MCAT correlation with physician ability/quality

[velo]

---

Members do not see this ad.

OK, this is the last time I will repeat myself. The Dean made the statement based on data that they have been collecting and analyzing for the past 6 years. I'm sure I didn't misunderstand him since I sat in the front row and was listening quite carefully to everything he said.

Yes the statement he made was based on any statistics published in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine, it was data that the admissions department collected.

Why do you insist on being condescending -- It's not cool.
"Or more likely, you misunderstood the dean and are, in fact, overstating the dean's position?"

What are you guys twins or something? Why is this statement so upsetting to you? It's not as if the Dean insists the worlds actually flat.

I don't find it upsetting, I'm just skeptical. One one hand I have data from a scientific study conducted by the AAMC, the results of which are publically posted so I can examine them and decide for myself the validity of their conclusions
http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/research/bibliography/koeni008.htm
"MCAT predicting Step 1 (median R=.72). "

On the other hand I have the claim of some guy on the internet that the dean of some unknown med school said the MCAT doesn't really predict USMLE scores.

which would you trust more?

 

[yodaf]

Was it the dean of a Caribbean school?

I've honestly had my fill with the lack of civility and maturity. It was a SUNY, can you say State University of New York and it is in Syracuse. That should narrow it down for you since there is only one SUNY medical school in Syracuse. Now you naysayers can call the school, speak to the Dean and ask him about his statistical analysis, then call him a liar.

 

[yodaf]

I don't find it upsetting, I'm just skeptical. One one hand I have data from a scientific study conducted by the AAMC, the results of which are publically posted so I can examine them and decide for myself the validity of their conclusions
http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/research/bibliography/koeni008.htm
"MCAT predicting Step 1 (median R=.72). "

On the other hand I have the claim of some guy on the internet that the dean of some unknown med school said the MCAT doesn't really predict USMLE scores.

which would you trust more?

I just checked your source and the 16 school sample is actually way too small for you to state this is any where near a definitive study. This information is also 8 years old and based only on a 2 year sampling of only 16 schools. I would not put money on this totally half-baked analysis. If they thought this was a valid study, why haven't they followed up since 1996? I thought you had some good sources. What a waste of time!!!! Regurgitating some half-baked statistics you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[velo]

I've honestly had my fill with the lack of civility and maturity.

I don't think I'm being uncivil or immature. I think I'm justifiably skeptical given the presented evidence. Published AAMC study vs. Some guy on internet speaking for the dean of a med school. Show me some stronger evidence.

 

[Jalby]

16 schools over 2 years. That's ~3000 students. Definately a valid study. Simple enough, your dean is stating he doesn't have enough information. The study shows a correlation. Which do you think is more valid?? It's actually pretty obvious.

 

[yodaf]

I don't think I'm being uncivil or immature. I think I'm justifiably skeptical given the presented evidence. Published AAMC study vs. Some guy on internet speaking for the dean of a med school. Show me some stronger evidence.

I wasn't calling you immature that was meant for willthatsall, but you were a tad uncivil initially.

 

[velo]

this totally half-baked analysis.... Regurgitating some half-baked statistics you should be ashamed of yourself.

civility and maturity to a T

 

[yodaf]

16 schools over 2 years. That's ~3000 students. Definately a valid study. Simple enough, your dean is stating he doesn't have enough information. The study shows a correlation. Which do you think is more valid?? It's actually pretty obvious.

How exactly did you qualify your sample size? Without stating the value for the entire population. If it was 3000 out of 6000 I would say the sample is OK maybe good. But you're talking about 3000 out of a total population of 23,625 based on your percentages. That's not really a good sample too much possibility for deviation it might give you a ballpark figure but only ballpark at best. I don't believe in relying on narrow samples, they're just not telling.

Do you people argue just for the sake of arguing? 😕

The MCAT does play a role in predicting future USMLE performance but it's far from being an accurate barometer.

 

[velo]

I just checked your source and the 16 school sample is actually way too small for you to state this is any where near a definitive study. This information is also 8 years old and based only on a 2 year sampling of only 16 schools. I would not put money on this totally half-baked analysis. If they thought this was a valid study, why haven't they followed up since 1996? I thought you had some good sources. What a waste of time!!!! Regurgitating some half-baked statistics you should be ashamed of yourself.

shoot, i accidently edited away my initial response to this while trying to add a second responce (that was the edit button, not quote...d'oh)

Basically: the study is valid. That's a legit sampling, the age is irrelevent because to my knowledge the MCAT/USMLE havn't changed significantly since the study's release, and lastly the AAMC seems to trust it--i defer to them over you on determining its validity.

What's more, I find it ironic that you would question me for "regurgitating some half-baked statistics" when your best evidence is Dean X's paraphrasing of an unpublished study...by the way, we have to take your word on this too...no way for us to examine the data these statements are based on.

Show me some hard data that refutes this study and you have a good chance of changing my mind, but until you do that I have to form my opinions based on sources more reliable than "some guy on the internet who told me about the dean at some SUNY med school who said that study's wrong"

sorry

 

[yodaf]

civility and maturity to a T

Hey why did you delete the post below? I guess it didn't make much sense after you re-read it. How exaclty can you state that the MCAT and USMLE haven't changed since 1996, that sounds a bit assumptive if I don't say so myself. Considering they have changed.

Anyway I think that AAMC, who you obviously consider deities, are mistaken to keep that dated statistical information on their site. They should either update it or remove it. Things change in 8 years, that's just the nature of the world and old statistics are not timeless in their value and applicability.

Didn't we say you need to stop being rude saying that I'm "talking trash" is just not nice, shame on you.

Oh, my wrong you did repost your argument, accidental erasure happens to everyone, no foul.

 

[JDAWG07]

How exactly did you qualify your sample size? Without stating the value for the entire population. If it was 3000 out of 6000 I would say the sample is OK maybe good. But you're talking about 3000 out of a total population of 23,625 based on your percentages. That's not really a good sample too much possibility for deviation it might give you a ballpark figure but only ballpark at best. I don't believe in relying on narrow samples, they're just not telling.

Do you people argue just for the sake of arguing? 😕

The MCAT does play a role in predicting future USMLE performance but it's far from being an accurate barometer.

Actually, 3000 out of 23,625 is a huge representation. For a population of that size, to be 99% certain that an average value is accurate to within 5%, one would need to randomly sample 647 students. Medical education is HIGHLY STANDARDIZED and I think it's safe to assume that sampling from the 16 different schools reliably smoothed out any deviation between student bodies. In addition, the data that is 8 years old is still valid. The population of students has not changed that much and the MCAT format has been the same since the major 1991 overhall of the exam. Schools rely on the MCAT because it is indicative of reasoning abilities, scientific knowledge, and SUCCESS on the USMLE 1. Schools must be confident in this because otherwise admissions committees would not count the MCAT so highly.

 

[yodaf]

What's more, I find it ironic that you would question me for "regurgitating some half-baked statistics" when your best evidence is Dean X's paraphrasing of an unpublished study...by the way, we have to take your word on this too...no way for us to examine the data these statements are based on.

Show me some hard data that refutes this study and you have a good chance of changing my mind, but until you do that I have to form my opinions based on sources more reliable than "some guy on the internet who told me about the dean at some SUNY med school who said that study's wrong"

sorry

Quit calling the guy "Dean X" I told you he's the Dean of Admissions at SUNY Syracuse. Now show a little bit of respect for your elders he is a PhD. His number is 315-464-4570, drop him a line and call him a liar.

This is condescending again,

"some guy on the internet who told me about the dean at some SUNY med school who said that study's wrong", says velocypedalist

Didn't we say you need to stop doing that. Now, you're not just insulting me you're insulting the State University of New York Medical Schools. I think some people will take offense to that, be nice.

 

[velo]

Hey why did you delete the post below? I guess it didn't make much sense after you re-read it. How exaclty can you state that the MCAT and USMLE haven't changed since 1996, that sounds a bit assumptive if I don't say so myself. Considering they have changed.

Anyway I think that AAMC, who you obviously consider deities, are mistaken to keep that dated statistical information on their site. They should either update it or remove it. Things change in 8 years, that's just the nature of the world and old statistics are not timeless in their value and applicability.

Didn't we say you need to stop being rude saying that I'm "talking trash" is just not nice, shame on you.

Thanks, I was hoping you had a copy of my original post...I was afraid it was lost fo-eva!

I said the tests have not significantly changed. In the very early nineties (want to say 90, 91?) the MCATs underwent a MAJOR overhaul, largely in response to claims that it wasn't predictive of med school success. Pre-overhaul it was essentially a memorize and regurgitate test, to overhaul it they changed it to primarily passage based problems designed to test students analyitical thinking skills and ability to integrate new information. Considering the fact that the two samples of students taken were from 1992 and 1993, I imagine this study was commissioned to determine whether the new version of the test correlated to success in medical school. It appears as though they found that it does. Yes the MCAT has gone through minor changes since then, but essentially it is the same test as it was when this study was done.

Secondly, since we're talking about standarized tests, no a lot doesn't change in 8 years (actually 12 years if you read the study). One reason standardized tests are nice is that we can objectivly compare candidates from other schools and yes even other years with reletivly little variation, so long as the test hasn't undergone any major renovations (i.e. 90/91)

Lastly, I don't feel the AAMC are dieties. I just trust value their opinion more than "some guy on internet" No offense, if I knew you better your opinion might surpass the AAMC in my estimation...but as it stands, you're just some annonymous internet 'dude' and I'm going to need to see some hard evidence from you before I believe these claims you're making

 

[yodaf]

Actually, 3000 out of 23,625 is a huge representation. For a population of that size, to be 99% certain that an average value is accurate to within 5%, one would need to randomly sample 647 students. Medical education is HIGHLY STANDARDIZED and I think it's safe to assume that sampling from the 16 different schools reliably smoothed out any deviation between student bodies. In addition, the data that is 8 years old is still valid. The population of students has not changed that much and the MCAT format has been the same since the major 1991 overhall of the exam. Schools rely on the MCAT because it is indicative of reasoning abilities, intellegence, and SUCCESS on the USMLE 1. Schools must be confident in this because otherwise admissions committees would not count the MCAT so highly.

Finally a polite reponse!!!! Followed by a very valid argument.

 

[velo]

"some guy on the internet who told me about the dean at some SUNY med school who said that study's wrong"

I'm insulting neither you nor the SUNY system...I'm just saying I can look at the AAMC study and decide whether or not I think its valid....I have trouble trusting your conclusions when I can't see any evidence. Is it insulting that I don't take your word on blind faith?

 

[yodaf]

Thanks, I was hoping you had a copy of my original post...I was afraid it was lost fo-eva!

I said the tests have not significantly changed. In the very early nineties (want to say 90, 91?) the MCATs underwent a MAJOR overhaul, largely in response to claims that it wasn't predictive of med school success. Pre-overhaul it was essentially a memorize and regurgitate test, to overhaul it they changed it to primarily passage based problems designed to test students analyitical thinking skills and ability to integrate new information. Considering the fact that the two samples of students taken were from 1992 and 1993, I imagine this study was commissioned to determine whether the new version of the test correlated to success in medical school. It appears as though they found that it does. Yes the MCAT has gone through minor changes since then, but essentially it is the same test as it was when this study was done.

Secondly, since we're talking about standarized tests, no a lot doesn't change in 8 years (actually 12 years if you read the study). One reason standardized tests are nice is that we can objectivly compare candidates from other schools and yes even other years with reletivly little variation, so long as the test hasn't undergone any major renovations (i.e. 90/91)

Lastly, I don't feel the AAMC are dieties. I just trust value their opinion more than "some guy on internet" No offense, if I knew you better your opinion might surpass the AAMC in my estimation...but as it stands, you're just some annonymous internet 'dude' and I'm going to need to see some hard evidence from you before I believe these claims you're making

You're being nicer now and I have gained a great deal of respect for you with your more respectful tone. this discussion has ended on a much more pleasant note and I respect and agree with your argument. It was well presented and polite, and if you would have put it that way from the beginning I wouldn' t have given you so much poop.
🙂

 

[Code Brown]

Wasn't there a study out there that said that people who receive an odd number on their MCAT do well and those that receive an even number do poorly? I received an odd number and am therefore happy.

 

[yodaf]

Wasn't there a study out there that said that people who receive an odd number on their MCAT do well and those that receive an even number do poorly? I received an odd number and am therefore happy.

Are you sure about that? Crap!!! How about a prime number 😀

 

[velo]

You're being nicer now and I have gained a great deal of respect for you with your more respectful tone. this discussion has ended on a much more pleasant note and I respect and agree with your argument. It was well presented and polite, and if you would have put it that way from the beginning I wouldn' t have given you so much poop.
🙂

I was never really rude to you, you just interpreted a lot of what I said as rude because you've been emotionally invested in this discussion ever since WatchingWaiting opened it up with "This is such a load of crap it's mind-numbing."

I think you're forgetting what it was that I said, and what other people arguing with you said.

Glad to hear we could reach a psuedo-consensus though....god that never happens on SDN.... 🙂

 

[Code Brown]

Are you sure about that? Crap!!! How about a prime number 😀

A 43? Damn, you're good. And an odd number to boot. You should be ok then. Come to think of it, I got a prime number as well. That makes us extra special. That's an automatic interview to Harvard.

 

[principessa]

A 43? Damn, you're good. And an odd number to boot. You should be ok then. Come to think of it, I got a prime number as well. That makes us extra special. That's an automatic interview to Harvard.

But he said, "Crap!" so it wasn't an odd number. Then he offered an alternative, "What if it's a prime number?" So I'm guessing he made a 2.

 

[Code Brown]

But he said, "Crap!" so it wasn't an odd number. Then he offered an alternative, "What if it's a prime number?" So I'm guessing he made a 2.

Good call, I missed that. Speaking of low numbers, what's the lowest MCAT score that you know someone received? I know someone who got a 17.

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

Good call, I missed that. Speaking of low numbers, what's the lowest MCAT score that you know someone received? I know someone who got a 17.

I got that beat - A friend of a friend (you know how that goes) got a 15. Funny thing, this person was confident when walking into the test. I dont know whether or not she misbubbled, but a 15 nonetheless.

 

[PrettyMz4Christ]

I would never want someone operating on me who had a 24 MCAT, because if I had some strang pathology, I would want someone who is likely to remember what they were taught 5 years ago during the first year of surgery residency than someone who is just struggling to learn the material they were given last week.

excellent point.

 

[ms2209]

Where do you live that 1/3 of society is well-rounded? I want to move there! Most Americans are only well-rounded in their waistlines.

LMFAO!!!! So true, so true.

 

[yodaf]

excellent point.

Originally Posted by Jalby
I would never want someone operating on me who had a 24 MCAT, because if I had some strang pathology, I would want someone who is likely to remember what they were taught 5 years ago during the first year of surgery residency than someone who is just struggling to learn the material they were given last week.

excellent point.

Please people, think a bit before you write these things. When was the last time you saw a phsyician with their SAT/MCAT/USMLE scores tattooed on their foreheads; When was the last time you asked your physician what they got on their MCAT? Qualify your statements with something more relevant, like if they're a good physician or not. Say something like, I wouldn't want a doctor who was sued 12 times in the past six months operating on me. Now that makes some sense.

Again I'm not protecting people with low MCAT scores but at the end of the day if they can not handle the academic rigors of medical school they will either flunk out or fail the boards and never practice medicine. Believe it or not there are a lot of safety nets to filter out ineptness after the MCAT.

A good physician is a good physician, and a bad physician either with high or low MCAT is still a bad physician.

So in closing quit being overly elitist, there's no place for that in the practice of medicine.
🙂

 

[Jalby]

Again I'm not protecting people with low MCAT scores but at the end of the day if they can not handle the academic rigors of medical school they will either flunk out or fail the boards and never practice medicine. Believe it or not there are a lot of safety nets to filter out ineptness after the MCAT.
🙂

Here is the key point that you seem to be missing. The MCAT is the FIRST safety net to filter out ineptness. And I think it does a good job of that.

Now, the point of this thread is if a high MCAT correlates to being a better doctor. I'm saying yes it does because that person has a better ability of learning the information than the other person. Doesn't deal anything with how the doctor will interact with the patient, etc, etc. But some people are trying to link high MCAT scores to being inept with patients, etc, etc.

I don't see a connection in any way shape or form. A person with a high MCAT is just as likely to be able to relate to the patient and instill confidence so they would confide in them as a person with a low MCAT. Some people are at both ends of the spectrum, but this in no way relates to MCAT scores.

 

[yodaf]

Here is the key point that you seem to be missing. The MCAT is the FIRST safety net to filter out ineptness. And I think it does a good job of that.

Now, the point of this thread is if a high MCAT correlates to being a better doctor. I'm saying yes it does because that person has a better ability of learning the information than the other person. Doesn't deal anything with how the doctor will interact with the patient, etc, etc. But some people are trying to link high MCAT scores to being inept with patients, etc, etc.

I don't see a connection in any way shape or form. A person with a high MCAT is just as likely to be able to relate to the patient and instill confidence so they would confide in them as a person with a low MCAT. Some people are at both ends of the spectrum, but this in no way relates to MCAT scores.

I'm not missing your point about the MCAT being the intial filter. But I do disagree that it is the best filter. There is a reason why it is a multi-tiered filtering system. It is because a single filter is not satifactory. That meaning some people with low MCAT scores got through and shouldn't be there and some people with high MCAT scores got through and also shouldn't be there. I am speaking from an exclusively academic perspective.

You are definitely right about MCAT scores not being a good barometer when predicting someones future bedside manner.

 

[racystacey07]

Again I'm not protecting people with low MCAT scores but at the end of the day if they can not handle the academic rigors of medical school they will either flunk out or fail the boards and never practice medicine. Believe it or not there are a lot of safety nets to filter out ineptness after the MCAT.

A good physician is a good physician, and a bad physician either with high or low MCAT is still a bad physician.

So in closing quit being overly elitist, there's no place for that in the practice of medicine.
🙂

Brilliantly stated. I could not agree more.

Now, the point of this thread is if a high MCAT correlates to being a better doctor. I'm saying yes it does because that person has a better ability of learning the information than the other person. Doesn't deal anything with how the doctor will interact with the patient, etc, etc. But some people are trying to link high MCAT scores to being inept with patients, etc, etc.

I personally think your logic breaks down when you say that high MCATS correlate to being a BETTER doc. Now, I agree with you that it is crucial for a doctor to be very intelligent, but I think that the difference between a good physician and an amazing physician is not intelligence (because they are both extremely smart), it is in all of the other qualities that the MCAT does not touch. Just my opinion 🙂

 

[Jalby]

I personally think your logic breaks down when you say that high MCATS correlate to being a BETTER doc. Now, I agree with you that it is crucial for a doctor to be very intelligent, but I think that the difference between a good physician and an amazing physician is not intelligence (because they are both extremely smart), it is in all of the other qualities that the MCAT does not touch. Just my opinion 🙂

Having been in medicine and seeing the difference between the good and the "amazing" physician, I have news for you. The biggest difference is the intellegence, not the personality. The doctors could care and interact just the same, but the difference is how much the doctors can retain and recall. Maybe when you are actually working side by side with the different doctors, you will see this.

For example, there was a guy who came in with a ton of problems and a crushed leg. One doctor who was handling the case left the leg on, not thinking it was urgent. Another doctor knew that the leg would just cause the rest of the body to become septic and kill the patient. Directly correlated to intellegence.

 

[Jalby]

I'm not missing your point about the MCAT being the intial filter. But I do disagree that it is the best filter. There is a reason why it is a multi-tiered filtering system. It is because a single filter is not satifactory. That meaning some people with low MCAT scores got through and shouldn't be there and some people with high MCAT scores got through and also shouldn't be there. I am speaking from an exclusively academic perspective.

You are definitely right about MCAT scores not being a good barometer when predicting someones future bedside manner.

MCAT is a filter, GPA is a filter, interviews is a filter, USMLE's are a filter. etc,etc.

 

[Tristero]

While intelligence is necessary to be successful in private practice, it certainly is not sufficient.

 

[yodaf]

Having been in medicine and seeing the difference between the good and the "amazing" physician, I have news for you. The biggest difference is the intellegence, not the personality. The doctors could care and interact just the same, but the difference is how much the doctors can retain and recall. Maybe when you are actually working side by side with the different doctors, you will see this.

For example, there was a guy who came in with a ton of problems and a crushed leg. One doctor who was handling the case left the leg on, not thinking it was urgent. Another doctor knew that the leg would just cause the rest of the body to become septic and kill the patient. Directly correlated to intellegence.

I think you may be a little confused. The situation you site is not a question of intelligence, it has to do with something called experience. An amazing physician is only amazing after they have had EXPERIENCE and not before. And I can say that with confidence, no statistics necessary.

Practicing medicine is just like any trade, you are only as good as the experience you have under your belt. Of course intelligence does play a critical role, but experience is pivotal. When you see and experience a situation time after time you are very unlikely to forget it.

 

[yodaf]

MCAT is a filter, GPA is a filter, interviews is a filter, USMLE's are a filter. etc,etc.

...and your point?

 

[Swack]

I think for the most part, the MCAT is a decent filter for medical school admissions. There are only a limited number of spots, so would you rather admit someone who has good ECs, good LOR, good GPA, good MCAT? or someone with good ECs, good LOR, good GPA, bad MCAT? Without the MCAT, the admissions process might be much more difficult.

 

[yodaf]

The reality is that it is an extreme rarity that a person gets into an allopathic school with a 24. I would think that a 26 would be the point where there begins to be a signficant number of matriculants. So the 24 number is a little extreme and the difference between a 24 and 26 is big. 🙂

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

This is such a dead argument. MCAT measures one's ability to take the MCAT, nothing more, nothing less. From an MCAT score, one can infer the taker's knowledge of basic science, complex thinking ability, test-taking ability, and so on. There is obvious value in its measurement and inclusion in medical school admission criteria. The extent of its value, however, cannot be determined.

 

[susannaQ]

Lol, I read the thread title to fast and thought it said "MCAT correlation with physical ability/quality." If that were the case, I would say definitely a strong correlation.

I don't get it.

Hey, going along the lines of what the OP stated, maybe the MCAT is actually not so much of a hurdle that is lept over and forgotten but a hurdle that trains you to leap over higher and higher hurdles.

Heres why: being a doctor is all about performance, right? You have to perform X amount of opertions a day. Diagnose X amount of patients. Follow up on X amount. Order X amount of tests and medications... The SDNer who talked about the doctor who reacted better to the case of the possible leg infection spread and the doctor who did not: thats also an example of how doctors have to pull all of their knowledge, memory, experience, and energy together to perform, right?
And since these tests(Mcats, USMLEs, others I don't know of) are testing your abilites to pull all your sh** together from everything you learned up until that point and perform, then aren't they more than just hurdles that are lept over and then forgotten and never seen again? After thinking this over, I agree with the OP: they must be so much more than that.

I now see the MCATs in a whole new light and look forward to taking them if I have to(I'm probably becoming a PA, not MD). Thanks OP.

 

[principessa]

I think you may be a little confused. The situation you site is not a question of intelligence, it has to do with something called experience. An amazing physician is only amazing after they have had EXPERIENCE and not before. And I can say that with confidence, no statistics necessary.

Practicing medicine is just like any trade, you are only as good as the experience you have under your belt. Of course intelligence does play a critical role, but experience is pivotal. When you see and experience a situation time after time you are very unlikely to forget it.

True, but people vary in their ability to learn from experience.

Personally, I want a physician who is both caring and intelligent. I've encountered physicians who were intelligent enough, but did not care about my situation, and they scared me because I knew that they might not care enough about me to use their intelligence in my best interests. I've also been treated by physicians who really cared about me, but just didn't have what it took to put the picture together, and they scared me too, because I knew they were missing something and if I had a major problem it would probably just slip right by them. My favorite physicians, the ones I trusted completely, were really smart and really cared about me as a person.

 

[clowne]

I think there have been some very thought-provoking things posted on this thread, but this issue has been beaten to death. Maybe it's time to find a new topic to discuss/argue?

 

[JDAWG07]

I now see the MCATs in a whole new light and look forward to taking them if I have to(I'm probably becoming a PA, not MD). Thanks OP.

No problem.

 

[racystacey07]

Having been in medicine and seeing the difference between the good and the "amazing" physician, I have news for you. The biggest difference is the intellegence, not the personality. The doctors could care and interact just the same, but the difference is how much the doctors can retain and recall. Maybe when you are actually working side by side with the different doctors, you will see this.

For example, there was a guy who came in with a ton of problems and a crushed leg. One doctor who was handling the case left the leg on, not thinking it was urgent. Another doctor knew that the leg would just cause the rest of the body to become septic and kill the patient. Directly correlated to intellegence.

I believe that I was specifically talking about the difference between a "good doctor" and an "excellent doctor". I am not certain I would call a doc who missed septic shock in a patient "good". Doctors that I personally categorize as "good" are brilliant. Docs that I personally think are excellent are both brilliant and humanistic. Again, just my opinion 🙂