Med School admissions is getting too competitive.

[Lucca]

---

Members do not see this ad.

You don't seem to understand how government works. Failing to pay taxes is a civil offense, not criminal and so they'll send the IRS after you, not the police. The government takes your money and does use it for others... it pays for the military, for medical research, national parks, space exploration, to incarcerate criminals, regulate financial markets and a million other things that none of us can do for ourselves. For the last 50 years, that has also included health care coverage for the elderly and the indigent.

And most importantly we enjoy the fruits of these expenses anyway. This last bit is precisely why the whole libertarian "taxation is coercion" thing is a steaming pile of bull****.

 

[NotASerialKiller]

You don't seem to understand how government works. Failing to pay taxes is a civil offense, not criminal and so they'll send the IRS after you, not the police. The government takes your money and does use it for others... it pays for the military, for medical research, national parks, space exploration, to incarcerate criminals, regulate financial markets and a million other things that none of us can do for ourselves. For the last 50 years, that has also included health care coverage for the elderly and the indigent.

I think he just feels strongly that he has the right to live, work and prosper in a country and society built with taxpayer money while not paying taxes. A very mature attitude.

 

[Dral]

Obviously you're much farther along than I am, but you make an interesting point. Based on GPA and MCAT alone, I'd say you'd at least get a lot of strong looks. I don't think having minimal/no shadowing hours is a complete application killer, especially with your stats. However, having 0 pt contact hours looks pretty darn bad as they're relatively easy to get. If you could convey that you are not particularly interested in treating patients and are hoping to center your career on research you might be able to get away with it, though you certainly wouldn't be considered 'ideal' at many places.

Also, what do you mean by "So good extracurriculars"? All I can picture now is Doge in a white coat...

Haha, bad typing on my part. I meant it as "so, to review, I had good curriculars, blah blah blah".

Such MCAT

 

[efle]

That's a straw man. He never advocated for laissez faire.

I mean I didn't even plan to get that involved, but that's utter bull****. They laugh at us and our ridiculous beaurocratic inefficiency and insanely high prices for the simplest of treatments. That he would be so condescending and sure sounding based on something as ridiculous as "Scandinavia doesn't have a better system, they just hide their massive costs"...I couldn't resist

He said "State capitalism is what is repairing the mistakes, which in itself is inefficient because of government intrusion."

> State capitalism is great, the only thing that would make it better is to remove the state/government part
> Pure unregulated capitalism
> Lassez faire

 

[deleted393595]

If you care for Medicare patients and accept Medicare as payment you may not charge less than what Medicare is paid for those services to others. In other words, it is a violation of federal contract to provide free care if you take Medicare.

Really? I didn't realize that provision also applied to free care.

But dumb stuff like that is one of the many reasons why I do not want to accept Medicare/Medicaid as a future provider (If I have the luxury to).

I don't want bureaucrats dictating how medicine should be practiced, and interfering in the patient-provider relationship. For example, the botched EMR mandates have cut down time spent with patients, increased physician workload, and failed to increase the quality of care. On the other hand, we taxpayers have enriched third-rate EMR companies like Epic, which are running on a 50 year old software framework.

 

[Goro]

In all honesty, my student interviewers would eat you alive!

A 37 MCAT is nothing to sneeze at, but how did you convince the Adcoms that you knew what you were getting into and that you wanted to be around sick people? Did your volunteering come up at all in interviews??

And just to get it out of the way...you're not URM or a veteran?

I got accepted (to a top 25 nonetheless) in 2006 without a single hour of shadowing, and maybe 40 or so hours of volunteering in a pharmacy in a hospital (minimal to no patient contact).
Would I get in this year if I applied with the same?
That's not rhetorical. I'm curious to know based on opinion.

My learned colleague reminds me of a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr:

"Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society …"

Other things include mine and food safety, air traffic control, the interstate highways, and, oh yeah: residency slots!

One should read "The Bully Pulpit" by Doris Kearns Goodwin to get an idea of what a laissez faire economy is really like. I don't suppose that you guys would want to work 12 hours days six days a week for the rest of your lives, would you?

You don't seem to understand how government works. Failing to pay taxes is a civil offense, not criminal and so they'll send the IRS after you, not the police. The government takes your money and does use it for others... it pays for the military, for medical research, national parks, space exploration, to incarcerate criminals, regulate financial markets and a million other things that none of us can do for ourselves. For the last 50 years, that has also included health care coverage for the elderly and the indigent.

 

[bc65]

Back in the day, if you wanted to become a doctor, you just had to get the GPA, get an MCAT that isn't garbage, submit the app, and pretend to be a sociable individual in your interview. Boom, you're in. This is what your 50-something year old family doctor and neurosurgeon did. This is what you should have to go through, but it isn't because population boom.

Now you absolutely need extensive research, volunteering, LoRs that talk you up beyond your ability, unnecessary shadowing hours, ECs that make you stand out, and even all that isn't enough. Meeting this kind of criteria is clearly set up for privileged individuals, who old doctors of today were lucky as hell to have avoided going through.

Your premise is incorrect. First of all, the percentage of applicants who are accepted to med school today has not changed in the past 40 years. Back then the acceptance rate ranged between 40 to 50 percent, with some year to year variation. That is still the case. You can look up the exact numbers if you wish. Most years, they were in the low 40's, exactly as they are now.

Forty years ago, the minimum competitive GPAs and MCAT scores were exactly what they are today: 3.5 and at least 80th percentile on the MCAT.

Forty years ago, you were expected to volunteer and shadow, and if you didn't, it hurt you chances of acceptance. Perhaps those activities were not done as much as they are today, but I have no way to quantify the difference, if any.

Back then, you certainly needed great LORs, and the interview process was just as rigorous as it is today, although there were no MMI interviews at that time. Extracurricular activities were valued just as much then as they are now. Med school classes always had their share of PhDs, athletes, and musicians. As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed in terms of the admissions process.

What has changed is that residency spots have become somewhat more competitive, and the USMLE scores seem to be more important. However, I can tell you that derm residencies were competitive back then, and so were plastic surgery residencies ( per what older specialists have told me ). It might be the case that some of the surgery specialties were less competitive then, but otherwise, things are really no different now.

I can also tell you that the really good applicants stand out, both on paper and in person, and get into med school without breaking a sweat. The process is very straightforward if you have the proper qualifications.

If older doctors are telling you otherwise, it's because they don't remember all the details of what they went through, or because they were particularly well qualified applicants, or most likely, due to "survivor bias" ( i.e. you are only talking to people who are doctors, so therefore, by definition they all got in. If you talked to people who applied to med school 40 years ago and were rejected, you would hear how hard it was to get in back then.)

 

[efle]

work 12 hours days six days a week for the rest of your lives, would you?

don't forget that the constant working starts in childhood and prevents you from getting an education that might let you live any other kind of life

 

[Dral]

In all honesty, my student interviewers would eat you alive!

A 37 MCAT is nothing to sneeze at, but how did you convince the Adcoms that you knew what you were getting into and that you wanted to be around sick people? Did your volunteering come up at all in interviews??

And just to get it out of the way...you're not URM or a veteran?




My learned colleague reminds me of a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr:

"Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society …"

Other things include mine and food safety, air traffic control, the interstate highways, and, oh yeah: residency slots!

One should read "The Bully Pulpit" by Doris Kearns Goodwin to get an idea of what a laissez faire economy is really like. I don't suppose that you guys would want to work 12 hours days six days a week for the rest of your lives, would you?

Not URM, not a veteran.

I remember being asked a few times: why MD...why not just use your PhD?

I don't remember my response.

It seems to me the pt contact is such a 'required checkbox' that without it, I'd be without any acceptances in 2016 if I did apply this year.

Glad my med school took a chance on me. I was between two specialties for residency training and chose the one based on patient contact.

Luckily I'm in a fellowship that combines the two.

Anyway, I think it shows how competitive things have gotten just over ten years. I believe I'd have little to no chance now.

 

[deleted480308]

You don't seem to understand how government works. Failing to pay taxes is a civil offense, not criminal and so they'll send the IRS after you, not the police. The government takes your money and does use it for others... it pays for the military, for medical research, national parks, space exploration, to incarcerate criminals, regulate financial markets and a million other things that none of us can do for ourselves. For the last 50 years, that has also included health care coverage for the elderly and the indigent.

And if you don't give the money to the bean counter irs agents when they come, they send people with guns to take you to jail.

You may like the idea of income taxes but you are too smart to pretend they aren't enforced by gun point.

 

[efle]

And if you don't give the money to the bean counter irs agents when they come, they send people with guns to take you to jail.

You may like the idea of income taxes but you are too smart to pretend they aren't enforced by gun point.

What does it matter anyways? That's the logical extreme sure but not what happens in reality for rational, normal members of society. If I went and stood for hours outside a young woman's house or elementary school every day someone with a gun would come force me to leave, but that doesn't make it reasonable to talk about how the government uses threat of death to control where I can walk around. There's certainly arguments to be made about whether taxation is necessary for a healthy, happy society ...the fact that it like everything else could be enforced by threat in extreme cases doesn't contribute anything to the discussion

 

[deleted480308]

What does it matter anyways? That's the logical extreme sure but not what happens in reality for rational, normal members of society. If I went and stood for hours outside a young woman's house or elementary school every day someone with a gun would come force me to leave, but that doesn't make it reasonable to talk about how the government uses threat of death to control where I can walk around. There's certainly arguments to be made about whether taxation is necessary for a healthy, happy society ...the fact that it like everything else could be enforced by threat in extreme cases doesn't contribute anything to the discussion

It does when you deny those taxes are taken by threat of force...which they are

If they were voluntary, they wouldn't get paid

 

[efle]

It does when you deny those taxes are taken by threat of force...which they are

If they were voluntary, they wouldn't get paid

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that's a moot point altogether. Everything is theoretically enforced by eventual threat of injury and death. The discussion worth having is whether or not it should be a requirement, unrelated to how that requirement is enforced. If people who didn't pay taxes were instead tied up and relentlessly tickled while all of their assets were taken, the worthwhile question would still be "does society benefit from the presence of mandatory taxes"

 

[deleted480308]

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that's a moot point altogether. Everything is theoretically enforced by eventual threat of injury and death. The discussion worth having is whether or not it should be a requirement, unrelated to how that requirement is enforced. If people who didn't pay taxes were instead tied up and relentlessly tickled while all of their assets were taken, the worthwhile question would still be "does society benefit from the presence of mandatory taxes"

Assuming everyone actually recognized we were tickling those who didn't pay. You can't have a "are the benefits of this worth it" discussion if half the room doesn't understand the cost of those benefits

It would be like arguing that everyone should get every imaging test available because of the benefits......without acknowledging cost and radiation risks

 

[efle]

Assuming everyone actually recognized we were tickling those who didn't pay. You can't have a "are the benefits of this worth it" discussion if half the room doesn't understand the cost of those benefits

It would be like arguing that everyone should get every imaging test available because of the benefits......without acknowledging cost and radiation risks

Though for most the negative is is $$$ lost, whereas you already are willing to give time/money to socially responsible efforts so your radiation is on principle against violation of property rights

 

[deleted480308]

Though for most the negative is is $$$ lost, whereas you already are willing to give time/money to socially responsible efforts so your radiation is on principle against violation of property rights

Yeah, my argument is all about the method.

I actually personally volunteer with and financially support free medical clinics/crisis pregnancy centers...as have all of the churches I attended

 

[efle]

Yeah, my argument is all about the method.

I actually personally volunteer with and financially support free medical clinics/crisis pregnancy centers...as have all of the churches I attended

Makes sense why you are so optimistic about charity arising to replace social programs!

 

[RustBeltOnc]

bc65 said
Forty years ago, the minimum competitive GPAs and MCAT scores were exactly what they are today: 3.5 and at least 80th percentile on the MCAT.

I can also tell you that the really good applicants stand out, both on paper and in person, and get into med school without breaking a sweat. The process is very straightforward if you have the proper qualifications.

Behold, more truth.

 

[johnnytest]

Simply responding to OP as I have not read what the current discussion is about related to the thread:

I think having to do all the "extra" stuff for medical school can get tiring. Sometimes, I wish grades would be all that matters and the interview would help determine who is a people person. For me, I always knew I wanted to be a doctor. But, in retrospect, I realized the extracurriculars you do are not really for medical school admissions but for your future career as a doctor. Here's what I gained from my extras:

Research: Even though I have done research for 3 years now, I learned it's not something I plan to really do as a career, hence MD/PhD choice was out for me. I also learned I really enjoy hands-on research related to translational research that can lead to production of something tangible for patients.
Clinical Volunteer/Shadowing: Really helped me hone in on the specialities I want to consider. I feel this is very helpful for residencies because you essentially can prepare for residency from Year 1 of Med School.
Clubs/Leadership/Other Volunteering/Work: Through these activities, I feel I gained skill sets I would probably never have learned in any classroom. I learned what it is like to be a role model to both children and college students by serving as a mentor, a tutor, and a teacher. I learned I am really passionate about mentoring and teaching and so I'm considering academic medicine now. I also learned more about the underserved community and how they desperately need access to more resources not just for medical care but for education, living, etc. I also learned to be more confident when giving a presentation. I would be really nervous when giving oral presentation but through these activities, I developed my public speaking skills while lowering my anxiety. Lastly, I learned how to be hold a conversation with someone I don't really know and how to really have a decent conversation, something which helped me for my med school interview and I know I'll need this skill as a doctor.

In conclusion, doing all the extras while managing a full-course load is difficult. I feel I never went above and beyond like some other applicants do. But, I kept true to myself and did what I felt was enjoyable so it was more manageable and did not seem like I was doing work but I was having some fun too. Because of my experiences, I feel I am heading into medical school with good interpersonal skills and a somewhat clear vision of what I intend my career to be like. But, the most important thing I learned was to be open-minded because you never know how one activity can lead you to a different career path, one that may be your true calling.

I think if you are genuinely interested in the extras you do then you will stand out to admissions and appear much more enthusiastic in interviews to talk about yourself. I think that's what the adcoms refer to when they say grades can get you to the door but your ECs/Personality get you through it. At the very least, your ECs can be nice life experiences.

 

[Lawpy]

You've clearly got no idea what you're talking about. Places like Scandinavia have much more manageable costs than we do, not worse. For some example more grounded in reality look at what has happened historically when industry is given total freedoms

At the cost of substantial tax increases.

Basic economics dictates that government intervention through tax increases, minimum wage increases etc. as well as private anticompetitive practices will lead to inefficient markets with waste of resources. Now we know that humans are far from rational decision makers, so state intervention is necessary. But what's necessary sacrifices efficiency in the most optimal economic system.

I think we can continue this discussion separately to avoid being off-topic. I'll add you into the PM chat.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

At the cost of substantial tax increases.

Basic economics dictates that government intervention through tax increases, minimum wage increases etc. as well as private anticompetitive practices will lead to inefficient markets with waste of resources. Now we know that humans are far from rational decision makers, so state intervention is necessary. But what's necessary sacrifices efficiency in the most optimal economic system.

I think we can continue this discussion separately to avoid being off-topic. I'll add you into the PM chat.

Can I be added as well?

 

[efle]

At the cost of substantial tax increases.

Basic economics dictates that government intervention through tax increases, minimum wage increases etc. as well as private anticompetitive practices will lead to inefficient markets with waste of resources. Now we know that humans are far from rational decision makers, so state intervention is necessary. But what's necessary sacrifices efficiency in the most optimal economic system.

I think we can continue this discussion separately to avoid being off-topic. I'll add you into the PM chat.

Your original statement was calling their expenses "massive" and "hidden" which are both wrong - they are more efficient and transparent than our system. Payment method is unrelated.

And single payer is the most efficient, not having multiple options/capitalistic...

 

[leonardoson]

This may be a blunt response. I believe the creation of this thread shows the changing ideals of the generation we grow up in. The entitlement of the current generation (which I'm embarrassed to be apart of) keeps growing and manifests itself in the ideals and actions of the people. We are not "owed" anything. To think that, is not what success is built off of. Success is built off of the acknowledgement that we are owed nothing, and the fact that we need to work for what God drives us to do (if you believe in that sort of thing). If everything was just handed to us on a silver platter what satisfaction would you receive in life? I've been handed nothing. I work hard for my grades. The easy A's that I have received mean nothing. The classes that strained my mind and I worked my ass off to get an A mean more to me than the low level math classes that I just showed up and received the A. What kind of character would we all have if we never knew how to work hard? What kind of workforce and Doctors would that breed? IMO it would create mostly lazy and an unimproving economy with a stagnant healthcare system that's about showing up and making as much money as possible to fulfill one's life.

Well it seems the former may have already happened...

 

[WingedOx]

Simply responding to OP as I have not read what the current discussion is about related to the thread:

I think having to do all the "extra" stuff for medical school can get tiring. Sometimes, I wish grades would be all that matters and the interview would help determine who is a people person. For me, I always knew I wanted to be a doctor. But, in retrospect, I realized the extracurriculars you do are not really for medical school admissions but for your future career as a doctor. Here's what I gained from my extras:

Research: Even though I have done research for 3 years now, I learned it's not something I plan to really do as a career, hence MD/PhD choice was out for me. I also learned I really enjoy hands-on research related to translational research that can lead to production of something tangible for patients.
Clinical Volunteer/Shadowing: Really helped me hone in on the specialities I want to consider. I feel this is very helpful for residencies because you essentially can prepare for residency from Year 1 of Med School.
Clubs/Leadership/Other Volunteering/Work: Through these activities, I feel I gained skill sets I would probably never have learned in any classroom. I learned what it is like to be a role model to both children and college students by serving as a mentor, a tutor, and a teacher. I learned I am really passionate about mentoring and teaching and so I'm considering academic medicine now. I also learned more about the underserved community and how they desperately need access to more resources not just for medical care but for education, living, etc. I also learned to be more confident when giving a presentation. I would be really nervous when giving oral presentation but through these activities, I developed my public speaking skills while lowering my anxiety. Lastly, I learned how to be hold a conversation with someone I don't really know and how to really have a decent conversation, something which helped me for my med school interview and I know I'll need this skill as a doctor.

In conclusion, doing all the extras while managing a full-course load is difficult. I feel I never went above and beyond like some other applicants do. But, I kept true to myself and did what I felt was enjoyable so it was more manageable and did not seem like I was doing work but I was having some fun too. Because of my experiences, I feel I am heading into medical school with good interpersonal skills and a somewhat clear vision of what I intend my career to be like. But, the most important thing I learned was to be open-minded because you never know how one activity can lead you to a different career path, one that may be your true calling.

I think if you are genuinely interested in the extras you do then you will stand out to admissions and appear much more enthusiastic in interviews to talk about yourself. I think that's what the adcoms refer to when they say grades can get you to the door but your ECs/Personality get you through it. At the very least, your ECs can be nice life experiences.

Honestly even though it was a decade ago, I really don't think I did anything "extra" to get into med school. My research job paid better than sweeping floors at the movie theatre. My volunteering I would have done anyway. I did almost all my shadowing while home on breaks (I had one bitter dingus interviewer tell me I didn't have enough clinical experience... he was at my top choice school too.) but obviously it was enough for multiple other schools).

 

[Mad Jack]

You don't seem to understand how government works. Failing to pay taxes is a civil offense, not criminal and so they'll send the IRS after you, not the police. The government takes your money and does use it for others... it pays for the military, for medical research, national parks, space exploration, to incarcerate criminals, regulate financial markets and a million other things that none of us can do for ourselves. For the last 50 years, that has also included health care coverage for the elderly and the indigent.

It depends on whether you willfully refuse to pay taxes or not. If you willfully do not pay taxes, either as a tax cheat or tax protester, you will go to prison:

"Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."

 

[HuskyBabe]

I don't understand much about this subject, and I'm sure that there's a reason it doesn't happen. But I've always wondered why schools simply just don't accept more applicants. All of the doctors I've talked to have said that they worked 80-120 hours per week as a resident. How can you expect someone to function properly in those conditions? Especially someone who could be doing surgery on you? Just hire more doctors and relieve some pressure. I agree with OP when he/she says that "Becoming a doctor shouldn't be some kind of extremely competitive sport". It seems to me like the system is super competitive just for the sake of being super competitive.

Just hiring more doctors is not feasible when you don't have funding. That's the entire issue, there is currently not enough funding to pay for more residents. It's all about the money

 

[gyngyn]

But dumb stuff like that is one of the many reasons why I do not want to accept Medicare/Medicaid as a future provider (If I have the luxury to).

I would also be happy to decide who got free care, but practically speaking you cannot care for the poor without accepting those with benefits.

 

[Ad2b]

@ElCapone - is this something along the lines of what you're thinking? Not sure how successful it is but it is a no-insurance practice.

http://atlas.md/wichita/

 

[deleted393595]

I would also be happy to decide who got free care, but practically speaking you cannot care for the poor without accepting those with benefits.

I thought that Medicaid pays so little - at least in Texas - that physicians lose money anyways on patients. In fact, one of the specialists in my area stopped accepting Medicaid, and started seeing patients for free for that very reason (he also feared being thrown in jail if he accidentally undercoded or overcoded).

@ElCapone - is this something along the lines of what you're thinking? Not sure how successful it is but it is a no-insurance practice.

http://atlas.md/wichita/

Yup! From what I read a few months back about them, they're quite successful!

Ideally, if I became a PCP and could work in a practice like that, I'd be able to see a bunch of patients for free since I wouldn't be stressed over: 1) Meeting Fed and insurer mandates for paperwork and stuff, and 2) Worrying about being able to address the needs of my complex patients in 15-min appointments

 

[cloudmurder1]

This may be a blunt response. I believe the creation of this thread shows the changing ideals of the generation we grow up in. The entitlement of the current generation (which I'm embarrassed to be apart of) keeps growing and manifests itself in the ideals and actions of the people. We are not "owed" anything. To think that, is not what success is built off of. Success is built off of the acknowledgement that we are owed nothing, and the fact that we need to work for what God drives us to do (if you believe in that sort of thing). If everything was just handed to us on a silver platter what satisfaction would you receive in life? I've been handed nothing. I work hard for my grades. The easy A's that I have received mean nothing. The classes that strained my mind and I worked my ass off to get an A mean more to me than the low level math classes that I just showed up and received the A. What kind of character would we all have if we never knew how to work hard? What kind of workforce and Doctors would that breed? IMO it would create mostly lazy and an unimproving economy with a stagnant healthcare system that's about showing up and making as much money as possible to fulfill one's life.

Well it seems the former may have already happened...

Buddy, the OP is one person. Yes, there are people in this generation with entitlement issues, and there always will be, but you're frankly just preaching to the choir here with this rhetoric.

 

[notbobtrustme]

I got accepted (to a top 25 nonetheless) in 2006 without a single hour of shadowing, and maybe 40 or so hours of volunteering in a pharmacy in a hospital (minimal to no patient contact).

So good extracurriculars
Non-trad with science based PhD before applying
3.88 - 3.89 GPA
37 MCAT (third attempt...scored 29 and 30 when I took it in undergrad. The 37 was at the end of my PhD just before applying)
No pt contact or shadowing

Would I get in this year if I applied with the same?

That's not rhetorical. I'm curious to know based on opinion.

this was basically me during the 2012 cycle (37 MCAT first try, 3.6 GPA, graduate experience but no degree at the time) except that I applied in Sept/Oct and still got 4 IIs, waitlisted at 2 and pulled off in June.

Despite what everyone says, you can become a doctor by having below average stats if you don't mind going DO. Sure, MD is competitive, but if you are even average MD stats, you have like a 70-80% chance of acceptance. I reviewed applications as a 3rd year and so many idiots apply who have no business applying; they'll have 3.0 GPAs with 25 MCATs and basically nothing else. These can easily account for 30% of the applications in a given pool.

 

[Hildace]

Your premise is incorrect. First of all, the percentage of applicants who are accepted to med school today has not changed in the past 40 years. Back then the acceptance rate ranged between 40 to 50 percent, with some year to year variation. That is still the case. You can look up the exact numbers if you wish. Most years, they were in the low 40's, exactly as they are now.

Forty years ago, the minimum competitive GPAs and MCAT scores were exactly what they are today: 3.5 and at least 80th percentile on the MCAT.

Forty years ago, you were expected to volunteer and shadow, and if you didn't, it hurt you chances of acceptance. Perhaps those activities were not done as much as they are today, but I have no way to quantify the difference, if any.

Back then, you certainly needed great LORs, and the interview process was just as rigorous as it is today, although there were no MMI interviews at that time. Extracurricular activities were valued just as much then as they are now. Med school classes always had their share of PhDs, athletes, and musicians. As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed in terms of the admissions process.

What has changed is that residency spots have become somewhat more competitive, and the USMLE scores seem to be more important. However, I can tell you that derm residencies were competitive back then, and so were plastic surgery residencies ( per what older specialists have told me ). It might be the case that some of the surgery specialties were less competitive then, but otherwise, things are really no different now.

I can also tell you that the really good applicants stand out, both on paper and in person, and get into med school without breaking a sweat. The process is very straightforward if you have the proper qualifications.

If older doctors are telling you otherwise, it's because they don't remember all the details of what they went through, or because they were particularly well qualified applicants, or most likely, due to "survivor bias" ( i.e. you are only talking to people who are doctors, so therefore, by definition they all got in. If you talked to people who applied to med school 40 years ago and were rejected, you would hear how hard it was to get in back then.)

The reality is that the MCAT today is harder than the MCAT of 40 years ago. That alone makes it harder to get into allopathic medical school today than it was back then. Even before the recent change to the MCAT this past April, which added a significant amount of knowledge necessary for success on the exam, I'd argue the MCAT exam of 2014 was still harder than the MCAT exam of 1974. The amount of knowledge gained during the 1974-2014 period meant that examinees not only had to know what was known back in 1974, but also what had been learned in the following 40 years (eg advances in molecular genetics, etc). The Berkeley Review MCAT test prep company actually has fairly thick chapters on molecular biology and molecular biology techniques (which obviously wouldn't have been the case 40 years ago).

Furthermore, while a competitive score of 80th percentile on the MCAT is fairly consistent over the past 40 years, the actual score needed to be in the 80th percentile has continued to go up. In many cases, an applicant will need a higher MCAT score to get into allopathic medical school today than was needed 40 years ago. In the past decade alone, the mean MCAT score for matriculants has gone up almost two points (29.6 in 2003 to 31.4 in 2014). With a higher MCAT score needed to remain competitive, it is clearly harder for the applicant to gain an acceptance.

Getting into medical school has become more competitive, just as getting into top residencies has.

 

[Ad2b]

The reality is that the MCAT today is harder than the MCAT of 40 years ago.

I would submit after asking physician friends of mine who took the MCAT in 1979, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1993, 2006, 2007, 2013, 2014 if that were the case.

Resoundingly, the answer was no.

I think trying to compare two different styles along with or without writing vs the 2015 is difficult at best.

The old MCAT (pre-2015) was very heavy physics, gen chem - both heavy equation based; biology was very much systems based; the verbal passages could have science based passages thus making them "easier" and then there was the writing sample.

To be fair, I also think the prep companies do a FAR better job of preparing the students for the MCAT than they did all those years ago. Finally, I was set to take the old MCAT on 1/15 and did not when I saw this:

less physics
more biochem
more integration

Easier back then? I don't know that anyone can say that for sure unless the physicians who took the tests back then took the MCAT 2015 now. None of us have that perspective.

 

[bc65]

The reality is that the MCAT today is harder than the MCAT of 40 years ago. That alone makes it harder to get into allopathic medical school today than it was back then. Even before the recent change to the MCAT this past April, which added a significant amount of knowledge necessary for success on the exam, I'd argue the MCAT exam of 2014 was still harder than the MCAT exam of 1974.

It doesn't matter. You were still competing against the same smart people, and you still had to do better than they did on the test, and you were marked on a curve. Also, in the 1970's and 80's, there was a math section on the exam, as well as a "general knowledge" section, which tested you on you knowledge of...everything! Literature, art, philosophy, general culture. Sure, there's more science to know now. It doesn't matter. You have to do better than the competition. People are not smarter now than they were then. Everyone studied whatever was going to be on the exam, and you competed against them. ( Please note that the people who discovered all that new biochemistry would have been your competition in 1974)

If the MCAT scores have gone up a couple of points, it means that more people are doing better with their test prep: The arms race has heated up, but that has always been going on. That's probably why they keep changing the MCAT and the scoring system.

In 1974, almost everyone who wanted to go to med school took a prep course, studied for the MCAT every free minute, and premeds were just as reviled then as they are now for their grade-grubbing behavior. There were no easy good old days, at least not going back to the 60's. From what I have heard, it was still hard to get in then. It's probably been just as hard to get in since the Flexner Report reforms took hold in the 1920's and 30's. ( If you don't know what that is, google it )

 

[RustBeltOnc]

It doesn't matter. You were still competing against the same smart people, and you still had to do better than they did on the test, and you were marked on a curve.

TRUTH!

 

[efle]

I love how people speak of MCAT difficulty as if it's decided by what the test is like. Test doesn't matter. All that matters is who is taking it. Unless the premeds of 2015 are significantly smarter than 2014 there is no change in the difficulty of being top 1/5th

 

[ZedsDed]

I love how people speak of MCAT difficulty as if it's decided by what the test is like. Test doesn't matter. All that matters is who is taking it. Unless the premeds of 2015 are significantly smarter than 2014 there is no change in the difficulty of being top 1/5th

If the new MCAT was markedly different from the old one (I don't think it is), then I suppose you could argue that a different type of student will score in the top 1/5.

 

[Axes]

If the new MCAT was markedly different from the old one (I don't think it is), then I suppose you could argue that a different type of student will score in the top 1/5.

I'd say no again, because your score is determined not by your innate comfort with different subject matter, but by your capacity and tendency to study for the MCAT. The hard workers get the high scores as usual

 

[ZedsDed]

I'd say no again, because your score is determined not by your innate comfort with different subject matter, but by your capacity and tendency to study for the MCAT. The hard workers get the high scores as usual

On standardized exams, innate intelligence is a bigger determining factor than study habits. Intelligence is a multi-dimensional thing. Someone who is great at algebraic manipulation, might be less impressive in verbal reasoning.

 

[WedgeDawg]

On standardized exams, innate intelligence is a bigger determining factor than study habits.

I would actually disagree there. I think study habits are a lot more important than some people think. Both are necessary but neither is sufficient, and diligence in studying (read: studying effectively) is, in my opinion, more necessary than being super smart. I don't have numbers to back this up, however.

 

[ZedsDed]

I would actually disagree there. I think study habits are a lot more important than some people think. Both are necessary but neither is sufficient, and diligence in studying (read: studying effectively) is, in my opinion, more necessary than being super smart. I don't have numbers to back this up, however.

I'm mainly going off of the numbers. There are plenty of studies showing that performance on the SAT/ACT predict success in college/life better than sex, race, class, etc. Here's one off of the top of my head:
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/19/6/346.abstract
That isn't to say that environment doesn't matter, only that very high intelligence usually nullifies the effects of poverty. I agree that proper study habits are essential for maximum yield.

 

[Axes]

I'm mainly going off of the numbers. There are plenty of studies showing that performance on the SAT/ACT predict success in college/life better than sex, race, class, etc. Here's one off of the top of my head:
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/19/6/346.abstract
That isn't to say that environment doesn't matter, only that very high intelligence usually nullifies the effects of poverty. I agree that proper study habits are essential for maximum yield.

The ACT is a different animal than the MCAT. You can ace the ACT by just being a smart teenager, but the MCAT requires an achieved knowledge base and a mastery of learned concepts. Check the recent ACT/MCAT correlation thread for a lot of anecdotal evidence of that.

 

[efle]

Like I always say, tons of studying is necessary but not sufficient for a high MCAT!

 

[Hildace]

Sure, there's more science to know now.
If the MCAT scores have gone up a couple of points, it means that more people are doing better with their test prep

You said it yourself; there's more science to know and people are doing better with their test prep. These points DO matter, and DO make it more difficult to get into medical school today than 40 years ago. If you have to know more material, and have to obtain a higher MCAT score to be competitive in an applicant pool, it will be harder to gain a medical school acceptance. At the end of the day, in 2015, an applicant, on average, will have to work harder to obtain that higher MCAT score and acceptance to medical school than an applicant applying 40 years ago.

 

[Hildace]

I love how people speak of MCAT difficulty as if it's decided by what the test is like. Test doesn't matter. All that matters is who is taking it. Unless the premeds of 2015 are significantly smarter than 2014 there is no change in the difficulty of being top 1/5th

Clearly on both tests, an examinee would ideally need to beat out 80% of his or her fellow examinees to be competitive. The difference is that the amount of effort and hard work required to be in that top 20% has gone up. For example, would you say there's a difference in difficulty between a test in which one needs to know 100 pieces of information, and a test in which one needs to know 1000 pieces of information? Would it take the same amount of time to study for each? What if you also needed to know a higher percentage of the information to be competitive?

 

[Hildace]

Another useful post on the topic, from http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...schools-20-30-years-ago-easier-harder.751395/

"The number of matriculants has been pretty consistent since 1982 (~16-18K/yr). It's the increase in applicants that makes it so much harder now than in the past. The same trend goes for osteopathic schools. Their GPA/MCAT averages keep increasing every year. Bottom line is schools are being more selective.

Source: http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/charts1982to2010.pdf --> https://www.aamc.org/download/153708/data/ "

 

[Ad2b]

The difference is that the amount of effort and hard work required to be in that top 20% has gone up.

I presume you took the MCAT in the 80's, 90's and 00's? Because if you have not, then you have no evidence to support your hypothesis.

And I submit, your hypothesis is flawed. Just because more is known now in the medical field does not mean the same people who took the MCAT 20 or 30 or 50 or ... years ago did not have to memorize, integrate similar amounts of data.

Only those people who have taken both sets of tests can accurately state what is harder.

To me, it sounds like whining. Sorry.

 

[Hildace]

I presume you took the MCAT in the 80's, 90's and 00's? Because if you have not, then you have no evidence to support your hypothesis.

And I submit, your hypothesis is flawed. Just because more is known now in the medical field does not mean the same people who took the MCAT 20 or 30 or 50 or ... years ago did not have to memorize, integrate similar amounts of data.

Only those people who have taken both sets of tests can accurately state what is harder.

To me, it sounds like whining. Sorry.

While it may be debatable between the MCAT of 1974 and the MCAT of 2014, I would argue it is not debatable between the old MCAT and the new 2015 MCAT. I've taken (and done well on) both exams, and I know the amount of data one needs to memorize on the new MCAT is significantly higher. Furthermore, the MCAT scores required to be competitive for medical school admissions have gone up--meaning that the percentage of information one needs to know on test day to remain competitive has increased. Both of these point to a harder, more selective medical school admissions process today than in the past.

 

[Ad2b]

I studied for both as well. I decided to

take the 2015 simply and solely because of

less physics, less ochem, more biochem = not more material, same amount just differently dispersed across categories

and if you took both tests and did well, why? Why would you take both exams if you did not need to?

Harder process? meh. More people alive today than 30 years ago, yes. More people applying? the %s are similar. Not sure that makes one or the other harder.

 

[bc65]

For example, would you say there's a difference in difficulty between a test in which one needs to know 100 pieces of information, and a test in which one needs to know 1000 pieces of information? Would it take the same amount of time to study for each? What if you also needed to know a higher percentage of the information to be competitive?

Nothing significant has changed in the physics or chemistry that you will be tested on. Certainly nothing has changed in the verbal material you need to know, and since you aren't tested on math or general knowledge, you have much less to study in those two areas. The only thing that's changed is that you might need to know a few more metabolic pathways or enzymes in biochemistry, and I doubt that the material you will be expected to know in that area will exceed the preparation time you would need for a math and general knowledge section. Your suggestion that you have to know ten times more material on this exam is just silly.

However, if you really believe that that amount of extra material is going to make a big difference in your competitiveness for medical school, you had better hope that you don't get in, because you will be in for quite a shock when you come face to face with your medical school curriculum.