Shorter Residency Work Hours?

[UserNameNeeded]

The average attending works at least 20-25 hours less than the average resident. And the attending hours are usually self-reported (meaning exaggerated, as is human nature), while the resident's hours are usually documented and more verifiable.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PharmaTope]

The average attending works at least 20-25 hours less than the average resident. And the attending hours are usually self-reported (meaning exaggerated, as is human nature), while the resident's hours are usually documented and more verifiable.

just about every attending i know leaves at around 5-530pm each night.

they get in around 7-8ish.

 

[Winged Scapula]

just about every attending i know leaves at around 5-530pm each night.

they get in around 7-8ish.

You *do* realize that they have work to do at home don't you?

I started today at 0730 (getting to the Pre-Op area around 715), finished rounding at 1745 and have been working on charts until 15 minutes ago. That's a 14 hour day.

Wednesday looks to be about 15 hours, given that my last case, a 6 hour one, doesn't start until 4 pm (presuming we even start on time).

At any rate...yes, most attendings do work less than most residents. I certainly work less than I did as a resident. But just because you see your attendings work from 8-5 doesn't mean that their work is done. The amount of paperwork in practice is phenomenal and adds hours to each day, at least for me.

 

[staylor21]

That's actually intentionally "lost in this comparison" because it's an apples and oranges issue. You can really only look at the top X% of law grads because there are many times more of them than residents (many times more schools, most with bigger classes), and most really wouldn't be competitive for other professional fields (you can be a lawyer with a C average in college). So you basically have to look at the top 20 schools, and the top couple of % at the other schools, to get a similar sized and credentialed group to those graduating US med school. And when you look at that group, then most actually do quite well. FWIW, this is not just my opinion, Atul Gawande made the same point in a NY Times article a few years back. You have to compare med students to people in other fields who could have been med students if you want a fair comparison. Looking at some dude who got a gentleman's C throughout college and then went on to some no-name law school is really not going to be a fair comparison to the person who got "mostly A's" and jumped through all the hoops to get into an allopathic med school, and their career trajectory won't be a fair comparison either. You have to compare apples to apples. And when you do that, most of the people you are looking at (when looking at a comparable number, cut off the top of law) actually do quite well.

FWIW, IMHO most of the people on here, had they applied themselves toward law the same way they applied themselves toward medicine, would have gotten into good schools and would have from there gotten into big firms. Having a lot of smarts and a better than average work ethic gets the job done in that field, just like any other. You might not have the chops to be a litigator, might not enjoy all the reading and writing involved, but to be a cog in the great law firm machine, someone with the workaholic attitude of a premed, and the same good head on your shoulders that is required in medicine, would do wonderfully.

I agree with your basic premise, but not the conclusion. Imo, I'm not sure "most people here" would necessarily have gotten into great law schools. As a simple case, consider the median med student--what are his stats? What kind of law school could he get in to?

As a quick and dirty way of analyzing this, if we assume the median medical student is the average student at the median school, we get an average MCAT (according to USnews) of about 30--roughly 85th percentile (according to USNews, the average MCAT was slightly under 30 at the number 71 ranked school out of 146), and an average GPA in the 3.6-3.7 range. According to USnews, the number 20 law school (GWU) had an LSAT range of 163-168 (representing the LSAT scores for the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile student at GWU). A 163-168 represents the 89th to 96th percentile of LSAT takers. The GPA range at GWU is 3.41-3.86--for the sake of argument, let's assume the average GPA is the average of this range, roughly 3.6 or so.

So, a quick look suggests that the median med student is medium-competitive for a top 20 law school--GPA is about right, but MCAT is a quite low compared to the LSAT equivalent--the median med student's MCAT is actually lower than the 25th percentile student at GWU (although you perhaps you could float the argument that the MCAT pool is "smarter"--not sure how true that is). This means they're far less competitive for a top 10 law school (the number 10 school, UVA, had an average GPA of 3.7 and LSATS in the 92-98th percentile).

But as you note, unlike medicine, the returns to law school are mostly concentrated in the top schools--no offense to GWU law grads, but I imagine their job prospects are not nearly as good the prospects for UVA grads, which probably still aren't as good as say, Harvard Law grads.

So I'm not sure "most med students" would have been able to get into the top schools (and thereby get the top law jobs)--this quick and dirty analysis suggests the median med student would have at least some difficulty getting into even a top 20 school--and that's the median student, to say nothing of the 40th percentile or 25th percentile medical student. The bottom line is that I don't think the median medical student "could have done better" if he switched to law--he probably ends up around the same or slightly worse (again, I'm kind of down on prospects for GWU grads, but I'm willing to be corrected). Students below the median are probably doing better in medicine than they could in law.

The general fallacy that seems to afflict people in the medical profession is "I made it through medicine--I'm smarter and harder working the average guy, so I should be able to succeed in any field (e.g. law, etc)." The first part of the statement is true--to make it through medicine, you must be smarter and harder working than the average guy. But the conclusion doesn't follow, because to succeed in any other field, it's not sufficient to be better than the average guy--you need to be better than a lot of other people who are really smart, hard working, and talented as well. In fact, the #1 law school (Yale) has stats (GPA 3.82-3.96, LSATs 98th-99th percentile) that are actually higher than the #1 med school (Harvard), with an average GPA 3.86 (so note the 25th percentile student at Yale Law is just a bit below the average guy at Harvard!) and an average MCAT in the 96th percentile. Bottom line is there's no "free lunch"--people who earn the kind of money people on this board want to earn are *all* (a) hard working, (b) smart, (c) talented, and (d) lucky (or at least some combination of these).

 

[avatarftw]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis. The GPA may be similar, but the quality of the courses is much different. I had straight A's in non-science classes without even trying much (except for 1 B, actually) but had to put in a lot more work into the science classes and still only had mostly B's.

If I were to apply to law school I would have loaded up on easy history, english, and political science classes and avoided organic chemistry, biochemistry, physics, etc. Thus, my GPA would have been close to a 4.0

In regards to the LSAT, everybody I know that took it only studies around a month or so for the test. In general, those that take the MCAT are putting in a lot more hours.

There is the argument that the LSAT is more inherent ability, but I honestly don't know since I haven't taken it. (one counterpoint in my argument) However, I'm adamant about the GPA issue.

I agree with your basic premise, but not the conclusion. Imo, I'm not sure "most people here" would necessarily have gotten into great law schools. As a simple case, consider the median med student--what are his stats? What kind of law school could he get in to?

As a quick and dirty way of analyzing this, if we assume the median medical student is the average student at the median school, we get an average MCAT (according to USnews) of about 30--roughly 85th percentile (according to USNews, the average MCAT was slightly under 30 at the number 71 ranked school out of 146), and an average GPA in the 3.6-3.7 range. According to USnews, the number 20 law school (GWU) had an LSAT range of 163-168 (representing the LSAT scores for the 25th percentile to the 75th percentile student at GWU). A 163-168 represents the 89th to 96th percentile of LSAT takers. The GPA range at GWU is 3.41-3.86--for the sake of argument, let's assume the average GPA is the average of this range, roughly 3.6 or so.

So, a quick look suggests that the median med student is medium-competitive for a top 20 law school--GPA is about right, but MCAT is a quite low compared to the LSAT equivalent--the median med student's MCAT is actually lower than the 25th percentile student at GWU (although you perhaps you could float the argument that the MCAT pool is "smarter"--not sure how true that is). This means they're far less competitive for a top 10 law school (the number 10 school, UVA, had an average GPA of 3.7 and LSATS in the 92-98th percentile).

But as you note, unlike medicine, the returns to law school are mostly concentrated in the top schools--no offense to GWU law grads, but I imagine their job prospects are not nearly as good the prospects for UVA grads, which probably still aren't as good as say, Harvard Law grads.

So I'm not sure "most med students" would have been able to get into the top schools (and thereby get the top law jobs)--this quick and dirty analysis suggests the median med student would have at least some difficulty getting into even a top 20 school--and that's the median student, to say nothing of the 40th percentile or 25th percentile medical student. The bottom line is that I don't think the median medical student "could have done better" if he switched to law--he probably ends up around the same or slightly worse (again, I'm kind of down on prospects for GWU grads, but I'm willing to be corrected). Students below the median are probably doing better in medicine than they could in law.

The general fallacy that seems to afflict people in the medical profession is "I made it through medicine--I'm smarter and harder working the average guy, so I should be able to succeed in any field (e.g. law, etc)." The first part of the statement is true--to make it through medicine, you must be smarter and harder working than the average guy. But the conclusion doesn't follow, because to succeed in any other field, it's not sufficient to be better than the average guy--you need to be better than a lot of other people who are really smart, hard working, and talented as well. In fact, the #1 law school (Yale) has stats (GPA 3.82-3.96, LSATs 98th-99th percentile) that are actually higher than the #1 med school (Harvard), with an average GPA 3.86 (so note the 25th percentile student at Yale Law is just a bit below the average guy at Harvard!) and an average MCAT in the 96th percentile. Bottom line is there's no "free lunch"--people who earn the kind of money people on this board want to earn are *all* (a) hard working, (b) smart, (c) talented, and (d) lucky (or at least some combination of these).

 

[bronx43]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis. The GPA may be similar, but the quality of the courses is much different. I had straight A's in non-science classes without even trying much (except for 1 B, actually) but had to put in a lot more work into the science classes and still only had mostly B's.

If I were to apply to law school I would have loaded up on easy history, english, and political science classes and avoided organic chemistry, biochemistry, physics, etc. Thus, my GPA would have been close to a 4.0

In regards to the LSAT, everybody I know that took it only studies around a month or so for the test. In general, those that take the MCAT are putting in a lot more hours.

There is the argument that the LSAT is more inherent ability, but I honestly don't know since I haven't taken it. (one counterpoint in my argument) However, I'm adamant about the GPA issue.

You only need a month for the LSAT. It's more or less pure logic. There's not much to "study" for after you get used to how they ask questions. And to get into a "top" law school, you need a really really high LSAT score (167+).
It's harder to get that high a LSAT score than it is to get a 30 on the MCAT. Not only that, but undergraduate pedigree matters for top law schools. If you went to a state school, you'd need unbelievable stats and extracurriculars to have a chance. If it wasn't, everyone would be a Harvard, Yale, or Princeton.

 

[badasshairday]

Does anyone know if this is going to occur for certain? If so, when will it be in effect? And also what would the reduced number of hours be? 60hours?

 

[staylor21]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your analysis. The GPA may be similar, but the quality of the courses is much different. I had straight A's in non-science classes without even trying much (except for 1 B, actually) but had to put in a lot more work into the science classes and still only had mostly B's.

If I were to apply to law school I would have loaded up on easy history, english, and political science classes and avoided organic chemistry, biochemistry, physics, etc. Thus, my GPA would have been close to a 4.0

In regards to the LSAT, everybody I know that took it only studies around a month or so for the test. In general, those that take the MCAT are putting in a lot more hours.

There is the argument that the LSAT is more inherent ability, but I honestly don't know since I haven't taken it. (one counterpoint in my argument) However, I'm adamant about the GPA issue.

The biggest problem with your objections is that they're all based on personal experience. I can't deny those, but obviously, they may not be representative. In any case, a few points you miss:

1) You claim that science classes are harder than non-science classes. Hence, law school GPAs are inflated. Maybe. But what may also be true is that science classes are harder for you--perhaps there are people out there for whom science classes are easier. I wouldn't be surprised if a budding CS major finds math a lot easier than literature.

2) On the basis of (1), you imply that law school GPAs may be inflated by people taking non-science classes for the purpose of getting higher GPAs. Again, maybe. But what's also true is that (a) many people don't strategize like this and (b) many people undergrad don't know what they want to do, and so don't have the ability to strategize. Without question, there are law school applicants who were engineers/pre-meds and decided they really liked law.

Regardless of the analysis, a fundamental point holds. If you're a med student at Best Medical School (BMS)--or better yet, a resident at the House of God, man's best hospital--it's credible to imagine that you would have done well had you chosen law. You've successfully competed against a very talented pool of people, so it's reasonable to imagine that you'd compete well against another pool of talented people.

However, while there's no shame in being an average medical student at an average med school (or an average resident at an average program), it's harder to see how you'd light it up in another field. You didn't compete so successfully against a talented field, so what's to make you think you would compete successfully in another? The assumption on these boards is that (a) your talents in medicine would translate well to other fields and (b) these other fields (law, business, etc) are less talented. I'm not sure that (a) holds. As for (b), as I've said--to earn a salary that would comparable with medicine, you're competing against the top people in these other fields--a pool that I imagine is broadly no less competitive than the pool of medical students.

 

[michaelrack]

As someone who did well in both sci and non-sci classes, my opinion is that in general the sci classes are more difficult. Most people would agree with this.

However, getting into a top law/bus school requires more than academics. More "social polish" is required to get into a top law/bus school than to get into med school. More social polish is required for a top law firm/IB/consulting than for a typical medical career.

Skills/talents that make one a good med student/doctor don't directly translate in other fields.

 

[Nellyakgo]

I think the difficulty of subject matter will vary from person to person.

I did very well on all subjects as well. But I found the science topics easy, becuase once I understood them I could solve/answer anything, whereas I found subjects such as history, geography etc hard, because I had to memorize a lof off load that didn't necessarily mean anything to me. But again, that was just me.

Hence the concept of "aptitude". We're comparing apples and oranges here I think. And the subject has gotten off topic.

 

[avatarftw]

I'll bit on the response since I can't sleep. The law school GPA should logically be higher since there are no required classes.

Thus, the major that one particular person chooses will most likely (emphasis) be the one that most interests them. Well, the person would probably pick a major that they would do well in, whether it is math or chemistry or english, etc.

Conversely, the pre-med student must take certain classes that may or may not be interesting or easy for them. Hence, the law school GPA would logically be higher than the pre-med one.

Also, its not politically correct but I'll say it: why is it that so many people graduate with psychology and english degrees? Are those majors so much more interesting than engineering and math? Or, one could argue that students realize that the math and engineering (and science) courses interfere too much with their free time and are too hard!

Yes, everybody has different aptitudes. However, with some subjects the vast majority of people can get an "A" while with other classes a small minority will be able to understand the material. Why do engineers make so much money right out of undergrad? Well, they are marketable. Why are science and math teachers more employable than the other subjects in general? There are relatively few; probably because it is harder to do so than the other majors. And I am writing this as a person that did not graduate with a science or math degree.

I think the difficulty of subject matter will vary from person to person.

I did very well on all subjects as well. But I found the science topics easy, becuase once I understood them I could solve/answer anything, whereas I found subjects such as history, geography etc hard, because I had to memorize a lof off load that didn't necessarily mean anything to me. But again, that was just me.

Hence the concept of "aptitude". We're comparing apples and oranges here I think. And the subject has gotten off topic.

 

[loveboatdoc]

Got insomnia? Try reading a prep book for the LSAT. Boring as HE**.

Check out the numbers for # of graduates from med school VS law VS MBA, etc. each year. Check the yellow pages for the proportion of lawyers to physicians. Sorry I don't recall the exact stats, but these other grads far outnumber those finishing medicine.

I am hoping folks follow their aptitudes and interests more than the greenbacks. To some, the LSAT prep may be fascinating, but I don't know how all those lawyers stay awake. I'm amazed so many find contracts, court, semantics, etc. motivating enough to do it year after year.

Some areas of law I could understand having more passion for (prison reform, helping lock up criminals, maybe even real med malpractice), but how do they ever tolerate the tedium?

We do share a common enemy: too much paperwork!

(written in jest, to a certain degree...we all have our different passions)
I agree, overall, we may have an apple and an orange here, and the horse we are beating needs a DVM)

 

[efex101]

This has already taken effect at my residency program.