Is Medical Technology looked down upon?

[Hopeful4Future]

I am currently a biology sophomore in college and thinking about changing my major. I am in quite a dilemma. For me it's between medical technology, neuroscience, or philosophy. People have told me that students who majored in humanities usually score better on the MCAT and look like more well-rounded applicants, which is why I'm considering philosophy since its the only humanities major I like (I'm a big science person, though). I have also been told over and over again that I should major in what I love and enjoy and just forget about these generalizations about major. I am considering neuroscience because the curriculum in my college involves more specific biology and psychology courses that strongly relate to human anatomy as opposed to a normal biology major where I must take courses such as ecology, plant bio, conservation etc. and not of that interests me. My strongest interest lies in medical technology. Aside from the job security the degree provides, I can tell from research that it gives exposure to the healthcare field as well. However, I have seen stats (which were old, like 10 years ago) that the percentage of medical technologists who were accepted to medical school as the lowest of all majors, but then again there were only about 200 applicants from that major. Some people tell me it is similar to applying as a nurse and is looked down on by committees. Can anyone clear this up for me? I enjoy medical technology because it is a genuine interest of mine, but I believe my true calling is a physician.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mauberley]

I am currently a biology sophomore in college and thinking about changing my major. I am in quite a dilemma. For me it's between medical technology, neuroscience, or philosophy. People have told me that students who majored in humanities usually score better on the MCAT and look like more well-rounded applicants, which is why I'm considering philosophy since its the only humanities major I like (I'm a big science person, though). I have also been told over and over again that I should major in what I love and enjoy and just forget about these generalizations about major. I am considering neuroscience because the curriculum in my college involves more specific biology and psychology courses that strongly relate to human anatomy as opposed to a normal biology major where I must take courses such as ecology, plant bio, conservation etc. and not of that interests me. My strongest interest lies in medical technology. Aside from the job security the degree provides, I can tell from research that it gives exposure to the healthcare field as well. However, I have seen stats (which were old, like 10 years ago) that the percentage of medical technologists who were accepted to medical school as the lowest of all majors, but then again there were only about 200 applicants from that major. Some people tell me it is similar to applying as a nurse and is looked down on by committees. Can anyone clear this up for me? I enjoy medical technology because it is a genuine interest of mine, but I believe my true calling is a physician.

I'm in the "major in what interests you the most" camp: presumably you're more likely to work hard and succeed when you're learning about something that interests you and you can speak about it genuinely if asked for more details about it (not just in interviews but generally). You can demonstrate well-roundedness and interest in medicine through your extracurriculars.

I doubt that there are majors that are "frowned upon" in the sense that it's a negative factor in your application, unlike, say, a poor GPA or MCAT score.

 

[1TB4RKSB4CK]

I've heard majoring in neuro is hard as hell!

 

[Morsetlis]

I have friends who are medical technologists and friends who took a neuroscience major.

The neurosci guy is kinda smarter but the medical technologist had much more clinical experience. Neither are in med school yet.

Just anecdotes...

 

[willen101383]

Dude I am an ASCP MT. Worked as a MT for 5 years before med school. It has been incredibly valuable to me so far. Just knowing ref ranges and what all the labs are for is a huge advantage in terms of less things needed to be memorized for exams. Let me know if you have any questions!!

As far as your major being MT...as long as you get your prereqs done it wont matter what your major is. I found that adcoms were really interested in my lab history. You definitely dont see that too often I wouldnt think. There are 2 other MTs in my class and we always talk about how its helped us.

 

[NickNaylor]

I would do something that is interesting, can give you a real job should you decide not to pursue medicine, and is as "easy" as possible. I listed those things in order of importance (at least for me). Difficulty shouldn't really be a major factor, but all other things being equal, I'd rather pick the easier than harder road if I'm going to get equal satisfaction out of it.

 

[gravitywave]

note that willen worked for some time in the field before starting medical school: i think that makes all the difference. I feel that the MT route can be a smart one, but there are some adcoms that will wonder about your motivations for taking a technical degree if you never work in that field. it raises doubts about commitment.

 

[alexandertg6]

note that willen worked for some time in the field before starting medical school: i think that makes all the difference. I feel that the MT route can be a smart one, but there are some adcoms that will wonder about your motivations for taking a technical degree if you never work in that field. it raises doubts about commitment.

which you can easily answer in every interview by saying " I honestly loved the major because _______________. Plus if I dont get into medical school I will reapply, and this gives me a job in the healthcare field in the meantime."

tell me if that is a bad answer by the way, that is just what I personally think. It seems to really not matter what you major in as long as you can explain why you did it.

 

[willen101383]

note that willen worked for some time in the field before starting medical school: i think that makes all the difference. I feel that the MT route can be a smart one, but there are some adcoms that will wonder about your motivations for taking a technical degree if you never work in that field. it raises doubts about commitment.

I agree. Working for a year or two or 5 isnt a downside at all. I learned a ton, got a ton of clinical experience etc. Its a good "fallback" major to have. We all know how dim the job prospects are for a bachelors in bio...but MTs come out with a BS+certification in a decently paying field with plenty of employment opportunities..should you not get accepted on your first cycle.

 

[temporality]

.

 

[gravitywave]

which you can easily answer in every interview by saying " I honestly loved the major because _______________. Plus if I dont get into medical school I will reapply, and this gives me a job in the healthcare field in the meantime."

tell me if that is a bad answer by the way, that is just what I personally think. It seems to really not matter what you major in as long as you can explain why you did it.

you're assuming you got the interview. some adcoms will look down on you for taking this major, because it's a technical curriculum that leaves less room for the "broad-based undergraduate experience" that every medical school says it likes to see. if your grades are sub-par, it complicates the matter further.

it's a calculated risk and it's just not as much of a slam-dunk as people think. think of it this way: you picking this major and then not working in the field is all up-side for you, what's the upside for the school? i just think it looks weird. but i'm not an adcom.

 

[wholeheartedly]

My anecdotal experience is that all three of the MT's I knew that applied got accepted to medical school. All of them felt it was a great asset.


My personal experience with the med. school adcom I spoke with was that it was looked on very favorably to have done well in the program. This is probably because it's at the same school where the CLS program was and they've had really good experiences with the CLS folks they've admitted.

It's probably school specific. Not all CLS programs are created equally so it might depend on what the adcom has experience with.

p.s. i loved the program.

 

[Ol'Lady]

as a med tech applying for 2015, i would like to resurrect this thread and hear from any other med techs. i did not initially chose this major. i am a non-trad that went back to med tech school. but working as a med tech definitely cemented the decision to apply to medical school. is anyone out there a med tech (working as a generalist or in another field of medical technology-such as a blood center, transplant testing, FISH/CYTO, reference lab, etc...)? and are you having any interview success this cycle? if so, was your work experience a plus during the interview?

 

[TheDBird90]

Dude I am an ASCP MT. Worked as a MT for 5 years before med school. It has been incredibly valuable to me so far. Just knowing ref ranges and what all the labs are for is a huge advantage in terms of less things needed to be memorized for exams. Let me know if you have any questions!!

As far as your major being MT...as long as you get your prereqs done it wont matter what your major is. I found that adcoms were really interested in my lab history. You definitely dont see that too often I wouldnt think. There are 2 other MTs in my class and we always talk about how its helped us.

Wow, really? I knew it would be a great major. Mats7 told me that it's not meant for medical school, but only to work as a professional. (https://forums.studentdoctor.net/posts/18123672/) Guess he was misinformed.

 

[stayschwifty42]

I've heard majoring in neuro is hard as hell!

Just to offer a counterpoint to this I major in neuro at my school and it is by far the easiest of the life science majors. Students switch into it from bio/biochem all the time. Same basic level courses with easier and interesting upper levels. If this is a concern for you just do some digging into specific schools otherwise I highly recommend neuro.

 

[LizzyM]

GPA is most important. Major is less important but if it does come into play, the "vocational" majors such as med tech, dietetics, and nursing will be less impressive than the natural sciences and the humanities.

 

[WWolf646268]

Hi! I am in med tech school right now (4+1 since I finished a degree in Bio too) and I applied this cycle for the first time. Not sure I can give you detailed insight to how adcoms view it, because I have only been on one interview and since I was accepted I have withdrawn all my others. Only 1/2 of my interviewers even mentioned it, and she was just interested in what I was learning and did not question me much about it.

Overall, I do get frustrated with the CLS/MLS program that I'm in. I can't speak for other programs, but I have at least 2-3 exams every week and am in class from 9-4 or 5 PM every day, which is a huge difference from college (and class is mandatory). I think the information is pretty interesting, but there is too much to learn so we don't get to learn specific mechanisms or really concepts - most of it is rote memorization which bothers me. I'd say that MLS is pretty much an allied science ie a soft science. If you know you aren't going to ever practice as a med tech, it's hard to be motivated to learn about things like calibrating centrifuges and many other technical details.

I am confident that my knowledge will be useful as a physician, but I am not sure if I would've chosen this route had I known this clinical year would be so tedious. If you were not to get accepted on your first try, it's true that CLS is a good "fallback." However I have friends that are techs and say they hate how tedious the work can get and if you work in a core lab (chem) you basically just push buttons and you don't really apply yourself. Hopefully that helped!

EDIT: I also talked to my premed advisor before applying and he said that he would not classify working in the lab as a clinical experience because there is no patient contact. On my application I did not classify it as clinical.

 

[TheDBird90]

Hi! I am in med tech school right now (4+1 since I finished a degree in Bio too) and I applied this cycle for the first time. Not sure I can give you detailed insight to how adcoms view it, because I have only been on one interview and since I was accepted I have withdrawn all my others. Only 1/2 of my interviewers even mentioned it, and she was just interested in what I was learning and did not question me much about it.

Overall, I do get frustrated with the CLS/MLS program that I'm in. I can't speak for other programs, but I have at least 2-3 exams every week and am in class from 9-4 or 5 PM every day, which is a huge difference from college (and class is mandatory). I think the information is pretty interesting, but there is too much to learn so we don't get to learn specific mechanisms or really concepts - most of it is rote memorization which bothers me. I'd say that MLS is pretty much an allied science ie a soft science. If you know you aren't going to ever practice as a med tech, it's hard to be motivated to learn about things like calibrating centrifuges and many other technical details.

I am confident that my knowledge will be useful as a physician, but I am not sure if I would've chosen this route had I known this clinical year would be so tedious. If you were not to get accepted on your first try, it's true that CLS is a good "fallback." However I have friends that are techs and say they hate how tedious the work can get and if you work in a core lab (chem) you basically just push buttons and you don't really apply yourself. Hopefully that helped!

EDIT: I also talked to my premed advisor before applying and he said that he would not classify working in the lab as a clinical experience because there is no patient contact. On my application I did not classify it as clinical.

Excellent. I guess I should have stated that I definetly plan to work as an MLT, and I'm not really planning to go to medical school in the near future. I just thought that in case I ever feel I would want to go, it might be a good major. I guess it really does prepare you to work in the field, not med school, as mats7 pointed out. I stand corrected.

 

[LizzyM]

To add to the above and to previous poster's comments, I think working in the field makes a huge difference in the "vocational" majors. It should also be noted that of the seven broad categories of majors tracked by AAMC, specialized health science majors have the worst acceptance rate. Only 494 matriculants out of 1596 applicants for a rate of of 31% as compared to the aggregate 39% matriculation rate

https://www.aamc.org/download/321496/data/factstablea17.pdf

Would you say that career changers that work in a field such as medical technology or nutrition for a few years and then do a post-bac to cover the pre-med coursework not covered in their undergrad program have the better chance compared with those who major in a vocational field and apply as undergrads for medical school admission?