MORE Volunteering = LESS Desirable Applicant?

[mcloaf]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Most doctors I know are cynical, jaded, and bitter beyond belief in reality. That is what med school and residency does to you. Also, all neurosurgeons believe they are God reincarnated. This is what medicine does to a person.

And to think, for a little while I almost thought you weren't a troll.

 

[Spinach Dip]

If you haven't been volunteering since pre-school, let's face it, you don't deserve to be a doctor.

Preschool? Ha!

When I was a mere zygote in my mother's womb, I released extra amounts of hormones into her bloodstream, which in turn caused her pituitary to excrete extra oxytocin into her emotional centers, making her more considerate to the people all around her--even to the point where she started working at a soup kitchen a month after my conception.

Sorry. You've been volunteering since preschool. I was volunteering before I was born.

 

[Planes2Doc]

I think the more important issue is why do we need to volunteer, or why do we need to be "altruistic", to be good doctors.

Because doctors are viewed in a very unrealistic light by some. People feel that they are entitled to the fruits of a physician's labor. I feel like it's a taboo to say that you are also pursuing this path because you want to make money. You're viewed as a heretic if you say that.

What's even sadder is what the admissions process has become over the years. Suddenly it's considered wrong to be a normal human being. Apparently doing anything that's not considered "good" in the eyes of the ADCOMs is considered to be pretty wrong. It sounds extreme, but it's true. Who do you usually see volunteering at a hospital? Usually there are the adults/elderly volunteers who want to be there. Who make up the majority of young volunteers? Either high schoolers fulfilling mandatory community service hours toward graduation or college/non-traditional premeds. Why can't college students just do what college students do, instead of putting on a huge facade while wasting away the prime years of their lives (assuming they don't want to partake in these activities)? 🙁

 

[circulus vitios]

Because doctors are viewed in a very unrealistic light by some. People feel that they are entitled to the fruits of a physician's labor. I feel like it's a taboo to say that you are also pursuing this path because you want to make money. You're viewed as a heretic if you say that.

What's even sadder is what the admissions process has become over the years. Suddenly it's considered wrong to be a normal human being. Apparently doing anything that's not considered "good" in the eyes of the ADCOMs is considered to be pretty wrong. It sounds extreme, but it's true. Who do you usually see volunteering at a hospital? Usually there are the adults/elderly volunteers who want to be there. Who make up the majority of young volunteers? Either high schoolers fulfilling mandatory community service hours toward graduation or college/non-traditional premeds. Why can't college students just do what college students do, instead of putting on a huge facade while wasting away the prime years of their lives (assuming they don't want to partake in these activities)? 🙁

If I ever get into medical school I want to volunteer for admissions so I can champion the normal applicants.

 

[sazerac]

But medical schools are flooded with way too many overqualified normal applicants as it is. What criteria would you use to limit the number of interviewees?

MCAT/GPA? Luck of a lottery? An "optional" cash donation line on the secondary?

Medical schools own the market right now and it is equally frustrating for them. They could make up arbitrary qualifications like large family size, being female, or even left-handedness, and still have way too many overqualified candidates. In the end, medicine is a profession, i.e. a job that acts in the interest of the client over the employee, so schools settled on volunteerism as a suitable criteria.

If you have any better ideas for cutting through the sea of applicants, I will bring it up at the next admissions meeting at my school.

 

[Mornhavon]

.

 

[Planes2Doc]

If I ever get into medical school I want to volunteer for admissions so I can champion the normal applicants.

I would too. I am more impressed by someone who just took the time to get some clinical experience through either shadowing or minimal clinical volunteering (and was honest about it) versus a "Zero to Mother Teresa" applicant that obviously pursued a laundry-list of volunteer activities for the sake of applications.

I want to see what people are genuinely passionate about. Not what ADCOMs are passionate about.

But medical schools are flooded with way too many overqualified normal applicants as it is. What criteria would you use to limit the number of interviewees?

MCAT/GPA? Luck of a lottery? An "optional" cash donation line on the secondary?

Medical schools own the market right now and it is equally frustrating for them. They could make up arbitrary qualifications like large family size, being female, or even left-handedness, and still have way too many overqualified candidates. In the end, medicine is a profession, i.e. a job that acts in the interest of the client over the employee, so schools settled on volunteerism as a suitable criteria.

If you have any better ideas for cutting through the sea of applicants, I will bring it up at the next admissions meeting at my school.

Well you now have an endless sea of applicants that volunteered in the ED, nursing home, hospice, free clinic, EMT, tutored underprivileged children, coached underprivileged children, did a mission trip, Alzheimer's volunteering, Peace Corps, and countless other things that you see time and time again in the WAMC thread. So what are you more impressed by? The guy who volunteered for 250 hours in the ED plus tutored underprivileged children for six months, the guy who volunteered for 200 hours in the ED plus coached underprivileged children for seven months, or the guy who volunteered in a free clinic for 225 hours and volunteered for some Alzheimer's organization for seven months? It's all the same thing over and over again!

Now if activity lists were extended into high school, then you would have a different mix. It would probably be obvious who started volunteering for college purposes (that magical time during junior year), versus someone who has been doing it for years and has been adding activities as they go along (genuinely charitable people) instead of going from "Zero to Mother Teresa" like ambitious premeds. This would allow service-oriented schools to choose the actual service-oriented students, rather than choosing from a massive pool of premeds who do the same activities over and over again. Of course there will be gunners, but for the rest of us, I think picking up many activities during the early part of high school and keeping it up until medical school acceptance is a bit too much of a facade to put up if you honestly hate it. This gives room for people to pursue what they are passionate about. For real this time... Not just what the ADCOMs want to see. Premeds can continue to pursue hobbies, start their own businesses, and do other things that they actually enjoy. Plus they won't have to forfeit any potential earnings since there won't be this extreme service requirement that is currently in place.

 

[SpecterGT260]

No, I am not trolling.

Oh, well in that case.....

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Sidereum]

Well you now have an endless sea of applicants that volunteered in the ED, nursing home, hospice, free clinic, EMT, tutored underprivileged children, coached underprivileged children, did a mission trip, Alzheimer's volunteering, Peace Corps, and countless other things that you see time and time again in the WAMC thread. So what are you more impressed by? The guy who volunteered for 250 hours in the ED plus tutored underprivileged children for six months, the guy who volunteered for 200 hours in the ED plus coached underprivileged children for seven months, or the guy who volunteered in a free clinic for 225 hours and volunteered for some Alzheimer's organization for seven months? It's all the same thing over and over again!

Now if activity lists were extended into high school, then you would have a different mix. It would probably be obvious who started volunteering for college purposes (that magical time during junior year), versus someone who has been doing it for years and has been adding activities as they go along (genuinely charitable people) instead of going from "Zero to Mother Teresa" like ambitious premeds. This would allow service-oriented schools to choose the actual service-oriented students, rather than choosing from a massive pool of premeds who do the same activities over and over again. Of course there will be gunners, but for the rest of us, I think picking up many activities during the early part of high school and keeping it up until medical school acceptance is a bit too much of a facade to put up if you honestly hate it. This gives room for people to pursue what they are passionate about. For real this time... Not just what the ADCOMs want to see. Premeds can continue to pursue hobbies, start their own businesses, and do other things that they actually enjoy. Plus they won't have to forfeit any potential earnings since there won't be this extreme service requirement that is currently in place.

I think that would be a great thing for the admissions process, as it would allow adcoms a way to accurately measure how altruistic somehow is (if such a thing can be measured at all), as well as ending the "arms race" that another poster mentioned. Plus, it would give adcoms something to look at other than "volunteering at a hospital, volunteering at a soup kitchen, building a hospital in Africa..."

As someone who's been volunteering for four years before undergrad, I approve 😉👍

 

[sunflower18]

I think that would be a great thing for the admissions process, as it would allow adcoms a way to accurately measure how altruistic somehow is (if such a thing can be measured at all), as well as ending the "arms race" that another poster mentioned. Plus, it would give adcoms something to look at other than "volunteering at a hospital, volunteering at a soup kitchen, building a hospital in Africa..."

As someone who's been volunteering for four years before undergrad, I approve 😉👍

Agreed. I have been volunteering at a hospital since 9th grade and shadowing since 12th, so I feel almost biased, but I definitely think that looking at activities through a longer time period is more telling of altruism versus box checking. I certainly had no idea that I was doing anything practically required -- I just wanted to learn more about medicine and help people in need. I think thats how activities should be. If you have a desire to do something or know something, then pursue it. If not, don't.

That being said, it's all about playing the game, so I don't fault those who begrudgingly volunteer. It's just how the system currently works.

 

[sazerac]

Should grades from high school be considered too, then?

 

[Planes2Doc]

Should grades from high school be considered too, then?

That's pushing it... Medical schools already have college GPAs and the MCAT to go by, which are NOT based on the honor system, like volunteering and other ECs.

The big problem is that perhaps ADCOMs are putting too much emphasis on something that is a rare quality. Going back to my example of my former workplace, out of many people in my department, there were only two people who took part in consistent volunteer activities. I knew a few more that took part in church activities. But the majority of people either take part in a volunteer activity once in a blue moon, or not at all. The same thing with college. I knew very few people, outside of premeds, that took part in such extensive volunteer activities.

I don't think that premeds are magically somehow more morally superior to other people. It's crazy that around 80% of matriculants took part in volunteer activities. This does NOT represent the general population. If this did represent the general population, then volunteer organizations would never complain about having a shortage of volunteers. On the contrary, there would be excess volunteers and people would be running around like chickens with their heads chopped off trying to find volunteer positions.

Perhaps this whole emphasis on volunteering just isn't working. If it were, then there wouldn't be complaints about doctors not being compassionate enough, having good bedside manner, etc... The MCAT also would never have been dramatically overhauled for 2015 if the system actually worked. I think that the whole volunteer emphasis is a pretty poor barometer for medical school applicants. If it actually was effective, then there would be no underserved populations, ROADS specialties would not be competitive, primary care specialties would be competitive, and there would be no complaints about physicians today.

There's no easy fix for this. It's definitely complicated. But upping the "volunteer requirements" isn't making things any better. All it does is make lives much worse for applicants who don't want to take part in these activities in the first place.

 

[gettheleadout]

Lottery system.

No, I am not trolling.

Ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[Planes2Doc]

Ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

Yeah I don't think a lottery system would work.

I think I have a solution... But it's not an easy one...

As a society we must collectively change our expectations and perceptions of healthcare.

I think there are very unrealistic expectations placed on doctors and other healthcare workers. For example, why is it that we're willing to buy a car from an @$$hole, food from an @$$hole, and do so many things from @$$holes, yet we are so concerned about the bedside manner of physicians? I noticed something odd... The doctors that were most effective for my past conditions received poor reviews on ratings sites. Not because they were ineffective, but because they were not nice people. Do you know the last time my PCP and I went out for drinks? Never. We aren't going to see physicians because we want them to be our friends, we are going for a service. I know it's not mutually exclusive like people always make it out to be, but I would rather have a complete @$$hole that is effective treating me, than a nice guy who isn't very good at what he does. Of course I'd rather have a nice guy that knows what he's doing (like my PCP in real-life), but I'm not going to the doctor to make friends.

People also have other odd expectations of physicians. We have no problems with celebrities, athletes, and successful business people making millions of dollars. But if physicians drive up in an exotic car, have a mansion, or make millions of dollars, then they are perceived as being evil.

If people want their idealized versions of physicians and medical schools want their idealized versions of applicants, then we must do something. And what's this you ask?

WE MUST CHANGE HUMAN NATURE.

Human beings are the way they are. We might not be proud of our naturally selfish and apathetic tenancies, but you know what? It's the way people are. And until we change the underlying foundations of human nature, then the whole system will be broken. So the sooner society and medical schools can start accepting that people are people (not some mythical holier-than-thou creature we make them out to be), then the sooner we can start fixing our problems. Only to realize there probably aren't any problems to begin with... 🙄

 

[Sidereum]

That's pushing it... Medical schools already have college GPAs and the MCAT to go by, which are NOT based on the honor system, like volunteering and other ECs.

The big problem is that perhaps ADCOMs are putting too much emphasis on something that is a rare quality. Going back to my example of my former workplace, out of many people in my department, there were only two people who took part in consistent volunteer activities. I knew a few more that took part in church activities. But the majority of people either take part in a volunteer activity once in a blue moon, or not at all. The same thing with college. I knew very few people, outside of premeds, that took part in such extensive volunteer activities.

I don't think that premeds are magically somehow more morally superior to other people. It's crazy that around 80% of matriculants took part in volunteer activities. This does NOT represent the general population. If this did represent the general population, then volunteer organizations would never complain about having a shortage of volunteers. On the contrary, there would be excess volunteers and people would be running around like chickens with their heads chopped off trying to find volunteer positions.

Perhaps this whole emphasis on volunteering just isn't working. If it were, then there wouldn't be complaints about doctors not being compassionate enough, having good bedside manner, etc... The MCAT also would never have been dramatically overhauled for 2015 if the system actually worked. I think that the whole volunteer emphasis is a pretty poor barometer for medical school applicants. If it actually was effective, then there would be no underserved populations, ROADS specialties would not be competitive, primary care specialties would be competitive, and there would be no complaints about physicians today.

There's no easy fix for this. It's definitely complicated. But upping the "volunteer requirements" isn't making things any better. All it does is make lives much worse for applicants who don't want to take part in these activities in the first place.

Here here!

What I find really interesting about this dilemma, personally, is that the entire thing arose from the perception that people essentially need to be saints in order to be good physicians. Now, I'm not saying you don't have to enjoy helping others and be willing to sacrifice your time to help better other people's lives; that's something of a requirement. However, as long as an applicant demonstrates that they understand the realities of medicine, and are willing to devote a huge chunk of their lives to medicine, I don't think it matters if they've volunteered for 100 hours or 1000 hours. Everyone's situation is different, and certain people will be more inclined to volunteer than others, and it's simply not a reliable metric in assessing the quality of future doctors.

The trouble is, where do we find a reliable metric?

 

[ijn]

Here here!
The trouble is, where do we find a reliable metric?

MCAT and GPA. It's all that matters until you get into the interview. And once you're through that door it's just a matter of proving you're human and able to hold a conversation for 15 minutes.

The same song and dance is repeated for residency interviews. Everyone bull****s about extracurricular activities but it comes down to 3rd year grades and STEP 1.

 

[Planes2Doc]

Here here!

What I find really interesting about this dilemma, personally, is that the entire thing arose from the perception that people essentially need to be saints in order to be good physicians. Now, I'm not saying you don't have to enjoy helping others and be willing to sacrifice your time to help better other people's lives; that's something of a requirement. However, as long as an applicant demonstrates that they understand the realities of medicine, and are willing to devote a huge chunk of their lives to medicine, I don't think it matters if they've volunteered for 100 hours or 1000 hours. Everyone's situation is different, and certain people will be more inclined to volunteer than others, and it's simply not a reliable metric in assessing the quality of future doctors.

The trouble is, where do we find a reliable metric?

Let me answer your question with another question... If medical school admissions are not solely based on metrics (unlike law school admissions, no interviews!), then are the people with lower scores getting in for the RIGHT reasons? If anyone can answer this, then it would be a big step forward.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Yeah I don't think a lottery system would work.

I think I have a solution... But it's not an easy one...

As a society we must collectively change our expectations and perceptions of healthcare.

I think there are very unrealistic expectations placed on doctors and other healthcare workers. For example, why is it that we're willing to buy a car from an @$$hole, food from an @$$hole, and do so many things from @$$holes, yet we are so concerned about the bedside manner of physicians? I noticed something odd... The doctors that were most effective for my past conditions received poor reviews on ratings sites. Not because they were ineffective, but because they were not nice people. Do you know the last time my PCP and I went out for drinks? Never. We aren't going to see physicians because we want them to be our friends, we are going for a service. I know it's not mutually exclusive like people always make it out to be, but I would rather have a complete @$$hole that is effective treating me, than a nice guy who isn't very good at what he does. Of course I'd rather have a nice guy that knows what he's doing (like my PCP in real-life), but I'm not going to the doctor to make friends.

People also have other odd expectations of physicians. We have no problems with celebrities, athletes, and successful business people making millions of dollars. But if physicians drive up in an exotic car, have a mansion, or make millions of dollars, then they are perceived as being evil.

If people want their idealized versions of physicians and medical schools want their idealized versions of applicants, then we must do something. And what's this you ask?

WE MUST CHANGE HUMAN NATURE.

Human beings are the way they are. We might not be proud of our naturally selfish and apathetic tenancies, but you know what? It's the way people are. And until we change the underlying foundations of human nature, then the whole system will be broken. So the sooner society and medical schools can start accepting that people are people (not some mythical holier-than-thou creature we make them out to be), then the sooner we can start fixing our problems. Only to realize there probably aren't any problems to begin with... 🙄

None of what you said has anything to do with anything. Furthermore what you said is not special and novel thinking, ADCOMs already understand all of these things. Furthermore you've failed to address the problem of creating a method by which to effectively and economically differentiate applicants from each other.

Either way, what's my solution? Instead of having interviews just at every school (These will also exist), have a recorded interview put in place as a part of the primary. So create a system of primary interviews, record said interview, attach it to their file. Boom. Is it perfect? No, but I kinda think it's nice. That way med schools can watch a recorded 20-30 minute interview or preview of the person and their behavior, etc.

 

[Planes2Doc]

None of what you said has anything to do with anything. Furthermore what you said is not special and novel thinking, ADCOMs already understand all of these things. Furthermore you've failed to address the problem of creating a method by which to effectively and economically differentiate applicants from each other.

Either way, what's my solution? Instead of having interviews just at every school (These will also exist), have a recorded interview put in place as a part of the primary. So create a system of primary interviews, record said interview, attach it to their file. Boom. Is it perfect? No, but I kinda think it's nice. That way med schools can watch a recorded 20-30 minute interview or preview of the person and their behavior, etc.

True. I was just pointing out that it's quite possibly a non-existent problem to begin with. As for what I would do, I would probably do a few things to help improve the system. They are as follows:

1. Activity Lists Through High School - This will help schools see who is actually altruistic or not. The service-oriented schools will get the applicants they want, and we'll see that premeds aren't mystical beings that are somehow morally superior to everyone else.

2. EC Oversight - A great deal of emphasis is placed on the ECs someone does, especially with volunteering. But what's the problem? If you have two applicants that each volunteered at the beginning of freshman year of college with the same number of hours, how do you know who performed well or who performed poorly? Schools have no way of finding out a student's performance at a volunteer site (unless they personally know someone there). Therefore, a premed could either be an integral part of the team, or they can manipulate the system somehow or have piss poor performance. All the ADCOM will have is verifiable hours. If volunteer coordinators sent out standardized grading sheets to AMCAS/AACOMAS, then dramatic changes would take place. You would probably see a significant drop in hours since people who were manipulating the system or using their volunteer experience as study time will no longer be able to do so. This can help drop hours and the number of commitments down to more realistic values.

3. LORs from ANYONE - Requiring LORs from science professors can be bad for the student, especially if they are a non-science major and are forced to get LORs from professors teaching large classes that write up template LORs. Schools can get a much better idea of what an applicant is really like if they are able to get their LORs from any professor they choose, especially those that they have developed close relationships with over the years.

4. More "Casual" Interviews - Why not interview students in a more casual setting? How about over lunch? How about over a longer period of time? Why not let the student lead the discussion? This would serve as a better guide than asking the same questions, and getting the same rehearsed answers.

These are just some ideas...

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

True. I was just pointing out that it's quite possibly a non-existent problem to begin with. As for what I would do, I would probably do a few things to help improve the system. They are as follows:


3. LORs from ANYONE - Requiring LORs from science professors can be bad for the student, especially if they are a non-science major and are forced to get LORs from professors teaching large classes that write up template LORs. Schools can get a much better idea of what an applicant is really like if they are able to get their LORs from any professor they choose, especially those that they have developed close relationships with over the years.

4. More "Casual" Interviews - Why not interview students in a more casual setting? How about over lunch? How about over a longer period of time? Why not let the student lead the discussion? This would serve as a better guide than asking the same questions, and getting the same rehearsed answers.

These are just some ideas...

I enjoy these. 3) Helps people a lot, I mean I never understood why a LOR from a Science Professor is any different than a Non-Science Professor. 4) Should be the norm, I think the most ideal interview is one that is either extremely casual.

Either way, I think one of the few effective things we can do is force applicants to attach a video recording, either of them in an interview ( Run by their school or an agency) or have them send in a video explaining two things like why they want to be a doctor and what makes them special.

 

[Anathema]

I loled at the idea of a group of SDNers entering the adcom panel to instill and enforce these ideas in an Illuminati fashion. I'd be all in for that.

I like both serenades and planes2docs ideas about changes. Honestly, I think the big nut kicker for EC happy people is a mandatory LoR from their adviser. Most people get to know their hospital volunteering staff pretty well and I'm sure the staff isn't oblivious to how the volunteers act, so by asking for a LoR from them the adcom can see whether this guy really was the "guiding light of a patient's life" or the hallway and linen trashman.

 

[Sidereum]

I loled at the idea of a group of SDNers entering the adcom panel to instill and enforce these ideas in an Illuminati fashion. I'd be all in for that.

I like both serenades and planes2docs ideas about changes. Honestly, I think the big nut kicker for EC happy people is a mandatory LoR from their adviser. Most people get to know their hospital volunteering staff pretty well and I'm sure the staff isn't oblivious to how the volunteers act, so by asking for a LoR from them the adcom can see whether this guy really was the "guiding light of a patient's life" or the hallway and linen trashman.

While I do appreciate the idea of raining on the pre-med volunteering parade, I don't think mandatory LoRs from specific people are ever a good idea. While it would be great to have a reference to discuss a person's volunteering, having the quality of many years worth of volunteering rest in the hands of someone with their own personality, biases, history, and personal agenda, could result in rare, disastrous cases of personal mud-slinging and application sabotage. But then again, maybe I'm just being paranoid

 

[Barcu]

You are missing the point of volunteering.

Adcoms aren't impressed simply by numbers. They understand that volunteering is a "requirement" and that it doesn't necessarily show how altruistic a person is. On one hand, it gives you some exposure to the medical field. Most people want to be a doctor before they even realize what that entails. While not perfect, clinical volunteering gives you some exposure.

More importantly, it's not about the volume, but it is about the quality. Being able to talk about your volunteer experiences and incorporate them into essays and interview answers is absolutely key to getting an acceptance. That is how people with lower stats get in. It's not because they have more volunteering, it is because they can actually articulate what they learned from their experiences.

Also, many people tend to miss the fact that non-medical volunteering can actually help you more than medical (though you do need some medical volunteering). That actually shows you have passion for something. And it gives you something else to talk about in interviews which really helps you stand out.

 

[Spinach Dip]

1. Activity Lists Through High School -

2. EC Oversight -

3. LORs from ANYONE -

4. More "Casual" Interviews -

1. Agreed to a point, but I think this just opens the doors to more "exaggeration" of ECs. ie, "During my first three years of High School, I volunteered at this soup kitchen with my older brother..." It would be practically impossible to determine if this person is being honest or not because they are talking about something that happened 4-5 years ago. And even if they did volunteer at this soup kitchen, how could you possibly verify the number of hours they spent?

2. Agreed, though this might lead to people getting high reviews for 'easy' positions, and lower reviews for 'difficult' positions. Or your review score might be determined by how much the reviewer likes you (ie, they were slow to take out the garbage last Tuesday, so I'm going to give them a 2 in 'punctuality'). Still, not a bad idea.

3. Agreed completely. For example, I haven't spoken to my pre-med adviser for years because I A) changed to pre-med late into college and B) could never get a straight answer from them anyway.

4. More casual is something I can agree with. Longer would be a mixed bag because those people who are nervous about interviews might find it worse if it was an hour (even a more casual hour) rather than 15 minutes.



And, because we are talking hypothetically, I am going to add one (which could be accomplished 2 different ways):

5A. Mandatory Physician Shadowing - Basically, in place of volunteering, all applicants would be expected to shadow a physician in a primary care or hospital setting for a pre-determined number of hours (100, maybe). Afterward, the physician would write a short report on the person and give them a 0-10 rating on various qualities like 'ability to learn new things', 'altruism', 'respect for authority', etc.

5B. Mandatory Pre-Med Classes - This is an idea that I have been considering more and more in recent weeks. Basically, all people who want to apply to med schools have to take an extra pre-req which is overseen by the AAMC. That means the AAMC writes the textbook and designs the curriculum, so everything is standardized across the country. It would cover basic things like: sterile procedure, operation of basic medical machines, anesthesia monitoring, and even basic ethics of medicine. It would even include 'fieldtrips' to a local hospital so the students (one at a time) could actually observe a surgery or two. Afterward, the instructor would grade each student on categories similar to those I listed above: 'ability to learn new things', 'altruism', 'respect for authority', etc. Essentially, it's like taking the first term of med school before you get into med school.



Meh, just some ideas. Perhaps there are some better ones out there. I'm just hoping we can cut down on a system that benefits the BSers and soulless gunners and replace it with one that tends to award those with natural talents or more thorough work ethics.

 

[Anathema]

1. Agreed to a point, but I think this just opens the doors to more "exaggeration" of ECs. ie, "During my first three years of High School, I volunteered at this soup kitchen with my older brother..." It would be practically impossible to determine if this person is being honest or not because they are talking about something that happened 4-5 years ago. And even if they did volunteer at this soup kitchen, how could you possibly verify the number of hours they spent?

2. Agreed, though this might lead to people getting high reviews for 'easy' positions, and lower reviews for 'difficult' positions. Or your review score might be determined by how much the reviewer likes you (ie, they were slow to take out the garbage last Tuesday, so I'm going to give them a 2 in 'punctuality'). Still, not a bad idea.

3. Agreed completely. For example, I haven't spoken to my pre-med adviser for years because I A) changed to pre-med late into college and B) could never get a straight answer from them anyway.

4. More casual is something I can agree with. Longer would be a mixed bag because those people who are nervous about interviews might find it worse if it was an hour (even a more casual hour) rather than 15 minutes.



And, because we are talking hypothetically, I am going to add one (which could be accomplished 2 different ways):

5A. Mandatory Physician Shadowing - Basically, in place of volunteering, all applicants would be expected to shadow a physician in a primary care or hospital setting for a pre-determined number of hours (100, maybe). Afterward, the physician would write a short report on the person and give them a 0-10 rating on various qualities like 'ability to learn new things', 'altruism', 'respect for authority', etc.

5B. Mandatory Pre-Med Classes - This is an idea that I have been considering more and more in recent weeks. Basically, all people who want to apply to med schools have to take an extra pre-req which is overseen by the AAMC. That means the AAMC writes the textbook and designs the curriculum, so everything is standardized across the country. It would cover basic things like: sterile procedure, operation of basic medical machines, anesthesia monitoring, and even basic ethics of medicine. It would even include 'fieldtrips' to a local hospital so the students (one at a time) could actually observe a surgery or two. Afterward, the instructor would grade each student on categories similar to those I listed above: 'ability to learn new things', 'altruism', 'respect for authority', etc. Essentially, it's like taking the first term of med school before you get into med school.



Meh, just some ideas. Perhaps there are some better ones out there. I'm just hoping we can cut down on a system that benefits the BSers and soulless gunners and replace it with one that tends to award those with natural talents or more thorough work ethics.

Good last two ideas, although I would get shot out of the running haha

 

[Planes2Doc]

1. Agreed to a point, but I think this just opens the doors to more "exaggeration" of ECs. ie, "During my first three years of High School, I volunteered at this soup kitchen with my older brother..." It would be practically impossible to determine if this person is being honest or not because they are talking about something that happened 4-5 years ago. And even if they did volunteer at this soup kitchen, how could you possibly verify the number of hours they spent?

2. Agreed, though this might lead to people getting high reviews for 'easy' positions, and lower reviews for 'difficult' positions. Or your review score might be determined by how much the reviewer likes you (ie, they were slow to take out the garbage last Tuesday, so I'm going to give them a 2 in 'punctuality'). Still, not a bad idea.

3. Agreed completely. For example, I haven't spoken to my pre-med adviser for years because I A) changed to pre-med late into college and B) could never get a straight answer from them anyway.

4. More casual is something I can agree with. Longer would be a mixed bag because those people who are nervous about interviews might find it worse if it was an hour (even a more casual hour) rather than 15 minutes.



And, because we are talking hypothetically, I am going to add one (which could be accomplished 2 different ways):

5A. Mandatory Physician Shadowing - Basically, in place of volunteering, all applicants would be expected to shadow a physician in a primary care or hospital setting for a pre-determined number of hours (100, maybe). Afterward, the physician would write a short report on the person and give them a 0-10 rating on various qualities like 'ability to learn new things', 'altruism', 'respect for authority', etc.

5B. Mandatory Pre-Med Classes - This is an idea that I have been considering more and more in recent weeks. Basically, all people who want to apply to med schools have to take an extra pre-req which is overseen by the AAMC. That means the AAMC writes the textbook and designs the curriculum, so everything is standardized across the country. It would cover basic things like: sterile procedure, operation of basic medical machines, anesthesia monitoring, and even basic ethics of medicine. It would even include 'fieldtrips' to a local hospital so the students (one at a time) could actually observe a surgery or two. Afterward, the instructor would grade each student on categories similar to those I listed above: 'ability to learn new things', 'altruism', 'respect for authority', etc. Essentially, it's like taking the first term of med school before you get into med school.



Meh, just some ideas. Perhaps there are some better ones out there. I'm just hoping we can cut down on a system that benefits the BSers and soulless gunners and replace it with one that tends to award those with natural talents or more thorough work ethics.

Great ideas! 🙂 Unfortunately I didn't think about the gap between early high school and medical application season. Oh well... These are pretty neat ideas, though obviously all of this stuff would take some effort to do.

I actually had an interesting idea that can be implemented now, and also addresses the main point of my argument!

I think that during interviews, ADCOMs should grill specifically the Zero to Mother Teresa applicants. It would be with basic questions, like: "Why did you start this activity? Why is it important to you?" And other basic questions that really dig into the reasons as to why someone pursued the activity. I think interviewers, using their experience, can probably determine who is completely full of $h!t, versus someone that maybe ended up enjoying the activities.

I think this would be immediately beneficial to schools, since as I mentioned in my original post, gunners are probably the ones that are going to go the Zero to Mother Teresa path. This is because gunners are so focused on their goal, that they will devote all of their time to reaching it, which means sacrificing their college years to pursue a laundry-list of activities. I think that people who are probably more sociable and pursue their own genuine interests are likely to take a simple Cookie Cutter approach. I think we should push applicants, especially the ones that maybe do 100-150 hours of hospital volunteering to be more honest about their reasons for pursuing the activity (getting a sense of the hospital environment, getting the chance to help people and not that BS dying to help kind). After all, don't we want honest physicians? Not liars?

 

[Shark7500]

I love volunteering. It seems that all my profound experiences has been where I am someone's bitch.

There was a particular day where I was talking to a patient and after a few hours of connecting with her, I became her confidant. I was just so connected to her soul and my inner magnetism really came forth. We eventually held hands and she kissed them and I closed my eyes. At that point, I saw a deep light emerge from the roof, something that resembled a celestial celebration and from that came a spiraling staircase from the shimmering light. As I put my hands on that rail, I knew there was something valuable at the top. I immediately began to ascend slowly up the stairs....

Anyways, the experience was cut short by a nosy staff member who came in to check whether I had made the beds correctly. I told the patient that was amazing. She had the gift of touch and I wanted to spend the rest of my life exploring that feeling, that vibe. She is my heart.

Volunteering my time is very important to me because I get to meet so many interesting people and often get so immersed into the souls of the people I work with. That deep insight into lives. It will come in handy. You number-crunching, box checking premeds can go to hell. I love spending countless hours doing absolutely nothing that will benefit the patient or impact my education as a future medical student, and if you guys want to hate, that is fine by me. 🙂


Sent from my iPad using SDN Mobile app.

 

[sazerac]

In This Thread: OP proposes that MORE volunteering = LESS desirable applicant, and suggests as a possible solution that med school applicants apply with a track record of 8 years of volunteering instead of 4??

 

[Barcu]

In This Thread: OP proposes that MORE volunteering = LESS desirable applicant, and suggests as a possible solution that med school applicants apply with a track record of 8 years of volunteering instead of 4??

Seriously. Going back further isn't going to help the problem at all.

I'll repeat it again: volunteering is not about quantity but is about quality. It's not about being "altruistic." It's about gaining experiences that will help you in medical school. It gives you some exposure to dealing with people. It's also a great source of anecdotes and experiences for your interviews and essays. The best training you can do for med school is not more classes. It's interacting with people, which volunteering forces you to do in most cases. If it doesn't, find a new volunteer experience because good volunteer experiences is what is going to give you an edge in interviews and admissions as well as will actually do some good. You might complain about your experiences (no, they are never going to be exactly what you want them to be) but many places rely on volunteers, even if you feel like you are doing something worthless.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

In This Thread: OP proposes that MORE volunteering = LESS desirable applicant, and suggests as a possible solution that med school applicants apply with a track record of 8 years of volunteering instead of 4??

Looking back at a person's high school volunteering and performance, well then I'd probably be equipped to apply to only to podiatry school haha.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Seriously. Going back further isn't going to help the problem at all.

I'll repeat it again: volunteering is not about quantity but is about quality. It's not about being "altruistic." It's about gaining experiences that will help you in medical school. It gives you some exposure to dealing with people. It's also a great source of anecdotes and experiences for your interviews and essays. The best training you can do for med school is not more classes. It's interacting with people, which volunteering forces you to do in most cases. If it doesn't, find a new volunteer experience because good volunteer experiences is what is going to give you an edge in interviews and admissions as well as will actually do some good. You might complain about your experiences (no, they are never going to be exactly what you want them to be) but many places rely on volunteers, even if you feel like you are doing something worthless.

Quality over quantity, thread over. Life lesson here, if you're not gaining anything from your volunteering, quit and find new places to volunteer. That and put yourself out there more often, don't wait around sitting on your ass and chances are you'll have a completely different volunteering experience.

 

[Planes2Doc]

In This Thread: OP proposes that MORE volunteering = LESS desirable applicant, and suggests as a possible solution that med school applicants apply with a track record of 8 years of volunteering instead of 4??

If you read my original post, I didn't say that the act of volunteering itself was bad. If this was the case, then yes, I would be a hypocrite. I was saying that the applicant that suddenly picks up a whole laundry-list full of volunteer activities, after having never done any before, is probably not the altruistic angel that ADCOMs probably think they are. I refer to these applicants as Zero to Mother Teresa applicants. Instead of being charitable people who care so deeply about their communities, I think they are probably the opposite. Here's what happens currently with EC lists going only through college when you have a Zero to Mother Teresa applicant:

How ADCOMs View the Applicant: This applicant is so altruistic! LOOK AT THE LONGEVITY OF THESE ACTIVITIES! They take part in so many activities. They must surely care deeply about their community and others. This applicant will definitely want to serve underserved communities one day! 😍 😍 😍

What the Applicant is Really Like (Not in all cases, but probably most): This applicant is clearly a GUNNER. They are very well-informed of the medical school admissions process, and know exactly what ADCOMs want to see. Since gunners set medical school as their primary goal, they are willing to sacrifice the better years of their lives to pursue high numbers (GPA and MCAT) and extreme amounts of ECs (laundry-list of volunteer activities) to make themselves as competitive as possible. ADCOMs might view them as being deeply in love with serving their community, but on the contrary, these gunners probably couldn't give two $h!ts about their community, and are doing these activities solely as a facade.

Why are ADCOMs not suspicious when they see an applicant go from never having volunteered a day in their life to suddenly doing more activities that would make genuinely altruistic volunteers look like selfish bastards? With an activity list spanning only through college. They see someone who picked up a laundry-list of volunteer activities as a freshman as someone who has extreme longevity in their activities, therefore genuine. But, if the activity list spanned through high school, ADCOMs would see that these people suddenly pick up a laundry-list of activities coincidentally when they became premed. The tables have turned. Now how would you view these applicants?

ADCOMs need to be suspicious of these applicants, since these Zero to Mother Teresa premeds are probably not the service-loving people ADCOMs envision them to be and want to admit, but instead are probably gunners who demonstrate the exact OPPOSITE qualities that ADCOMs are looking for.

The Zero to Mother Teresa applicant is a paradox.

Seriously. Going back further isn't going to help the problem at all.

I'll repeat it again: volunteering is not about quantity but is about quality. It's not about being "altruistic." It's about gaining experiences that will help you in medical school. It gives you some exposure to dealing with people. It's also a great source of anecdotes and experiences for your interviews and essays. The best training you can do for med school is not more classes. It's interacting with people, which volunteering forces you to do in most cases. If it doesn't, find a new volunteer experience because good volunteer experiences is what is going to give you an edge in interviews and admissions as well as will actually do some good. You might complain about your experiences (no, they are never going to be exactly what you want them to be) but many places rely on volunteers, even if you feel like you are doing something worthless.

You may be right. Or... You may be wrong. If you look back at threads regarding the topic of volunteering spanning back a few years, you will see varying opinions from respected and well-informed posters. Some people say that volunteering demonstrates altruism and other important character traits that ADCOMs look for, and other people, like yourself, say that it's about gaining experiences that will help you in medical school. This implies that schools are NOT looking for saints.

There is evidence coming from a wide variety of posters that supports both sides of the argument. I'll just mention a few things I've read in past threads that go against your argument.

The first is anecdotal evidence that starting volunteer activities just months (or at least less than a year) before applying to medical school will look bad and actually harm the applicant. This is because according to the posters, the applicant will be perceived as a box-checker. Therefore, if volunteering is not about showing altruism and is only there to help you during admissions, then why would an applicant be criticized for being a box-checker? I mean, the applicant is getting a sense of the hospital environment and is doing "good" during these few months, so why should this hurt the applicant?

The second evidence is where re-applicants who contacted the ADCOMs at schools they were rejected from were told that they did not do "enough" volunteering. I think people can safely say that after maybe a maximum of fifty hours (well below the anecdotal "average" of 100-150 hours), an applicant will get to know the clinical environment, probably have a good tale or two for the PS and interviews, and will start suffering from diminishing marginal returns going forward. So why would ADCOMs be pushing for more hours, if they aren't necessarily looking for "altruism." If an applicant demonstrates knowledge of the clinical environment and has "helped" along the way, isn't that enough? Only "altruism" would be demonstrated by a much longer commitment, as everything else would already have been done.

What volunteering means in the eyes of ADCOMs will remain a mystery. Maybe it has different meanings among different ADCOM members. Who knows? Not I, nor you.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Why are ADCOMs not suspicious when they see an applicant go from never having volunteered a day in their life to suddenly doing more activities that would make genuinely altruistic volunteers look like selfish bastards?

They are 😕
Why are you suggesting they aren't?

 

[Planes2Doc]

They are 😕
Why are you suggesting they aren't?

If they were suspicious, you would see backlash in the WAMC threads when people list out a large number of volunteer activities, just like you see with the "Should I volunteer abroad" threads. Apparently having a laundry-list of volunteer activities is viewed as a good thing still.

 

[SpecterGT260]

If they were suspicious, you would see backlash in the WAMC threads when people list out a large number of volunteer activities, just like you see with the "Should I volunteer abroad" threads. Apparently having a laundry-list of volunteer activities is viewed as a good thing still.

Yes. Many volunteer activities is good. But do remember that adcoms are real people and generally not idiots. They can see box checking when it happens. Someone with a long history of volunteering will do better than someone with a massive list of random nonsense thrown in over 1 semester. What adcoms want is not such a great mystery. Just seems that way when you dramatize the process.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[Planes2Doc]

Yes. Many volunteer activities is good. But do remember that adcoms are real people and generally not idiots. They can see box checking when it happens. Someone with a long history of volunteering will do better than someone with a massive list of random nonsense thrown in over 1 semester. What adcoms want is not such a great mystery. Just seems that way when you dramatize the process.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Yes that's the exact point of my thread. People have a "long history" spanning to the beginning of college (coincidentally when they become premed), and have a laundry-list full of activities. Yet I would be way more suspicious of this, especially when someone went from never having volunteer commitments to suddenly devoting their lives to a bunch of activities.

I'm saying that this is worse than box-checking.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

They are 😕
Why are you suggesting they aren't?

Lol, 95% of my volunteering spontaneously starts between 4 ish months. I hope they're not suspicious lol.

 

[Mornhavon]

.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Yes that's the exact point of my thread. People have a "long history" spanning to the beginning of college (coincidentally when they become premed), and have a laundry-list full of activities. Yet I would be way more suspicious of this, especially when someone went from never having volunteer commitments to suddenly devoting their lives to a bunch of activities.

I'm saying that this is worse than box-checking.

Ok this thread kinda strikes me with the profoundness of someone exclaiming that the world isn't flat.

It is what it is. Box checking is better than nothing. A pattern of behavior is best and also apparent to adcoms. I don't understand why this is such a big deal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[notbobtrustme]

Quality over quantity, thread over. Life lesson here, if you're not gaining anything from your volunteering, quit and find new places to volunteer. That and put yourself out there more often, don't wait around sitting on your ass and chances are you'll have a completely different volunteering experience.

**** that, put your time in and bull**** the adcoms.

Quit trying to spend time finding meaningful experiences when those experiences mean jack-****ing-**** in the context of practicing medicine. Unless you are truly interested in volunteerism, as a pre-med, you should be putting your time in and getting the **** out as soon as possible. Grades + MCAT mean so much more than volunteering. Volunteering is dotting your Is and crossing your Ts. Jump through the hoop and move the **** on.

Spending a bunch of time trying to find yourself in volunteer work is just a complete waste of time, not to mention that you probably **** your application doing so. Last thing, IMO, an adcom wants to see is some kid with volunteer ADHD. Stick to one gig, grind out some hours and move on with your life. Those activities you did (aka truck patients, draw beds and deliver meals) will still happen without you.

 

[SpecterGT260]

**** that, put your time in and bull**** the adcoms.

Quit trying to spend time finding meaningful experiences when those experiences mean jack-****ing-**** in the context of practicing medicine. Unless you are truly interested in volunteerism, as a pre-med, you should be putting your time in and getting the **** out as soon as possible. Grades + MCAT mean so much more than volunteering. Volunteering is dotting your Is and crossing your Ts. Jump through the hoop and move the **** on.

Spending a bunch of time trying to find yourself in volunteer work is just a complete waste of time, not to mention that you probably **** your application doing so. Last thing, IMO, an adcom wants to see is some kid with volunteer ADHD. Stick to one gig, grind out some hours and move on with your life. Those activities you did (aka truck patients, draw beds and deliver meals) will still happen without you.

Rough day?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

 

[notbobtrustme]

Rough day?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

kid kept me up night lol

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

kid kept me up night lol

Lol, take a nap.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Lol, take a nap.

naps give me a headache!

 

[sazerac]

How is this any different than folks who screw around in high school, and then once they declare they are pre-med they start getting good grades and high MCAT scores? Aren't these people just academically insincere box checkers too? Sure they prove they could get good grades if somebody wants them to, but deep down it is all a facade and their academic performance in eighth grade shows their true motivations, when nobody is holding them hostage to an almighty undergraduate transcript.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

naps give me a headache!

Take a shot of expresso before a 30 minute nap.

 

[gettheleadout]

expresso

Quickly!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Quickly!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

I always misspell espresso, but wholeheartedly it should be expresso.

 

[Titus Times]

Well when med schools stop rejecting applicants with 3.8 Gpa's and 32 mcats because they have less volunteer hours Pre Meds will stop trying to outdo each other in that department.

Most people would rather piss away a few hours in a hospital doing volunteer work than have a gap year or two.

 

[Titus Times]

Should grades from high school be considered too, then?

Sorry to double post, But H No, for 2 reasons HS is easy and varies between schools so much, and some people dont take school seriously until college.