Just wondering on some opinions whether to include shadowing as a most meaningful activity.
If it had a significant impact on you and you need more space to discuss your insights, don't hesitate.Just wondering on some opinions whether to include shadowing as a most meaningful activity.
Agreed with the previous comments.
That said, I feel that since you are applying to medical school, certain exposures in the medical profession (cough*shadowing*cough) should inherently be most meaningful. I was watching a Q and A session from the dean of admissions at UWash, and she said that she'd question why shadowing wasn't one of an applicant's "most meaningful" experiences.
Agreed with the previous comments.
That said, I feel that since you are applying to medical school, certain exposures in the medical profession (cough*shadowing*cough) should inherently be most meaningful. I was watching a Q and A session from the dean of admissions at UWash, and she said that she'd question why shadowing wasn't one of an applicant's "most meaningful" experiences.
Agreed with the previous comments.
That said, I feel that since you are applying to medical school, certain exposures in the medical profession (cough*shadowing*cough) should inherently be most meaningful. I was watching a Q and A session from the dean of admissions at UWash, and she said that she'd question why shadowing wasn't one of an applicant's "most meaningful" experiences.
I would question it if none of the applicant's most meaningful experiences had something to do with clinical experience/patient contact.
why? the characteristics that may make a good physician are not neccessarily shown only thru a patient contact setting nor would an adcom expect the vast majority of applicants to have shadowing experiences that are truly indepth and even worthy of an LOR much less a meaningful experience.
why? the characteristics that may make a good physician are not neccessarily shown only thru a patient contact setting nor would an adcom expect the vast majority of applicants to have shadowing experiences that are truly indepth and even worthy of an LOR much less a meaningful experience.
why? the characteristics that may make a good physician are not neccessarily shown only thru a patient contact setting nor would an adcom expect the vast majority of applicants to have shadowing experiences that are truly indepth and even worthy of an LOR much less a meaningful experience.
Sorry a little lost. Is there truly an expectation that most meaningful experience has to include clinical experience? Iirc, most meaningful experiences were something that was added only recently, and these categories are personalized to an applicant's own interests.
It's one thing to have clinical experience and no one is denying its importance. But why would anyone require clinical experience to be listed as most meaningful? Why not let applicants tell their own story the way they like, even if they didn't put clinical experience as most meaningful?
Perhaps I should have said "medically-related" and not necessarily clinical experience, but yes the vast majority of applications I've seen have had something medically-related as most meaningful.
I wouldn't consider it a requirement. It would just be a question in my head as I go through the application, and it's a question that has popped up in discussions. No one would reject someone over that alone, especially if they otherwise have solid clinical experience and good "why medicine?" answer and can show that they've done their research into their chosen profession.
I've seen plenty of applications where the applicant seems to be very out of touch with medicine and what it entails, suggesting they have no idea what they're getting into (not that we have high expectations for understanding of medicine, but there's a certain level of reality expected and not just gross naivety, like the main part of their PS being about a medical tv show and not their own experience in medicine). The work/activities section is the first non-academic thing I would see, and that would usually be the first hint at something possibly amiss.
Tl;dr no, not a requirement, not an expectation, but it may raise an eyebrow.
Yeah i could see it being true. I like having one meaningful activity = related to medicine; one = unique/important outside of medicine; one = can be anything (ideally something combining both). It gives a balanced outlook
2/3 of my MMEs were non-medical, one was in the arts and one was an organization I was heavily involved in that was tangentially related to medicine. They certainly don't all have to relate to medicine.
This is a new one on me, and is certainly not a general expectation. You might ask your source which med school website(s) have a statement regarding this expectation in order to validate it.I was told that schools sometimes expect rec letters from supervisors/mentors/etc. connected to your top 3
Isn't shadowing an activity that some people recommend not listing as "most meaningful"? My shadowing experiences were fantastic and I learned a lot. I was told that schools sometimes expect rec letters from supervisors/mentors/etc. connected to your top 3 though, and that a letter from a physician you shadowed is generally not recommended. I was tempted to ask the physician I shadowed the longest for a rec letter and to list it as a meaningful experience, but have been told by a few med students not to do so..
This is a new one on me, and is certainly not a general expectation. You might ask your source which med school website(s) have a statement regarding this expectation in order to validate it.
They are not expected by med schools, but if elective letters are allowed, and you are sure the letter will be supportive, you might submit it.Do you know if employer LORS are expected?
Are there any letters (besides the required ones) that if left out might be a red flag? For example, if you did research for 3 years with the same PI, but do not include that letter? Or if you don't have a single letter related to any of your 3 most meaningful activities?They are not expected by med schools, but if elective letters are allowed, and you are sure the letter will be supportive, you might submit it.
It might happen that a premed committee would include such a letter among suggested LOR types.
If it's not "required," it's absense won't raise a red flag (though eyebrows might rise in the 3-year research-related example you gave). Some schools state expectations for PI letters or grad school advisor LORs, but I believe the individual websites make it clear how important they are.Are there any letters (besides the required ones) that if left out might be a red flag? For example, if you did research for 3 years with the same PI, but do not include that letter? Or if you don't have a single letter related to any of your 3 most meaningful activities?