Medical student graduates at age 61

[alpinism]

Interesting. Good to see he is milking out a career, albeit a new age touchy feely one. I will withhold my views on a physician partnering with a reverend to provide "spiritual healing" as a medical service...

I won't.

He's a quack who preys on desperate people with chronic back pain.

There is absolutely no quality evidence that osteopathic manipulation or spiritual healing is effective for musculoskeletal pain.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Medstart108]

Age discrimination is outright illegal, and actually makes a pretty poor selection criteria for physicians anyway. There's kind of a difference in regard to age versus race. Even in the case of race-based admissions, you're looking at what that individual will bring to your school in regard to diversity, cultural competence, etc.

Age discrimination is unfair, however you cannot deny that the amount of "doctoring" someone 61 can do is incomparable with what someone 26 can do. The brain's ability to learn new things declines with age and someone at the age of 61 is going to have a difficult time learning medicine from scratch (for the skeptics, medicine is like learning a new language, how easy is it for a 60 year old to learn a new language vs a 20 year old).

I disagree with age discrimination below a certain age, but people looking at medical school over the age of 40 just aren't going to be able to put out the same output as someone at the age of 22 over their lives. There are some exceptions. This is nothing like race because while age does have real consequences, race is just the color of your skin literally and does not have any effect on your ability to perform.

This may sound harsh, but as far as i'm concerned he is just a novelty doctor, good for him but I wouldn't want him as my physician. I am glad he is doing spinal manipulations now.

 

[TheTao]

The brain's ability to learn new things declines with age and someone at the age of 61 is going to have a difficult time learning medicine from scratch (for the skeptics, medicine is like learning a new language, how easy is it for a 60 year old to learn a new language vs a 20 year old).

In my case, my learning has only gotten BETTER with age because I now learn FAR more efficiently/effectively than I did in my 20s. And I'm not special in this regard, the longer you do a thing, the better some people will become. Obviously, those of us who learn better with age are the ones most likely to enter medicine as MD at an older age.

Finally, "life experiences" which contribute significantly to the skills of older Docs and Docs that are parents, aren't things you can learn in a book. I'd MUCH rather have a "new doc" at age 37 or older, than age 27 ANYDAY due to the advantages of "life experiences" alone.

 

[Medstart108]

In my case, my learning has only gotten BETTER with age because I now learn FAR more efficiently/effectively than I did in my 20s. And I'm not special in this regard, the longer you do a thing, the better some people will become. Obviously, those of us who learn better with age are the ones most likely to enter medicine as MD at an older age.

Finally, "life experiences" which contribute significantly to the skills of older Docs and Docs that are parents, aren't things you can learn in a book. I'd MUCH rather have a "new doc" at age 37 or older, than age 27 ANYDAY due to the advantages of "life experiences" alone.

Maybe you learn better, but that could be due to any number of factors, maybe in your 20s you weren't learning very efficiently or effectively as you could have and it took you until later to develop those skills but for many people they learn as effectively as they can by the age of 20.

Unless you've been learning medicine since you were in your 20s I don't see how the longer you learn something the better you get at it is relevant at all for people who go into medicine after 40 (these people have had careers and have not spent their 20s and 30s preparing for medical school). There is a reason why doctors at 50 plus can still practice, it isn't that all their mental capacities decline it is that their ability to learn new things does. Ask any 50 year old to try to switch careers and they will tell you it is not as easy as when they were 20. Ask any 50 year old to learn how to type and most likely they will type with 2 fingers for the rest of their lives. Ask a 6 year old these days to type and they probably type faster than their grandparents.

Its very common for older people to remark how their ability to remember things just is not the same as when they were younger.

You also didn't address my point, which was that a new medical student at the age of 40+ is going to be a doctor at the age of 44+ and I would much rather have a 27 year old new doc than a 45 year old new doc.

 

[TheTao]

Unless you've been learning medicine since you were in your 20s I don't see how the longer you learn something the better you get at it is relevant at all for people who go into medicine after 40 (these people have had careers and have not spent their 20s and 30s preparing for medical school).

I have to concede that I have been in the medical profession in other roles, most especially as a Scientist conducing medically relevant research, ie cancer research. I've also held about 5 other roles in the medical profession, including those involving patient care. So perhaps my views on this topic as significantly skewed, LOL!!

You also didn't address my point, which was that a new medical student at the age of 40+ is going to be a doctor at the age of 44+ and I would much rather have a 27 year old new doc than a 45 year old new doc.

There's nothing much to address here, you're obviously prejudiced against older Docs. And as a person who has lived with other types of prejudice my entire life and STILL managed to succeed, now that I know your true "deal", I'll treat you as I do them. IGNORE THEM AND KEEP IT MOVIN'!!

 

[ridethecliche]

Hate to rain on this parade, but admitting a 57 year old is such a waste of resources.

The other 40 schools that rejected him got it right. Why invest resources in a 57 year old when there are thousands of much younger applicants who have the potential to be in practice for many more years down the road?

I think the more interesting thing is what this guy could be doing in terms of research. If he does even 5-10 good studies on non-surgical treatments of spinal disorders using quantitative measurements with his engineering background, he's going to have done a LOT for society. It seems like that was what got him into it. Hopefully he does some work on it.

 

[oldstock]

Age discrimination is unfair, however you cannot deny that the amount of "doctoring" someone 61 can do is incomparable with what someone 26 can do. The brain's ability to learn new things declines with age and someone at the age of 61 is going to have a difficult time learning medicine from scratch (for the skeptics, medicine is like learning a new language, how easy is it for a 60 year old to learn a new language vs a 20 year old).

I disagree with age discrimination below a certain age, but people looking at medical school over the age of 40 just aren't going to be able to put out the same output as someone at the age of 22 over their lives. There are some exceptions. This is nothing like race because while age does have real consequences, race is just the color of your skin literally and does not have any effect on your ability to perform.

This may sound harsh, but as far as i'm concerned he is just a novelty doctor, good for him but I wouldn't want him as my physician. I am glad he is doing spinal manipulations now.

IMHO, there are 2 ways to argue about age discrimination

1. based on U.S. Laws (which is relevant in this case)

2. based on philosophy/moral/ethics




First, arguments based on laws are technical. Age discrimination in any activity or program which receives Federal Financial Assitance is generally illegal and prohibited specifically by The Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

There are two exceptions: 1. Normal operation or statutory objective of any program or activity, 2. Reasonable factors other than age. The burden of proof is fallen on the recipient of Federal financial assistance (e.g. most colleges/universities/medical schools).




*If adcoms want to claim exception #1, i.e. Normal operation or statutory objective of any program or activity,

110.12 Exceptions to the rules against age discrimination: Normal operation or statutory objective of any program or activity.


A recipient is permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by 110.10 if the action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity. An action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity, if --


(a) Age is used as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics;

Med school addcoms would have to declare, define and use Age as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics that are considered in the admission process. What characteristics of the applicants that adcoms want to use Age as a measure or approximation of, Physical Abilities/Mobility/Stamina, Mental Ability/Stamina, Academic Performance, Clinical Performance, Numbers of Potential Years of Service after graduation, Numbers of Potential Patients that the person can serve as a physician, etc ?? that can qualify the condition (b), (c), and (d) as stated below,



(b) The other characteristic or characteristics must be measured or approximated in order for the normal operation of the program or activity to continue, or to achieve any statutory objective of the program or activity;


(c)The other characteristic or characteristics can be reasonably measured or approximated by the use of age; and


(d) The other characteristic or characteristics are impractical to measure directly on an individual basis.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6103)

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr110.html



IMHO, itt is hard to satisfy all these above conditions for adcoms to claim exception #1

For an example, let's assume that Age is used by adcoms to measure or approximate an applicant's Physical Ability and Mental Ability based on broad generalization that a person's Physical Ability and/or Mental Ability is declining with Age for the reason that declined Physical Ability and Mental Ability affect the person's ability to function as a medical student and a doctor in the future. Bc it is the burden of proof is on the school/adcom to prove that this generalization is true to be reasonable to use Age to measure or approximate Physical Ability or Mental Ability or that Physical or Mental Ability is impractical to measure directly on an individual basic.

Another one, let's assume again that Age is used by adcoms to measure/approxiamate an applicant's Number of Service based on the broad generalization that a person's years of service is reduced and declining with Age. While this approximation based on age might be reasonable, the school/adcom has to prove that age is not interfering the normal operation or statutory objective of the medical school/program or activity (Note: Statutory objective means any purpose of a program or activity expressly stated in any Federal statute, State statute, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected general purpose legislative body).





*If adcoms want to claim exception #2, i.e. Reasonable factors other than age,

110.13 Exceptions to the rules against age discrimination: Reasonable factors other than age.


A recipient is permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by 110.10 that is based on a factor other than age, even though that action may have a disproportionate effect on persons of different ages. An action may be based on a factor other than age only if the factor bears a direct and substantial relationship to the normal operation of the program or activity or to the achievement of a statutory objective.


(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6103)

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr110.html


Adcoms are usually secretive about what factors they are used to select candidates for admission (except transparent minimum GPA and standardized test score requirements). However, as more and more older applicants applying to medical schools, it becomes easier to prove that it is statistically significant that a disproportion of older applicants are disadvantageously affected by the admission process. When it comes to court/law suits, according to the laws here, it is the school(s) that has to tell/explain to the court why older applicant pool is disproportionally affected and what factor that they use that is affecting older applicants and have to prove to the court that this factor "bears a direct and substantial relationship to the normal operation of the program or activity or to the achievement of a statutory objective."



The point is, can adcoms fulfill this burden of proof ??


110.14 Burden of proof.


The burden of proving that an age distinction or other action falls within the exceptions outlined in 110.12 and 110.13 is on the recipient of Federal financial assistance.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr110.html




-------




*THE LAWS:

SOURCE:

U.S. Department of Education
Laws & Guidance CIVIL RIGHTS

Know Your Rights

• OCR Complaint Process
• Sex Discrimination
• Race and National Origin Discrimination
• Age Discrimination
• Disability Discrimination
• Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act

OCR enforces several Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive Federal funds from the Department of Education. These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin, sex, disability, and on the basis of age. These laws extend to all state education agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museums that receive U.S. Department of Education funds. OCR also has responsibilities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (prohibiting disability discrimination by public entities, whether or not they receive federal financial assistance). In addition, as of January 8, 2002, OCR enforces the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (Section 9525 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). Under the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, no public elementary or secondary school or State or local education agency that provides an opportunity for one or more outside youth or community groups to meet on school premises or in school facilities shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, or any other youth group listed in Title 36 of the United States Code as a patriotic society, that wishes to meet at the school.


http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/know.html



-------


http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/ageoverview.html

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/ocr/age.html


Laws & Guidance CIVIL RIGHTS
Age Discrimination: Overview of the Law

The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination based on age in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. The U.S. Department of Education gives financial assistance to schools and colleges. The Age Discrimination regulation describes conduct that violates the Act. The Age Discrimination regulation is enforced by the Office for Civil Rights and is in the Code of Federal Regulations at 34 CFR Part 110.


The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 does not cover employment discrimination. Complaints of employment discrimination based on age may be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.


The regulations under the Age Discrimination Act, however, allow you to file a claim in Federal court under that law only after (1) 180 days have passed since you file your complaint with OCR and OCR has made no finding, or (2) OCR issues a finding in favor of the recipient. In the latter case, OCR will promptly notify you and remind you of your right to file in court.


The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits retaliation for filing a complaint with OCR or for advocating for a right protected by the Act.


-----

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr110.html

"TITLE 34 EDUCATION


SUBTITLE B REGULATIONS OF THE OFFICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


CHAPTER I OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


PART 110 NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE IN PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE


....


Subpart B Standards for Determining Age Discrimination
110.10 Rules against age discrimination.


The rules stated in this section are subject to the exceptions contained in 110.12 and 110.13 of these regulations.


(a) General rule. No person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.


(b) Specific rules. A recipient may not, in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, use age distinctions or take any other actions that have the effect, on the basis of age, of --


(1) Excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or


(2) Denying or limiting individuals in their opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.


(c) Other forms of discrimination. The specific forms of age discrimination listed in paragraph (b) of this section do not necessarily constitute a complete list.


(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6103)


110.11 Definitions of "normal operation" and "statutory objective."


For purposes of these regulations, the terms normal operation and statutory objective have the following meanings:


(a) Normal operation means the operation of a program or activity without significant changes that would impair its ability to meet its objectives.


(b) Statutory objective means any purpose of a program or activity expressly stated in any Federal statute, State statute, or local statute or ordinance adopted by an elected general purpose legislative body.


(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6103)


110.12 Exceptions to the rules against age discrimination: Normal operation or statutory objective of any program or activity.


A recipient is permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by 110.10 if the action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity. An action reasonably takes into account age as a factor necessary to the normal operation or the achievement of any statutory objective of a program or activity, if --


(a) Age is used as a measure or approximation of one or more other characteristics;


(b) The other characteristic or characteristics must be measured or approximated in order for the normal operation of the program or activity to continue, or to achieve any statutory objective of the program or activity;


(c) The other characteristic or characteristics can be reasonably measured or approximated by the use of age; and


(d) The other characteristic or characteristics are impractical to measure directly on an individual basis.


(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6103)


110.13 Exceptions to the rules against age discrimination: Reasonable factors other than age.


A recipient is permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by 110.10 that is based on a factor other than age, even though that action may have a disproportionate effect on persons of different ages. An action may be based on a factor other than age only if the factor bears a direct and substantial relationship to the normal operation of the program or activity or to the achievement of a statutory objective.


(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6103)


110.14 Burden of proof.


The burden of proving that an age distinction or other action falls within the exceptions outlined in 110.12 and 110.13 is on the recipient of Federal financial assistance.


(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6104)


110.15 Affirmative action by recipients.


Even in the absence of a finding of discrimination, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation in the recipient's program or activity on the basis of age.


(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6103)


....."

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr110.html


-------

 

[deleted307836]

The only objection to this that I am sympathetic to is that public funds are used for residency training (I believe about ~100k/yr/resident on average?). So if someone graduated MS at 61, residency at 64, and practiced for five years before retiring, was that an efficient use of public funds? No, but that is such an extreme and infrequent circumstance that it hardly merits debate.

 

[Law2Doc]

The only objection to this that I am sympathetic to is that public funds are used for residency training (I believe about ~100k/yr/resident on average?). So if someone graduated MS at 61, residency at 64, and practiced for five years before retiring, was that an efficient use of public funds? No, but that is such an extreme and infrequent circumstance that it hardly merits debate.

Meh, a guy who worked for forty years before going to med school paid in more toward these "public funds" at the front end then he's ever going to take out. So I'm not sure that's a good argument. Just because someone has a shorter medical career doesn't mean he hasn't already paid a Lot into the kitty before that during his prior career. In fact you could argue that it's much much better for society in terms of public funding purposes if they got some money already, before med school. The guy going to med school right out of college is purely a future investment, and thus much riskier. Maybe there's more upside, but with the second career guy you've (the public trust) already recouped your investment before you started.

 

[Nasrudin]

Ok pretty interesting. But look I mean unless an admissions committee documents it's old as dirt jokes about an applicant, how is an old applicant going to make a claim that it was their age is what prevented them from getting in?

Also even as old resident I don't find medstar108's post the least bit offensive. In fact I agree. Sight unseen. I'd choose a 20 something new doc over one my age. Going through training at this age has a correlation to maladjustment issues. Oh....I'm sorry...you're offended. Well ok, but that's my honest assessment of myself and my older cohort. Percentage-wise, our doc game just isn't as strong.

There's nothing magical about volume of life experience in the patient relations game either. Although I know that thesis is obviously a central claim of this forum's membership, I just haven't found any truth in it.

 

[oldstock]

Ok pretty interesting. But look I mean unless an admissions committee documents it's old as dirt jokes about an applicant, how is an old applicant going to make a claim that it was their age is what prevented them from getting in?

Adcoms are usually secretive about what factors they are used to select candidates for admission (except transparent minimum GPA and standardized test score requirements). However, as more and more older applicants applying to medical schools, it becomes easier to prove that it is statistically significant that a disproportion of older applicants are disadvantageously affected by the admission process. Patterns.


Even in the case of absence of discriminatory intent, lawsuits can be filed based on Disparate Impact Discrimination theory.

http://www.eeotraining.eeoc.gov/images/content/EXCELHandouts/1B Basic_Theories_of_Discrimination.pdf

http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/disparate-impact-discrimination.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_treatment

Also even as old resident I don't find medstar108's post the least bit offensive. In fact I agree. Sight unseen. I'd choose a 20 something new doc over one my age. Going through training at this age has a correlation to maladjustment issues. Oh....I'm sorry...you're offended. Well ok, but that's my honest assessment of myself and my older cohort. Percentage-wise, our doc game just isn't as strong.

There's nothing magical about volume of life experience in the patient relations game either. Although I know that thesis is obviously a central claim of this forum's membership, I just haven't found any truth in it.

The only objection to this that I am sympathetic to is that public funds are used for residency training (I believe about ~100k/yr/resident on average?). So if someone graduated MS at 61, residency at 64, and practiced for five years before retiring, was that an efficient use of public funds? No, but that is such an extreme and infrequent circumstance that it hardly merits debate.

anyway, if what @Nasrudin and @CityLights say there were to be accepted as basic for discrimination against older applicants, I think US med schools should adapt the way of the world that is to only admit students right out of HS and/or at least declare an age cut off for med school admission where the maximum of life/service years after medical training and/or "efficient use of public fund" could be achieved, e.g. 18-20.

 

[Mad Jack]

Maybe you learn better, but that could be due to any number of factors, maybe in your 20s you weren't learning very efficiently or effectively as you could have and it took you until later to develop those skills but for many people they learn as effectively as they can by the age of 20.

Unless you've been learning medicine since you were in your 20s I don't see how the longer you learn something the better you get at it is relevant at all for people who go into medicine after 40 (these people have had careers and have not spent their 20s and 30s preparing for medical school). There is a reason why doctors at 50 plus can still practice, it isn't that all their mental capacities decline it is that their ability to learn new things does. Ask any 50 year old to try to switch careers and they will tell you it is not as easy as when they were 20. Ask any 50 year old to learn how to type and most likely they will type with 2 fingers for the rest of their lives. Ask a 6 year old these days to type and they probably type faster than their grandparents.

Its very common for older people to remark how their ability to remember things just is not the same as when they were younger.

You also didn't address my point, which was that a new medical student at the age of 40+ is going to be a doctor at the age of 44+ and I would much rather have a 27 year old new doc than a 45 year old new doc.

I'd much rather have a 45 year old new psychiatrist than a 27 year old one, based on perspective alone. Age-based performance is largely field-dependent.

 

[TheTao]

There's nothing magical about volume of life experience in the patient relations game either. Although I know that thesis is obviously a central claim of this forum's membership, I just haven't found any truth in it.

Perhaps you don't know anyone that's done anything "magical" outside of medicine. Or maybe you think one must have a career as a Physician to have a "magical" life. <Insert Kanye shrug>

The facts are that most nontrad premeds over age 35 often have balanced, well lived lives full of success well before matriculation to med school which greatly contributes to the kinds of Docs they become. While you and some select (and very silly adcoms) may not appreciate that, I can assure you that patients DO.

 

[oldstock]

a curious me leads me to reading more on the subject of discrimination and the laws....

this is interesting,


"
Controversy

The disparate impact theory of liability is controversial for several reasons. First, it labels certain unintended effects as "discriminatory," although discrimination is not an intentional act. Second, the theory is in tension with disparate treatment provisions under civil rights laws as well as the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. For example, if the hypothetical fire department discussed above used the 100-pound requirement, that policy might disproportionately exclude female job applicants from employment. Under the 80% rule mentioned above, unsuccessful female job applicants would have a prima facie case of disparate impact "discrimination" against the department if they passed the 100-pound test at a rate less than 80% of the rate at which men passed the test. In order to avoid a lawsuit by the female job applicants, the department might refuse to hire anyone from its applicant pool -- in other words, the department may refuse to hire anyone because too many of the successful job applicants were male. Thus, the employer would have intentionally discriminated against the successful male job applicants because of their gender, and that likely amounts to illegal disparate treatment and a violation of the Constitution's right to equal protection. In the 2009 case Ricci v. DeStefano, the U.S. Supreme Court did rule that a fire department committed illegal disparate treatment by refusing to promote white firefighters, in an effort to avoid disparate impact liability in a potential lawsuit by black and Hispanic firefighters who disproportionately failed the required tests for promotion. Although the Court in that case did not reach the constitutional issue, Justice Scalia's concurring opinion suggested the fire department also violated the constitutional right to equal protection. Even before Ricci, lower federal courts have ruled that actions taken to avoid potential disparate impact liability violate the constitutional right to equal protection. One such case is Biondo v. City of Chicago, Illinois, from the Seventh Circuit.


In 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit, EEOC v. FREEMAN, against the use of typical criminal-background and credit checks during the hiring process. While admitting that there are many legitimate and race-neutral reasons for employers to screen out convicted criminals and debtors, the EEOC presented the theory that this practice is discriminatory because minorities in the U.S. are more likely to be convicted criminals with bad credit histories than caucasians. Ergo, employers should have to include criminals & debtors in their hiring. In this instance U.S. District Judge Roger Titus ruled firmly against the disparate impact theory, stating that EEOC's action had been "a theory in search of facts to support it." "By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the “Hobson’s choice” of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers. Something more... must be utilized to justify a disparate impact claim based upon criminal history and credit checks. To require less, would be to condemn the use of common sense, and this is simply not what the laws of this country require."


The disparate impact theory is especially controversial under the Fair Housing Act because the Act regulates many activities relating to housing, insurance, and mortgage loans -- and some scholars have argued that the theory's use under the Fair Housing Act, combined with extensions of the Community Reinvestment Act, contributed to rise of sub-prime lending and the crash of the U.S. housing market and ensuing global economic recession.[16] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

off the tangent here, I am wondering if this (underlined) has been tried as an argument in the case of the use of race-preference/race-based/URM admission ??.... Hmmm....

 

[oldstock]

Perhaps you don't know anyone that's done anything "magical" outside of medicine. Or maybe you think one must have a career as a Physician to have a "magical" life. <Insert Kanye shrug>

The facts are that most nontrad premeds over age 35 often have balanced, well lived lives full of success well before matriculation to med school which greatly contributes to the kinds of Docs they become. While you and some select (and very silly adcoms) may not appreciate that, I can assure you that patients DO.

!!

 

[oldstock]

I'd much rather have a 45 year old new psychiatrist than a 27 year old one, based on perspective alone. Age-based performance is largely field-dependent.

Perhaps you don't know anyone that's done anything "magical" outside of medicine. Or maybe you think one must have a career as a Physician to have a "magical" life. <Insert Kanye shrug>

The facts are that most nontrad premeds over age 35 often have balanced, well lived lives full of success well before matriculation to med school which greatly contributes to the kinds of Docs they become. While you and some select (and very silly adcoms) may not appreciate that, I can assure you that patients DO.

while those assertions might be reasonable assumption/generalization, I think, for the purpose of fairness and equal opportunity to everyone, that case-by-case basic which would focus on the individual's merits and (earned) qualifications to determine if the person is fit for the position would be a better method of determination than any gross generalization about age, esp. there are too many generalizations are negatively biased against older applicants/candidates.

 

[Mad Jack]

while those assertions might be a reasonable assumption/generalization, I think, to be fair, that case-by-case basic which would focus on the individual's merits and (earned) qualifications to determine if the person is fit for the position would be better than any gross generalization about age, esp. there are too many generalizations are negatively biased against older applicants/candidates.

Obviously it's also individual dependent. But certain fields are definitely kinder to those in old age than their younger counterparts.

 

[oldstock]

Obviously it's also individual dependent. But certain fields are definitely kinder to those in old age than their younger counterparts.

agreed.

 

[ridethecliche]

I won't.

He's a quack who preys on desperate people with chronic back pain.

There is absolutely no quality evidence that osteopathic manipulation or spiritual healing is effective for musculoskeletal pain.

Not unreasonable, but there is a high relationship with depression and back pain. Physical touch and spirituality can often help some of those who suffer from it, thereby alleviating certain symptoms.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but this dude has some pretty good credentials re:engineering. I'm interested to see what he's doing outside of the quackery if anything.

 

[TheTao]

I don't know anyone who has EVER been admitted to med school based on race alone, ie "race based admissions". I do know URMs that were admitted with MCATs, good GPAz, good ECs, interviewing skills, and good LORs.

A MUCH better discussion in terms of sample size and one which would merit a MUCH higher number of matriculants, is legacy based admissions. Put another way, I'm fairly certain that the 0-10 seats URMs make up at the majority of med schools pales in comparison to those whose parents/relatives gave them a "leg up", either directly or indirectly, on the competition.

 

[deleted307836]

@oldstock

For the record, I don't believe in age discrimination in admissions and I believe that there is HUGE value to admitting older applicants. Like I said, graduating in one's sixties is an extreme circumstance to which I can understand possible objections -- but ultimately do not agree with them as a means of barring admittance. I think our system would be much worse off if only younger applicants were admitted.

Law2Doc, your point about that person already "paying in" to the system is a good one.

 

[oldstock]

I don't know anyone who has EVER been admitted to med school based on race alone, ie "race based admissions". I do know URMs that were admitted with MCATs, good GPAz, good ECs, interviewing skills, and good LORs.

A MUCH better discussion in terms of sample size and one which would merit a MUCH higher number of matriculants, is legacy based admissions. Put another way, I'm fairly certain that the 0-10 seats URMs make up at the majority of med schools pales in comparison to those whose parents/relatives gave them a "leg up", either directly or indirectly, on the competition.

search/google and read more about URM, you will be surprised at what you see there. Def not race alone, but when race is used as an very important determining factor (e.g. that would make a student w 19-20 MCAT who otherwise would not have no chance to be admitted to med schools if he/she is white or Asian be able to obtain admission), it is race-based indeed.

legacy based admission is also wrong imho. But at least, this is "underground" and neither obvious nor systematic as in the case of URM admission. Legacy based admission also does not make URM-admission less or not worth mentioning.

My point is, discrimination is wrong when you are applying a double standard to treat/discriminate a particular group based on race, age, sex, national origin, etc, esp. the standards you use to discriminate have no proven relation to the qualification and ability to function and perform for the job in question.

In the case of age discrimination in education, when it comes to court/law suits, according to the laws here, it is the school(s) that has to tell/explain to the court why older applicant pool is disproportionally affected and what factor that they use that is affecting older applicants and have to prove to the court that this factor "bears a direct and substantial relationship to the normal operation of the program or activity or to the achievement of a statutory objective."

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr110.html

 

[oldstock]

@oldstock

For the record, I don't believe in age discrimination in admissions and I believe that there is HUGE value to admitting older applicants. Like I said, graduating in one's sixties is an extreme circumstance to which I can understand possible objections -- but ultimately do not agree with them as a means of barring admittance. I think our system would be much worse off if only younger applicants were admitted.

Law2Doc, your point about that person already "paying in" to the system is a good one.

agreed.

The note I want to say is that it is a slippery slope, where do we draw the line ?? Not admitting this 61 yo guy leads to not admitting 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s based on the same possible objections, generalizations, and/or assumptions. We need to look at the individual and his/her merits and qualifications instead of discriminating the person based on generalization.

If he is qualified and competitive in every way that you are treating any other applicants which would be including having a clean bill of health, admit him.

 

[jl lin]

Rationalization I have read here for excluding someone on the basis of age: Age is more acceptably generalizable as a justification for exclusion-- much more so as compared with race or any other protected status.

Other issues:

Bitterness and disappointment about the choice to pursue medicine by some, and then their using that as rationalization for ageism. ("I don't like it." or "It sucks for me, so then other older people who enter medicine will not like it or it will suck for them.") Strong thinking there.

News Flash: Mostly everyone after 20-25 starts to slow down a little--it's hormones and drops in GH and other factors, but people then begin to learn the importance of the long distance running over sprinting. Medicine isn't something you sprint through regardless of age: 20 or 4o or whatever. Really life isn't anything you sprint through if you want to make the distance.

Hey now, let's start a trend where we will tell people that their lives are coming to an end near 40. I'm mean that's how it was years ago. More people died at 40 or so. Forget the fact that people like farmers, earlier in the last century, did farming of thousands of acres pretty much manually. But also let's forget that every 6 mo.s or so when they went a ways into town with their horses and buckboards to stock on some supplies, they were unfortunate enough to get exposed to things like TB--and well, there wasn't real tx (isoniazid or rifampin, etc.) . .too bad for them.
So the 40 year olds and such died w/o tx. What do you know? It wasn't age that was killing these people off. It was disease and lack of tx.

Age is not some horrible disease that incapacitates people. It's not that simple. And plenty of folks that sit on adcoms will want to work well past 40s for God's sake. If you are healthy enough through wellness, sound care, good genetics, and limiting your skydiving, well like most people, you will want to live every minute of whatever time you are given.

As with all forms of unfair and foolish discrimination against people, using age or some BD on a form is limiting others and even the impact that any of these individuals can make, based merely on weak piece of demographics.

The most hilarious thing is that barring some early and unexpected changes for individuals, most will move in and through the second-half stages of human development pretty well--at least a lot of folks in this country. Do YOU really think You will want to just vegetate or be like some automaton until your number is called at 77 or 80 or whatever?

Time is just time. What a person does with it is up to them, and no one should dictate or use biased thinking to limit what people do with what time they have, so long as they can function well.

 

[TheTao]

Diversity is NOT discrimination whether we're talking about age, race, or size of buttocks.

BTW, there was nothing "underground" about the UF med school matriculant a few years back, that was able be be admitted without an MCAT because his Daddy was dean at UF and also friend/supporter of the Bush's.

So perhaps you're right about race based admissions, and let's throw in gender too, I'm certain NO URM OR woman could have reaped a similar benefit as this dude without the MCAT score.

 

[oldstock]

Diversity is NOT discrimination whether we're talking about age, race, or size of buttocks.

diversity is not discrimination when you are not discriminating people and/or using double standard based on "unalterable characteristics, such as race, nationality, and gender" **, esp ones that bear no relation to the ability or qualification of the person to function or perform the job, to achieve diversity. When you are, it is discrimination !!

BTW, there was nothing "underground" about the UF med school matriculant a few years back, that was able be be admitted without an MCAT because his Daddy was dean at UF and also friend/supporter of the Bush's.

I am not defending legacy admission. It is wrong.

So perhaps you're right about race based admissions, and let's throw in gender too, I'm certain NO URM OR woman could have reaped a similar benefit as this dude without the MCAT score.

URM is not based on sex (man or woman or sexual orientation). Again, discrimination esp when using a double standard is wrong.

As I already mentioned in my previous posts, sex discrimination is wrong. Discrimination based on race, age, sex, national origin, religion, etc. is wrong.

Please do not compare one kind of wrong with another kind of wrong. Doing that does not make any wrong right. URM is wrong because it is essentially race-based discrimination. Sex discrimination is wrong. Legacy admission is wrong. Age discrimination is wrong. Wrong is wrong !!


@TheTao : FYI, check out this link,

** http://www.justice.gov/usao/ne/press_releases/Civil Rights Book-NE-2.pdf

 

[TheTao]

There is GPA "discrimination" (ie few people are accepted with GPAs < 2.8), MCAT "discrimination" (few people with < 21 are admitted), height "discrimination" (few people shorter that 5 feet all are admitted).

I mean really, how far do we want take this "discrimination" argument? One person's "selection process" is another's "discrimination".

We should agree to disagree and move on!

 

[Law2Doc]

agreed.

The note I want to say is that it is a slippery slope, where do we draw the line ?? Not admitting this 61 yo guy leads to not admitting 50s, 40s, 30s, 20s based on the same possible objections, generalizations, and/or assumptions...

No need to draw the line. Just do a more comprehensive physical and questionnaire like an insurance company would and their actuarial tables will spit out a fairly good guestimate for how long you can be expected to practice. Anyone who doesn't have 15 productive years left -- and that includes the chain smoking obese 20 year old who participates in x-treme sports -- is told to take a hike.

 

[oldstock]

No need to draw the line. Just do a more comprehensive physical and questionnaire like an insurance company would and their actuarial tables will spit out a fairly good guestimate for how long you can be expected to practice. Anyone who doesn't have 15 productive years left -- and that includes the chain smoking obese 20 year old who participates in x-treme sports -- is told to take a hike.

sounds perfect. Oh wait, questionnaire....

well, at least your proposal is trying to treat everyone fairly and equally w same rule for everybody.

 

[oldstock]

There is GPA "discrimination" (ie few people are accepted with GPAs < 2.8), MCAT "discrimination" (few people with < 21 are admitted), height "discrimination" (few people shorter that 5 feet all are admitted).

I mean really, how far do we want take this "discrimination" argument? One person's "selection process" is another's "discrimination".

We should agree to disagree and move on!

well you agree that there are some unfair discrimination. Such as age discrimination.

you also did not read what I said above carefully. Yes, the admission process is a discriminating process to select qualified and competent candidates. But to be fair to everyone, it should not be based on race, age, sex, religion, etc. which are unrelated with the required ability and qualification of the person to function and perform for the job. Nor it should be done using a double standard to compare and select candidates.

If we are applying the SAME rules/standards based on transparent smetrics which are related to the ability and qualification of a person to function and perform for the job FOR EVERYONE to compare and select candidates, this process would be a fair game.

you are a scientist right ?? I hope you understand what I am talking about here...

 

[Nasrudin]

Perhaps you don't know anyone that's done anything "magical" outside of medicine. Or maybe you think one must have a career as a Physician to have a "magical" life. <Insert Kanye shrug>

The facts are that most nontrad premeds over age 35 often have balanced, well lived lives full of success well before matriculation to med school which greatly contributes to the kinds of Docs they become. While you and some select (and very silly adcoms) may not appreciate that, I can assure you that patients DO.

You couldn't have misinterpreted my point more than you did. The quality of early experience and the genetic material with which it has to work with forms the primary structure of the personality. This foundation is pretty solidified by young adulthood and comprises all of the social ability that is required to be a physician.

Also what's with the font and capitalization of the letters DO supposed to mean? I see that everywhere on sdn.

In any case. You're a bunch of old people who know everything. Something I find refreshingly absent in all but the most narcissistic of younger people. And but one of the reasons I prefer some of their company over some of our cohort.

Good luck.

Don't take your time too much. Only but so much to go around for each of us.

 

[jl lin]

Even if you have me on ignore for whatever inane reasons, Nas, from day one, it's like you think it is cute to write in some odd ball cryptic fashion.
It contradicts the very purpose of effective communication. I mean lyrics and poems can me vague and some cryptic for a variety of reasons--freedom of thought and expression as an artistic device; but prose shouldn't be so unclear if you want people to understand your points.
There is sound reason for writing exposition in a clear manner.

"You're a bunch of old people who know everything. . ."
What? So you are more enlightened b/c you are an equally "old" person who doesn't?

And you don't know younger folks very well, developmentally speaking. They are renowned, in many cases--normal-- (quite typical due to lack of completion in frontal lobe development as well as life experience) for THINKING they know everything. This can be dangerous.

The only thing worse is when "older" folks get frozen in this place and though they have more frontal lobe development and life experiences,coupled with the inability to apply real life wisdom, they get stuck there at that undeveloped place.

It's the people that know life is hard and is a giant pain in the arse, who learn to become problem solvers and work to make a difference, in spite of realities of the many and continued trials and agonies of life, that in fact make a powerful difference. Problem-solvers are what physicians have to grow to become--not problem abolishers, b/c there is not such thing. And they also realize problem-solving isn't a magical fix. The process varies somewhat from person-patient to person-patient.

Talk about being stuck. Good luck and may the "wisdom-force" of Kermit the frog be with you. It may not be "easy being green," but Kermit feels all stuck b/c he doesn't get that life aint' easy, period.

 

[jl lin]

Here it is. Do your best to put forth your best application. If you feel that you have been discriminated against b/c of age, first make sure your application is as up to snuff as it can possibly be and apply more broadly. If you are still hitting a stone wall, then do whatever you have to do within reason of good sense.

If the adcom powers that be reject summarily d/t age and get away with it, in due time, it will come back to haunt them. And wht this will show is there really isn't the need for physicians in things like primary care, etc as they say. I mean, is this just a type of boy's club for young automatons, or do they really want boots on the ground. That's what it comes down to in the end.

Point is, if you feel strongly led to do this and can make a good app, you will never know unless you try.

 

[TheTao]

I'd much rather be old than look old, how did med school/residency treat ya', Nas!??

Add everything it took for you to get admitted and I'm certain I LOOK younger than you ARE, ROTFL!!!

 

[jl lin]

I'd much rather be old than look old, how did med school/residency treat ya', Nas!??

Add everything it took for you to get admitted and I'm certain I LOOK younger than you ARE, ROTFL!!!

Some genetics going well, yea. But also exercise is part of this I think. What is your exercise routine Tao?

 

[Nasrudin]

Idk. Talk amongst yourselves.

 

[TheTao]

Tai Chi, of course!

Plus yoga and power walking and a LOT of "meal reductions", ROTFL!!!

 

[NonTradJp]

Back to the decade old reason for making this thread. That guy is cool for what he going back to medicine back also cool for his extensive experience in research on back pain. His credentials are pretty awesome as a researcher.

As for the topic of what he or anyone that will have reduced practicing years will get out of a medical degree is that there should be a lot to gain. People tell me the experience of the education and training has been enriching. Also I had heard of excellent researchers who worked with MD's found their PhD's alone had too many limits on what they wanted to do. Thus they went and got MD's without any intention to practice. Seems very legit to me.

 

[jl lin]

Tai Chi, of course!

Plus yoga and power walking and a LOT of "meal reductions", ROTFL!!!

LOL
Tai Chi is getting a bad wrap, lol.

Have you tried hot yoga?

 

[the_fella]

Looks like he did a OMM residency at MSU. He is now in California doing spine manipulations...

www.montereyclinic.com/about-dr.-nicodemus.html

Then why didn't he just go to chiropractor school?

 

[seminoma]

Are people really trying to argue that the average 60 something will out live the average 30 something? Cmon, I'm all for people defending their opinion, but this is straight common sense and epidemiology. The older you are the closer you are to punching the clock.. That's how humans work.

Sure I could drop dead tomorrow and you old guys could live another 20 years, but that wouldn't be a typical scenario.

What's next, you going to try and tell me that I'm just as likely to fall out of my chair and break a hip?

 

[jl lin]

Adcoms are usually secretive about what factors they are used to select candidates for admission (except transparent minimum GPA and standardized test score requirements). However, as more and more older applicants applying to medical schools, it becomes easier to prove that it is statistically significant that a disproportion of older applicants are disadvantageously affected by the admission process. Patterns.


Even in the case of absence of discriminatory intent, lawsuits can be filed based on Disparate Impact Discrimination theory.

http://www.eeotraining.eeoc.gov/images/content/EXCELHandouts/1B Basic_Theories_of_Discrimination.pdf

http://employment.findlaw.com/employment-discrimination/disparate-impact-discrimination.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_treatment


anyway, if what @Nasrudin and @CityLights say there were to be accepted as basic for discrimination against older applicants, I think US med schools should adapt the way of the world that is to only admit students right out of HS and/or at least declare an age cut off for med school admission where the maximum of life/service years after medical training and/or "efficient use of public fund" could be achieved, e.g. 18-20.

Bottom line is that you'd have the right legal help that can dig through the pretext to the denial based on age. Schools can't denial d/t EEOC; but biased reactions occur all the time for all kinds of reasons. The federally protected blocking based on bias will not be listed, Eg., as Nas stated, "as old as dirt," or whatever.

Basically organizations can do whatever they want, so long as they don't get caught. Now, no organization really wants to deal with even a claim of discrimination based on EEOC issues. So they find ways to cover their tracks. Smart lawyers, however, can peel through the pretexts and makes strong arguments--and at the very least, give these schools bad press. So any youngster or older adcom member should really think more than twice about denying a seat based on age or EEOC issues. I mean they should think long and hard about avoiding them as factors--they should mentally put blinders on and not even look at the birthdate or age or color or whatever is protected under EEOC. In fact, go out of your way and just take it out of the equation, b/c that bias could get the school burned in one way or another.

Nas is just Nas, and there are those like him that are disenchanted about the whole MS/GME gig from start to finish. Their input, unless something dramatic causes internal changes within them, will continue to be on the negative side. Five years ago, he sung a different tune. I was here. I read it. He defended to some degree against age bias--and stated how youngsters w/o life experience are w/o some degree of advantage. He's entitled to change and sing whatever tune he wants. If he, however, decides to sit as an adcom member, sure, he might get away with quietly employing his biases--based on many subjective things from his own POV; but then again, he's taking a risk for the school and perhaps even for him.

Any school, whether osteopathic or allopathic, that is OK with its adcom members employing such biases is asking for trouble. The answer of course is that older non-trads have to go the extra mile, at least IMHO, unless they have the benefit of another URM status, to have super great applications (whole applications). The trouble is that for a number of nontrads, well, there may be some stuff from their earlier edu process that can be used against them, even if their more recent scholarship has been great. If someone is either consciously or subconsciously employing bias, do you not think they will use that?

The other things is that nontrads may not get exposure to research b/c of work and other responsibilities. So this can put them at the "right" disadvantage for non-acceptance at allopathic schools--wink, wink. There are any number of things in an application that can be used as a "non-biased" basis for discrimination--again, wink, wink.

All an applicant can do is her/his own due diligence in creating the very best application s/he can, and probably apply carefully to various schools. If Harvard is a reach for the 4.0 youngster with a +40 MCAT (or whatever the equivalent will be) and great ECs and solid research and LORs, it's a reasonable bet it will be even a greater reach for most non-trads.

The game is what it is. You do your best to have sound motives and play it as well as you can. But schools should be advised that there are great anti-discrimination lawyers that would be willing to take them on, and at the least, get them some very bad press. In fact, an older non-trad may well have nothing to lose in pushing this--even considering legal costs. If it is something they want to do, and they have a decent job and the money, they may be willing to push against it for years--at the very least--getting possibly some compensation, and at best, opening doors for other nontrads/those protected under EEOC.

 

[oldstock]

excellent poszt !!

Bottom line is that you'd have the right legal help that can dig through the pretext to the denial based on age. Schools can't denial d/t EEOC; but biased reactions occur all the time for all kinds of reasons. The federally protected blocking based on bias will not be listed, Eg., as Nas stated, "as old as dirt," or whatever.

Basically organizations can do whatever they want, so long as they don't get caught. Now, no organization really wants to deal with even a claim of discrimination based on EEOC issues. So they find ways to cover their tracks. Smart lawyers, however, can peel through the pretexts and makes strong arguments--and at the very least, give these schools bad press. So any youngster or older adcom member should really think more than twice about denying a seat based on age or EEOC issues. I mean they should think long and hard about avoiding them as factors--they should mentally put on blinders on and not even look at the birthdate or age or color or whatever is protected under EEOC. In fact, go out of your way and just take it out of the equation, b/c that bias could get the school burned in one way or another.

Nas is just Nas, and there are those like him that are disenchanted about the whole MS/GME gig from start to finish. Their input, unless something dramatic causes internal changes within them, will continue to be on the negative side. Five years ago, he sung a different tune. I was here. I read it. He defended to some degree against age bias--and stated how youngsters w/o life experience are w/o some degree of advantage. He's entitled to change and sing whatever tune he wants. If he, however, decides to sit as an adcom member, sure, he might get away with quietly employing his biases--based on many subjective things from his own POV; but then again, he's taking a risk for the school and perhaps even for him.

Any school, whether osteopathic or allopathic, that is OK with its adcom members employing such biases is asking for trouble. The answer of course is that older non-trads have to go the extra mile, at least IMHO, unless they have the benefit of another URM status, to have super great applications (whole applications). The trouble is that for a number of nontrads, well, there may be some stuff from their earlier edu process that can be used against them, even if their more recent scholarship has been great. If someone is either consciously or subconsciously employing bias, do you not think they will use that?

The other things is that nontrads may not get exposure to research b/c of work and other responsibilities. So this can put them at the "right" disadvantage for non-acceptance at allopathic schools--wink, wink. There are any number of things in an application that can be used as a "non-biased" basis for discrimination--again, wink, wink.

All an applicant can do is her/his own due diligence in creating the very best application s/he can, and probably apply carefully to various schools. If Harvard is a reach for the 4.0 youngster with a +40 MCAT (or whatever the equivalent will be) and great ECs and solid research and LORs, it's a reasonable bet it will be even a greater reach for most non-trads.

The game is what it is. You do your best to have sound motives and play it as well as you can. But schools should be advised that there are great anti-discrimination lawyers that would be willing to take them on, and at the least, get them some very bad press. In fact, an older non-trad may well have nothing to lose in pushing this--even considering legal costs. If it is something they want to do, and they have a decent job and the money, they may be willing to push against it for years--at the very least--getting possibly some compensation, and at best, opening doors for other nontrads/those protected under EEOC.

 

[jl lin]

Ok pretty interesting. But look I mean unless an admissions committee documents it's old as dirt jokes about an applicant, how is an old applicant going to make a claim that it was their age is what prevented them from getting in?

Also even as old resident I don't find medstar108's post the least bit offensive. In fact I agree. Sight unseen. I'd choose a 20 something new doc over one my age. Going through training at this age has a correlation to maladjustment issues. Oh....I'm sorry...you're offended. Well ok, but that's my honest assessment of myself and my older cohort. Percentage-wise, our doc game just isn't as strong.

There's nothing magical about volume of life experience in the patient relations game either. Although I know that thesis is obviously a central claim of this forum's membership, I just haven't found any truth in it.

And it's quite interesting that you NOW have not. Hmmm.

It's one thing to speak for yourself, but it's another to speak for your "cohorts."

You may well have always been the kind of person that was not open to the game of medicine and the craziness that is healthcare. You perhaps denied it earlier on, but later became disenfranchised by it, and are now singing a different song. This is fine, but it's clearly your own limited bias speaking.

I have been in HC since my teens. When I spoke of interest in it, others, who were close to me and in it, made sure I got a lot of serious exposure to it. They wanted me to get a lot of feel for both the excitement and suckage early on.

I can run the same craziness I ran in my early 20's as a critical care nurse--and in spite of the nurses you've worked with, there was NOT a lot of easiness to the roles. My cohorts and I got beaten up pretty badly, but loved it all the same.


The presumptions that go into some thought-processes/PsOV absolutely amaze me.

 

[jl lin]

excellent poszt !!

Thanks oldstock. The biased thinking still astounds me.

 

[Mad Jack]

Then why didn't he just go to chiropractor school?

Totally different theories behind the treatments, different methods, a lack of complete understanding of the human body from a pharmacological and physiological perspective, etc.

 

[Nasrudin]

And it's quite interesting that you NOW have not. Hmmm.

It's one thing to speak for yourself, but it's another to speak for your "cohorts."

You may well have always been the kind of person that was not open to the game of medicine and the craziness that is healthcare. You perhaps denied it earlier on, but later became disenfranchised by it, and are now singing a different song. This is fine, but it's clearly your own limited bias speaking.

I have been in HC since my teens. When I spoke of interest in it, others, who were close to me and in it, made sure I got a lot of serious exposure to it. They wanted me to get a lot of feel for both the excitement and suckage early on.

I can run the same craziness I ran in my early 20's as a critical care nurse--and in spite of the nurses you've worked with, there was NOT a lot of easiness to the roles. My cohorts and I got beaten up pretty badly, but loved it all the same.


The presumptions that go into some thought-processes/PsOV absolutely amaze me.

Glad to amaze.

You win Jlin. The proportion of wonderful people goes up in our cohort as we go forward. What could be more obvious.

 

[Nasrudin]

I'm just reading...skimming...over your formulations of me:

I'm not for age discrimination. I'm not for privileging age either. I'm saying it doesn't add up to big advantage in being a doc. As disappointing as that may be. Wisdom...ie knowing when to shut the F up! .... Is not age dependent.

Listen to it......(crickets......(nas out))

 

[jl lin]

Glad to amaze.

You win Jlin. The proportion of wonderful people goes up in our cohort as we go forward. What could be more obvious.

Your anecdotal is a bit of a "win" too. Know why? You are in residency. Most residents will be bothered by the amount of suckage during this part of training. The good news is, for a good percentage, regardless of age, the sucksge factor will drop when they move past this stage.

Cheers!

 

[jl lin]

BTW Nas, I completely respect the hard work and focus you put into jumping and staying on this path. I simply think that the PG training is a strain for pretty much everyone. You are feeling that, and I get some of that effect. Seriously though. You won't always feel this way probably--at least hopefully. For 99% of folks in residency, the suck-factor is just very great--and honestly, I don't think there is an easy or nice way around it. So I do mean cheers to you, and I do hope the best for you!

Whatever you may think of Dr. Scott Peck, his words are just the truth. The first thing is accepting that "Life is difficult." And with medicine, it seems like this is condensed and spread over a significant period of time.

I think in a few, you will be singing a happier tune.

Good luck Nas!