So much for the "unprecedented numbers of applicants" this year.

[Med Addict]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It doesn't matter how many applicants there are, the only thing that matters is how you compare to those applicants in relation to the number of open Med School seats.

 

[dozitgetchahi]

It doesn't matter how many applicants there are, the only thing that matters is how you compare to those applicants in relation to the number of open Med School seats.

Yeah really. For instance, everybody is commenting on how nasty it must have been to have applied in 1996 but if I remember correctly the median applicant MCAT score was much lower back at that time (I believe it was something like 27 in 1998 - if Kaplan can be trusted). There were probably far more "marginal" applicants then as opposed to now.

Seriously, if this reduction in the volume of applications is due to the recession I tend to view that as a good thing. Maybe it will halt the practice of people sending out a zillion applications to any and all medical schools in the land that could possibly have any interest in accepting them. Frankly, the fact that one has to do this sort of thing just to be competitive nowadays places a huge cost burden on applicants and surely acts as an obstacle for any economically disadvantaged students trying to get into medical school. I was talking to an older (mid-60s) family practice doc recently, and he said in his day almost everybody sent out only a handful of apps to the med schools in their local area. In some ways, I'd like to see the med school application process head back in this direction.

Oh, and as for the future physican shortage...there are three factors that will virtually guarantee a massive need for more docs in the near future:

1. The baby boomers are retiring/getting older, and sadly many of them didn't take care of themselves very well. As has been mentioned, this means this rather large population segment will be experiencing a great deal of coronary artery disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. and the complications resulting from all of the above.

2. Many current doctors are themselves baby boomers, meaning that they will be retiring very soon and thus expandng the gap even farther.

3. Younger doctors are demanding shorter work hours and more time off. Furthermore, many of them are heading into sub-specialties that will give them these benefits (i.e., ROAD specialties, etc.). This of course means that it will take more young docs to meet patient demand.

 

[jinx520]

It may benefit us future doctors in terms of job security but it definitely isn't benefiting patients. I would certainly hope that the AMA's concern stems from the fact that today many patients suffer not being able to see physicians, long waits for appointments/procedures, overworked and overbooked physicians, etc. If Obama is successful in insuring more citizens without an increase in doctors, this problem is only going to be exacerbated. It makes sense that the solution would be to increase the # of physicians.

Also, if fewer doctors are treating more patients, the probability of doctor burnout increases. How many premeds are advised by burned out docs to think long and hard about whether we really want to go down this road or not? Now, fast-forward 5-10 years from now--more patients + more available interventions - practicing physicians = career as a physician being less attractive than it is now. The problem of burnout would be greatly magnified. Which would certainly make some people rethink this career path, and will most likely result in less people applying to med school in the future.

Another thing to think about: already all over SDN you can read numerous threads re: encroachment of mid-levels. But many people are starting to see the attractiveness of going down the mid-level path: faster, easier, cheaper, less stress as a practitioner, and looks like a mid-level may one day rival a doc for prestige and authority (I hope not). I fear if the number of practicing physicians falls any more, we might start to see medical schools have a problem filling their ranks.

 

[Anotherface]

Is it just me or do the number in The Chronicle and this one
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9804E2DC1E31F934A15753C1A9669C8B63 >
seem very different.

 

[flip26]

Is it just me or do the number in The Chronicle and this one
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9804E2DC1E31F934A15753C1A9669C8B63 >
seem very different.

that article you cite is from 2000, so, umm, yes the numbers are different...