Question for the GENIUSES currently in med school

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
M

msavvy

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
69
Reaction score
42
Everybody in med school is probably a genius to be able to get accepted in the first place, but I'm asking those who have savant-level intelligence, and/or photographic memory. I am wondering what med school is like to you? In what aspects is med school still difficult?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
(I wouldn't say everyone in med school is a genius.. if an IQ scale was used, I'd gander 125+ for the vast majority)

:corny::corny::corny:
 
People that can memorize large amounts of material easily and retain the material better tend to go out more and have an active social life, work out, etc. Those that do not tend to retreat into their study caves and resurface for the post exam parties where they drink to excess lamenting their situation and retire early. It's easy to see who is who after the first couple weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Not in med school yet but work with a bunch of med students/residents, many of whom you could say have "genius level" intelligence.

It seems that it gives them more time to do extracurriculars like research, student leadership, etc. But overall it's only a piece of the puzzle and the most people I talk to say work ethic is just as important if not more important than intelligence for the average med student.

*Unless you're gunning for plastics or derm, then you need a 290 step and 80 1st author pubs...so being a savant probably helps*
 
I have a friend who fellows and attendings refer to as the "effortless genius"; he got high 280s STEP 1 and has quite the credentials…just finished fellowship under 30. It seems that the main (perhaps only) difference is that he has time to do whatever he wants, when he wants, but even he told me that medicine is not about genius--no matter how intelligent you are, if you don't know certain drugs, procedures, basic foundations, there is no way you will get it right. Medicine requires dedication and perseverance more than anything. Seeing patients usually requires very little intelligence per se because you go through the same scenarios over and over, it becomes monkey work. There's also references, web, co-workers if you don't know. Maybe, just maybe, being a "genius" could be more helpful in academic medicine?
 
I wouldn't say you have to have a genius level IQ or whatever metric you choose to quantify intelligence with. It is without a doubt in my mind that you do have to be above average intelligence with strong work ethic to do well enough in undergrad, get a respectable MCAT score, while managing a number of extracurricular activities.
 
MaxPlancker said:
I have a friend who fellows and attendings refer to as the "effortless genius"; he got high 280s STEP 1 and has quite the credentials…just finished fellowship under 30. It seems that the main (perhaps only) difference is that he has time to do whatever he wants, when he wants, but even he told me that medicine is not about genius--no matter how intelligent you are, if you don't know certain drugs, procedures, basic foundations, there is no way you will get it right. Medicine requires dedication and perseverance more than anything. Seeing patients usually requires very little intelligence per se because you go through the same scenarios over and over, it becomes monkey work. There's also references, web, co-workers if you don't know. Maybe, just maybe, being a "genius" could be more helpful in academic medicine?
Click to expand...

finishing a fellowship under 30 just means he went into a 3 year residency role, aka non-surgical. The majority of med students who get in immediately from college will finish a residency and fellowship under 30. not discounting if this guy's a genius or not, it's just age at which you finish fellowship is not an indicator of merit really
 
It's as easy as eating lead cupcakes. Or maybe I'm just doing it wrong.
 
msavvy said:
Everybody in med school is probably a genius to be able to get accepted in the first place, but I'm asking those who have savant-level intelligence, and/or photographic memory. I am wondering what med school is like to you? In what aspects is med school still difficult?
Click to expand...

This guy would know:

24


7nTnr.png
 
Members don't see this ad :)
jk1006 said:
finishing a fellowship under 30 just means he went into a 3 year residency role, aka non-surgical. The majority of med students who get in immediately from college will finish a residency and fellowship under 30. not discounting if this guy's a genius or not, it's just age at which you finish fellowship is not an indicator of merit really
Click to expand...
Well it so happens that you are wrong. Finishing under 30 could also mean he graduated college at an earlier age and went to a surgical specialty. Or maybe he flew through schooling prior to college? What makes you assume finishing a fellowship under 30 "just" means he went non-surgical?

Anyways, I didn't even put that there to correlate being a genius with age but take it as you will. I just put a grab bag of random facts. A step of 290, mcat of 44, etc would not necessarily qualify someone as a genius either.
 
You just memorize a lot of material. I don't know why we glorify this.

There is a huge gap between something like good will hunting and someone who can route memorize like crazy.

There is a big difference between a grad level Astro physics course and a med school gross anatomy course.
 
7331poas said:
You just memorize a lot of material. I don't know why we glorify this.

There is a huge gap between something like good will hunting and someone who can route memorize like crazy.

There is a big difference between a grad level Astro physics course and a med school gross anatomy course.
Click to expand...

I get into this argument with engineering and math majors who think they're more intelligent than premed biology or biochemistry majors just because they can problem solve at a quantitative level. It's two different forms of intelligence. What doctors do requires the application of a seemingly perpetual amount of information which does require intelligence. Sure people like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking are super intelligent but so were Harvey Cushing and Alexander Fleming
 
I actually do have a photographic memory and "almost genius IQ". I also almost lost my scholarship in college and would've had to drop out of school if that had happened.
Sime of the brightest people I've met have flamed out in school. Genius does not equal successful, just as successful does not equal genius.
 
McSpicy said:
I get into this argument with engineering and math majors who think they're more intelligent than premed biology or biochemistry majors just because they can problem solve at a quantitative level. It's two different forms of intelligence. What doctors do requires the application of a seemingly perpetual amount of information which does require intelligence. Sure people like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking are super intelligent but so were Harvey Cushing and Alexander Fleming
Click to expand...

Alexander Fleming made crucial discoveries which changed the course of history. Is your department chair physicist smarter than a chief of surgery? I assert yes.

But I am biased because I don't value memorization as highly as what Fleming and Hawking do.
 
Okazaki Frag Grenade said:
Yeah but you don't hardly have to read anything in med school anyway...
Click to expand...

Can i just post here to say that your posts crack me up every time I see them? You're one of those few people who I recognize on SDN now. I'll be reading a comment and find myself giggling and then check the poster, and it's pretty frequently you (the other option being me)
 
Actually I am going to correct myself. A chief of surgery typically participates in research.

I am more comparing a physicist to a sole clinician.
 
McSpicy said:
I get into this argument with engineering and math majors who think they're more intelligent than premed biology or biochemistry majors just because they can problem solve at a quantitative level. It's two different forms of intelligence. What doctors do requires the application of a seemingly perpetual amount of information which does require intelligence. Sure people like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking are super intelligent but so were Harvey Cushing and Alexander Fleming
Click to expand...

I never got this weird dichotomy between the more physical science/engineering and the life sciences. I knew ridiculously intelligent people on both sides but comparing the two was akin to comparing pizzas and baseballs IMO (i.e. they're both things but not really similar enough to compare in that manner).

I'm fortunate to have been on both sides and as such don't really have such a weird bias (though I do have other biases against college majors that aren't that marketable).
 
eteshoe said:
I never got this weird dichotomy between the more physical science/engineering and the life sciences. I knew ridiculously intelligent people on both sides but comparing the two was akin to comparing pizzas and baseballs IMO (i.e. they're both things but not really similar enough to compare in that manner).
Click to expand...

"Not comparable" is a cop out imo. Even at the intro level, it's plain to see physics takes another level compared to gen bio.
 
7331poas said:
"Not comparable" is a cop out imo. Even at the intro level, it's plain to see physics takes another level compared to gen bio.
Click to expand...

Kind of - but intro level physics is really simplified (just like gen bio) compared to let's say quantum mechanics. Let's say, I learned a lot more physics from quantum mechanics than any of the intro level classes and way more bio when I took a graduate level biochem course than my intro cell bio course.

In either case the courses just utilize different methods to get the material across. Someone more inclined to one or the other may think that the is easier or impossible to learn but it's really about changing your approach to learning the material.
 
eteshoe said:
Kind of - but intro level physics is really simplified (just like gen bio) compared to let's say quantum mechanics. Let's say, I learned a lot more physics from quantum mechanics than any of the intro level classes and way more bio when I took a graduate level biochem course than my intro cell bio course.

In either case the courses just utilize different methods to get the material across. Someone more inclined to one or the other may think that the is easier or impossible to learn but it's really about changing your approach to learning the material.
Click to expand...

You really think quantum physics is similar to immunology in terms of how intelligent you need to be in order to grasp it at an undergrad level ?

Notice how biochem was quoted in your example, the highest biology gets in levels of "purity".
 
Last edited:
7331poas said:
You really think quantum physics is similar to immunology in terms of how intelligent you need to be in order to grasp it at an undergrad level ?

Notice how biochem was hooded in your example, the highest biology gets in levels of "purity".
Click to expand...

Haha ok I get your point but I'm probably biased since I had some crazy smart friends in both physical and life sciences. It's hard to quantify what the level of intelligence needed to "grasp" material in UG.
 
eteshoe said:
I never got this weird dichotomy between the more physical science/engineering and the life sciences. I knew ridiculously intelligent people on both sides but comparing the two was akin to comparing pizzas and baseballs IMO (i.e. they're both things but not really similar enough to compare in that manner).

I'm fortunate to have been on both sides and as such don't really have such a weird bias (though I do have other biases against college majors that aren't that marketable).
Click to expand...
*crumples social science degree*

In all seriousness, though, I feel like this "dichotomy" is really weak conceptually. Defining intelligence is much more nebulous than a dichotomy. We may notice a "type" of intelligence, but it is also the case that different fields shape their students to think in specific ways.
tumblr_msdnl1NOzl1sxea2ro1_500.gif

*inserts biased plug for breadth and gen eds*

sry 4 off topic OP
 
Last edited:
virchow? said:
*crumples social science degree*

In all seriousness, though, I feel like this "dichotomy" is really weak conceptually. Defining intelligence is much more nebulous than a dichotomy. We may notice a "type" of intelligence, but it is also the case that different fields shape their students to think in specific ways.
*inserts biased plug for breadth and gen eds*

sry 4 off topic OP
Click to expand...

Lol. I agree. And I did enjoy most of my gen ed courses (especially philosophy and my various culture studies courses).
 
TallPreMed said:
I actually do have a photographic memory and "almost genius IQ". I also almost lost my scholarship in college and would've had to drop out of school if that had happened.
Sime of the brightest people I've met have flamed out in school. Genius does not equal successful, just as successful does not equal genius.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with genius not equalling success and vice-versa.


7331poas said:
Actually I am going to correct myself. A chief of surgery typically participates in research
I am more comparing a physicist to a sole clinician.
Click to expand...

I would say that the chief of surgery at my school is more accomplished in his respective field than the chair of physics, but I don't know how to gauge their intelligence levels. Physics is a more self-selecting discipline than medicine. I think around 1,800 people in the US get Doctoral degrees in physics while the number of MDs is roughly 10 times that amount.

What type of research? Is the average physicist smarter than a Caribbean educated primary care physician? I'm 99.99% sure yes. Is the average physicist smarter than someone in an equally rare discipline such as radiation oncology, vascular surgery or neurosurgery? I'm not so sure.
 
7331poas said:
You really think quantum physics is similar to immunology in terms of how intelligent you need to be in order to grasp it at an undergrad level ?

Notice how biochem was quoted in your example, the highest biology gets in levels of "purity".
Click to expand...
You are assuming the the medical person would not also be capable of doing physics. I, and plenty of other premeds, have done courses like pchem and probably could have handled upper level physics. And my friend who is in the Caltech chemistry PhD program struggled with the intro bio course. Both fields require different skill sets to learn the foundations. And I assure you that there are physics PhDs who couldn't handle med school courses and there are med students who can handle physics grad classes.

Edit: OP is talking innate ability to memorize and integrate a large amount of information, which is a form of genius. Anyone who works hard could learn advanced physics (even if the way of thinking doesn't come naturally at first). You don't go from normal intelligence to genius just by taking a few more classes in a certain field. Possessing innate abilities that put you at the top of your field is genius
 
Last edited:
msavvy said:
Everybody in med school is probably a genius to be able to get accepted in the first place, but I'm asking those who have savant-level intelligence, and/or photographic memory. I am wondering what med school is like to you? In what aspects is med school still difficult?
Click to expand...

What the...?
 
eteshoe said:
Haha ok I get your point but I'm probably biased since I had some crazy smart friends in both physical and life sciences. It's hard to quantify what the level of intelligence needed to "grasp" material in UG.
Click to expand...

I like where this discussion is at -- I think that if you have firm foundations in bio and physics, and go to higher level courses in both subjects, you start to use the same "type" of intelligence. For example, seeing the network of signals between inflammation, CD4 T cells, CD8 T cells, B-cells, etc. in immunology is analogous to seeing all the intricate relationships between force, electric field, voltage, kinetic energy etc. in physics
 
msavvy said:
I like where this discussion is at -- I think that if you have firm foundations in bio and physics, and go to higher level courses in both subjects, you start to use the same "type" of intelligence. For example, seeing the network of signals between inflammation, CD4 T cells, CD8 T cells, B-cells, etc. in immunology is analogous to seeing all the intricate relationships between force, electric field, voltage, kinetic energy etc. in physics
Click to expand...

Except that network for immunology is presented matter-of-fact. In physics you need to derive where all those elemental forces came from and what they mean.
 
bearintraining said:
FYI: There is no verifiable evidence of what most people consider "photographic memory"
Click to expand...
Seriously. This term has always bothered me. There was a girl who failed my physics 1 class with a "photographic memory" I always wondered why she didn't just take photographic memories of the equations and the lecture slides.
 
msavvy said:
I like where this discussion is at -- I think that if you have firm foundations in bio and physics, and go to higher level courses in both subjects, you start to use the same "type" of intelligence. For example, seeing the network of signals between inflammation, CD4 T cells, CD8 T cells, B-cells, etc. in immunology is analogous to seeing all the intricate relationships between force, electric field, voltage, kinetic energy etc. in physics
Click to expand...

I can agree with this concept. I took classes all over the place and was surprised how helpful my upper level engineering classes were in some of my signaling bio courses. Once you take higher level courses, you start seeing connections all over the place.
 
7331poas said:
Except that network for immunology is presented matter-of-fact. In physics you need to derive where all those elemental forces came from and what they mean.
Click to expand...

I think in bio, the discovery of a "fact" is years of research trying to answer a question such as "what does this surface protein bind to?" and that is the fact that we deem as an assumption in order to answer bio questions, but the same can be said for physics. Even though we can derive an equation from abstraction, we still have to have some assumptions from insight to derive that equation such as we need to assume "such and such follows the superposition principle" (I haven't taken graduate level physics courses, but I'm sure some genius in physics mathematically proved through years of research that superposition works for kinematics, electrostatics, etc.).
 
I wouldn't say everyone in med school is a genius but I do believe they are hard workers. I'm not a genius..but then again I haven't started med school.
 
virchow? said:
*crumples social science degree*

In all seriousness, though, I feel like this "dichotomy" is really weak conceptually. Defining intelligence is much more nebulous than a dichotomy. We may notice a "type" of intelligence, but it is also the case that different fields shape their students to think in specific ways.
tumblr_msdnl1NOzl1sxea2ro1_500.gif

*inserts biased plug for breadth and gen eds*

sry 4 off topic OP
Click to expand...
Social science degree?
IT-Tech-Job-Rejection-Trash-Pile-Get-Interview-Feedback.png
 
Okay, I can't resist... May I suggest that "genius" is at a higher level than just being able to learn a lot? It's about being able to synthesize information and connect the dots in (novel) ways that lead to important discoveries or ideas in your field. It seems a bit silly to argue that one field requires more "genius" than another considering the variety of factors that go into making somebody successful in whatever they do. Stephen Hawking is an awesome physicist, but for all we know, he would have been a crappy doctor or sociologist or poet.

Probably for medicine, you'd have a lot more free time if you could memorize things easily. Beyond that, unless you have just the right combination of passion, dedication, creativity, luck, etc., you'll turn out like everyone else.
 
Mad Jack said:
Click to expand...


Watch some comparison videos for yourself and you can easily see that he draws the general outlines on the landscape and the major buildings very well. Beyond the most salient features though, he pretty much makes the rest of the background buildings up. Which is understandable, because real photographic memory does not exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Are there any CSULB alumni who are currently a physician or in med school?
Replies
1
Views
637
scallionpancake
scallionpancake
6
Current PA-C considering med school in the PNW
Replies
4
Views
315
68WPA
6
hommefatale
What Really Matters in a Med School App?
Replies
8
Views
211
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
K
Fulbright ETA vs Med School
Replies
1
Views
448
Real_Eyes
Real_Eyes
C
Georgetown Early Assurance Program for med school
Replies
0
Views
1K
chabang
C
Top