADD. I also did not realize that ADD could be legally considered a disability with regards to the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Regardless of our views of the situation as stated in the article, the fact remains that it will all boil down in court to which law should take precedence: federal or California.

 

[captain hazel]

Well, you can certainly be opposed to extra time or more lenient distribution of extra time in Cali. But here are some reasons to not get super upset about it:

*AMCAS is notoriously stingy with extra time (at least compared to ETS). so even with broader application in CA, it's not like it's gonna make any sorta dent in the curve.

*the extra time they get doesn't go towards thinking about the question answer. it takes them longer to actually see what the question is asking; they end up with about the same amount of allotted time to actually come up with each answer

*while it might be a little different with the MCAT, for most tests you have no reason to be jealous that you don't have extra time--there's no significant jump in test performance if you're not dyslexic.

*remember, the MCAT supposedly doesn't test how well you take the test; it's supposed to test how well you know the material covered. if you don't know the stuff & get extra time, it's not gonna be a big help. if you do know the stuff, the extra time just goes to figuring out what's being asked.


again, I totally see why the idea of ruling for extra time for a small group of people can be upsetting. but really, it's not a terribly big deal. I always try to keep my panties unbunched 😛

 

[SailCrazy]

🙄 Oh yes, and I am sure you would have have been able to instantly recognize a rare cancer. Because, after all you are infallible and never make mistakes. Give the guy a break, people make mistakes.

Who said it was rare?

Ok, I was trying to condense many stories into a more concise delivery for an (already) long post. I apologize if my point got confused...

My point wasn't that I or anyone else would have easily diagnosed this particular condition. My issue was the doctor's approach to medicine. This doctor seems to have quickly developed a reputation for this type of cocky, know-it-all attitude. I simply choose to illustrate the most severe case, not all that I have heard.

I'm definitely not saying I would have been better able to diagnose this particular condition, but I can guarantee that I will try my best not to consistently act in the same manner that has earned this Dr. his current reputation. I am also asserting that a doctor who was more open to the possibility that they might not have all the answers would have had a better chance of determining what was really wrong, rather than determining it was a mental condition. You said it best "people make mistakes." I think all of us need to remember that when we get a "tough case" sometime down the road...

So you have some contempt because you aren't a superstar student- let it go.

I happen to be quite comfortable with my ability to stack up against any "superstar" student. I don't, however, feel a need to announce my performance to the world or convince everyone else of how great I am!

 

[MoosePilot]

The big issue to me is that the MCAT is difficult because it's difficult and also because there's a time crunch. If I had extra time, I know I would have done better. So this destroys the standardization of a standardized test.

I'd much rather the students just take the test as designed and administered, then include in their PS why they feel their score doesn't adequately reflect their knowledge. It would reflect their ability, because ability equals knowledge plus application.

 

[hakksar]

Question: Did anyone who's posted so far actually click on the link and read the article? I'm thinking at least some of you did not, because some of your arguments (pro and con) show a lack of understanding of the entire article.

True, I did not read the article . . . but that wasn't the point of my post. It was in response to the other post which I quoted. I really have no opinion on the lawsuit. I would have to do a lot more study and see some research to make an informed decision. However, I do not think that we should discount the merits of the case based on a relatively short article . . . hopefully both sides will have expert witnesses that will settle this in front of a jury/judge.

 

[SailCrazy]

Did ya ever think that your logic applies to the person SUING the AAMC? Maybe he thinks he's god's gift to mankind and that he is immune from the strict criteria the AAMC use to define a learning disability?

Also, SailCrazy, your statements are very hypocritical. You dont know any more about the case than we do, yet you just start slurring against everyone. Itll be pretty funny if in the end, this turns out to be some guy with very very minor issues that sued because he is an egomaniacal jerk and didnt score well enough on the MCAT.

I'm not sure what you were reading, but my statements weren't about the case at all! Maybe I know more about it, maybe you do. From the standpoint of what I was discussing, it is totally irrelevant.

My post was too long, so I'll paraphrase what I was trying to say:

Several people turned "learning disability" into "******ed" or "illiterate" while (generally) suggesting, not that they had an opinion on who they would like for their personal doctor, but who should or should not allowed to be doctors at all.
I was trying to point out the poor logic and decision making that went into this thought - abilities that many here argued are essential for those who want to be a doctor. This has nothing to do with case. You may not agree with me, Gleevec, but what exactly is hypocritical about this idea?

Many people also threw out blanket statements about what was appropriate for the field of medicine as a whole based on nothing but their own (quickly formulated and typed) opinion. I was trying pointing out that this "I know it all" attitude can also lead to problems, and that perhaps these individuals should examine their own flaws before condemning others. Again, Gleevec, this has nothing to do with the case itself, and I fail to see the hypocrisy of which I have been accused.

So I guess, SailCrazy, that ESL students get extra time on VR and the younger you are, the more time you should get?

I appreciate your taking my idea and attempting to expand it beyond what I said to the point where you think it sounds foolish.
I'll say this. Much (if not most) of medicine is not a time sensitive race, nor is it based on who has the most book-smarts. If I go to a doctor whose first language is not English and he or she is willing to take the extra time with me to make sure that they do a good job, I don't give a flying you-know-what if they got some extra time on a test in order to demonstrate that they know their ****.
I'd much rather have my doctor be a slow reader or ESL and be conscientious and caring than to have some self absorbed know-it-all who got a 41 on the MCAT with time to spare.

 

[hakksar]

The big issue to me is that the MCAT is difficult because it's difficult and also because there's a time crunch. If I had extra time, I know I would have done better. So this destroys the standardization of a standardized test.

I'd much rather the students just take the test as designed and administered, then include in their PS why they feel their score doesn't adequately reflect their knowledge. It would reflect their ability, because ability equals knowledge plus application.

I disagree. I finished all the MCAT sections with time to spare (5 mins on verbal, 10 mins on Phys and Bio, 1 min on writing) so if it is supposed to be a standardized test maybe I should get extra points because I did not have a time crunch and therefore I wasn't tested under "standard" conditions (since I was never concerned about not finishing). I think what they meant by standardized was tested on the same material in a controlled environment (ie limit any potential for cheating) . . . however, I could be wrong.

 

[fun8stuff]

Who said it was rare?

Ok, I was trying to condense many stories into a more concise delivery for an (already) long post. I apologize if my point got confused...

My point wasn't that I or anyone else would have easily diagnosed this particular condition. My issue was the doctor's approach to medicine. This doctor seems to have quickly developed a reputation for this type of cocky, know-it-all attitude. I simply choose to illustrate the most severe case, not all that I have heard.

I'm definitely not saying I would have been better able to diagnose this particular condition, but I can guarantee that I will try my best not to consistently act in the same manner that has earned this Dr. his current reputation. I am also asserting that a doctor who was more open to the possibility that they might not have all the answers would have had a better chance of determining what was really wrong, rather than determining it was a mental condition. You said it best "people make mistakes." I think all of us need to remember that when we get a "tough case" sometime down the road...



I happen to be quite comfortable with my ability to stack up against any "superstar" student. I don't, however, feel a need to announce my performance to the world or convince everyone else of how great I am!

Agreed.

 

[Petitpois]

Maybe those that do organ transplants have the time to read up on everything ahead at their own pace, but what if you were working in an ER or and ICU? These doctors can't read through things at a ho-hum pace that suits them.. I guess you can argue that maybe these people should just avoid fast-paced areas of medicine, but the reality is, once they get into medical school, what's going to stop them from going into whatever specialty they want to pursue?

It's just kind of troubling because doctors make enough errors as is with the kind of time constraints they're under, it only seems like these errors would be compacted if they could read less quickly and less well with environmental distractions.

 

[SailCrazy]

Itll be pretty funny if in the end, this turns out to be some guy with very very minor issues that sued because he is an egomaniacal jerk and didnt score well enough on the MCAT. Because lets face it, its pretty easy to shop around to get someone to diagnose you with ADD. And the dyslexia thing, well, the people I know with it can read as fast as most once they learn the shortcuts.

What is already pretty funny right now are your arguments which seem to lack a solid logical foundation.

My post had no direct relation to the case the OP mentioned. I don't care if these people were totally faking their limitations in an attempt to fool AAMC. I was responding to the comments and ideas in the replies that others had written.

I don't mind you directing your very pointed response at me. I expected that many would disagree with what I said, and look forward to discussing these ideas with them... Hey, maybe I wrote an overly long and wordy post that was difficult to understand, but please at least read it over more than once before quoting me, accusing me of being hypocritical and making repeated inaccurate statements and generalization about what I've written.

 

[fun8stuff]

I disagree. I finished all the MCAT sections with time to spare (5 mins on verbal, 10 mins on Phys and Bio, 1 min on writing) so if it is supposed to be a standardized test maybe I should get extra points because I did not have a time crunch and therefore I wasn't tested under "standard" conditions (since I was never concerned about not finishing). I think what they meant by standardized was tested on the same material in a controlled environment (ie limit any potential for cheating) . . . however, I could be wrong.

Yes, but it is also standardized by how much time is given. The definition of standardized is probably something like to make things the same or similar- so that things conform. In other words, the MCAT is standardized in that everyone has the same amount of time to answer questions. Its not important in how much time you actually use, but everyone is given the SAME amount, thus making it standardized.

I know I would certainly do better if given more time, especially on verbal.

 

[WatchingWaiting]

I'd much rather have my doctor be a slow reader or ESL and be conscientious and caring than to have some self absorbed know-it-all who got a 41 on the MCAT with time to spare.

Good for you! I'd rather have the 41 MCAT/240 Step I/UCSF med school/residency doctor than the 27 MCAT/198 Step I/ barely got though med school doctor. There is nothing ennobling about being at the bottom of your med school class.

 

[SailCrazy]

Good for you! I'd rather have the 41 MCAT/240 Step I/UCSF med school/residency doctor than the 27 MCAT/198 Step I/ barely got though med school doctor. There is nothing ennobling about being at the bottom of your med school class.

Who said they would be at the bottom of their class? (Or anything about their Step I scores and residency location for that matter!?!)

I think part of the argument here is that in the case of a "poor reader" under time constraints, a timed test like the MCAT is a poorer predictor of *these individuals* abilities to perform in med school.

I'm also trying (apparently very poorly) to point out that there is a hell of a lot more to being a good doctor than having the highest score on a standardized test!