- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Pre-Medical


. No, I'm just kidding. I am in fact a medical technologist and it is an awesome field. Absolutely important and as important to the field of medicine today as is a nurse, PA, or physician. They work in the laboratory of hospitals in all fields; hematology, chemistry, micro, and blood banking. They analyze blood, urine, tissue, etc., aiding physicians in diagnosis and treatment. I think it's because med tech training is vocational, specifically equipping the graduate with skills that are needed for ancillary health service rather than preparing you for medical school. If you're qualified, it's a great way to earn money part-time will in medical school. Most clinical labs in the U.S. run 24/7.Roley7405 said:Does anyone know what a Medical Technologists is? If so, how come every pre-med student wouldn't choose this as there major before going to med school, its seems to have more relevant classes compared to the pre-med/bio majors.
mshheaddoc said:I have been warned against it though. Why I don't know .... some say it doesn't get you into med school any easier. I'm not looking for that, but I feel an MT is a more clinically relevant job than a biochem degree. It might be harder to find a job without any training.
relentless11 said:Med schools don't care what your major is, in fact most schools encourage non-science/health majors to apply. Biochem, Bioengineering, MT, or Pathology can be as clinical relevant as you make it. I was a biochem major as an undergrad, and bioengineering for post-bacc. Through all that, I did clinical research. Now doing my PhD in pathology, which requires me to take general/systemic pathology with the med students and have found that my biochem/bioeng foundation paid off more because of all the classes I took. That is essentially the first 2 years of med school. My clinical background merely helps me diagnose patients for my PhD thesis, but the core science still plays a big role even when I'm seeing patients.
So like I said, it is clinical relevant as you make it. Not trying to downplay MT, since it is a perfectly fine major and job.
Therefore in regards to the OP, if it sounds good to you then do it. The MT programs are pretty interesting, and the students are very bright. Do it because you like it, not because of how relevant it may be to med school or whatever. Because the point of med school is to teach you all that clinical stuff anyway 😉 .
Is it considered a specialized health science major?BrettBatchelor said:Well specialized health science majors score the lowest on the MCAT and have the lowest (35%) acceptance rate. Why this is the case? Who knows.
Source: http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgpabymaj1.htm
what was the difference between med lab techs and then the medical technologists? Were they just supervisors or what?etown said:I was a med tech for a year - low pay, fairly monotonous work, on your feet all day. My mother was a med tech for >20 years. She'd tell you the same. That being said, if you're not planning on staying in the field long term, it can be fairly interesting, but I'd major in something you're really interested in.
Nursing and other techs. is what it is defined as.mshheaddoc said:Is it considered a specialized health science major?
Ours is a science major ... you have to take 4 years of science, and I'm only a few classes short of a double major of biochem.
Ok I'm not talking about an Associated degree for medical lab technician, I'm talking about a BS in medical technology. They are two different degrees that I think some people use interchangably. The BS requires biochem, at least 4 micro classes (Including micro, immuno and 2 other classes), chem I and II, upper level chemistry (ochem/analytical chem) and obviously biology I and II. Then you have a year of 30 credits in clinical hematology, immunology, microbiology, and a few others. At least at my school.BrettBatchelor said:Nursing and other techs. is what it is defined as.
I dunno about your specific school's program though. If you have specialized clinicals, I would lump it in with it.
mshheaddoc said:what was the difference between med lab techs and then the medical technologists? Were they just supervisors or what?
AAMC does indeed include medical technology in specialized health sciences.mshheaddoc said:Ok I'm not talking about an Associated degree for medical lab technician, I'm talking about a BS in medical technology. They are two different degrees that I think some people use interchangably. The BS requires biochem, at least 4 micro classes (Including micro, immuno and 2 other classes), chem I and II, upper level chemistry (ochem/analytical chem) and obviously biology I and II. Then you have a year of 30 credits in clinical hematology, immunology, microbiology, and a few others. At least at my school.
cool, thanks for the information! can I ask you a few more questions? How does MT/MLT interact with doctors (such as pathologists)? Do both of them ever interact with patients at all?etown said:The MLT (medical laboratory technologist) program is often completed at a community college whereas the MT (medical technologist) has the BS. My local hospital will only hire the certified MTs, whereas the public health lab will hire MLTs and MTs; I'm sure different facilities have different guidelines (e.g. I think another nearby hospital will hire MLTs as well). So being a certified MT gives you more flexibility...but the MLTs/MTs were at the same level and had the same titles with slight variation in pay based on experience.
mshheaddoc said:cool, thanks for the information! can I ask you a few more questions? How does MT/MLT interact with doctors (such as pathologists)? Do both of them ever interact with patients at all?
Brett ... thanks for the list!!!
mshheaddoc said:cool, thanks for the information! can I ask you a few more questions? How does MT/MLT interact with doctors (such as pathologists)? Do both of them ever interact with patients at all?
Brett ... thanks for the list!!!
When I was a fellow at a large hospital in Baltimore, MTs interacted with docs all the time--usually just over the telephone and only directly if there was something wrong with a specimen (misidentified, clotted etc). If the MT could not answer their question or if the docs were being mean to them, they would page one of the fellows (an M.D. or a Ph.D.) to intercede. The MTs also ran most of the lab-based education for the pathology residents and fellows in various branches of clinical pathology: clinical chemistry, medical microbiology, hematology, diagnostic immunology. MTs know a lot and they work very, very hard. Sadly, many professional medical staff undervalue them ..mshheaddoc said:diosa428 and relentless11 - Thank you all for the information, if anyone has any other information or stories, PLEASE share.
I'm currently working as a phlebotomist and I must say I love it. I draw about 40 patients a day. I get to learn a lot about what's ordered and sometimes you can tie in your undergrad knowledge with clinical cases. For example, I drew blood for an Erythropoietin test the other day... I thought the patient might be anemic but turned out he has too much RBCs... which also make sense. You can start harden yourself up when nurses/patient care tech/others yell at you because they made a mistake and think you don't know shiat. Good practice for residencies/rotations.mustangsally65 said:I signed up for a one-semester phlebotomy course which I started in January. We did 4 weeks of classes/labs, and now we're starting clinical rotations next week (yikes!). I had initially thought it would be good for 3rd/4th year and also residency, but I discovered that you learn a lot more than just drawing blood samples. I've learned a lot about why certain tests are ordered, what the results can mean, and what the different departments of the hospital lab do.

This might explain why there are so few applicants but why do they have a harder time converting to acceptances?Lindyhopper said:The relative lack of success of allied health student in applying to med school is probably mostly a function of the people entering the programs. I TA in our school of health sciences. I know (& like) alot of allied health students. Many are excellent students, but a significant number are people who, for whatever reason, sort of tracked themselves into the ultimate goal somewhere short of med school. (Which is fine.)
BrettBatchelor said:This might explain why there are so few applicants but why do they have a harder time converting to acceptances?
Too specialized curriculum? Seems like a good route for the clinical experience side of things.
BrettBatchelor said:This might explain why there are so few applicants but why do they have a harder time converting to acceptances?
Too specialized curriculum? Seems like a good route for the clinical experience side of things.
Lindyhopper said:Yea, I probably was trying to not offend anyone, & ended up making an inaccurate statement. But I still think the average "innate" academic ability pool of allied health students is the overriding factor. Although they're great people, many of the allied health students wouldn't be able to 30+ on the mcat if they had virtually unlimited prep time.
I SUSPECT that if one controlled for average SAT scores, allied health majors turned med school applicants do about as well as anyone else.
Still medicine is an applied science. I don't think it is enriching to also study a related applied science as an undergrad major.
Well I seem to be offending people, which is not intention my intention at all.Jaider said:But really-- what are you saying? I'm not sure I'm following you. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, I *am* very tired tonight. Are you suggesting that people who choose the MT are MD wannabes at heart but can't cut the mustard? That's pretty offensive, and there are many who could prove you wrong.
Yeah, ARUP really is a great place, and in a nice location, too.Jaider said:I work for a national reference lab that's ranked in Fortune's Top 100 companies to work for. It's a great company, a great job, but I would NEVER be satisfied doing this as a career..........
Scottish Chap said:Yeah, ARUP really is a great place, and in a nice location, too.
🙂Jaider said:I'd agree with you if I hadn't just now finished my 80 hour work week. God that sucks everytime.
Chronic Student said:My MT degree was a real-world disappointment.
I enjoyed learning all the material, but was not blown away by the lab work itself.
No patient contact, very repetitive and without a doubt, not appreciated by many.
Just to get some patient contact I became an EMT and later decided to go to PA school. . . .
Chronic Student said:Just my .02:
My MT degree was a real-world disappointment.
I enjoyed learning all the material, but was not blown away by the lab work itself.
No patient contact, very repetitive and without a doubt, not appreciated by many.
Just to get some patient contact I became an EMT and later decided to go to PA school. Currently I am 6 months short of graduating.
I cannot say what percentage of the things learned in Medical school are learned in PA school, having not been to Med school. However, our training is in the 'medical model' and I suspect that we learn a fair percentage of it (don't pin me down on a number, some folks will just get pissed-off).
I know that the amount of time spent on laboratory testing in PA school is inadequate and I suspect the same is true of Medical school. This is not a criticism of either school, it is simply a time issue. They have a very short amount of time to teach everything there is to know about something as complex as the human body and all that we do to treat disease (and no, I'm not equating the two schools here).
In my case the MT background has helped me a tremendous amount and, by extrapolation, I would expect it to help me a great deal in Medical school.
There are countless lab tests and just having some idea of what tests can be done, what they mean and when they are irrelevant has been very important. Not to mention that the MT degree is, in large part, physiology and pathophysiology.
Here is an example:
I have been fortunate enough to correctly diagnose several cases of post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis while doing my clinicals. In one instance I had a patient come in with back pain that seemed to be muscular in nature.
However, I have been taught not to jump to a diagnosis and to keep my differentials in mind to keep myself out of trouble. With this in mind I questioned the patient about accidents/injuries, prior kidney or urinary tract symptoms and prior infections.
She casually mentioned that she had a sore throat the week prior and looked at me like I was crazy for asking her about it and what the hell does that have to do with my back pain.
I explained in laymans terms that the bacterial antigen and the antibodies that we make can form a complex that gets deposited in the kidneys and that the body starts to attack it with a substance called 'complement'.
I always think of complemnt as a shotgun, as it damages surrounding tissues as well as the specific target (innocent bystander mechanism, thinking of Dick Cheney here). I went on to explain that this also damages the part of the kidneys that filter your blood and that she might start having blood and protein in her urine.
To make a very long-winded story a little-bit shorter, her rapid strep test was positive and her UA showed 3+ blood and 1+ protein.
I knew about the condition, the lab tests to do and the pathophysiology from being an MT and in addition I was able to explain it to the patient because I actually understood the process not from what I had been taught in PA school, but because of my lab background.
I do not intend to make this next part critical of our other students, as the laboratory training they get is marginal at best. However, I presented this case to some of our other students and just gave them the minimum amount of info (what I had when the patient walked into my room) and it took 6 of them quite a while to get to this diagnosis.
This is just one example of how it has helped me.
However, unless you're really intrested in it, you will most likely just get very pissed off. The people who gravitate toward the lab tend to be very anal and human relations/communication tend to be a struggle for some of them. There is also a tendency to focus on minutiae, which is incredibly important to them and may not seem so important to others.
Thank god that we have them though, it is not a job I would have wanted to do for any length of time.
I suspect that if you really want to get into Medical school, than it won't really matter what you do before you get there and as mentioned by others
and by the 'digital underground', Do whatcha like!
It is the surest way to get what you want.
-Mike
Jaider said:Hmm... you're not offending me because I'm not a true MT, I'm more of a standard BS premed who happens to work as an MT in the interim. So, your comments about innate academic ability don't apply to me.
But really-- what are you saying? I'm not sure I'm following you. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, I *am* very tired tonight. Are you suggesting that people who choose the MT are MD wannabes at heart but can't cut the mustard? That's pretty offensive, and there are many who could prove you wrong.
But I do agree with your last statement. Given the chance to do it over, I would definitely stick with my liberal ed studies. There's plenty of time to learn applied medical information later in one's academic career.
etown said:The MLT (medical laboratory technologist) program is often completed at a community college whereas the MT (medical technologist) has the BS. My local hospital will only hire the certified MTs, whereas the public health lab will hire MLTs and MTs; I'm sure different facilities have different guidelines (e.g. I think another nearby hospital will hire MLTs as well). So being a certified MT gives you more flexibility...but the MLTs/MTs were at the same level and had the same titles with slight variation in pay based on experience.
Lindyhopper said:Yea, I probably was trying to not offend anyone, & ended up making an inaccurate statement. But I still think the average "innate" academic ability pool of allied health students is the overriding factor. Although they're great people, many of the allied health students wouldn't be able to 30+ on the mcat if they had virtually unlimited prep time.
I SUSPECT that if one controlled for average SAT scores, allied health majors turned med school applicants do about as well as anyone else.
Still medicine is an applied science. I don't think it is enriching to also study a related applied science as an undergrad major.
Roley7405 said:Does anyone know what a Medical Technologists is? If so, how come every pre-med student wouldn't choose this as there major before going to med school, its seems to have more relevant classes compared to the pre-med/bio majors.
mshheaddoc said:Thanks Mike. I'm getting some more information together and I will definitely take you up on your offer though!
Anyone else out there with MT experiences?
Law2Doc said:I know nothing about this major. However the goal in undergrad shouldn't be to take medically relevant classes. Med schools teach you everything you need to know, and then some. It benefits you to take OTHER things in undergrad (plus, of course, the necessary prereqs). Med schools support this notion by giving at least equal consideration to non-science backgrounds, and sometimes are more intrigued by more unusual and diverse majors. Thus the question shouldn't be why wouldn't any premed student choose a relevant class, but why any premed would want to focus in on medicine exclusively, so early in what will be a long career filled with this stuff. This is the time to make yourself well rounded. Good luck.
LabMonster said:Major in what you love
Law2Doc said:This part I agree with. I was just put off by the OP's suggestion that anyone going into medicine should major in the most medically related undergrad major. It's too one dimensional thought. And sad, really.
LabMonster! 😍 Thank you so much for the information. What I exactly wanted to hear actually. Quite detailed although the program that I'm in only requires upper level micros (micro, adv micro, and one other class which I'll be taking pathogenic micro). When were training in phelbotomy b/c I wonder if that will happen in my internship? Its from June-June (clinical chemistry I/II, clinical micro, clinical hemo, and a few other lab classes so I'm guessing its within that year)LabMonster said:What would you like to know Mushy?
I started at a state school as a Micro major when my advisor told me I would have extremely limited career opportunities (this is 1997 I think.) So a few years later, messy personal issues etc, I begin college again - this time for a BS in Allied Health - Medical Technology.
The typical path parallels a bio major for the first two years. After that you begin to specialize into the MT disciplines: Immunohematology, Microbiology (Paarasitology+Mycology+Virology+Bacteriology), Hematology, Immunology, Clinical Chemistry, Urinalysis, Molecular Diagnostics and Phlebotomy.
The third year (in my program) builds and build then culminates with summer session. In other words, you learn the bookwork, then in the summer session you are immersed in more advanced theory while actually doing testing in labs. Third year morphs into 4th year - internship. We had classes at the university, but the majority of your time is spent offsite at clinical locations learning the actual business of clinical laboratory science. It's 8 hours a day - slave labor plus exams. I think it's a great preliminary for medical school!
In addition to a BS, you'll have to get certified. Most states require either ASCP (American Society of Clinical Pathology) or NCA (National Credentialing Association of Laboratory Personnel) for laboratory practice. State mandated certification is also gaining popularity (esp on the west coast.) The advantage is that you get to write more letters after you name; like me, LabMonster MT (ASCP). If you choose to stay in the field you need to stay current with your certification.
The job will differ depending on where you work. Someone mentioned monotony - true if you work at a big reference lab, or system-central lab. I worked at the main lab I did my internship through and got plenty used to monotony - I also saw more disease states and rare findings than I thought possible. I then switched to working at smaller laboratories where I got tons of patient contact, earned a great rep with nurses and docs, and did in fact work with pathologists in determining patient treatment and diagnosis.
The main MT workforce is 45-60 year old women, and they will all be retiring shortly. The field will experience a major shortage within the next 10 years (we are already short of qualified personnel.)
When I started working, I was making a paltry 16.50 an hour, but it was raised to 18.50 within two months to match market demand. But I have made over 55000 in the past few years just doing this (and going to school and taking the MCAT etc etc.)
If you are good, you can juggle multiple jobs, full-time/part-time/pool to match whatever demands you require. There are always tech jobs due to the current shortage, and you should be able to tailor a schedule that fits your future plans - I did.
Whew. If anyone has any other questions let me know. I've been doing this for 5 years now - I thought it would be a great Plan-B if I didn't like medicine and didn't want to apply to medical school. I've learned a great deal about medicine in general and forged some great relationships along the way.
Ok I'm done. 😉
mshheaddoc said:Anyone else out there with MT experiences?