exlawgrrl said:
Why am I not surprised by your response? One thing I learned by law school and hanging out with lawyers is that they're generally the most negative people around. You seem to exemplify that. Also, you have no numbers or anything to back up your negative assertions -- if you do, please share them. The numbers I posted showed that we're accepted at about the same rate as traditional applicants. I'm relying on those and choosing to buck my training and not see the world in some glass as half empty mindset.
I did not get a particularly negative vibe from his/her post; it seems a relevant consideration. I think, however, that the fact that younger applicants are, on average, more idealistic, energetic,etc., and have had less time to demonstrate a lack of motivation for medicine (for whatever reason) more than outweighs any particular achievements "more living" might afford. Furthermore, the qualifications of the average younger student are steadily growing stronger (e.g. more publications, higher GPAs, volunteerism, significant participation in a variety of activities). This serves to continually raise the bar. This said, I truly think that the schools seriously consider the qualifications of older applicants, as evidenced by their fabulous 50% admissions rate. As such, it is obvious that regardless of why, exactly, in the end we are talking about a relatively minor consideration (age) in the process. I suspect that once the "motivation hurdle" is passed, we older applicants are viewed competitively.
More broadly, medical school admissions is extraordinarily competitive. Though this may seem obvious, many of those posting (including you) seem to adopt a Pollyannish perspective, as if your sheer optimism may earn you a spot in the class. Over 60% of all those students admitted were only admitted to one school and the data show that the average GPA of admitted students is pushing 3.7! Now, I do think a cheery disposition will benefit an applicant in an interview; a distaste for reality, for the implications of the data we all see with our own eyes, will not. We can all find a story of someone with a 2.9 GPA who got into Harvard, or some such thing, but the fact is that unless your GPA is within 0.2 points of the average of any particular school (don't blame me, blame the Bell Curve and the mathematical nature of the universe), you will have to have other exceptional characteristics to your application, both on paper and in the interview (e.g. phenomenal MCATs, charisma, substantial volunteerism, demonstrated willingness to practive in underserved areas); that is, without other substantial characteristics to distinguish you (the proverbial you) from the 25,000+ other applicants who earned higher GPAs, your chances of admission are extremely slim (realistically). I recommend to people that if they really know they want to be doctor, go ahead and try, but do so intelligently, strategically and soberly, knowing full well the serious task you have of distinguishing yourself in some way from thousands of other applicants who you would be surprised to learn look remarkably like yourself on paper (that is except for your GPA, unless, you do something about it otherwise).
I would think that especially when one is giving advice to marginal cases it does not hurt to "keep it real," as it were. These are not people who need to be convinced that everything will work out in the end. The fact is that it will not if you don't do anything about it. I would also suspect that those who are scared off by the negativity that they perceive in the sober analysis of admissions statistics are not the most suited for medicine. This profession involves the management of considerable ambiguity, both in the symtomology of patients and in the results of various treatment modalities. When I advise a family that the literature shows that 75% of those diagnosed with a particular type of cancer die, I am not trying to be "negative" or to view the glass as half empty, but rather providing them with relevant data needed to make treatment decisions (and sometimes the glass really is half-empty). Why in the world would we want to convince marginal applicants to ease up on their efforts in any way? Be hard on yourself, guys and gals, medicine is about motivating oneself to achieve mastery of an incredible body of knowledge and social and diagnostic skills--perpetually. If you can't do it now, it is unlikely that you are suited for medicine--only those of you willing to distinguish yourselves, to devote yourself to several things (extracurricularly) with a passion that sets you apart (or have the looks and charisma of George Clooney), will be able to break the Bell Curve.
Finally, in regards to the cheap shot at lawyers, many of which are dedicated, altruistic professionals, I think that their "negativity" may just stem from the pesky nature of the law, which is that say that one must support one's assertions/motions with relevant facts (though obviously emotionalism aids in jury trials). They must deal with the world the way it really is (or convince someone the world is the way it isn't). The fact is that the world is a crappy place, full of danger and disappointment. Only when we truly see it as it is, do I think that we will give every effort towards fixing it. I would prefer to be optimistic about our ability as compassionate human beings to change the world if, that is, if we choose to; I am not optimistic about what the data show the prospects are for our world, or for that matter, the prospects of any medical school applicant with a GPA below 3.4, or 0.2 points lower than the average as these students will make up less than 1% of the students matriculating this year.
