One reason to account for at least 10,000 bad applicants

[Dr. Lawyer]

In 1996 about 47,000 people applied to medical school. Last year, about 34,000 applied. The correlation between the state of the economy and the number of medical school applicants has long been recognized. Despite the best efforts of those controlling the admissions process however, some of those extra 10,000+ applying when the economy was poor got into medical school.

With our economy facing a long term slow down, the number of applicants will begin to rise. Law school applications already shot up this year.

Once all these people who are pooping their pants now about not having a job get their pre-med requirements done, they will apply to medical school, and some will get in.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[whyadoctor?]

thank bill and al for the way it is now.

 

[UCSBPre-Med]

Bill and Al?

If I can recall, the economy was just fine when the Democrats were running things. Thank Dubya and the Republicans for the crisis we are in now.

You OC people and your Republicanism...

 

[MD2b06]

First of all, the cause of the economic slowdown isn't a political issue for the most part. This has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush. If anything, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is responsible for the state of the economy b/c of his piss poor job of handling interest rates in 2000. He sensed inflation when there wasn't any so he hiked up interest rates. First thing to collapse were the net stocks. There went the Nasdaq. (Remember that most internet companies were formed under the premise that it was ok to be unprofitable at first as long as you could eventually produce a profit down the line). Well, these same companies soon found themselves to be unable to even afford their debt payments due to the higher interest rates, and had to close up shop. Many non-internet startups soon followed. As if his interest rate hikes weren't bad enough, Greenspan waited way too long to start lowering rates again, although there was clear evidence we were going into a recession. Trillions of dollars of wealth wiped away. Retirement portfolios literally decimated for many. Lower demand for the products of tech companies (a significant portion of their customers were net startups that had gone under after the interest rate hikes) started a domino effect in other sectors of the economy. Lower demand = cutbacks. In short, fiscal policy is not nearly as effective when dealing with a slowing economy as monetary policy is.

Secondly, why do people get their panties in a bunch if someone likes job security? It's a part of life. Being unemployed blows. I, for one, like to know that after I finish med school and residency, my services will be in demand. (i.e. I will always be employed). It's one of the things that makes medicine so attractive to so many people. It doesn't make one a bad doctor.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
thank bill and al for the way it is now.

Im sure those 10,000 bad applicants are all republican.

 

[Pre-Dent-David]

No sht man.... I dont need the extra competition. Its time to go on a killing spree baybe!!!!

 

[yaoming]

UCSB premed. you misunderstood what they were trying to say. Thank bill and al was not a critism, it's a sincere gratitude: low applications now because economy was good a few years ago so most people switched out of premed. now stupid george and useless cheney are in, high applications next few years. comprehende?

 

[Centrum]

Oh.......lets blame it all on Bush and Cheney. September 11th had nothing at all to do with it.

 

[Zoobaby]

Originally posted by MD2b06
First of all, the cause of the economic slowdown isn't a political issue for the most part. This has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush. If anything, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is responsible for the state of the economy b/c of his piss poor job of handling interest rates in 2000. He sensed inflation when there wasn't any so he hiked up interest rates. First thing to collapse were the net stocks. There went the Nasdaq. (Remember that most internet companies were formed under the premise that it was ok to be unprofitable at first as long as you could eventually produce a profit down the line). Well, these same companies soon found themselves to be unable to even afford their debt payments due to the higher interest rates, and had to close up shop. Many non-internet startups soon followed. As if his interest rate hikes weren't bad enough, Greenspan waited way too long to start lowering rates again, although there was clear evidence we were going into a recession. Trillions of dollars of wealth wiped away. Retirement portfolios literally decimated for many. Lower demand for the products of tech companies (a significant portion of their customers were net startups that had gone under after the interest rate hikes) started a domino effect in other sectors of the economy. Lower demand = cutbacks. In short, fiscal policy is not nearly as effective when dealing with a slowing economy as monetary policy is.

Secondly, why do people get their panties in a bunch if someone likes job security? It's a part of life. Being unemployed blows. I, for one, like to know that after I finish med school and residency, my services will be in demand. (i.e. I will always be employed). It's one of the things that makes medicine so attractive to so many people. It doesn't make one a bad doctor.

I think you're oversimplifying it. Rate hikes of a point or two did not sink most of the internet startups. The premise that it is ok to lose money for a while on the ASSUMPTION that you'd make some in the future is flawed. Many (most) of those startups never had a chance. Investor conficence was WAYYY too high. When stock prices were showing PE ratios 30 and 40 times greater than anything that has EVER made sense people should have taken note (some did.) The trillions of weath lost was never real. If you had $10 million worth of stock in peapod.com with a stupid PE ratio and you leveraged that against a $2 million dollar house, and then the stock tanked... I'm sorry, but most people who lost on the internet collapse had it coming. It was pretty bloody stupid to think that the internet would un-do 500 years of economic trends and knowlege. The smart ones called it, and survived. No one person is responsible for this economy, it is very much due to mass dilusions regarding the stock market. The same thing happened in the late 1920's, but to a greater extent.

-Zoo

 

[SubSpring]

the economy is actually donig pretty good

 

[Premed2003]

The economy downturn started with Janet Reno's antitrust suit against Microsoft. That's when the problem started. And what a ridiculous waste of court time.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by Premed2003
The economy downturn started with Janet Reno's antitrust suit against Microsoft. That's when the problem started. And what a ridiculous waste of court time.

I think you have just proven the age old argument that correlary is not causality.

Because if we allow correlation to be mistaken for causality, then I could easily say:

The 9/11 attacks took place during the Bush administration. That's when the problem started. So the reason we have terrorism is because of the Bush administration.

Also, Microsoft has NOT caused governmental debt to increase, interest rate changes, and completely different sectors of the economy (transportation, industrials) to fail. Microsoft is also a monopoly, and just because every state but Mass. has pandered to them doesnt mean it's right.

 

[ScreamingTreesRule]

Actually, the economy was on its way up during Bush the elder's Administration (before Clinton was elected) and the economy started its downturn *while* Clinton was in office (before Dubya was elected). Check out gov't stats on the bea.

Investor conficence was WAYYY too high. When stock prices were showing PE ratios 30 and 40 times greater than anything that has EVER made sense people should have taken note (some did.) The trillions of weath lost was never real. If you had $10 million worth of stock in peapod.com with a stupid PE ratio and you leveraged that against a $2 million dollar house, and then the stock tanked... I'm sorry, but most people who lost on the internet collapse had it coming. It was pretty bloody stupid to think that the internet would un-do 500 years of economic trends and knowlege. The smart ones called it, and survived.

Good points.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by ScreamingTreesRule
Actually, the economy was on its way up during Bush the elder's Administration (before Clinton was elected) and the economy started its downturn *while* Clinton was in office (before Dubya was elected). Check out gov't stats on the bea.

Good points.

Yes, but Clinton maintained a constant econonic policy for 8 years in between, meaning whatever he was doing boosted the economy for that length of time or kept it at that high level.

Either way, Bush I did too little too late, while Clinton helped maintain the boon for 7.5 years.

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by Centrum
Oh.......lets blame it all on Bush and Cheney. September 11th had nothing at all to do with it.

9/11 affected the airline industry, but thats it. The rest of the economy sucking is Bush's fault.

 

[INeedAdvice]

Actually, the economy was on its way up during Bush the elder's Administration (before Clinton was elected)

Yes. And it started to slow down again during the first two years of Clinton's presidency because he passed the highest tax increase in the history at that time. Not until the historic event of the Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress (which hadn't been done for decades), did the economy turn back around with tax cuts and the Republican-led plan of reforming Welfare.

Yes, but Clinton maintained a constant econonic policy for 8 years in between, meaning whatever he was doing boosted the economy for that length of time or kept it at that high level.

See above. It was the Republcan agenda that took hold. I'll give Clinton credit for this, though: he let the Republicans do their thing which led to a great economic boom. Other than that, Clinton just piggy-backed on the Reps and did little else to impact the economy.

 

[doctor girl]

"It was the Republcan agenda that took hold. I'll give Clinton credit for this, though: he let the Republicans do their thing which led to a great economic boom. Other than that, Clinton just piggy-backed on the Reps and did little else to impact the economy."

What? You mean that Bill Clinton's taking a poll every other week to see what would make him popular wasn't a plan?

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by INeedAdvice
Yes. And it started to slow down again during the first two years of Clinton's presidency because he passed the highest tax increase in the history at that time. Not until the historic event of the Republicans taking control of both houses of Congress (which hadn't been done for decades), did the economy turn back around with tax cuts and the Republican-led plan of reforming Welfare.

See above. It was the Republcan agenda that took hold. I'll give Clinton credit for this, though: he let the Republicans do their thing which led to a great economic boom. Other than that, Clinton just piggy-backed on the Reps and did little else to impact the economy.

No, the Bush I and II have had several of their economic packages pass to no improvement of the economy. Clinton didnt listen to the Republicans, he listened to Greenspan and his advisors instead of the energy interests and Saudis that Bush is enamored with. The reason Greenspan has become ineffective is because Bush is not listening to him, resulting in a tax cut that has unbalanced the budget when the US needs to make tons of expenditures (for homeland security). This debt affects every aspect of the economy, and is one of the reasons for the economic downturn.

The fact is, Clinton stimulated the economy by balancing the budget and allowing greater monetary policy control of the economy. When there is huge debt, fiscal policy diminishes the power of the Fed. You cant blame Greenspan as much for this downturn because monetary policy is weak in the face of growing debt.

Ultimately, when Bush decides to get out of bed with the energy interests and the Saudis, maybe the economy can start to recover with a balanced budget and a reasonable tax policy that helps the middle class instead of the richest 1% of the population (his tax plan and the estate tax).

 

[Dr. Lawyer]

I guess the old adage sums it up: "if you want to live like a republican, vote for the democrats."

As much as I love our little war hungry president, (I really do!) our economy was bound to swing downward in his administration...

 

[ScreamingTreesRule]

What? You mean that Bill Clinton's taking a poll every other week to see what would make him popular wasn't a plan?

Seriously. Prez Clinton's plan was to let the repubs steamroll him by passing every single repub agenda that they had.

Why do you think there were so many liberals p!ssed off at him? He passed everything that the repubs handed to him!! They were really po'd about the welfare reform stuff because he was supposed to be a "friend" of welfare recipients.

Clinton didnt listen to the Republicans, he listened to Greenspan

Listen? Or just didn't do anything? Same thing. The bottom line is that the repubs passed a totally repub agenda, which meshed with Greenspan.

Clinton's plan in the beginning was to RAISE taxes. Not lower them.

 

[Gleevec]

Republicans didnt pass any of their agenda that wasnt agreed to by both parties. The Republicans were powerless to pass any economic agenda during the Clinton era because the economy was so good due to the Clinton administration's management.

How can you say a president's plan is to let the other party steamroll? That is like saying every team that plays Miami in football has a plan to let Miami dominate them. Democrats and liberals LOVE clinton, as do moderates. You have no basis whatsoever for this conclusion, and I have no idea why you want to make stuff up and post it on a messageboard.

Clintons plan maintain taxes to pay off the national debt and to increase educational spending. This would result in a greater efficacy of monetary policy, which led to Greenspans ideal control over the economy. Bush cutting taxes to rich corporations and the richest 1% of taxpayers resulted in a loss in governmental income, leading to an increased debt and budget dilemmas, and leading to a loss of monetary policy control. Thus only Bush's policies are to blame for the current economic downturn.

Dont roll your eyes at me unless you actually are educated in what you are talking about...

Originally posted by ScreamingTreesRule
Seriously. Prez Clinton's plan was to let the repubs steamroll him by passing every single repub agenda that they had.

Why do you think there were so many liberals p!ssed off at him? He passed everything that the repubs handed to him!! They were really po'd about the welfare reform stuff because he was supposed to be a "friend" of welfare recipients.

Listen? Or just didn't do anything? Same thing. The bottom line is that the repubs passed a totally repub agenda, which meshed with Greenspan.

Clinton's plan in the beginning was to RAISE taxes. Not lower them.

 

[logos]

I think everyone puts way too much emphasis on the government's control of the economy. The upswing wasnt due the the president and neither was the decline...it was bound to happen...these things are cyclical...and attributable to factors other than the president at the time....for example...the microprocessor revolution...the internet (both good and bad), the hypeing of the economy and the resultant bad investment decisions....etc etc etc....the government is only a small part of the economy...

 

[cg1]

How can you say a president's plan is to let the other party steamroll? That is like saying every team that plays Miami in football has a plan to let Miami dominate them.

To be fair, the Democrats didn't want taxes to be cut and they certainly didn't want the welfare state to be decreased. Those were the babies of the Conservatives. Bill Clinton never supported those issues, but when the House and the Senate went Republican, it was a sign that the voters were furious with Bill Clinton. Since he wasn't too popular, he didn't have a choice but to go along with the Conservatives and shut up.

Democrats and liberals LOVE clinton, as do moderates. You have no basis whatsoever for this conclusion, and I have no idea why you want to make stuff up and post it on a messageboard.

They love him now. But they weren't happy with him when he went along with the Conservative agenda by not vetoing anything that the Republicans passed starting in '94.

 

[CatsAreKillers]

Republicans didnt pass any of their agenda that wasnt agreed to by both parties. The Republicans were powerless to pass any economic agenda during the Clinton era because the economy was so good due to the Clinton administration's management

OMG, is this guy for real?? There was a little thing called the Republican Revolution when Clinton was in office.

Check into it.

Maybe Mr. 260 posts in 1 month should spend less time on message boards and more time reading.

 

[yaoming]

instead of arguing, why dont someone start a poll: if you can pick Bill or George to be president right now, who would you pick? I bet my entire lifetime saving Bill wins. Bill is the better president, enough said.

 

[Lady MD]

Lord knows that's what we need. Another poll. And you know it would be statistically significant since members of this board reflect the voting population. (yeah, right)

Believe it or not, I think Dubya has had the highest rating for the most consecutive months for a u.s. president. I know it's hard to believe !! I can't believe it myself !!!!!!!!

An even more unbelievable stat just happened last month in November. It was the first time in a century (perhaps almost a century), that a new president swept both houses during a non-presidential election.

Not only that, it happened during hard economic times.

That's how UFB well-liked Dubya is.

 

[Lavndrrose]

Originally posted by Lady MD
Believe it or not, I think Dubya has had the highest rating for the most consecutive months for a u.s. president. I know it's hard to believe !! I can't believe it myself !!!!!!!!

Ratings from where? Oil companies??

 

[jtn]

Don't worry guys, there's an approximately five year lag before the number of medical school applicants rises as a result of the poor economy.

People just don't change their majors or finish their prereq for med school immediately. Plus, they have to have some clinical, research and teaching experiences. They have to think about it...Lets hope they take a long time thinking or at least only make a decision after I apply

So if you are thinking of applying to medical school next year, don't because going into medicine will put you in debt, prevent you from spending time w/ your family, give you lots of gray hair and increase your auto insurance premium as a result of the BMW that you will driving jt

 

[Nirvana]

Originally posted by jtn
Lets hope they take a long time thinking or at least only make a decision after I apply

So if you are thinking of applying to medical school next year, don't because going into medicine will put you in debt, prevent you from spending time w/ your family, give you lots of gray hair and increase your auto insurance premium as a result of the BMW that you will driving jt

And you left out the most important thing....keep jtn from getting accepted!

That was a good post!

 

[jtn]

Originally posted by Lady MD

Believe it or not, I think Dubya has had the highest rating for the most consecutive months for a u.s. president. I know it's hard to believe !! I can't believe it myself !!!!!!!!

That's how UFB well-liked Dubya is.

A Physics Professor once told me...
"Sixty percent of Americans are total NITWITS!"
So my theory as to why Bush has such a high approval rating right now is because those people who think Bush is a great prez for the first time are able to relate to a president I bet that Bush's approval rating is probably 60%! Clinton should still be in office! jtn

 

[DarkChild]

1) you are so wrong about Alan Greenspan. In 1996 he warned about inflated investor confidence and flat out said we were seeing a stock bubble. IN 1996!! that was before any of the dotcoms started blowing up.
2) I dont think med schools will see the time of increases in applications that MBA programs and law schools are seeing. because med schools have requirements which take up to two years to complete, its much easier to apply to law schools (which take tons of undergrads and have no pre-requisites) and MBA programs.

Originally posted by MD2b06
First of all, the cause of the economic slowdown isn't a political issue for the most part. This has nothing to do with Clinton or Bush. If anything, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is responsible for the state of the economy b/c of his piss poor job of handling interest rates in 2000. He sensed inflation when there wasn't any so he hiked up interest rates. First thing to collapse were the net stocks. There went the Nasdaq. (Remember that most internet companies were formed under the premise that it was ok to be unprofitable at first as long as you could eventually produce a profit down the line). Well, these same companies soon found themselves to be unable to even afford their debt payments due to the higher interest rates, and had to close up shop. Many non-internet startups soon followed. As if his interest rate hikes weren't bad enough, Greenspan waited way too long to start lowering rates again, although there was clear evidence we were going into a recession. Trillions of dollars of wealth wiped away. Retirement portfolios literally decimated for many. Lower demand for the products of tech companies (a significant portion of their customers were net startups that had gone under after the interest rate hikes) started a domino effect in other sectors of the economy. Lower demand = cutbacks. In short, fiscal policy is not nearly as effective when dealing with a slowing economy as monetary policy is.

Secondly, why do people get their panties in a bunch if someone likes job security? It's a part of life. Being unemployed blows. I, for one, like to know that after I finish med school and residency, my services will be in demand. (i.e. I will always be employed). It's one of the things that makes medicine so attractive to so many people. It doesn't make one a bad doctor.

 

[HouseHead]

Originally posted by Lady MD

Believe it or not, I think Dubya has had the highest rating for the most consecutive months for a u.s. president. I know it's hard to believe !! I can't believe it myself !!!!!!!!

That's how UFB well-liked Dubya is.

Originally posted by jtn
A Physics Professor once told me...
"Sixty percent of Americans are total NITWITS!"
So my theory as to why Bush has such a high approval rating right now is because those people who think Bush is a great prez for the first time are able to relate to a president I bet that Bush's approval rating is probably 60%!

You read my mind.
The high rating also had a lot to do with 9/11 and the responses of a whole bunch of people that had been incapable of imagining such events ever taking place. How unimaginable is something when it shows up on a TV show (The Lone Gunmen) less than a year before it happens IRL? Maybe I'm too much of a Clancy fan or spent too much time around military folks, but IMO it was just a matter of time before something like this (maybe not on quite such a scale) happened. I just wish I had already been in med school at the time, then I could have actually helped out rather than being turned away everywhere I went!

As for the economy: Giving out piddly refund checks sure didn't help things. And now a proposed war that would cost an estimated trillion-plus $ over a 10-year period... Sounds like a true humanitarian, that Duhbya.

 

[MD2b06]

Originally posted by DarkChild
1) you are so wrong about Alan Greenspan. In 1996 he warned about inflated investor confidence and flat out said we were seeing a stock bubble. IN 1996!! that was before any of the dotcoms started blowing up.
2) I dont think med schools will see the time of increases in applications that MBA programs and law schools are seeing. because med schools have requirements which take up to two years to complete, its much easier to apply to law schools (which take tons of undergrads and have no pre-requisites) and MBA programs.

If you'd have read what I said, you'd know I was talking about interest rate increases, not "irrational exuberance". I never said there wasn't a stock market bubble. Clearly there was with companies trading at extremely high P/E's. But it's not his job to manage the market. How am I wrong? Did Greenspan not raise rates when he shouldn't have? Did he not wait too long to start lowering rates again? He was trying to fight off inflation when there wasn't any! He screwed up. This much is common knowledge.

2) The stock market and economy have been crappy for over 2 years now. That's enough time for many people who are on the fence about whether or not to apply to med school to finish up pre-reqs, take the MCAT, get some healthcare experience and apply. Hell, I was probably one of those people. I have a non-science degree and was seriously considering just saying screw med school b/c these tech jobs seemed so alluring. However, after the bubble burst, I knew I had to be in a profession that I not only enjoyed, but was also not as succeptible to the ups and downs of the economy. End result? I'm finishing my first semester in med school, and I know I made the right call. The increase in apps will be seen soon enough, if not in this app cycle. Many schools are already reporting a > 10% increase in the number applications they received.

 

[UCLA2000]

It's funny how Reagonomics screwed up our economy...then Bush senior screwed it up more. Clinton gets in office, fixes up the economy, and unemployment and now that Bush is in office it goes down the tubes.

How do Republicans explain the decline in the economy? It's all Bill's fault!

PULEEEZ!!

 

[LUBDUBB]

Don't let the Republicans fool you -- Dubya blew the entire surplus BEFORE 9/11.

And, it was the Repbulicans who engaged in a decade-long war against Clinton, which cost the American taxpayers a $hit load of deniero. And what did we learn from this anti-Clinton campaign:
1) How a man fools around with a girl.
2) How much Americans hate Ken Starr.


CLINTON is the man!! He got oral sex in the white house, and someon else lost their job because of it (Newt G).

 

[DrBlueDevil]

ok...let me preface this by saying I know very little about macroeconomics or politics....

BUT....somebody please tell me how returning a small check to your average taxpayer will solve any real economic problem!

Say you give average American X a check for $500 (somebody correct me if it was a lot more or less than that). There's not a whole lot average American X can do with that sum of money. It's fine to save, but an extra $500 in the bank won't really do anything long term. It can be invested, but again...$500 won't really make or break anyone. It can be used to pay off interest on a loan, but then that money's just going to some huge lender company and not really solving anyone's problems with debt. I will say that it must've really helped out lower income people/families, but I can't see how it'd make a major difference to the majority of Americans.

Now, were the money in the hands of the government, you can REALLY DO SOMETHING with it (wasn't it in the hundreds of billions?) I know this was all pre-9/11, but at that time, the government could have funded large projects, like setting up scholarship funds, research facilities, public works programs, better health coverage for the lower income families... ANYTHING!!!!

Or they could've just used it to fund oil drilling projects in Alaska. Go bush.

 

[NYC Non-Trad]

While I do agree with you, there is an opposing viewpoint that more money in government=more waste/more inefficiency and that returning even $500 to each taxpayer will enable people to spend some of it, which has a rippling effect through the economy (increasing company profits, creating more jobs, etc.). I do not hold such an opinion, but still acknowledge it as valid and debatable.

It is similar to the belief (which I do happen to hold) that companies which sit on a very large cash position (e.g. Microsoft) should return it to their shareholders either by buying back shares or declaring a large dividend (the former being preferable for tax purposes, I believe) since the company will inevitable spend some of that cash on unsound investment decisions, which end up destroying value for the shareholder.

It is not a totally parallel analogy since the government is not in the business of investing money to earn a return for taxpayers, but rather to fund public goods that everyone benefits from, but that no one individual is willing to pay for (defense, etc.). However, the belief that having too much money can lead to wasteful decisions is the similarity. (now if the government instead of declaring the tax refund, used the cash to lower the national debt, i would have been all for it.)

Also, I am just wondering why there is such a fervent economic debate on a Premed forum of all places?! I happen to work in the business world currently, but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of SDN readers have no affiliation with business or economics and are pretty uneducated on the topic. Just my 2 cents.

 

[cg1]

I think NYCnon-trad is correct. Most SDN'ers don't know much about business ! How is this topic premed related?

It's funny how Reagonomics screwed up our economy...then Bush senior screwed it up more. Clinton gets in office, fixes up the economy, and unemployment and now that Bush is in office it goes down the tubes.

Actually this isn't what the fed's numbers show from the past two thirds of a century. The economy had been fairly steady for about 40 years (and there was stagflation during Carter's administration), but when Reagan cut Capital Gains, the ecnomony went directly to a climb that lasted until about 4 years ago (when you look at the charts, you can see the climb being jump started during the '80s when the tax codes were drastically changed). Even when George Herbert WB was in office, the economy slowed down, but it picked up during his Presidency, within a year of its downturn.

Economists will tell you that our current downturn has been happening since 1998 and if you look at the numbers, it's true. But on the upside, it's not stagflation, nor the Great Depression. I do agree with everyone who says that we should concentrate on recovery first. My personal opinion? I think Bush is just saber rattling and ultimately will not make the first strike. I was very surprised that he took a long hard look and analysis before attacking Afghanistan. I thought he would've jumped in within several weeks of 9/11, but he didn't. So I'm thinking (and hoping) that we won't make the first strike. Just my two cents on that topic.

But I don't blame any one position for the economy anyways, because there's more than just the President having an impact on it, such as the Fed chariman, the congress, ...

 

[Peter Parker]

Originally posted by Centrum
Oh.......lets blame it all on Bush and Cheney. September 11th had nothing at all to do with it.

I actually blame that on the scarecrow and the tin man, also.

 

[auburnO5]

In 1996 about 47,000 people applied to medical school. Last year, about 34,000 applied. The correlation between the state of the economy and the number of medical school applicants has long been recognized. Despite the best efforts of those controlling the admissions process however, some of those extra 10,000+ applying when the economy was poor got into medical school.

With our economy facing a long term slow down, the number of applicants will begin to rise. Law school applications already shot up this year.

Once all these people who are pooping their pants now about not having a job get their pre-med requirements done, they will apply to medical school, and some will get in.

So are you trying to say that an economic downturn causes an increase or decrease in the number of applicants per year?

 

[blaithnaid]

this thread is older than you are

 

[spence]

So are you trying to say that an economic downturn causes an increase or decrease in the number of applicants per year?

lol, this thread is 8 years old

 

[metallica81788]

How did you even find this thread to post on it?

Were you on like page 497854753463465 of Pre-Allo?

 

[45408]

Damn, I was finishing up in Chemistry 102 when this thread was started.

 

[ILikeDrugs]

First year fresh out of high school for me. I wasn't even enrolled in college. Worked full time at quiznos. By now, the op is probably a frustrated attending cursing obama for chipping away at his salary.

 

[metallica81788]

Holy crap, I hadn't even started high school yet.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

holy crap you're a baby =)

 

[jckut10]

2002? What the --

 

[FlowRate]

I like how the thread was based on the economic downturn then... it's way worse now and was mostly caused by the LOWERING of interest rates. Ah, time.

I am interested in the question, though; do professional schools see an increased number of applicants with a decrease in the economy? Perceived as more stable jobs, it would certainly make sense to me.

 

[HAART]

I am interested in the question, though; do professional schools see an increased number of applicants with a decrease in the economy? Perceived as more stable jobs, it would certainly make sense to me.

Not sure about med school, but this is hard fact with MBA programs. When jobs aren't available there is a much higher number of people choosing that time to go back to get the MBA (which is frequently done after a few years of work experience)