but go to the comments page and read some of the comments by the public...wow
http://www.slate.com/id/2217146/?Gt1=38001
http://www.slate.com/id/2217146/?Gt1=38001
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
nice article on md shortage
Started by bigpharmD
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Very good read and the comments are right on!
How do you get to the comments section? Do you have to click the title one by one? I only read one that seemed like a rant...
Scroll down just a little past the article and look for this in a grayish box
"
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES"
Yeah I got to that part. But every comment (secretly coded "message") is unthreaded, and you have to click each one by one. You can't read them all, nor follow a conversation because all the comments seem independent and not addressing other people's comments. Of the 128 comments, only about ~4 comments have more than 3 replies. The majorities of comments have zero replies, which means the author of a comment just rants and no discussion arises.
I don't know which comments are valid, or are rants. I'm truly trying to learn the counterarguments to the popular arguments which are very common at SDN.
I can find plenty of criticism about the healthcare system from a pro-doctors stance, but have yet to find a valid counterargument. Isn't anyone else curious if there is a great explanation for all the mess that is discussed on various forums? I want to become a doctor who spends maximum amount of time with patients, has minimum overhead expenses and hassles with HMO's and insurer's, paperwork, bureaucratic instructional creep, etc...
I trust that most legislation gets argued by opposing viewpoints of good-faithed people and the resultant laws and rules and bureacracy are the result of compromise. I am frustrated with the lack of intellictual debate that I can follow at a pre-med level. I follow current events and like to understand things. The health care discussions like the one on that site just have an aura of strawman and unfair imbalance.
I ordered a relevant book from amazon a few days ago; maybe it's best for me to fully educate myself on the current status before I try to understand details such as the one presented in the slate article.
I don't know which comments are valid, or are rants. I'm truly trying to learn the counterarguments to the popular arguments which are very common at SDN.
I can find plenty of criticism about the healthcare system from a pro-doctors stance, but have yet to find a valid counterargument. Isn't anyone else curious if there is a great explanation for all the mess that is discussed on various forums? I want to become a doctor who spends maximum amount of time with patients, has minimum overhead expenses and hassles with HMO's and insurer's, paperwork, bureaucratic instructional creep, etc...
I trust that most legislation gets argued by opposing viewpoints of good-faithed people and the resultant laws and rules and bureacracy are the result of compromise. I am frustrated with the lack of intellictual debate that I can follow at a pre-med level. I follow current events and like to understand things. The health care discussions like the one on that site just have an aura of strawman and unfair imbalance.
I ordered a relevant book from amazon a few days ago; maybe it's best for me to fully educate myself on the current status before I try to understand details such as the one presented in the slate article.
