Low Stat'ers with interviews

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I don't see how your point is related to theirs. @efle along with myself would rather the doctor who is more skilled over one who is not. Is it important to have a caring and compassionate doctor? Of course. That said, I would prefer having the physician with greater clinical skills treating me.

Look at House M.D. for example. House is a jerk, but he is effective and possesses incredible clinical skills.

my point is directly related, because as @efle very maturely pointed out, it is absolutely vital to have at least some level of both social skills and medical competence in almost all circumstances. you do not have to settle for a doctor who is skilled and mean, because you can have one who is skilled and at least somewhat socially capable. I can't think of a situation where you'd have to choose either/or, but in some rare case where you had to, I guess I can agree with your point for sure.

Also, a House reference doesn't really help your case, because House is fictional for a reason. he wouldn't last a day in a hospital because he would be fired before his first shift ended. no one wants to work with or be treated by a person like that in real life. he often does some extremely insane and dangerous things out of pure pride haha. I'm not sure I've actually ever heard an argument being strengthened by using House as an example.
 
my point is directly related, because as @efle very maturely pointed out, it is absolutely vital to have at least some level of both social skills and medical competence in almost all circumstances. you do not have to settle for a doctor who is skilled and mean, because you can have one who is skilled and at least somewhat socially capable. I can't think of a situation where you'd have to choose either/or, but in some rare case where you had to, I guess I can agree with your point for sure.

Also, a House reference doesn't really help your case, because House is fictional for a reason. he wouldn't last a day in a hospital because he would be fired before his first shift ended. no one wants to work with or be treated by a person like that in real life. he often does some extremely insane and dangerous things out of pure pride haha. I'm not sure I've actually ever heard an argument being strengthened by using House as an example.
I am using the basis that on occasion people will put up with a certain amount of drama and unpleasantness in turn for the clinical skills that certain physicians provide. If you do not believe there are physicians that are quite unpleasant that are kept for their clinical skills, then you are sadly mistaken.
 
I think you're both right. There is a minimum social ability, sure, since they do have to make it through interviews for med school/residency/hiring. But that minimum is quite a ways below pleasant/amicable.
 
I think you're both right. There is a minimum social ability, sure, since they do have to make it through interviews for med school/residency/hiring. But that minimum is quite a ways below pleasant/amicable.
Certainly. I'm not at all denying it is important to be social/friendly/kind/etc as a physician. I just personally would rather a physician with better clinical skills, regardless of whether or not I think they are particularly kind/nice.

This discussion will simply endlessly go in circles.
 
I am using the basis that on occasion people will put up with a certain amount of drama and unpleasantness in turn for the clinical skills that certain physicians provide. If you do not believe there are physicians that are quite unpleasant that are kept for their clinical skills, then you are sadly mistaken.

I cannot be sadly mistaken when I know that to be true, since I've experienced it. I would never deny that. The only problem is "quite unpleasant" and being like House are two wildly different things, so please keep your argument consistent.

Even these "quite unpleasant" physicians more than likely have the decency to treat their patients with at least some tiny level of respect and decency, or most people would flat out not deal with it in most situations. Again, my opinion stems from years of clinical experience in different fields where I've directly observed the complaints that come in. Yours stems from thin air where you expect the world to be a certain way.

It is also much easier to measure one's social ability and compassion compared to their clinical prowess as an often non-clinically trained patient, so that is often what they are most accurately able to rate, and in turn much more likely to complain about. If you disagree, then you are sadly mistaken, but we can agree to disagree. I can respect your opinion.
 
I think you're both right. There is a minimum social ability, sure, since they do have to make it through interviews for med school/residency/hiring. But that minimum is quite a ways below pleasant/amicable.

I agree for sure. I was just making the point that "ZERO compassion but high clinical knowledge" will often, if not always, not work out well. Was a good debate though, and interesting topic to discuss. 👍
 
I cannot be sadly mistaken when I know that to be true, since I've experienced it. I would never deny that. The only problem is "quite unpleasant" and being like House are two wildly different things, so please keep your argument consistent.

Even these "quite unpleasant" physicians more than likely have the decency to treat their patients with at least some tiny level of respect and decency, or most people would flat out not deal with it in most situations. Again, my opinion stems from years of clinical experience in different fields where I've directly observed the complaints that come in. Yours stems from thin air where you expect the world to be a certain way.

It is also much easier to measure one's social ability and compassion compared to their clinical prowess as an often non-clinically trained patient, so that is often what they are most accurately able to rate, and in turn much more likely to complain about. If you disagree, then you are sadly mistaken, but we can agree to disagree. I can respect your opinion.
You have no account for my clinical experience whatsoever. Stating that it stems from thin air is quite the incorrect statement to make.
 
You have no account for my clinical experience whatsoever. Stating that it stems from thin air is quite the incorrect statement to make.
MichealJacksonPopcorn.gif

here we goooo
 
You have no account for my clinical experience whatsoever. Stating that it stems from thin air is quite the incorrect statement to make.

You're right, I was wrong to assume that and I apologize. Where does your opinion stem from?
 
You're right, I was wrong to assume that and I apologize. Where does your opinion stem from?
Similar years of experience. I may not have as many years as you, but I do have 7 years of unpaid clinical interaction (through volunteering, shadowing, etc) and I'm bridging on 3 paid.
 
It's true. Unfortunately I have some immuno to study for so I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut the fun short.

Well I'd have to agree that studying is indeed more important than an internet debate lol. It's all good. We put our opinions out there, and people can decide their views on their own. Good luck on your immuno exam!
 
Similar years of experience. I may not have as many years as you, but I do have 7 years of unpaid clinical interaction (through volunteering, shadowing, etc) and I'm bridging on 3 paid.

This is plenty to formulate an opinion for yourself, so we will agree to disagree. Again, good luck with immuno!
 
Well I'd have to agree that studying is indeed more important than an internet debate lol. It's all good. We put our opinions out there, and people can decide their views on their own. Good luck on your immuno exam!
This is plenty to formulate an opinion for yourself, so we will agree to disagree. Again, good luck with immuno!
Thank you. Good luck to whatever endeavors you have planned as well!

(Yay... B cell immunity mediation!)
 
I don't see how your point is related to theirs. @efle along with myself would rather the doctor who is more skilled over one who is not. Is it important to have a caring and compassionate doctor? Of course. That said, I would prefer having the physician with greater clinical skills treating me.

Look at House M.D. for example. House is a jerk, but he is effective and possesses incredible clinical skills.
I am using the basis that on occasion people will put up with a certain amount of drama and unpleasantness in turn for the clinical skills that certain physicians provide. If you do not believe there are physicians that are quite unpleasant that are kept for their clinical skills, then you are sadly mistaken.
It just came up too frequently for me to ignore. I think what you're getting at is clinical knowledge rather than clinical skills. That's why the Step 2: CS tests, primarily, ones rapport with patients and ability to effectively communicate the findings of an H&P.

I'd prefer a physician who was both caring/compassionate AND incredibly knowledgable/competent (we certainly have enough applicants who could easily meet both of those critera). In a life or death situation I'd prefer the more skilled doctor, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to prescribe antibiotics for a bladder infection. For basically everything short of "life or death" I'd rather have the more relatable doctor who knows his/her limits and recommends me to a competent specialist when needed.
 
It just came up too frequently for me to ignore. I think what you're getting at is clinical knowledge rather than clinical skills. That's why the Step 2: CS tests, primarily, ones rapport with patients and ability to effectively communicate the findings of an H&P.

I'd prefer a physician who was both caring/compassionate AND incredibly knowledgable/competent (we certainly have enough applicants who could easily meet both of those critera). In a life or death situation I'd prefer the more skilled doctor, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to prescribe antibiotics for a bladder infection. For basically everything short of "life or death" I'd rather have the more relatable doctor who knows his/her limits and recommends me to a competent specialist when needed.
Fair point. But one can have vast clinical knowledge and not the ability to apply it (clinical skills). At that point, what use is that knowledge?
 
3.45 GPA and took the MCAT twice (22; 8/3/11 and 25; 8/8/9; PS/VR/BS)

I've had 5 MD interviews so far (1 waitlist and waiting to hear back from 4) and I have an upcoming 6th II in January.

*fingers crossed*
 
3.3 GPA, 34 MCAT. Exceptional post-college work experience. 3 interviews thus far.
 
I had a interview with a 24 MCAT but it was my state school and as far as anyone has said online, every IS app gets an interview
 
3.45 GPA and took the MCAT twice (22; 8/3/11 and 25; 8/8/9; PS/VR/BS)

I've had 5 MD interviews so far (1 waitlist and waiting to hear back from 4) and I have an upcoming 6th II in January.

*fingers crossed*

Judging by your username, you are URM. Thus, your situation is not the same for most. JS
 
3.3 GPA, 34 MCAT. Exceptional post-college work experience. 3 interviews thus far.

High mcat lower ish gpa is just fine.

i'd say hit the boderline with a 3.3 but it's ok..as evidenced by your interview invites.
 
i'd say hit the boderline with a 3.3 but it's ok..as evidenced by your interview invites.

You're probably right. No acceptances yet though, but no rejections or waitlists either. I put in my application late in the season as well, which doesn't help. A few schools even sent me 2-3 week deadline notices for a secondary immediately after my primary application was submitted... which was just not possible. The system is unfortunately largely biased against non-trads, which I don't think schools intend. Oh well, hoping for the best.
 
Judging by your username, you are URM. Thus, your situation is not the same for most. JS

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I was surprised that he received more than me. Makes sense.
 
You're probably right. No acceptances yet though, but no rejections or waitlists either. I put in my application late in the season as well, which doesn't help. A few schools even sent me 2-3 week deadline notices for a secondary immediately after my primary application was submitted... which was just not possible. The system is unfortunately largely biased against non-trads, which I don't think schools intend. Oh well, hoping for the best.

Please explain what you mean here? I would argue almost the opposite. It is extremely difficult to enter med school right after college bc you would essentially be taking multiple science classes along with your majors/undergrads required courses, while trying to take the mcat and prepareing your application. Lets not forget continueing your EC's while at it.

The system is set up to help non-trads. Post-back can almost rewrite your undergrad gpa and masters can add your resume while enchancing some aspect of your "gpa".

In addition, the low gpa high mcat trend is also more likely to come from a non-trad, who despite having a lower gpa in undergrad, could kill the mcat and add to his or her CV extraordinary EC's/previous jobs.

If you are pointing out that non-trads must continue their work/family life while trying to get into med school, yes that's also difficult. I could see how time becomes a huge factor here. I would say it's much less stressful however.
 
I cannot be sadly mistaken when I know that to be true, since I've experienced it. I would never deny that. The only problem is "quite unpleasant" and being like House are two wildly different things, so please keep your argument consistent.

Even these "quite unpleasant" physicians more than likely have the decency to treat their patients with at least some tiny level of respect and decency, or most people would flat out not deal with it in most situations. Again, my opinion stems from years of clinical experience in different fields where I've directly observed the complaints that come in. Yours stems from thin air where you expect the world to be a certain way.

It is also much easier to measure one's social ability and compassion compared to their clinical prowess as an often non-clinically trained patient, so that is often what they are most accurately able to rate, and in turn much more likely to complain about. If you disagree, then you are sadly mistaken, but we can agree to disagree. I can respect your opinion.
Is there a difference between academic vs community (PP) medicine?
I could imagine more "unpleasant" doctors in academics, where they might have less incentive to relate to patients (because they don't fear losing them), and their non-clinical (research, teaching, admin, etc) value balances out their deficiencies in relating to patients. In PP, on the other hand, you sometimes need to have good relationships with other community docs to build referral networks, and your income has legs.
 
Please explain what you mean here? I would argue almost the opposite. It is extremely difficult to enter med school right after college bc you would essentially be taking multiple science classes along with your majors/undergrads required courses, while trying to take the mcat and prepareing your application. Lets not forget continueing your EC's while at it.

The system is set up to help non-trads. Post-back can almost rewrite your undergrad gpa and masters can add your resume while enchancing some aspect of your "gpa".

In addition, the low gpa high mcat trend is also more likely to come from a non-trad, who despite having a lower gpa in undergrad, could kill the mcat and add to his or her CV extraordinary EC's/previous jobs.

If you are pointing out that non-trads must continue their work/family life while trying to get into med school, yes that's also difficult. I could see how time becomes a huge factor here. I would say it's much less stressful however.

I've actually done both routes. I don't want to give away too much information that might identify myself, however, so I'll unfortunately have to refrain from being too specific on my personal experience.

Going to classes while studying for the MCAT is no different than working a full-time (40-60 hours/week) job while studying for the MCAT. The main difference is that as an undergrad you can work your schedule to accommodate dedicating an entire summer to MCAT study. While that's not possible for every student, it is more common than not. It's extremely difficult to take more than a couple of weeks off from a career-type job in order to study. Of course the material will also be fresh in a traditional student's mind from undergrad courses. MCAT study wasn't really what I was referencing, however. A non-trad in my opinion should have to perform at the same level as a traditional student on the MCAT before attending medical school... or otherwise he/she is obviously not ready.

The bias against non-trad students comes from what is emphasized on applications. It's all very undergrad-student specific. For example: volunteering activities, extracurriculars, GPA, research, academic letters of recommendation. Imagine yourself for a minute working as an attending physician, and going for a job interview at another hospital. Could you ever imagine someone asking you about your extracurricular activities in college? Or even your undergraduate GPA? That how it feels to a non-trad. How about I instead tell you about all of the amazing things that I've done at work?

Admissions committees do want to hear about your work experience, but they shoehorn it into a system that gives equal weight to less-relevant (undergrad-focused) experiences. While a non-medical career may provide excellent quantitative data of exactly how good you are in comparison to peers, and you may have many awards and achievements to show for it (in addition to references), it's still only one category on your application. You don't get a GPA from professional work, even if you learn far more academic knowledge in the workforce than in academia.

You cited examples of post-bacc's and masters programs. Any traditional applicant can do those as well. In my mind, that kind of just makes you "traditional" again, in a way. The bias that I mentioned was more against people coming from the workforce.

You also cited GPA's. It's important to keep in mind that people that know that they're about to apply to medical school will generally take better care of their GPA's. Given that new grades are averaged in with old grades, it's not something that you can go back and change after you decide to apply to medical school later on. They're not even a good indicator of what you know, since average GPA's vary dramatically by school and major. It's a very suboptimal way to do things, although I understand that medical schools are simply trying to make the best decisions with the data that they have.

Anyway, I don't want to get into some long debate over this. I just wanted to post my observations as someone who has seen the issue from both sides. I hope this post was helpful in some way.
 
Last edited:
I've actually done both routes. I don't want to give away too much information that might identify myself, however, so I'll unfortunately have to refrain from being too specific on my personal experience.

Going to classes while studying for the MCAT is no different than working a full-time (40-60 hours/week) job while studying for the MCAT. The main difference is that as an undergrad you can work your schedule to accommodate dedicating an entire summer to MCAT study. While that's not possible for every student, it is more common than not. It's extremely difficult to take more than a couple of weeks off from a career-type job in order to study. Of course the material will also be fresh in a traditional student's mind from undergrad courses. MCAT study wasn't really what I was referencing, however. A non-trad in my opinion should have to perform at the same level as a traditional student on the MCAT before attending medical school... or otherwise he/she is obviously not ready.

The bias against non-trad students comes from what is emphasized on applications. It's all very undergrad-student specific. For example: volunteering activities, extracurriculars, GPA, research, academic letters of recommendation. Imagine yourself for a minute working as an attending physician, and going for a job interview at another hospital. Could you ever imagine someone asking you about your extracurricular activities in college? Or even your undergraduate GPA? That how it feels to a non-trad. How about I instead tell you about all of the amazing things that I've done at work?

Admissions committees do want to hear about your work experience, but they shoehorn it into a system that gives equal weight to less-relevant (undergrad-focused) experiences. While a non-medical career may provide excellent quantitative data of exactly how good you are in comparison to peers, and you may have many awards and achievements to show for it (in addition to references), it's still only one category on your application. You don't get a GPA from professional work, even if you learn far more academic knowledge in the workforce than in academia.

You cited examples of post-bacc's and masters programs. Any traditional applicant can do those as well. In my mind, that kind of just makes you "traditional" again, in a way. The bias that I mentioned was more against people coming from the workforce.

You also cited GPA's. It's important to keep in mind that people that know that they're about to apply to medical school will generally take better care of their GPA's. Given that new grades are averaged in with old grades, it's not something that you can go back and change after you decide to apply to medical school later on. They're not even a good indicator of what you know, since average GPA's vary dramatically by school and major. It's a very suboptimal way to do things, although I understand that medical schools are simply trying to make the best decisions with the data that they have.

Anyway, I don't want to get into some long debate over this. I just wanted to post my observations as someone who has seen the issue from both sides. I hope this post was helpful in some way.

hmm you made a lot of great points. I will reconsider my position, I would say that they are difficult in their own ways. I believe our difference in opinion comes from what "traditional" means. To me, that is straight out of college - no gap years. To you, this might mean someone who's in the workforce.

To each, they have their own stresses.

In the college senior case, I would say a lot of planning and *no second chances* makes it stressful.

In the worker case, A lot of what is required is irrelevant or outdated, which makes the work like ec's and tests like the mcat seem trivial and a headache.

For both, time is an issue.

On another point, The easiest would probably be someone who graduated and entered med school a fews years from then. Coincidentally many med schools have students who enter in their mid 20's, so this would make an interesting argument for why that is so.

Just out of curiosity, what made you apply both times? Was the first time unsuccesful while in undergrad? How many years after did you apply again?
 
I think generally a sub-par GPA is a lot less damning than a sub-par MCAT... since the MCAT is standardized, its the equalizer. If you have a 3.3 gpa but a 33 MCAT, they know that you could very possibly have the same intellectual capability as someone with a 3.9 GPA and a 33 MCAT. There are just so many factors thta go into grades, while MCAT is a straightforward test of your abilities.

I'm unfortunately held back more by my MCAT than GPA (29, 9PS, 10VR, 10BS) 3.68 GPA 3.66 science. Honestly, I think I would be in a better situation right now if I had say, 3.45 GPA with a 31 MCAT. Something about that 29 just seems so much worse than a 30.. and to think it could be just 1 or 2 questions that could have bumped my PS to a 10... It sucks.

In case your curious; I've had one Interview, 2 wait lists, 2 rejections and still waiting on the other 10 schools.
 
My MCAT was inbetween 30 and 33. My GPA is in the 3.7 range.

I got an interview at UCSF, UCD, UCSD, Mayo, Dartmouth.
So far I have been accepted to Dartmouth.

I did have an awesome story, go to a high ranking undergrad, a ton of research, and spend a very long time perfecting my essays.
 
Wha? How?

just the way it is I suppose. It's essentially every IS applicant as long as your stats are at least reasonable. I'm sure they wouldn't interview a 2.5/20

My MCAT was inbetween 30 and 33. My GPA is in the 3.7 range.
I got an interview at UCSF, UCD, UCSD, Mayo, Dartmouth.
So far I have been accepted to Dartmouth.
I did have an awesome story, go to a high ranking undergrad, a ton of research, and spend a very long time perfecting my essays.

are we really calling those LOW stats? I mean they may be lower end of normal for mid or upper tiers, but they are perfect fine and barring any huge inconsistencies in LORs/ECs/Interview, most people would say that someone with these stats would get an acceptance at least one place with proper applying.
 
just the way it is I suppose. It's essentially every IS applicant as long as your stats are at least reasonable. I'm sure they wouldn't interview a 2.5/20

I assume you don't live in a huge state like CA, NY, or FL. That sounds fair. After all every instate school is funded by the people of that state and should be putting out doctors for that state. I think the U of M, UND, U of SD... are the only ones I can think of that are also hardcore on having their students practice in state (and be from or have very strong ties to be accepted to).
 
I assume you don't live in a huge state like CA, NY, or FL. That sounds fair. After all every instate school is funded by the people of that state and should be putting out doctors for that state. I think the U of M, UND, U of SD... are the only ones I can think of that are also hardcore on having their students practice in state (and be from or have very strong ties to be accepted to).

think corn and we only have two med schools. good luck with your cycle 🙂
 
Top