Successful

[premeddick]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Based on your own experiences, what are the important components to being successful in medical school? (work ethic? balance? time management...?)

What did everyone here do to ensure they were successful?

Thanks,

PMD

 

[DoctaJay]

I think it depends on what you consider success. If success for you means that you need top be in the top 10 of your class you are going to have to work much harder and sacrifice more to be successful. If success for you is simply passing then diligence and endurance are all you need.

 

[premeddick]

I think it depends on what you consider success. If success for you means that you need top be in the top 10 of your class you are going to have to work much harder and sacrifice more to be successful. If success for you is simply passing then diligence and endurance are all you need.

Yeah, I guess one of the questions I am trying to get at is, how do you all measure success? I bet it is different from person to person but I am interested in the different perspectives.

 

[vtucci]

preclinical years- prior exposure to material and an ability to memorize random details and regurgitate them without thought (exception: pathology)

clinical years- being able to multitask, make associations and problem-solve. Taking symptoms and translating them into a diagnosis and developing an assessment and plan. Being proactive, empathetic and being personable and a team player.

Many people who do well in the preclinical years often have difficulty in the clinical years and vice versa.

 

[Doctor J]

Many people who do well in the preclinical years often have difficulty in the clinical years and vice versa.

Wouldn't it be great if this bit of ill-informed med school lore died the quick and painless death it deserves?

 

[Anka]

I always defined success as knowing what to do/what I was doing in a slightly more than level appropriate way. I always focused on my patients, present and future. That translated into good grades, but I never really did anything specifically to get a good grade.

I think work ethic and being a decent, honest human being are the most important things. It's also important to recognize that your insufficiency for your task, when it occurs, is temorary; every time you come up short, figure out what you need to do better or how you need to be better and start working on it. Over time you'll become a real powerhouse. To keep from getting overwhelmed, pick one or two things your'e working on (tying knots, staging for bronchogenic carcinoma, first line drugs for common infections, not pressing the snooze button eight times before waking).

"Balance" is usually a code used by people who don't want to work which makes not wanting to work a good thing, and your hard work somehow pathological. That said, take a few days every year for yourself (not for your family, not for your lover). Especially if you start to get toxic. Sometimes you'll be very toxic but on a rotation. Try to keep your toxicity inside -- this falls under being a decent human being. No use in giving your disease to everyone around you.

Best,
Anka

 

[OncoCaP]

So far there doesn't seem to be anything novel about it (MS1). As far as I can tell, you just study the material as usual (undergrad) and do well on tests. It's similar to undergrad except the material becomes progressively more medical in nature and more plentiful in quantity. There are probably certain strategies to success at every school. For example, at my school, the main anatomy prof liked a certain syllabus even though it was officially being phased out; we were tipped off about this. The classes ahead of us help guide us as to what/how to study; in some cases they directly taught us as TAs or instructional volunteers in a very helpful way. A lot of students watch the class video recordigns at 1.5x speed rather than attend every class to save time (some class meetings are mandatory or not recorded). You will probably have several choices on how to map out your path to success. You'll still have challenges, but that's to be expected. It's going to work out. Don't worry.

 

[mikedc813]

I think it depends on what you consider success. If success for you means that you need top be in the top 10 of your class you are going to have to work much harder and sacrifice more to be successful. If success for you is simply passing then diligence and endurance are all you need.

Agreed. I assume the initial question was asked with being towards the top of the class in mind. For that you generally have to study more, study smarter, and have the natural brainpower to sort through it all. Some people could study all day and not get into the top 10 of their class. For some people it just comes easier.

 

[-Goose-]

Wouldn't it be great if this bit of ill-informed med school lore died the quick and painless death it deserves?

Explain.

 

[Anka]

Explain.

I'll explain. The myth is that somehow doing well in your preclinical studies means that you're not a people person, and will do poorly when you hit the clinics. This is not what vtucci actually said, but it is usually the undertone of what he did say.

In fact, people who do well in the preclinical years often have good time management skills (although they will need to adjust the precise way they manage their time once they hit the clinics), and are often play well in the sandbox to boot. Having worked hard and done well in the preclinical years, they have the basic fund of knowledge on which the clinical years are built.

By no means is this a guarantee that if you do well in your preclinical studies you're going to do well in your clinical years; nor is it to say that doing poorly in your preclinical years eliminates the possibility of success in your clinical years.

So, where does the myth come from? The myth is continued by people who aren't doing well, don't like the people who are doing well (because they are an ego threat), and imagine that somehow they really are better than them... just you wait until it is all revealed in the clinics. They often back up this claim (less a claim generally than an innuendo) by pointing out a few examples. I do not know what the statistics are about correlation between preclinical performance (or Step I scores) and clinical performance.

Anka

 

[dizzyorange]

Wouldn't it be great if this bit of ill-informed med school lore died the quick and painless death it deserves?

Amen.

If anything people who do well pre-clinically will also do well on the wards. Don't forget that the shelf exam plays a sigificant role in many cases, and also that your knowledge base from the first 2 years is what gets you through rounds.

Personality or people-skills are not really related at all to success in the pre-clinical years. It's not like the only people who are honoring classes are dorks, and the people-friendly people are at the bottom of the class. If anything it seems to be the other way around.

 

[yohimbine1]

Goljan audio. And don't trust anyone except closest friends. Master qbanks and review books for each system as you go along, and forget about actual test grades. IMO.

 

[AK_MD2BE]

Balance (ensuring that you meet your own needs physically, mentally and spiritually) and work ethic.

 

[mjl1717]

Explain.

Goose I agree with you, the guy didnt communicate clearly/properly. 🙄

 

[sprinkibrio]

"Balance" is usually a code used by people who don't want to work which makes not wanting to work a good thing, and your hard work somehow pathological.

You can still work hard, do well, and have balance. You seem to think those who want balance are intimidated by those are doing well. You seem intimidated by those that have it all--balance and grades. Just saying..........

 

[Doctor J]

I'll explain. The myth is that somehow doing well in your preclinical studies means that you're not a people person, and will do poorly when you hit the clinics. This is not what vtucci actually said, but it is usually the undertone of what he did say.

In fact, people who do well in the preclinical years often have good time management skills (although they will need to adjust the precise way they manage their time once they hit the clinics), and are often play well in the sandbox to boot. Having worked hard and done well in the preclinical years, they have the basic fund of knowledge on which the clinical years are built.

By no means is this a guarantee that if you do well in your preclinical studies you're going to do well in your clinical years; nor is it to say that doing poorly in your preclinical years eliminates the possibility of success in your clinical years.

So, where does the myth come from? The myth is continued by people who aren't doing well, don't like the people who are doing well (because they are an ego threat), and imagine that somehow they really are better than them... just you wait until it is all revealed in the clinics. They often back up this claim (less a claim generally than an innuendo) by pointing out a few examples. I do not know what the statistics are about correlation between preclinical performance (or Step I scores) and clinical performance.

Anka

👍 👍 👍 👍

 

[Blesbok]

Wouldn't it be great if this bit of ill-informed med school lore died the quick and painless death it deserves?

It is a lie propagated by mediocre 1st and 2nd year students to keep their hopes and dreams alive

Although it is probably true sometimes, I highly doubt it is true on a regular basis. Most of the more personable people in our class are also at least better than average students if not at the top of the class.

 

[Pinner Doc]

You can still work hard, do well, and have balance. You seem to think those who want balance are intimidated by those are doing well. You seem intimidated by those that have it all--balance and grades. Just saying..........

Seriously. It was spoken like someone who has nothing going on outside of school....

 

[gujuDoc]

I'll explain. The myth is that somehow doing well in your preclinical studies means that you're not a people person, and will do poorly when you hit the clinics. This is not what vtucci actually said, but it is usually the undertone of what he did say.



In fact, people who do well in the preclinical years often have good time management skills (although they will need to adjust the precise way they manage their time once they hit the clinics), and are often play well in the sandbox to boot. Having worked hard and done well in the preclinical years, they have the basic fund of knowledge on which the clinical years are built.

By no means is this a guarantee that if you do well in your preclinical studies you're going to do well in your clinical years; nor is it to say that doing poorly in your preclinical years eliminates the possibility of success in your clinical years.

So, where does the myth come from? The myth is continued by people who aren't doing well, don't like the people who are doing well (because they are an ego threat), and imagine that somehow they really are better than them... just you wait until it is all revealed in the clinics. They often back up this claim (less a claim generally than an innuendo) by pointing out a few examples. I do not know what the statistics are about correlation between preclinical performance (or Step I scores) and clinical performance.

Anka

I bolded the above, to point out something. Vtucci is a girl. But carry on.

 

[gujuDoc]

It is a lie propagated by mediocre 1st and 2nd year students to keep their hopes and dreams alive

Although it is probably true sometimes, I highly doubt it is true on a regular basis. Most of the more personable people in our class are also at least better than average students if not at the top of the class.

Yeah I think it just depends on the person. For some people, they may indeed do better in clinicals then with the 1st 2 years, but many more do well in both whether at top of their class or not.

Also, keep in mind that in medical school it is not about whether you are in the top 10% unless your idea of success is going into the most competitive of competitive fields aka Derm, Plastics, Rad onco, to a certain extent Rads, etc. i.e. those things that are competitive because they are high paying and less hours (good lifestyle).

For many, they want to go into IM and are content staying near where they went to med school rather then going to a top residency and are willing to do just what it takes to get into something like that.

I would say that many of my med student friends tell me success is being able to do decently well and pass while keeping their sanity enough to somehow balance life in between. only those that I know who want the top spots will really gun for top of the class.

I know as far as old classmates and friends go, there is a general consensus that most of them are not the gunnerish want to be top of their class types. They are more the type B personality of laid back nature. they know when to get down and study, but they know how to maintain sanity and don't lose sleep over not being the top 10%

 

[gujuDoc]

I always defined success as knowing what to do/what I was doing in a slightly more than level appropriate way. I always focused on my patients, present and future. That translated into good grades, but I never really did anything specifically to get a good grade.

I think work ethic and being a decent, honest human being are the most important things. It's also important to recognize that your insufficiency for your task, when it occurs, is temorary; every time you come up short, figure out what you need to do better or how you need to be better and start working on it. Over time you'll become a real powerhouse. To keep from getting overwhelmed, pick one or two things your'e working on (tying knots, staging for bronchogenic carcinoma, first line drugs for common infections, not pressing the snooze button eight times before waking).

"Balance" is usually a code used by people who don't want to work which makes not wanting to work a good thing, and your hard work somehow pathological. That said, take a few days every year for yourself (not for your family, not for your lover). Especially if you start to get toxic. Sometimes you'll be very toxic but on a rotation. Try to keep your toxicity inside -- this falls under being a decent human being. No use in giving your disease to everyone around you.

Best,
Anka

I tend to disagree. Anyone who works 24/7 with exception of eating/sleeping time is going to lose it. Or so it seems. I think we all need something outside of our job each week to take our minds off these things. I know several students who could easily study more and get slightly higher grades, but it is not laziness that keeps them from doing that. it is the fact that they probably also feel like they'd lose their sanity if they didn't take a break every now and then and get out. you need to have some outlet in such a stressful envt. Like for one of my MS I friends, dance on sundays at the swing club is her outlet once a week. Its what keeps her sane. For most, just knowing when to step back and take a breather is what it is all about. They are still doing well. Maybe not top 10% but their goal is not one of the most comp. fields. Their goal are fields that are doable without having to sacrifice their arms and legs unlike derm, plastics, etc.

 

[cpants]

"Balance" is usually a code used by people who don't want to work which makes not wanting to work a good thing, and your hard work somehow pathological. That said, take a few days every year for yourself (not for your family, not for your lover). Especially if you start to get toxic. Sometimes you'll be very toxic but on a rotation. Try to keep your toxicity inside -- this falls under being a decent human being. No use in giving your disease to everyone around you.

It's the law of diminishing returns. You could study medicine 100 hours a week for the rest of your life and still have plenty of material to learn. So when you reach a certain level of preparedness, you realize no matter how much more studying you do you will probably only get a few more points on the exam. I think it's the people who can recognize this point in their studying, and then make time for themselves and their loved ones that have the most success in med school and life. They may have a GPA or a salary slightly lower than Anka's, but they will be healthier, happier people overall.

 

[vtucci]

Each of us has unique skills and attributes. Some students do not really shine until clinical years. I do not think it a fallacy to point this truth out. Much of the preclinical years is dependent on tests. Clinical years often test our ability to work with large groups of diverse personalities and this involves a different skill set.

Although there are some students who are able to excel in both the preclinical years and clinical years, there are many others who encounter difficulties in either the preclinical years (if they have not had prior experience in some of the subjects) or in the clinical years (if they are not able to think as quickly on their feet, multitask or if they have a more limited life experience in dealing with others) or both.

Keep in mind as has been mentioned before, some people find it very easy to study for tests and excel in this arena. Some of the students who do not have to work hard during the preclinical years find third year a rude awakening. Work ethic is also something innate in some students and developed in others. Those who have to develop it may learn at different rates. Different schools also emphasize different things, have MDs v. PhDs writing preclinical tests and that can affect performance during these years.

Enthusiasm like personality is completely apart from knowledgebase. There are many brillant individuals at the top of their class in the preclinical years who are interested in only one area (maybe it is a competitive field maybe not) and have limited ability to be enthusiastic in the other disciplines. This lack of enthusiasm can cost them dearly in evals. I have seen incredible apathy from classmates during rotations that did not strike their fancy.

 

[gujuDoc]

It's the law of diminishing returns. You could study medicine 100 hours a week for the rest of your life and still have plenty of material to learn. So when you reach a certain level of preparedness, you realize no matter how much more studying you do you will probably only get a few more points on the exam. I think it's the people who can recognize this point in their studying, and then make time for themselves and their loved ones that have the most success in med school and life. They may have a GPA or a salary slightly lower than Anka's, but they will be healthier, happier people overall.

This was the point I tried to make in my above post.

 

[Anka]

It's the law of diminishing returns. You could study medicine 100 hours a week for the rest of your life and still have plenty of material to learn. So when you reach a certain level of preparedness, you realize no matter how much more studying you do you will probably only get a few more points on the exam. I think it's the people who can recognize this point in their studying, and then make time for themselves and their loved ones that have the most success in med school and life. They may have a GPA or a salary slightly lower than Anka's, but they will be healthier, happier people overall.

I'm actually one of the happiest people in my class. I genuinly enjoy what I'm doing, which is why I spend so much time doing it. And I'm not suggesting studying another ten hours when you know the material cold; when I hit that point, I got a job in a lab, which has been very interesting and productive. I scrubbed in a lot during my preclinical years, which again was very interesting and productive. This is described by many in my class as a "lack of balance", but for me it worked and continues to work. As far as salary, my guess is that most of you will make more than I do, because I'm committed to remaining in an academic environment.

My comments above were based on four years of having other people judge me for doing what makes me happy. I realize that for the majority of people, working >100hrs per week is undesirable, exhausting, and unnecessary. But for what I do, want to do, and who I am, it is desirable, exillerating, and necessary -- which is why I do it.

I don't particuarlly judge the crowd that quietly seeks balance or their own happiness. But there is a vocal group of people who constantly try to force their view of what life is about on me. It is at that group my comments above were directed. And they do tend to make snarky comments about how 'we might score lower on an exam, or make less, but we're happier healthier people'. How can you be so sure, given that you've never met me?

Anka

 

[gujuDoc]

I'm actually one of the happiest people in my class. I genuinly enjoy what I'm doing, which is why I spend so much time doing it. And I'm not suggesting studying another ten hours when you know the material cold; when I hit that point, I got a job in a lab, which has been very interesting and productive. I scrubbed in a lot during my preclinical years, which again was very interesting and productive. This is described by many in my class as a "lack of balance", but for me it worked and continues to work. As far as salary, my guess is that most of you will make more than I do, because I'm committed to remaining in an academic environment.

My comments above were based on four years of having other people judge me for doing what makes me happy. I realize that for the majority of people, working >100hrs per week is undesirable, exhausting, and unnecessary. But for what I do, want to do, and who I am, it is desirable, exillerating, and necessary -- which is why I do it.

I don't particuarlly judge the crowd that quietly seeks balance or their own happiness. But there is a vocal group of people who constantly try to force their view of what life is about on me. It is at that group my comments above were directed. And they do tend to make snarky comments about how 'we might score lower on an exam, or make less, but we're happier healthier people'. How can you be so sure, given that you've never met me?

Anka

If you are happy that is fine, but why do the same thing you accuse others of doing by insulting them for knowing when to take a break so they can keep their own sanity???

Maybe that works for you, but most med students I know would rather have some inkling of a social life even if they enjoy medicine and so it is unfair to make judgement upon them for knowing when to take a breather. If you don't need one because your work is your passion, fine. But for most people, this is a job and they have other things they'd also like a little bit of time to do.

 

[Anka]

If you are happy that is fine, but why do the same thing you accuse others of doing by insulting them for knowing when to take a break so they can keep their own sanity???

Maybe that works for you, but most med students I know would rather have some inkling of a social life even if they enjoy medicine and so it is unfair to make judgement upon them for knowing when to take a breather. If you don't need one because your work is your passion, fine. But for most people, this is a job and they have other things they'd also like a little bit of time to do.

Like I said, I pass no judgement on people who seek balance or happiness, as long as it is not at the expense of patient care. I'm just sick to death of the group of people who instantly judge me for the hours I keep, or assume that I must be miserable because of them. Their watchword is "balance". It is a word that has assumed a lot of negative connotations for me, because it is used in precisely the way I described more often than not. People who need a break don't usually make reference to "balance". They just take a break. People who just want to go hang out with their friends, likewise, don't usually make reference to "balance". They just call their friends and go hang out.

Anka

 

[gujuDoc]

Like I said, I pass no judgement on people who seek balance or happiness, as long as it is not at the expense of patient care. I'm just sick to death of the group of people who instantly judge me for the hours I keep, or assume that I must be miserable because of them. Their watchword is "balance". It is a word that has assumed a lot of negative connotations for me, because it is used in precisely the way I described more often than not. People who need a break don't usually make reference to "balance". They just take a break. People who just want to go hang out with their friends, likewise, don't usually make reference to "balance". They just call their friends and go hang out.

Anka

Alright fine I understand that people are judging you but not everyone is. However, not everyone may be like you. Some people need that breather, so that they can be better clinicians because if they are too exhausted, too burnt out, etc. etc. they won't be able to function well enough or be in a mental state that will allow them to give their patients the best care they can. That's probably why a lot of people are going into lifestyle specialties these days along with the fact that they want to have a family and let their children know who they are.

 

[cpants]

Like I said, I pass no judgement on people who seek balance or happiness, as long as it is not at the expense of patient care. I'm just sick to death of the group of people who instantly judge me for the hours I keep, or assume that I must be miserable because of them. Their watchword is "balance". It is a word that has assumed a lot of negative connotations for me, because it is used in precisely the way I described more often than not. People who need a break don't usually make reference to "balance". They just take a break. People who just want to go hang out with their friends, likewise, don't usually make reference to "balance". They just call their friends and go hang out.

Anka

Maybe people are just reaching out to you because they care about you. It seems clear from your comments that people have specifically brought up balance and your lack of it in conversations with you. Maybe they have a point? Studying/scrubbing in/whatever for 100+ hours per week does not leave a lot of time for other stuff. By other stuff I mean: small things, like eating right and exercising, and bigger things, like having meaningful relationships with other people and starting a family. These things may not be important to you, but they are to most people. If you really are secure and happy with your routine, why get so defensive? Just shrug it off and soldier on, or better yet, explain to critics that you are doing the very thing that makes you happiest.