Radical grading system.

[smuwillobrien]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Is it just me or is grading demoralizing? I can see why it is worthwhile to have a grade. I can see how the divisions show effort exerted (in some cases this isn't true), and other things such a potential performance in the future.

I think though that there would be a lot more doctors, and also doctors of a higher caliber if "marks" weren't such an issue. I know a lot of people (I'm included in this group) who are attempting to go into medicine, but the looming fear of matching these ever changing "magic numbers" is bearing down on me even in my first year.

I'm not a doctor, and I don't know what makes someone a good one but I don't think that memorization of material and getting a good mark necessarily makes you a "good doctor".

Why don't they implement a purely fail or pass system? Take into consideration that each school has a different curve on which students are ranked. A B at one school is by far harder to get than an A at another school.

Make the prerequisite courses all pass or fail and let the MCAT be the sole determinant of the potential of a medical school candidate. A lot of people have issues that arise. Maybe your girlfriend cheated on you, and you're going insane. Maybe you just found out that your best friend has been talking behind your back.

Medical schools need to stop being so rigid. It would entice more people to give medicine a shot, help save doctors from the burn out in producing these "perfect" numbers, ... I read this quote once that said "striving for excellence is great, but striving for perfection is demoralizing".

It makes sense that medical school applicants are a different breed than the status quo student, but there has to be a more fool proof method of determining them than various marks, economic factors, parental influence, etc.

I'm sorry if I rambled on, but I think that the system needs to be changed. All I see is extremely smart people putting themselves down because of these bull**** determination procedures.

 

[turkdlit]

I do agree with you on many accounts. Adcoms place lots of emphasis on numbers, and grades aren't standardized like the MCAT is. But at the same time, one can argue that the MCAT is a poor predictor of medical school performance, because of the variety of factors that affect performance (sickness, not feeling yourself, the **** next to you that mouths the passages to him/herself and you can hear their mouth opening and closing very faintly but rapidly).

What I would like to see is more consideration on quality of undergraduate/graduate institution attended. I mean, someone's gotta work a lot harded to get into (and do well in) ivy league schools versus, you know, Texas A&M or something (I just upset some peeps, I know...)

I'm curious to hear what other grips people have about the deficiencies of what adcoms consider? But definately, a pass fail system would be great, less stressful, and eliminate some of the negativity associated with soe premeds/gunners...

 

[carrigallen]

i'm not sure i understand why there is a such an emphasis students have on grades. Viz., i think that the particularly extreme emphasis is created by the student himself, not the school or committee. If you learn a lot about a subject, chances are you will get decent grades, enough to attend a med school. I like to think that grades are a byproduct of learning; not a real goal. If you do believe that grades themselves are a goal, then I can see why undergrad life would be so bereft of meaning. I'm not saying grades aren't a good motivation to finish a paper that's due the next day...just that maybe med school admissions isn't as rigid as some people suppose.

 

[Winston Smith]

well, grades take into account how well you've been doing at your undergrad over a long time frame (roughly 3 years, more or less). so it should be a fairly good predictor of how well you'll do in med school and the dedication/effort you're likely to put in as a doctor.

but it shouldn't be the only predictor (since some ppl are bad test takers, etc.) and it isnt. med schools have a whole range of admission criteria, though it does seem that GPA is the top one. I don't know why that is so but probably because of the dedication/effort emphasis it holds, and its correlation (if any) with intellect.

 

[NE_Cornhusker1]

The MCAT is about the only real measuring stick for all pre-meds. It tests critical thinking and not your ability to puke back your notes word for word like you do on most tests in college. It's for this reason I have a hard time buying the 'doesn't test well on the MCAT/standardized tests' argument. Of course they don't test well on the MCAT because they don't have good thinking/ reasoning skills to do well.

GPA is pretty worthless if you're above a 3.0 or so as some people don't work while in school, others are not so lucky. There are just too many variables (work, the prof, whether or not your TA speaks English, etc...) with GPA for it to mean much.

That's my take anyway. Peace.

 

[superdevil]

GPA is pretty worthless if you're above a 3.0 or so as some people don't work while in school, others are not so lucky. There are just too many variables (work, the prof, whether or not your TA speaks English, etc...) with GPA for it to mean much.

let the MCAT be the sole determinant of the potential of a medical school candidate

look, there is definately something significant to what you guys are saying, but its still not the most diplomatic method. if an adcom looks at GPA, it shows the collective efforts of approximately three years of college and dozens of courses. this is typically a decent sampling of how well a student performs on average.

we all have bad days. what if your bad day is on the day of the MCAT? that's actually believable from an adcom perspective, assuming your transcript is otherwise solid. if you have a lackluster GPA, what can you say for yourself? that over the course of three years you had several hundred bad days which were all punctuated by the ineptitude of foreign TAs and apathetic profs? hmmm...

it just seems to me that GPA gives the student more of a chance to demonstrate their true level of competence than a one-shot deal like the MCAT.

or maybe i'm just a little crazy!

 

[souljah1]

Originally posted by carrigallen
i'm not sure i understand why there is a such an emphasis students have on grades. Viz., i think that the particularly extreme emphasis is created by the student himself, not the school or committee. If you learn a lot about a subject, chances are you will get decent grades, enough to attend a med school. I like to think that grades are a byproduct of learning; not a real goal. If you do believe that grades themselves are a goal, then I can see why undergrad life would be so bereft of meaning. I'm not saying grades aren't a good motivation to finish a paper that's due the next day...just that maybe med school admissions isn't as rigid as some people suppose.

my goodness, the truth is so nice to read. i completely agree about grades being a byproduct and after going through the admissions proccess and then talking to people on committees, i think that you don't at all need a 4.0. it is all about the complete package.

 

[NE_Cornhusker1]

Originally posted by superdevil
look, there is definately something significant to what you guys are saying, but its still not the most diplomatic method. if an adcom looks at GPA, it shows the collective efforts of approximately three years of college and dozens of courses. this is typically a decent sampling of how well a student performs on average.

we all have bad days. what if your bad day is on the day of the MCAT? that's actually believable from an adcom perspective, assuming your transcript is otherwise solid. if you have a lackluster GPA, what can you say for yourself? that over the course of three years you had several hundred bad days which were all punctuated by the ineptitude of foreign TAs and apathetic profs? hmmm...

it just seems to me that GPA gives the student more of a chance to demonstrate their true level of competence than a one-shot deal like the MCAT.

or maybe i'm just a little crazy!

Alternatively a high GPA comes with many hours of study and hard work, now if for whatever reason you weren't born to the richest parents and had to work 30 hrs/week in college the GPA will suffer no matter how few 'bad days' someone might have. Now if a person can't handle the stress of picking the right bubble with four answers provided to them then they damn sure better not be making decisions when lifes are on the line. Peace.

 

[xanthines]

i just recommended a book on another thread, what's one more?

Zen and the Art of Motorcylce Maintenance has an interesting section where the author talks about his experience teaching a college writing course and the issue of grades.

Most people either hate or love of the book. Just a warning.

-X

Originally posted by smuwillobrien
Is it just me or is grading demoralizing? I can see why it is worthwhile to have a grade. I can see how the divisions show effort exerted (in some cases this isn't true), and other things such a potential performance in the future.

 

[rgporter]

I think that the MCAT is a fairly worthless way of determining whether a student should be able to become a doctor, ditto for GPA. I think that they should be used only to screen applications for interviews.
Once you get to the point of an interview; it should be based on your desire to practice medicine, as evidenced by your EC work and responses to interview questions. Also your personality, as an indicator of bedside manner, should play a part.
I have said this before but here it is again. Until they make the practice of medicine multiple choice, standardized tests are of limited importance.

 

[Shades McCool]

Originally posted by rgporter
I think that the MCAT is a fairly worthless way of determining whether a student should be able to become a doctor, ditto for GPA. I think that they should be used only to screen applications for interviews.
Once you get to the point of an interview; it should be based on your desire to practice medicine, as evidenced by your EC work and responses to interview questions. Also your personality, as an indicator of bedside manner, should play a part.
I have said this before but here it is again. Until they make the practice of medicine multiple choice, standardized tests are of limited importance.

Well if measuring your ability to recall important facts and concepts is not needed being a doctor then I guess anyone could do it. I hear too many people talk about how they really care about people and how they want to be a doctor because they are so compassionate and want to help people. That does not mean you will make a great doctor.

I was talking with the head of an ADCOM just last week and he explained to me that at his school EC's do not mean anything until you are granted an interview. He wanted to make it clear they believe that you must be able to do the work (ie grades and MCAT) before you are granted an interview.

Medical schools have been going through this whole process for a long time now, I think they know how they want to pick their students.

 

[Ando]

Yeah, MCAT's put a lot of pressure on you, but if you're going to be a doctor I think you should be able to handle that pressure. If having to take a test makes you too nervous to do well, what will you do if you have a patient in front of you who might die? There's no time to go back and study. And if you mess up, the consequences are much worse than just having to retake a test and reapply to school.

Also, as much as I hate them myself, grades *are* a good indicator or success in med school. People who get good grades are far more likely to do well than people who don't, so we can't expect schools to ignore that. Sure, there are exceptions, but, well, they're the exceptions.

Like Shades said, I think the med schools know how to pick people.

 

[LUBDUBB]

smuwillobrien,


I do agree with your point to some extent. In Europe (e.g France), most university classes are on a pass/fail system. The exams for each class are departmental exams, meaning that all students take the same exam regardless of who's teaching them the material.
But even getting a pass in a class is pretty tough cuz they make sure you really know your ****. And when students pass the class, they are pretty much all at the same level as far as that class is concerned. This system encourages the student to really learn the material, instead of being obsessed with grades (like most of us).

However, there is one fundamental difference in France that allows this method of education. Only the best students in high school are allowed to move on to college. The rest are screened out and sent to "trade school". In the US, almost anyone can get into a University, so we gotta have a system that distinguishes the bums from the good students.



Another tid-bit for your fun facts file:

Students who wish to become doctors are all granted to admission to medical school. They are allowed to complete the first year - but at then end of the year there is a comprehensive exam that is used to weed out 2/3 of the class. So only about 1/3 move on to the next year. Sorry if I made this too verbose.


~Lubdubb