**rant** about the application process and the MCAT itself

[jl lin]

"What you said about poverty, about the military, were all fairly common viewpoints..."

Well, I don't know about the whole redacted issue, but dear God I would hope that the viewpoint about the military would not be a fairly common one. Of course, just look at how vets are treated, and one wonders.

I think the average American doe NOT feel this way about the purpose of the military. God help us if the average American does.

BTW, I have been sorted of ganged up on here, at times. Sometimes I had to go back and consider what I said or the tone of what I said.
It's a grave mischaracterization to say that our military's purpose is to kill. This is just plain, well, ignorance IMHO. As a daughter of a father, grandfather, and numerous other family members and friends that SERVED in the USMC and other branches of the military, well, the OP's very statement of 'the point of our military is to kill' is asinine and offensive and, again, reflects great ignorance. He might have said that he finds killing, even in acts of defense, as personally/philosophically objectionable; but to misrepresent it completely w/o stepping back and understanding why we need a military and what its true purpose is shows such a lack of respect and understanding--or even the willingness to try to understand.

BTW, I have only used the report feature here a few times, and that was along time ago. But I can appreciate why someone would report this. The wording and tone seems a bit intentionally baiting in nature. OP, think a little before you type.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Esquire]

.

 

[jamcat]

OP, I feel your pain and I certainly agree that it's frustrating to go through a process that costs so much money. We're not going to change the system in time for us to apply, though, so it' something we have to live with.

The way I see it, actually becoming and being a doctor is going to require a lot more hard work and ingenuity than finding a way to cobble a living together with a college degree. Right now I'm working a minimum wage job just to live (although I do have a college degree), am taking classes through loans, and studying for the MCAT with library and online materials. Although this is certainly a "harder" life than some traditional upper-class pre-meds have it's also certainly not impossible.

I'm not sure why you're resistant to getting a minimum wage job. Sure, we have college degrees, but no job I could get right now that makes use of that would allow me the flexibility to take classes and study for the MCAT, and since that is the priority for me I have to go for the jobs with odd hours. Try McDonalds/other fast food places, Starbucks, retail, etc.

I'm absolutely not minimizing the plight of the destitute; there are a lot of people out there struggling to survive, just as you describe yourself. But the people who are in that position right now are no applying to medical school; they're trying to make a more stable life for themselves. So that's your first step. Making only $2,000 a year is very scary and unstable, and my heart goes out to you. Before worrying about the MCAT and med school, worry about getting a more stable life. When you have a job and more stability, the rest will become feasible (not easy!). Good luck. Keep us updated.

 

[oldanddone]

tl;dnr? apology to jl lin, getting repetitive about ecdis being something that gets dismissed and invalidated, but shouldn't be

****

@jl lin - your view on the military and how different it is from mine makes me want to understand more about your view. initially going in, i still feel strongly about interpreting the military industrial complex in the context of violence and war predominantly, but what you are saying reminds me that there are people and family members in harm's way, and folks who make this sacrifice of their potential life in order to defend. there are others who look for a view that does not emphasize violence, by thinking of helping the injured how have experienced violence. there are vets who are not treated properly - considered paradoxically as both heroes and drags on the social safety net/addicts in a most recent poll of the public that was published on medscape, and not given enough resources to heal from what happened to them in the name of duty and sacrifice. the young people who need to get ahead in a very bad economy, where the military is a viable option, one of the only. my closest family member serving in the military was world war II, but i know of other friends who have worried about their brother, and more immediate family. so i get that oversimplifications don't serve to acknowledge the lived realities of others.
edit to add: I'm not sure that a brief statement saying that the military's purpose is to kill is necessarily an ignorant opinion (it could be a redux of a wide discussion on military) and i'm not sure that it is asinine, being foolish. i have seen erudite and longer discussions with the same basic point. i'm not sure that calling the viewpoint foolish/asinine is useful.

to continue on the discussion on ecdis and the unfairness inherent in the application process despite there being lipservice to the playing field being made more equal:

poor people aren't allowed to complain once in a while??? why is OP's poverty 'credentials' consistently getting questioned in this thread? they qualified for FAP, which is not easy to qualify for....what purpose does it serve to question OP here? there's something a bit hostile in that, silencing, and dismissing.

sometimes minimum wage jobs are not that easy to come by, either. getting into med school, with the ability to qualify for loans, makes all the difference in the world, and can be the stability that is needed. imo sometimes it's quicker to just get in, rallying whatever support possible to get that mcat number high, than try and claw out of dead-end, minimum wage jobs in an economy designed to keep people in an unfeasible rut. there is usually some kind of little advantage in even the folks in med who are ecdis: either being able to live at home, or coming from a background that valued education, or a change in family finances along the way, or some ability to access a loan/a helping hand. that speaks to what op was saying that the system seems to say they will even the playing field, but it is not exactly evened. even the folks who qualify as ecdis often have some extra little advantages anyways (like living rent-free, having a mentor who has taken you under their wing, etc).

 

[xffan624]

tl;dnr? apology to jl lin, getting repetitive about ecdis being something that gets dismissed and invalidated, but shouldn't be

****

@jl lin
edit to add: I'm not sure that a brief statement saying that the military's purpose is to kill is necessarily an ignorant opinion (it could be a redux of a wide discussion on military) and i'm not sure that it is asinine, being foolish. i have seen erudite and longer discussions with the same basic point. i'm not sure that calling the viewpoint foolish/asinine is useful.

It's ignorant because nobody who has served in the military would agree with it. The primary purpose of the military is to defend the nation. Does that sometimes involve killing people? Yes. So did the Revolutionary War and every other war in history. Was the primary purpose of the Revolutionary War to kill people? I hope as an American who has enjoyed the fruits of this country, you would say no.

When I deployed to Iraq in 2009, I never fired my weapon(except at the range) or pointed it in anger. Our mission was to train the Iraqi Army and other Iraqi defense entities and assist them in standing up on their own. I trained them in sanitation and pest management and advised them on water purification as that was my training. Whether we should have been there at all or whether we really achieved our mission is a debate for another thread, but I use it as an example that the military doesn't just blindly deploy to a country with an intent to kill the enemy. We complete strategic and tactical objectives based on the executive orders. If we wanted to kill all the Iraqis or Afghanis like some ignorant Americans suggested post 9/11, the military could have done that with ease and with much less loss of life on our side. That wasn't our objective. Our objective was depose Saddam and install the tools for functioning democratic government that would be less friendly to our enemies. Yeah there was some definite concern re: WMD's, and securing them was an objective as well, and despite what the media reported there were some found, but certainly much less than we thought. Regardless, that's a debate for another thread.

If you're a pacifist, and you can't support an organization who does use violence to achieve objectives sometimes then the military isn't for you probably and that's your right, but to state the military's primary purpose is to kill others and that's why you can't be a part of it (remember you're including the coast guard in that statement as well) is just ignorant.

 

[oldanddone]

It's ignorant because nobody who has served in the military would agree with it. The primary purpose of the military is to defend the nation. Does that sometimes involve killing people? Yes. So did the Revolutionary War and every other war in history. Was the primary purpose of the Revolutionary War to kill people? I hope as an American who has enjoyed the fruits of this country, you would say no.

When I deployed to Iraq in 2009, I never fired my weapon(except at the range) or pointed it in anger. Our mission was to train the Iraqi Army and other Iraqi defense entities and assist them in standing up on their own. I trained them in sanitation and pest management and advised them on water purification as that was my training. Whether we should have been there at all or whether we really achieved our mission is a debate for another thread, but I use it as an example that the military doesn't just blindly deploy to a country with an intent to kill the enemy. We complete strategic and tactical objectives based on the executive orders. If we wanted to kill all the Iraqis or Afghanis like some ignorant Americans suggested post 9/11, the military could have done that with ease and with much less loss of life on our side. That wasn't our objective. Our objective was depose Saddam and install the tools for functioning democratic government that would be less friendly to our enemies. Yeah there was some definite concern re: WMD's, and securing them was an objective as well, and despite what the media reported there were some found, but certainly much less than we thought. Regardless, that's a debate for another thread.

If you're a pacifist, and you can't support an organization who does use violence to achieve objectives sometimes then the military isn't for you probably and that's your right, but to state the military's primary purpose is to kill others and that's why you can't be a part of it (remember you're including the coast guard in that statement as well) is just ignorant.

I'm learning about the nuances of what military folks see as the purpose of the military, how the violence is at times demphasized as secondary to the defense of values/borders/interests, and the sense of service, and what is described as various objectives for misions.

I certainly have been around circles that see a primary aspect of the military as being an emphasis on violence/threat of violence. I have read widely amongst pacifists of many stripes and others who would talk about this aspect of a military and militarization. Military has that authorization to use deadly force in support of interests of the state. militarization is the way in which a society might organize itself for military conflict and violence. militant has a sense of combatativeness and aggressiveness in support of a social cause. army being the sense of being armed. over and over this key definition of aggression, violence, bearing arms. it is possible to be quite knowledgeable, and to hold a sophisticated, educated position with a point of view that focuses on that emphasis of violence (i.e. not hold an ignorant position).

i appreciate having that basic premise, which I do hold, tempered by the experiences of those in the military and out, who hold a different viewpoint, who point out the nuances of hoping for a better world, and although authorized and trained to use deadly force, hoping to do much - everything? - to avoid it. there are many educated, knowledgeable and sophisticated viewpoints on this angle as well.


of course, this is an entirely different thread at this point. but important. to share across difference, in the hope of more knowledge of difference rather than assuming ignorance being the basis of the difference. ignorance can sometimes be used in a way that implies rudeness or poor treatment, and sharing across difference openly can hopefully go a long way to not promoting hurtfulness even when there are strong differences of point of view present.

 

[MSmentor018]

why did it get redacted? you're able to have a voice because people are willing to defend it.
by the way, you're welcome

 

[Zelda840]

What do your parents do? Because honestly, you don't sound like a poor person -- poor people don't whine as much. They embrace their lot & either give up or get to work and/or join the military, political stances be damned.

Wow.

 

[MSmentor018]

What do your parents do? Because honestly, you don't sound like a poor person -- poor people don't whine as much. They embrace their lot & either give up or get to work and/or join the military, political stances be damned.
Wow.

there's actually some truth to that. I did a medical missions trip to rural bangladesh and they didn't know what depression was. I explained it to them, they replied (some lost in translation) "sounds like a rich man's disease. we don't have that here, we just get up everyday and live "

 

[ridethecliche]

I'm unsure why people think that certain wars are tied to defending freedom. If you're wondering why those wars are being fought, then you should follow the money to see who it is that is profiting from them.

US foreign policy has a whole shroud of secrecy and has a history of propping up dictators when it's convenient to trade. The spreading democracy bit is just a nice way to package and sell it when we decide to change our tune. 'Nam was fought to prevent the theoretical domino effect in that region of the world. There was never any direct threat to the US other than the fact that we thought the Russians would win more international support.

I definitely agree that certain interventions are necessary, but then our track record of 'not acting' in regions like Sudan till oil is discovered or China steps in is completely called into question. If you replace the term 'protecting freedom' with 'military/political interests' then you have most of the war justifications covered. Our track record of protecting freedom and equal rights at home are pretty hilarious too.

I have absolutely nothing but respect for those that serve, but our country has a track record that's really not the best. In many instances, it has come back to haunt us like with the mujahedeen, especially the use of the weapons we gave them against our troops. It came back to us since we propped them to fight the soviet and left them to rot after their world was war ravaged. I'm pretty sure promises to help rebuild were broken. It came back in a big way.
--------------------------------------

Regarding being poor and applications...

It's definitely a struggle sometimes. While I'm in a decent place now, I certainly remember trying to sleep more so I could stave off hunger and living off oatmeal and pasta for a good few months last year. When I started working again, I had just enough left to pay that months rent and eat something till my next paycheck. Good times.

The issue here is that even though you have less resources, you have to be even more smart with them. I would say that applying without all your ducks in a row isn't a smart choice for anyone, but especially for someone that's limited. I.e. waiting another year so you know your score for sure, are done all pre-reqs, have money to apply to atleast 15-20 schools, etc. It certainly is cheaper in the long run to do all your homework and apply only once. The process is nuts if you have to do it multiple times, so it's best to save up enough for it once.

MCAT books etc are expensive, but there are so many resources available, especially if you buy used. I don't like EK/kaplan, but you can probably get TPR books used on craigslist/ebay for far cheaper than a course and they're awesome. Berkeley review was the best but hard to find and pricey. I thought it was way worth it though.

there's actually some truth to that. I did a medical missions trip to rural bangladesh and they didn't know what depression was. I explained it to them, they replied (some lost in translation) "sounds like a rich man's disease. we don't have that here, we just get up everyday and live "

I certainly think high rates of depression are related to the fluidity of social circles and family in the west. However, India and Bangladesh (and others) don't really have great mental health resources in general. There are tons of issues, especially with patients that have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. A friend actually started an NGO to target this in a very underserved area of india.

 

[wholeheartedly]

there's actually some truth to that. I did a medical missions trip to rural bangladesh and they didn't know what depression was. I explained it to them, they replied (some lost in translation) "sounds like a rich man's disease. we don't have that here, we just get up everyday and live "

There's a lot of talk in public health, that just because people aren't familiar with the concept of depression, it doesn't mean they don't still suffer from it. There can also be a lot of stigma with concepts like that as well and thus a reluctance to acknowledge it.

I do think people in places with rough lives and less materialistic focused can be much happier than in a society like ours.

 

[MSmentor018]

There's a lot of talk in public health, that just because people aren't familiar with the concept of depression, it doesn't mean they don't still suffer from it. There can also be a lot of stigma with concepts like that as well and thus a reluctance to acknowledge it.

I do think people in places with rough lives and less materialistic focused can be much happier than in a society like ours.

that's a good point and I agree. it's hard to label something if you don't know how. although you only suffer from it if that concept exists and you believe in it. some rural places overseas don't even have the basics of education much less the understanding of a different lifestyle. our US system has set a cultural standard- everyone gets healthcare, a house (clinton era), a check, and everyone gets a trophy for showing up. anyone in our society can look around and visualize that. if they don't have it, it depressing.
we've built up a sense of entitlement that supersedes our supply so if you don't get cable tv, have to pay for meds, sitting in the sun waiting for the bus with your free bus pass, it's depressing.
but if you don't care about it, then it doesn't depress you. I agree regarding the materialistic focus. I treat many happy homeless people in the ER and the state psych facility
I don't know about the stigma of depression, it's probably there. we've commercialized it with PSA and pharm ads. we've confused it in movies with other psych disorders. no one wants to say they have a mental disease/defect although i've never had a pt hide that from me unlike hiv, hep c, prison time, sexual orientation, drug use

 

[MSmentor018]

I'm unsure why people think that certain wars are tied to defending freedom. If you're wondering why those wars are being fought, then you should follow the money to see who it is that is profiting from them.

US foreign policy has a whole shroud of secrecy and has a history of propping up dictators when it's convenient to trade. The spreading democracy bit is just a nice way to package and sell it when we decide to change our tune. 'Nam was fought to prevent the theoretical domino effect in that region of the world. There was never any direct threat to the US other than the fact that we thought the Russians would win more international support.

I definitely agree that certain interventions are necessary, but then our track record of 'not acting' in regions like Sudan till oil is discovered or China steps in is completely called into question. If you replace the term 'protecting freedom' with 'military/political interests' then you have most of the war justifications covered. Our track record of protecting freedom and equal rights at home are pretty hilarious too.

I have absolutely nothing but respect for those that serve, but our country has a track record that's really not the best. In many instances, it has come back to haunt us like with the mujahedeen, especially the use of the weapons we gave them against our troops. It came back to us since we propped them to fight the soviet and left them to rot after their world was war ravaged. I'm pretty sure promises to help rebuild were broken. It came back in a big way..

that's a lot of truth in your statement. in this unconventional chess game every nation, including ours tries to position itself in the best way possible. usually you get want you want at a compromise and sometimes you get played in the process. it's about power projection and (instead of saying freedom) defending a way of life. "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

but don't forget with a multi level govt, backed by powerful military, and supportive population prevents internal dissolution, revolutions and invasions. that in a nutshell gives everyone a voice.....whether we want to hear it or not. like on SDN. these discussions doesn't exist in china outside it's borders. there's an internal system only. my facebook was blocked. twitter was down? email activated at the airport only if I provided my passport info. if you were there right now, big brother would be knocking down your door.

 

[wholeheartedly]

that's a good point and I agree. it's hard to label something if you don't know how. although you only suffer from it if that concept exists and you believe in it. some rural places overseas don't even have the basics of education much less the understanding of a different lifestyle. our US system has set a cultural standard- everyone gets healthcare, a house (clinton era), a check, and everyone gets a trophy for showing up. anyone in our society can look around and visualize that. if they don't have it, it depressing.
we've built up a sense of entitlement that supersedes our supply so if you don't get cable tv, have to pay for meds, sitting in the sun waiting for the bus with your free bus pass, it's depressing.
but if you don't care about it, then it doesn't depress you. I agree regarding the materialistic focus. I treat many happy homeless people in the ER and the state psych facility
I don't know about the stigma of depression, it's probably there. we've commercialized it with PSA and pharm ads. we've confused it in movies with other psych disorders. no one wants to say they have a mental disease/defect although i've never had a pt hide that from me unlike hiv, hep c, prison time, sexual orientation, drug use

I don't disagree with you on on the issues with the values of our society and all of the problems it causes.

I'm just not sure if I'm interpreting your comment regarding depression here right, "you only suffer from it if that context exists and you believe in it."

Because you don't need to have a context for depression or believe in it to suffer from it. Just like you don't need to believe that these little things called microbes cause cholera (and plenty of people don't have a context for anything like bacteria) to get sick with it.

That comment, and the whole post above seems based on only social and environmental causes/factors of depression and not the biological causes and contributions. The idea that someone can't suffer from a disorder if they don't have a context for it or don't believe in it just doesn't make sense. Biology doesn't care if you have a context for it or not.

It's a big struggle in public/global health issue to address depression in settings where it exists in people but not in their language or understandings of people. There does tend to be a lot of stigma.