I know there is no requirement for a certain amount of shadowing hours to be accepted into medical school, but I was wondering what is considered a competitive amount of shadowing?
I know there is no requirement for a certain amount of shadowing hours to be accepted into medical school, but I was wondering what is considered a competitive amount of shadowing?
I don't think you understand the purpose of his question. He might attain valuable experience from 20 hours of shadowing and reach the peak there, but if it looks better on an application to have 50 versus 20 hours, he will stay the extra 30 to make himself a more competitive applicant. Seemed like a reasonable question to me and others.
There isn't a checkbox on your application for shadowing and treating it as such can only damage your application.
You think that there are people who the utility of shadowing drops off after 20 hours? Is that a joke? I can't tell if you are being serious or not.
There is no "competitive amount of shadowing". Asking a question like this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of why we care if you have shadowed physicians before you apply to medical school. There isn't a checkbox on your application for shadowing and treating it as such can only damage your application.
80% of premeds treat it like a checkbox and get into medical school just fine. If you think otherwise you're deluding yourself.
Like others have said, 50 hours is a good amount to aim for. But feel free to shadow more!
For starters, you have no data to support that. Secondly, I never stated that you couldn't get into medical school treating shadowing as a checkbox. Maybe you should reread my post before you quote it.
"treating it as such can only damage your application"
I prefer competitive shadowing. You get two premeds shadowing at once and watch them try to outgun each other.I don't think you understand the purpose of shadowing.
I cannot recommend shadowing letters for MD applications..Definitely! It would also be very beneficial if you were able to get a letter of recommendation from one of the doctors.
DO schools often request physician letters, especially from DO's.Really? I always thought they were great additions to your applications. I am applying to DO and MD schools this cycle and was fortunate enough to get a letter from the DO and MD that I shadowed. I'm sure it can't hurt?
I believe he was referring to this overdramatic statement: "There isn't a checkbox on your application for shadowing and treating it as such can only damage your application."
Also, he doesn't need data to support that, it's pretty much common sense nowadays. I personally would have said ~90%.
I'm sure you have contributed plenty to these forums, and I do thank you for that, but these forums probably would not be effective if there wasn't some debate involved.
Have a great weekend everyone!
Definitely! It would also be very beneficial if you were able to get a letter of recommendation from one of the doctors.
One must submit whatever the committee demands when using a committee letter. Perhaps this is how they confirm that shadowing has occurred.I see where there may have been confusion with my response; I guess I was under the assumption that he/she was getting a committee letter as opposed to just submitting all the letters. My pre-health advisor strongly suggested letters from doctors that you have shadowed because for the committee letter they only take the great parts of the letter, thus minimizing the "fluff."
@mimelim aight so explain how you can ascertain whether a given MD applicant with 100 hours of physician shadowing has done said shadowing while "treating it as a checkbox" or no? by asking them for takeaways during the interview?
Just to mix things up a bit, I had 0 hours of shadowing.
Shadowing didn't exist when I applied.Just to mix things up a bit, I had 0 hours of shadowing.
Read someone's personal statement, read their posting history on SDN, talk to them for 1 minute during an interview etc. The most dangerous part about being a pre-med is that you don't know what you don't know. This isn't me bashing pre-meds "nowadays", I certainly fell into the exact same boat. I probably knew less than the average pre-med does now and depended almost entirely on mentors/advisers to guide me through this process.
The main issue is that applicants think that they are sneakier than they actually are. They think that they can bull**** adcoms. Its true, there are a certain fraction of the applicant pool that make stuff up or represent more than they actually did and end up in medical school. But, time and time again, every single season without fail, people will do worse than they expected on the interview trail because they shortchanged themselves experience wise. At many places, you will be asked by 3 or more different people, "Why medicine?" Then a couple more will also read your personal statement. If you can't 'say the right things' and reflect on experiences that you had to back those things up, you hurt your application to medical school.
This is by no means an application killer. Plenty of non-genuine people get into medical school. No where will I claim otherwise. However, knowing what you are getting yourself into is something that schools from the top of the rankings to the bottom of the rankings (excluding for profit Caribbean schools) care about. We have all seen students and then residents who should not have gone into medicine and now EVERYONE is suffering, from the school to the residency to their colleagues and most importantly that student. The best way to figure out whether or not medicine is the right path for someone is to spend time observing what that profession does. It isn't about the number of hours. It is about the experience and how it relates to that individual. People are a lot more transparent than they think, especially to people that read hundreds of applications and interview dozens of people every season. There are specific red-flags that we look for when people are talking to us and yes, the "I'm checking boxes so that you will like me." is one of them.
Perhaps this is my n=1, but shadowing honestly added nothing for me at any point up to now (applican of current cycle). It was not reaffirming - I wanted to be a doctor before I shadowed, didn't want to any more or less after watching other people be doctors. It was not insightful - being a doctor is just like any other job: you have a strategy and you have knowledge. You carry out your strategy by applying your knowledge, then communicate that strategy and your subsequent findings to your patient. It was not informative - The only difference between shadowing and going for a checkup is that you don't have to sit in the waiting room for 45minutes after your appointment was scheduled to start and you instead sit around while the doctor fills out extra paperwork. You also get to ask them random questions that have little relevance to your pre-med condition, considering there's only a 44% chance you even make it somewhere which such answers may still be helpful. I anicipate that I would find shadowing vastly more useful if I were a medical student conidering a given specialty.You think that there are people who the utility of shadowing drops off after 20 hours? Is that a joke? I can't tell if you are being serious or not.
Just to mix things up a bit, I had 0 hours of shadowing.
I've lost track of my medical school application, but I'm pretty sure I wrote down less than 50 hours.
I'm certain I was way under that
Yet you all (please correct me if this is an incorrect assumption) suggest that it is an important aspect of knowing what you're getting yourself into. It's important to be knowledgeable about the profession and what it entails. It's to "[know] the right things to say" while reflecting on your experiences for support... If the argument is that the profession has changed since you've gone through it and that change warrants a "fuller" understanding, then why would we expect it to stop changing. That's to say, if it hasn't changed, then shadowing is not essential (as evident by the above quotes). If it is still changing, then how is anything we get from shadoing going to be relevant? IMO, the only thing that's changed is the process: Adcoms want to see that your decision is informed - a checkbox of sorts.Shadowing didn't exist when I applied.
Perhaps this is my n=1, but shadowing honestly added nothing for me at any point up to now (applican of current cycle). It was not reaffirming - I wanted to be a doctor before I shadowed, didn't want to any more or less after watching other people be doctors. It was not insightful - being a doctor is just like any other job: you have a strategy and you have knowledge. You carry out your strategy by applying your knowledge, then communicate that strategy and your subsequent findings to your patient. It was not informative - The only difference between shadowing and going for a checkup is that you don't have to sit in the waiting room for 45minutes after your appointment was scheduled to start and you instead sit around while the doctor fills out extra paperwork. You also get to ask them random questions that have little relevance to your pre-med condition, considering there's only a 44% chance you even make it somewhere which such answers may still be helpful. I anicipate that I would find shadowing vastly more useful if I were a medical student conidering a given specialty.
I don't mean to sound crass, but each of you are plenty capable and successful at what you do and shadowing doesn't appear to have had any utility prior to applying:
Yet you all (please correct me if this is an incorrect assumption) suggest that it is an important aspect of knowing what you're getting yourself into. It's important to be knowledgeable about the profession and what it entails. It's to "[know] the right things to say" while reflecting on your experiences for support... If the argument is that the profession has changed since you've gone through it and that change warrants a "fuller" understanding, then why would we expect it to stop changing. That's to say, if it hasn't changed, then shadowing is not essential (as evident by the above quotes). If it is still changing, then how is anything we get from shadoing going to be relevant? IMO, the only thing that's changed is the process: Adcoms want to see that your decision is informed - a checkbox of sorts.
EDIT: typo
Read someone's personal statement, read their posting history on SDN, talk to them for 1 minute during an interview etc. The most dangerous part about being a pre-med is that you don't know what you don't know. This isn't me bashing pre-meds "nowadays", I certainly fell into the exact same boat. I probably knew less than the average pre-med does now and depended almost entirely on mentors/advisers to guide me through this process.
The main issue is that applicants think that they are sneakier than they actually are. They think that they can bull**** adcoms. Its true, there are a certain fraction of the applicant pool that make stuff up or represent more than they actually did and end up in medical school. But, time and time again, every single season without fail, people will do worse than they expected on the interview trail because they shortchanged themselves experience wise. At many places, you will be asked by 3 or more different people, "Why medicine?" Then a couple more will also read your personal statement. If you can't 'say the right things' and reflect on experiences that you had to back those things up, you hurt your application to medical school.
This is by no means an application killer. Plenty of non-genuine people get into medical school. No where will I claim otherwise. However, knowing what you are getting yourself into is something that schools from the top of the rankings to the bottom of the rankings (excluding for profit Caribbean schools) care about. We have all seen students and then residents who should not have gone into medicine and now EVERYONE is suffering, from the school to the residency to their colleagues and most importantly that student. The best way to figure out whether or not medicine is the right path for someone is to spend time observing what that profession does. It isn't about the number of hours. It is about the experience and how it relates to that individual. People are a lot more transparent than they think, especially to people that read hundreds of applications and interview dozens of people every season. There are specific red-flags that we look for when people are talking to us and yes, the "I'm checking boxes so that you will like me." is one of them.
Perhaps this is my n=1, but shadowing honestly added nothing for me at any point up to now (applican of current cycle). It was not reaffirming - I wanted to be a doctor before I shadowed, didn't want to any more or less after watching other people be doctors. It was not insightful - being a doctor is just like any other job: you have a strategy and you have knowledge. You carry out your strategy by applying your knowledge, then communicate that strategy and your subsequent findings to your patient. It was not informative - The only difference between shadowing and going for a checkup is that you don't have to sit in the waiting room for 45minutes after your appointment was scheduled to start and you instead sit around while the doctor fills out extra paperwork. You also get to ask them random questions that have little relevance to your pre-med condition, considering there's only a 44% chance you even make it somewhere which such answers may still be helpful. I anicipate that I would find shadowing vastly more useful if I were a medical student conidering a given specialty.
I don't mean to sound crass, but each of you are plenty capable and successful at what you do and shadowing doesn't appear to have had any utility prior to applying:
Yet you all (please correct me if this is an incorrect assumption) suggest that it is an important aspect of knowing what you're getting yourself into. It's important to be knowledgeable about the profession and what it entails. It's to "[know] the right things to say" while reflecting on your experiences for support... If the argument is that the profession has changed since you've gone through it and that change warrants a "fuller" understanding, then why would we expect it to stop changing. That's to say, if it hasn't changed, then shadowing is not essential (as evident by the above quotes). If it is still changing, then how is anything we get from shadoing going to be relevant? IMO, the only thing that's changed is the process: Adcoms want to see that your decision is informed - a checkbox of sorts.
EDIT: typo
I don't think you understand the purpose of his question. He might attain valuable experience from 20 hours of shadowing and reach the peak there, but if it looks better on an application to have 50 versus 20 hours, he will stay the extra 30 to make himself a more competitive applicant. Seemed like a reasonable question to me and others.
What you may not realize as a premed is that academic medical centers already have huge teams of people (attending, residents, students, etc) seeing patients, which they may feel is already overwhelming enough to the patients without throwing some premeds that serve even less of a purpose to the team than medical students into the back of the pack. Also, they may want to leave open space for their M1/2s to get shadowing experience, because unfortunately even in your clinical years you get exposure to relative few medical fields before you have to pick a career to apply for (at my school its 8..) so preclinical shadowing can really help you narrow things down. Finally, most medical students will end up in community practice, not academics, so shadowing at a large academic institution probably isn't the most realistic picture of the average medical students future career.My local academic medical center doesn't allow shadowing by non-medical students, yet expect applicants to their medical school to have shadowing experience. Yes, there are other places to get shadowing experience (though the academic medical center is the largest in the area by a long shot), but doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical? Has anyone else run into this?
What you may not realize as a premed is that academic medical centers already have huge teams of people (attending, residents, students, etc) seeing patients, which they may feel is already overwhelming enough to the patients without throwing some premeds that serve even less of a purpose to the team than medical students into the back of the pack. Also, they may want to leave open space for their M1/2s to get shadowing experience, because unfortunately even in your clinical years you get exposure to relative few medical fields before you have to pick a career to apply for (at my school its 8..) so preclinical shadowing can really help you narrow things down. Finally, most medical students will end up in community practice, not academics, so shadowing at a large academic institution probably isn't the most realistic picture of the average medical students future career.
Or (most likely) your medical center just doesn't want to deal with coordinating premedical shadowing and doesn't care what you guys think because you don't impact their bottom line or patient care. With that said, there are valid reasons they may not want premeds to shadow there.
You think that there are people who the utility of shadowing drops off after 20 hours? Is that a joke? I can't tell if you are being serious or not.
There is no "competitive amount of shadowing". Asking a question like this demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of why we care if you have shadowed physicians before you apply to medical school. There isn't a checkbox on your application for shadowing and treating it as such can only damage your application.
I cannot recall a single instance in which a difference in shadowing hours was a defining element in the screening process.@mimelim I completely see where you're coming from, but on the other hand... Schools receive ~8,000 applications and only invite 500 for interviews (theoretically). When looking over the applications, if somebody has very similar numbers from similarly ranked schools, with similar ECs, would the applicant with more hours be the one to get an invite? In the interview process it is obviously important to be able to elaborate on your experiences shadowing and what you learned from it, but most people won't even make it to the interview to get the chance to explain "even though I only had 20 hours of shadowing it was the most informative 20 hours of my life"
Basically, an adcom can't know on paper if one person's 500 hours is more valuable than another person's 50 hours, right?
I cannot recall a single instance in which a difference in shadowing hours was a defining element in the screening process.
Shadowing is a proxy for understanding the nature of a physician's work. Establishing this understanding is what is important.
@gyngyn so how do you know that the applicant gained something from their experience to help them understand the nature of a physician's work? Everybody on SDN says that you have to make the most out of every experience, but how do you get that across on paper? For example, two students both shadowed in the same specialties for the same amount of time. One was engaged and enthusiastic the entire time, soaking everything in. The other was just checking the clock until he got to go home. Their applications look the exact same, how can you possibly tell the difference between the two? (Just trying to play devil's advocate here, I don't mean to sound rude)
Yes, we screen for content. It would not be a wise use of resources to invite people who had no chance to make it through committee.@gyngyn I always wondered how do adcoms or schools pre-screen for "content"? I'm assuming this refers to ECs like shadowing and volunteering.
Is that a California thing or do schools all over do it? @Catalystik
Is it system based or like do actual human adcoms check it over?
How is it at DO schools? @Goro
Is a student out if they don't have experiences like shadowing, volunteering, etc.? I've heard over and over again there is no set hours, so what is it based on?
Yes, we screen for content. It would not be a wise use of resources to invite people who had no chance to make it through committee.
I've only ever served at MD schools in CA.
We don't use a software screen, but when they are used it is for MCAT and/or gpa parameters, generally.