The problem with low veterinary experience hours..

[DVMDream]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I don't see how this wasn't adequately
qualified by his explanation of working with graduates who regret their decision. That's sorta been the tone of several newspaper articles I've read.

.

I've worked with graduates that have "regretted" their decision too... the point is that regret has NOTHING to do with the number of vet hours prior to going to vet school. Which is exactly why everyone told the OP... where is your proof? If you make a statement you have to PROVE it. Simply stating, I have worked with a lot of post grads that regret their decision is not sufficient enough.
Oh the New York Times article about the high DEBT of vet med... that doesn't equal regretting the job due to lack of hours. And I don't care if you have a million hours in private practice that still won't expose you to the high debt and low salary necessarily. It might, and it might not. And even if it does you can't comprehend how that feels and how much you might regret it until it is staring you in the face and breathing down your neck.

 

[Coquette22]

You are really going to argue that the what 15 people that have responded here ALL misread the OP and you were the ONLY shining star to understand them? Seriously?

This is what I was about to say. The fact that so many of us read that tone of smug superiority inclined me to believe that at the very least, the OP is a poor communicator.

"If one man calls you an ass, pay him no mind. If two men call you an ass, go buy a saddle."
-Yiddish proverb

 

[WildZoo]

Hmmmmm. Options, options.

WZ, I sorta feel guilty picking the 12-year-old. And Lupin's always kinda turned my crank anyway. No hard feelings.

It's ok, I understand. I just...really wanted that puppy... 😢

I don't see how this wasn't adequately qualified by his explanation of working with graduates who regret their decision. That's sorta been the tone of several newspaper articles I've read.

The point is that you can't say that regret is in any way correlated with "low" pre-vet experience hours without the data to back it up or any explanation of what "low" actually means.
The OP could very well have said something along the lines of "I'm concerned that some people don't know what they are getting into when they apply for vet school" etc etc that would have carried the tone of concern that you read into the post. Unfortunately, the way that she made her argument implied that because of this, these people don't deserve their acceptances. I applaud you for trying to cast the post in a more positive light, and believe me I am usually one to assume the best when people post, but I just don't see your interpretation holding water in light of the phrasing and implications of the post, even before the OP's reaction to the responses.

 

[StartingoverVet]

It's ok, I understand. I just...really wanted that puppy... 😢

The point is that you can't say that regret is in any way correlated with "low" pre-vet experience hours without the data to back it up or any explanation of what "low" actually means.
The OP could very well have said something along the lines of "I'm concerned that some people don't know what they are getting into when they apply for vet school" etc etc that would have carried the tone of concern that you read into the post. Unfortunately, the way that she made her argument implied that because of this, these people don't deserve their acceptances. I applaud you for trying to cast the post in a more positive light, and believe me I am usually one to assume the best when people post, but I just don't see your interpretation holding water in light of the phrasing and implications of the post, even before the OP's reaction to the responses.

big errors by OP.
1) equating unhappiness in the profession with not having vet hours.
2) equating passion for vet med with having lots of vet hours like OP.
3) Caring, and being bothered by other people's applications and whether they list pet experience (apparently OP knows better than vet schools what they should look at).
4) using a phrase like "i am super bothered by.... "
5) thinking vet schools shouldn't let in people who can pass the program, yeah sure, experience is more important than being able to actually understand something.

and that is just in the first post.

 

[geldedgoat]

Thing about this is that there are people in EVERY Profession who regret going into it. It doesn't mean much to say there are some veterinarians who want to leave vet med. So what? It's perhaps more ... painful (?) due to the debt:salary issue ... but it doesn't say much about the overall job satisfaction of vet med versus other occupations.

That's a fine way to argue against the merits of the OP, but that's not how a great many chose to engage it.

But to your point, surely someone who has a great deal of experience in a given profession would be more likely to have a better grasp of its ups and downs than someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field? My sympathy towards the OP may be more than a little colored by my main clinical experience. Looking back at some of the other clinics and labs I've worked in, a great many of these vets seemingly tried their hardest to present only a positive image of veterinary medicine, perhaps understandably. Had my encounters with vet school graduates been confined only to these, I may not hold the opinions on experience that I do. That having been said, I suppose I should modify my position to "everyone should spend a significant amount of time working for a cynical, old country vet." I'll let you all bicker about what constitutes 'significant.' 😉

 

[Puffins]

This thread is ridiculous and amazing. I leave SDN for a few hours and this thread explodes! There's even a dubious post in support of the OP by a clearly fake account posing as an admissions director. Classic!

 

[dyachei]

That's a fine way to argue against the merits of the OP, but that's not how a great many chose to engage it.

But to your point, surely someone who has a great deal of experience in a given profession would be more likely to have a better grasp of its ups and downs than someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field? My sympathy towards the OP may be more than a little colored by my main clinical experience. Looking back at some of the other clinics and labs I've worked in, a great many of these vets seemingly tried their hardest to present only a positive image of veterinary medicine, perhaps understandably. Had my encounters with vet school graduates been confined only to these, I may not hold the opinions on experience that I do. That having been said, I suppose I should modify my position to "everyone should spend a significant amount of time working for a cynical, old country vet." I'll let you all bicker about what constitutes 'significant.' 😉

Her tone in her original post was outraged. It wasn't regretful. So people responded to that. If you're outraged in the situation where you think people with less experience and higher grades are taking the seats of those who deserve it more, you're going to have some unhappy respondents. Especially by those who were unable to, for any reason, find experience that is adequate in the op's mind. How you talk to people effects how they talk to you.

 

[DVMDream]

This thread is ridiculous and amazing. I leave SDN for a few hours and this thread explodes! There's even a dubious post in support of the OP by a clearly fake account posing as an admissions director. Classic!

We don't get threads like this on pre-vet often.... but when we do it can be "entertaining"..

 

[StartingoverVet]

That's a fine way to argue against the merits of the OP, but that's not how a great many chose to engage it.

But to your point, surely someone who has a great deal of experience in a given profession would be more likely to have a better grasp of its ups and downs than someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field? My sympathy towards the OP may be more than a little colored by my main clinical experience. Looking back at some of the other clinics and labs I've worked in, a great many of these vets seemingly tried their hardest to present only a positive image of veterinary medicine, perhaps understandably. Had my encounters with vet school graduates been confined only to these, I may not hold the opinions on experience that I do. That having been said, I suppose I should modify my position to "everyone should spend a significant amount of time working for a cynical, old country vet." I'll let you all bicker about what constitutes 'significant.' 😉

you accidentally made an important point. You can have 100,000,000 hours working in a clinic, but that doesn't give you a good view of the profession.
Everyone learns different things about vet med from their experiences, due to the variety of experiences available, and the variety of types of people.

Maybe the best vets would be driven away by the old country vet, maybe only stupid stubborn people would apply (just using this as an example).

Someone could get 150 hours in a really interesting variety of areas, and gotten a great overview, where if someone spent thousands of hours working in a clinic Beverly Hills, they may have a completely unrealistic view.

Very few people leave vet school with the same opinion of it as when they entered, so I think the experience thing is cr*p.
The admissions people I have talked to don't think there is a formula to success in the industry, otherwise they would adopt it...

 

[DVMDream]

But to your point, surely someone who has a great deal of experience in a given profession would be more likely to have a better grasp of its ups and downs than someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field?

Perhaps. But there is a critical mass there after a certain point, you aren't going to understand the ups and downs better than someone else. 6 years doesn't make you better than 5 years or necessarily more knowledgeable. There is also the point of quality, you spend time in an affluent area where everyone can do everything for their pet and there is little need to adjust treatment plans you might not have a decent perception of the whole field and the same for those in an area where most people can barely afford the bare minimum. If all my vet experience had been in the small town I went to undergrad, then I would think it was normal to do things like re-autoclave surgical gloves and needles and clearly that is not normal or even recommended. I would also not know a darn thing about anesthesia monitoring because they didn't have techs monitor. I also would not have known how truly rude clients can be because they were all so in love with these older "cheap" vets and I was never in a position at that clinic of discussing finances, like I was at the clinic in the big city I worked in. There is also the point of GP private practice not being the only area (and the OP was clear that is what they meant in that original post).

 

[geldedgoat]

Accidentally? I thought I did a self-flaggelatingly good job of it. Harumph.

 

[LetItSnow]

That's a fine way to argue against the merits of the OP, but that's not how a great many chose to engage it.

But to your point, surely someone who has a great deal of experience in a given profession would be more likely to have a better grasp of its ups and downs than someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field?

The problem with your assertion is that it assumes that spending more and more time as a pre-vet shadower, or vet asst, or vet tech, will continue to improve your overall understanding of life as a vet.

I don't think it will. I think it's a diminishing returns thing, such that the difference between 1 hr and 100 hours is pretty huge, but the difference between 500 hours and 5000 hours is pretty inconsequential.

 

[geldedgoat]

The problem with your assertion is that it assumes that spending more and more time as a pre-vet shadower, or vet asst, or vet tech, will continue to improve your overall understanding of life as a vet.

I didn't assume that at all: "someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field." This should be understood to mean exceedingly low, the bare minimum.

In fact, to be even more fair, I should add that at a certain point, more hours may unduly turn an applicant away from the profession. Being a tech, for someone with aspirations and the ability to be a vet, can start to grate after a while. Particularly if your employer is a less than enjoyable individual.

 

[DVMDream]

I didn't assume that at all: "someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field." This should be understood to mean exceedingly low, the bare minimum.

The bare minimum for what? To apply? If the vet schools think that is enough experience of the field to apply then why should anyone judge someone for having that "low" of hours? Or claim they can't possibly understand the profession from those hours?

 

[StartingoverVet]

I didn't assume that at all: "someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field." This should be understood to mean exceedingly low, the bare minimum.

In fact, to be even more fair, I should add that at a certain point, more hours may unduly turn an applicant away from the profession. Being a tech, for someone with aspirations and the ability to be a vet, can start to grate after a while. Particularly if your employer is a less than enjoyable individual.

i doubt that there are many people with a mere brush with the field are getting into vet school (actually i know this to be false)...
therefore the 1/2 the people leaving the field unhappy can't be these mere brushers.

but sure, mere brushing would likely lead to a poorer understanding of the field, although that in no way even means they are less passionate or more likely to leave the field though That is mere speculation. Could be that since they have less expectations they will be less likely to be disenchanted. or not.

 

[geldedgoat]

i doubt that there are many people with a mere brush with the field are getting into vet school (actually i know this to be false)...

Oh? I considered this discussion simply an interesting exercise since I didn't know there was actual data available that could be applied. I'm always interested to pore over more admissions statistics.

 

[StartingoverVet]

Oh? I considered this discussion simply an interesting exercise since I didn't know there was actual data available that could be applied. I'm always interested to pore over more admissions statistics.

look through the accepted applicants threads over the last 5 years or so. It is pretty comprehensive.
Also many schools post typical and range of applicant stats.

so there is plenty of data.

but thanks for the snark

 

[WildZoo]

I didn't assume that at all: "someone with what may be perceived as a mere brush with the field." This should be understood to mean exceedingly low, the bare minimum.

In fact, to be even more fair, I should add that at a certain point, more hours may unduly turn an applicant away from the profession. Being a tech, for someone with aspirations and the ability to be a vet, can start to grate after a while. Particularly if your employer is a less than enjoyable individual.

That's the thing though. What is that bare minimum? That question was never answered by the OP. Who, for whatever reason, seemed to think she knew better what an adequte amount of experience was than the admissions departments at the vet schools.

 

[geldedgoat]

but thanks for the snark

I genuinely did not intend any snark in my comment. I really am interested in the statistics, since the other published admissions data I've seen didn't include a range.

 

[CloudlessNights]

This thread has provided me with pure entertainment for half an hour.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I genuinely did not intend any snark in my comment. I really am interested in the statistics, since the other published admissions data I've seen didn't include a range.

sorry. thought you were sarcastic.

Every year we have an accepted applicants thread..... at 5 of them I know of. They are very informative. you should read through them.

 

[geldedgoat]

sorry. thought you were sarcastic.

No worries. It's the internet; it happens. Heck, that's what the bulk of my involvement in this thread has been about.

 

[KCgophervet]

This drama that unfolded has been highly entertaining. I'm mentally patting myself on the back for getting to be the first to respond to OP.

Of course I've just wasted a ridiculous amount of time catching up when I should be studying for Large Animal Medicine... but I thank you all for the brilliant back-and-forth.

OP, if you are still around, I'm sorry you're feeling hunted, belittled, ostracized, what-have-you. You may have had a rough night, posted something in a tone you weren't really intending, and may not have the calm or cool-headedness to have responded without the rage, and I'm sorry about that, it truly sucks. My advice for you from this point is to learn from this experience, double check your tone (and your grammar and spelling...), and maybe come in with more of an open mind about things.

 

[Sit_Hollie_Good_Dog]

I'm so surprised this thread has blown up like it has! As someone who went back to school to complete pre-reqs and accumulate hours after the age of 30, I was concerned I would not be able to compete with applicants who started volunteering with animals in high school and getting plenty of experience early on. If I was expected to acquire thousands of vet experience hours, I wouldn't have applied for another few years! I think the vet schools I applied to valued the breadth of experience I have had in many different fields, otherwise I would not have gotten interviews or been accepted. Sure I wish I had started when I was 16, but I'm glad that I can pursue this career at a later age and have schools value my application and promise for success holistically.

 

[Jonsi]

This thread is ridiculous and amazing. I leave SDN for a few hours and this thread explodes! There's even a dubious post in support of the OP by a clearly fake account posing as an admissions director. Classic!

Curiously the "admissions director" and OP share a tendency toward the same opinions and grammar blunders. Oops!

 

[Foxhunter]

I missed pre-vet.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

Again, the complaint was not that they were getting in undeservedly, but that they were getting in without knowing enough about the profession. Assuming you have an interest in the well-being of your fellow graduate (and I believe we all likely do), wouldn't you be "super bothered" by someone spending all that money and going through all the effort, only to be disappointed with the results? I would be.

Yes, being bothered by something demonstrates a person involvement in something, not just an observation or even emotional impact of something. I've never been bothered by vet students who were disappointed with their career, but I have felt badly for them. It would be foolish or egotistical to believe their choices affect me in any way other than sympathy. It doesn't bother me that my friend was fired, even though I am very sorry it happened to her. When something bothers a person, it's because that person feels they personally are suffering something - even if it just means that they are suffering an unfair situation. I might be bothered that the world is full of jack@sses like the one that fired my friend, but that's not the same as saying I'm bothered by her being fired. That's why so many people are taking offense - because the OP essentially said she is suffering because other vet students didn't get as many hours as she did, which is rather egotistical as well as insulting.

 

[CalliopeDVM]

I don't see how this wasn't adequately qualified by his explanation of working with graduates who regret their decision. That's sorta been the tone of several newspaper articles I've read.

Yes, sadly, there are a many vets in the US who regret their decision to become a vet, and if you talk to most of them, it has nothing to do with not knowing what's involved in veterinary work and none of it would have been changed by more hours working in the industry before getting into vet school. The reason they regret it is the ridiculous amount of debt involved, the abundant supply of vets and the low salaries, and the effect those things have on the rest of their life. No amount of hours spent working, shadowing, or volunteering in the industry can really tell you what that's like and prepare you for having $200,000 of debt hanging over you for decades, affecting your choices of where and how you live. No amount of pre-entry hours could tell you that new vet schools and newly accredited programs will dump twice as many vets into the marketplace, increasing supply and lowering wages.

 

[Foxhunter]

I'm never going to fault a program for taking someone who they feel will pass the curriculum, but has low experience hours over someone they feel will struggle with and possibly fail the curriculum who has a ton of veterinary hours.

 

[lailanni]

Yes, sadly, there are a many vets in the US who regret their decision to become a vet, and if you talk to most of them, it has nothing to do with not knowing what's involved in veterinary work and none of it would have been changed by more hours working in the industry before getting into vet school. The reason they regret it is the ridiculous amount of debt involved, the abundant supply of vets and the low salaries, and the effect those things have on the rest of their life. No amount of hours spent working, shadowing, or volunteering in the industry can really tell you what that's like and prepare you for having $200,000 of debt hanging over you for decades, affecting your choices of where and how you live. No amount of pre-entry hours could tell you that new vet schools and newly accredited programs will dump twice as many vets into the marketplace, increasing supply and lowering wages.

+1.

No one really mentions that you have the potential to get royally screwed in your work contract, get less than 2 weeks of vacation a year, take a crap paying job just to HAVE a job, have your boss dump you with on-call more than you expected, or have your clinic held up at gun point by addicts for drugs during a night ER shift. (not all of these have happened to me, but they have happened to colleagues I know). You also don't understand what it's like to be severely in debt and watch your non-vet friends buy homes and move forward in life while you're still just barely hacking it financially. And if you're not a DVM, you're not going to understand what it's like when you get berated (time and again) for trying to offer reasonably priced, necessary services to emotionally imbalanced/irate people.

You might be able to see some of this with experience hours, but a lot of it is personal and internal. You don't understand it until you've been there.

OP, good luck. You're going to need it.

 

[that redhead]

To be honest, I stopped reading on page 2 because all I could process were the MAD BURNS @Coquette22 was throwin' down.

 

[Coquette22]

To be honest, I stopped reading on page 2 because all I could process were the MAD BURNS @Coquette22 was throwin' down.

😀 Face it, you miss me. (I know I miss you. Not nearly enough red-head sass in my life these days...)

 

[geldedgoat]

Yes, being bothered by something demonstrates a person involvement in something, not just an observation or even emotional impact of something. I've never been bothered by vet students who were disappointed with their career, but I have felt badly for them.

At the risk of being accused of ill will again, I'll try one last time to correct this mistaken assumption. 'Bother' has a number of different definitions, with one of them essentially equating to 'upset:' To make agitated or perplexed; upset: Jerry could see ... how much the doctor had been bothered by the failure of the first surgery." And to head this point off at the pass, 'upset' itself is subject to a similar variety of meanings, particularly the following: "To distress or perturb mentally or emotionally: The bad news upset me." So when the OP goes on to lament that "more then half of [newly graduated veterinary students] regret [their] decisions DAILY", do you think it more likely that this sentiment is expressing annoyance or some sympathetic emotional impact?

new vet schools and newly accredited programs will dump twice as many vets into the marketplace, increasing supply and lowering wages.

This, though, is certainly worthy of annoyance. I disagree that additional experience is unlikely to affect an applicant's knowledge of these matters, however, since my own decision to expand my experience into a different clinic staffed by more doctors, some of whom were recent graduates, gave me the opportunity to discuss these very issues. Does additional experience guarantee similar exposure? No, certainly not. But, taken in aggregate over all applicants, it certainly makes it and other valuable advice and encounters more likely. Why this is controversial at all is beyond me.

 

[LetItSnow]

[A whole lot of pomposity.]

 

[DVMDream]

At the risk of being accused of ill will again, I'll try one last time to correct this mistaken assumption. 'Bother' has a number of different definitions, with one of them essentially equating to 'upset:' To make agitated or perplexed; upset: Jerry could see ... how much the doctor had been bothered by the failure of the first surgery." And to head this point off at the pass, 'upset' itself is subject to a similar variety of meanings, particularly the following: "To distress or perturb mentally or emotionally: The bad news upset me." So when the OP goes on to lament that "more then half of [newly graduated veterinary students] regret [their] decisions DAILY", do you think it more likely that this sentiment is expressing annoyance or some sympathetic emotional impact?

This, though, is certainly worthy of annoyance. I disagree that additional experience is unlikely to affect an applicant's knowledge of these matters, however, since my own decision to expand my experience into a different clinic staffed by more doctors, some of whom were recent graduates, gave me the opportunity to discuss these very issues. Does additional experience guarantee similar exposure? No, certainly not. But, taken in aggregate over all applicants, it certainly makes it and other valuable advice and encounters more likely. Why this is controversial at all is beyond me.

People don't use the word "bothered" to convey sympathy. Come on. Quit taking some long ass stretched out theory to support your point. The OP was personally annoyed and every post after that initial one proves it.

 

[dyachei]

At the risk of being accused of ill will again, I'll try one last time to correct this mistaken assumption. 'Bother' has a number of different definitions, with one of them essentially equating to 'upset:' To make agitated or perplexed; upset: Jerry could see ... how much the doctor had been bothered by the failure of the first surgery." And to head this point off at the pass, 'upset' itself is subject to a similar variety of meanings, particularly the following: "To distress or perturb mentally or emotionally: The bad news upset me." So when the OP goes on to lament that "more then half of [newly graduated veterinary students] regret [their] decisions DAILY", do you think it more likely that this sentiment is expressing annoyance or some sympathetic emotional impact?

This, though, is certainly worthy of annoyance. I disagree that additional experience is unlikely to affect an applicant's knowledge of these matters, however, since my own decision to expand my experience into a different clinic staffed by more doctors, some of whom were recent graduates, gave me the opportunity to discuss these very issues. Does additional experience guarantee similar exposure? No, certainly not. But, taken in aggregate over all applicants, it certainly makes it and other valuable advice and encounters more likely. Why this is controversial at all is beyond me.

In context, that's not the understanding. Definitions are really only useful in the appropriate context. NEXT.

 

[Lupin21]

I take it back. I do have something to add to this thread.

 

[LetItSnow]

People don't use the word "bothered" to convey sympathy. Come on. Quit taking some long ass stretched out theory to support your point. The OP was personally annoyed and every post after that initial one proves it.

She's (He's?) just being pedantic to be argumentative.

I suggest the next time someone close to geldedgoat loses a family member that geldedgoat go with "I'm really bothered by your loss" and see how that works out.

The OP was absurd. The OP went so far as to make an account (violating TOS) misrepresenting herself as a professional in admissions and then lie about data. That's a straight-up, no-questions ethics violation. Defending that person is just plain dumb. What REALLY proves the point is that geldedgoat keeps insisting on only using the context of the OP's initial post, rather than the context of ALL her comments. Cherry-picking like that is the hallmark of twisting data to fit your pre-determined conclusion.

 

[geldedgoat]

In context, that's not the understanding. Definitions are really only useful in the appropriate context. NEXT.

How does this make any sense whatsoever relative to what I've written? I specifically addressed the definition in context to show why I believe one interpretation to be more valid than the other. What context, given specifically in the OP and not in the emotional meltdown that followed, conveys a sense of annoyance towards applicants? I certainly get that he finds admissions departments annoying, but not applicants themselves.

She's (He's?) just being a dick to be argumentative.

I've taken great pains to avoid responding in kind to the obviously inflammatory comments by others here in an attempt to diffuse what I see as inappropriate antipathy towards an admittedly under-matured poster, and you call me a dick? Er... Okay.

 

[dyachei]

How does this make any sense whatsoever relative to what I've written? I specifically addressed the definition in context to show why I believe one interpretation to be more valid than the other. What context, given specifically in the OP and not in the emotional meltdown that followed, conveys a sense of annoyance towards applicants? I certainly get that he finds admissions departments annoying, but not applicants themselves.

I've taken great pains to avoid responding in kind to the obviously inflammatory comments by others here in an attempt to diffuse what I see as inappropriate antipathy towards an admittedly under-matured poster, and you call me a dick? Er... Okay.

read the WHOLE first post again. With tone and context, your interpretation of bothered meaning not annoyed doesn't make sense. But I can't help you with reading comprehension. If you do go back, reread initial responses as well, because she only doubles down initially.

 

[LetItSnow]

How does this make any sense whatsoever relative to what I've written? I specifically addressed the definition in context to show why I believe one interpretation to be more valid than the other. What context, given specifically in the OP and not in the emotional meltdown that followed, conveys a sense of annoyance towards applicants? I certainly get that he finds admissions departments annoying, but not applicants themselves.

I've taken great pains to avoid responding in kind to the obviously inflammatory comments by others here in an attempt to diffuse what I see as inappropriate antipathy towards an admittedly under-matured poster, and you call me a dick? Er... Okay.

First off ... you weren't addressing it "in context". You were addressing it in "a context" that you very carefully chose in order to best fit your point, rather than the context that's most representative of the OP's actual opinion. That's misleading. But hey, it's the only way your point really works, so I guess you didn't have much choice.

Second off .... how long ago did you quote me? I edited out 'dick' because it was a little over the top. Nevertheless, you can call me a dick, I don't have any problem with that. I'm definitely happy to get dick-ish with people when I think they have it coming. No doubt.

And sorry, but I have no idea what the point of your link to the 'hunter/vet' thread is supposed to mean. I don't recall participating in that thread. Maybe I did, though.....

 

[DVMDream]

First off ... you weren't addressing it "in context". You were addressing it in "a context" that you very carefully chose in order to best fit your point, rather than the context that's most representative of the OP's actual opinion. That's misleading. But hey, it's the only way your point really works, so I guess you didn't have much choice.

Second off .... how long ago did you quote me? I edited out 'dick' because it was a little over the top. Nevertheless, you can call me a dick, I don't have any problem with that. I'm definitely happy to get dick-ish with people when I think they have it coming. No doubt.

And sorry, but I have no idea what the point of your link to the 'hunter/vet' thread is supposed to mean. I don't recall participating in that thread. Maybe I did, though.....

I think she is referring to me as the person she has antipathy towards and is "under-matured". Rather certain that @WildZoo is the only pre-pubescent one here though...

But hey guess I better to cry into my pillow that someone called me under-mature.... it is horrible.

 

[WildZoo]

I think she is referring to me as the person she has antipathy towards and is "under-matured". Rather certain that @WildZoo is the only pre-pubescent one here though...

But hey guess I better to cry into my pillow that someone called me under-mature.... it is horrible.

Hey! I'm super mature for my age!

 

[geldedgoat]

First off ... you weren't addressing it "in context".

I asked, I believe for the fourth(?) time now, what context anyone else sees that suggests the OP was annoyed at applicants. Let this be another: what are you seeing in the OP that I apparently am not? Was something edited out of it that I missed? This is a sincere request, because I really feel that y'all are reading into his OP something that isn't there.

Nevertheless, you can call me a dick, I don't have any problem with that.

I've no desire to call you a dick, as I don't see how it could be the least bit productive. This forum is - or at least I thought it to be - one of the better online resources for pre-vet students to discuss amongst their peers and betters how best to approach their would-be careers. The behavior thus far put on display calls that into question, and for me to sling that which I've been decrying would be hypocritical, to say the least. Maybe you'll look back at my responses here (and those in that other thread I linked), see my attempts to quiet or avoid this drama, and feel some regret about your comments... and maybe not. I'm a big boy and can handle myself, but it's a genuine pity that an otherwise well-meaning student has been turned away in this mess.

I think she is referring to me as the person she has antipathy towards and is "under-matured".

No. The link was intended to highlight my restraint in the face of inappropriate hostility. The antipathy I described was from all of you, directed towards jenkxo, who is also that under-matured poster. You were not being insulted, just as I was not trying to antagonize you in that other thread (nor here). I don't know why you keep reading my posts the way you do, but I'm sincerely trying to avoid agitating you... I even implied earlier that I'm a special snowflake that can be beaten at your whim! I disagree with some of what you've said (and also how internet syntax should be interpreted), clearly, but disagreements need not be this hostile.

 

[dyachei]

otherwise well-meaning student has been turned away in this mess

I think that's where most people disagree. What real point did this thread have other than to secure agreement and pat herself on the back for what she was saying? What happened when those things didn't happen?

 

[LetItSnow]

The behavior thus far put on display calls that into question, and for me to sling that which I've been decrying would be hypocritical, to say the least.

More cherry-picking! Maybe you should go look at the multitude of threads filled with vet students and veterinarians offering straight-up advice to people looking for it. I think it argues STRONGLY in favor of SDN being a great place for pre-vets to get information. A few heated threads doesn't change that. Unless you're going to cherry-pick your data, of course.

it's a genuine pity that an otherwise well-meaning student has been turned away in this mess.

Well-meaning. Right. Yeah, that's what I call it when people fraudulently represent themselves and make up information to bolster their opinion. "Well-meaning."

I even implied earlier that I'm a special snowflake that can be beaten at your whim!

Liar! You haven't ONCE posted in the special snowflake thread.

 

[WildZoo]

I asked, I believe for the fourth(?) time now, what context anyone else sees that suggests the OP was annoyed at applicants. Let this be another: what are you seeing in the OP that I apparently am not? Was something edited out of it that I missed? This is a sincere request, because I really feel that y'all are reading into his OP something that isn't there.

Long story short, I am super bothered by applicants that are getting in with low veterinary experience hours. And listing 'Pet Ownership' as a experience? That is not something I think anyone should be placing on an application to medical school.

The post starts out with hostility towards applicants that get in with low hours. In that context, bothered does not carry any connotation of sympathy. The OP goes on to criticize putting pet ownership on apps because...well...clearly it's just ridiculous. I mean, no way some schools actually look at that. Clearly shouldn't be considered at all. That opening sets the tone for the rest of the post.

I don't think anyone is doing themselves any favors by not working in a veterinary hospital/ veterinary setting before starting veterinary school.

I'd like to see evidence that anyone goes to vet school without ever working in a veterinary setting. Anyone? Bueller?

The sad, very real fact of the matter is that many graduate schools are choosing to admit veterinary students based of the fact that they will pass the program, gain the stats they need saying they had lots of graduates, and continue the cycle taking peoples money.

Now, the second half of the statement aside, why wouldn't vet schools want applicants who can pass the program? Are they supposed to admit only people with thousands of hours and leave off the people who have proven they can handle difficult coursework? But there's also the unstated assumption here that the OP knows better than the admissions at these schools. Some of these programs have been involved in the field for longer than any of us have been alive. I think they probably know what they're doing.

They have no problem spitting you out into a field someone may be book smart about but not really have a real passion about. I personally have worked in a veterinary hospital for the last 8 years of my life, accumulating thousands of hours of experience, working full time most of my undergraduate career. I know the good and the bad of veterinary medicine, I understand what I'm getting myself into, and I love what I do. I know no matter what I will love being a vet.

This is where the elitism comes in. Obviously you can only really be passionate about the field if you've worked in it for years and years. And OP knows everything about being a vet because they've been a tech for 8 years. They know for a fact that nothing could ever make them feel differently about working as a vet. And they know better than those silly vet students and veterinarians that had less than 1000 experience hours.

I mean, I can go on, but I think you might be starting to get the idea here...

 

[CalliopeDVM]

This, though, is certainly worthy of annoyance. I disagree that additional experience is unlikely to affect an applicant's knowledge of these matters, however, since my own decision to expand my experience into a different clinic staffed by more doctors, some of whom were recent graduates, gave me the opportunity to discuss these very issues. Does additional experience guarantee similar exposure? No, certainly not. But, taken in aggregate over all applicants, it certainly makes it and other valuable advice and encounters more likely. Why this is controversial at all is beyond me.

We're not talking about knowing about the issues, we're talking about understanding what those issues feel like......and nothing will do that except experience. Sad, but true. Someone can think about what it feels like to be in debt for 25 years, butcan't really know what it's like until he/she is there. Or someone can know that there will be fewer jobs available, but think it doesn't matter because he/she is sure to be the one to get the job (because young people always think that "it" will never happen to them - it's part of being young - until "it" (in this case, joblessness) does happen to them.) Experience in the field will expose someone to the issues, but that won't make them any more likely to handle them when they are out, IMO. That takes personality traits that aren't gained specifically through veterinary experience. In fact, I'd say a variety of experience is probably a better teacher - though, with conscientious effort all that variety could be found in the veterinary field.

 

[DVMDream]

I asked, I believe for the fourth(?) time now, what context anyone else sees that suggests the OP was annoyed at applicants. Let this be another: what are you seeing in the OP that I apparently am not? Was something edited out of it that I missed? This is a sincere request, because I really feel that y'all are reading into his OP something that isn't there.
.

I am not sure anyone can really make you see what we all collectively saw and read. You have it too twisted up in your head that "bothered" is synonymous with sympathetic.... but let's try:

"I am really bothered that there are car mechanics out there working on cars that have such limited experience, I have been doing it for 8 years and they are taking up the jobs of those of us that have more experience."

"I am really bothered that someone got accepted to grad school with only 6 months of lab work and super high grades, I have been working in a lab for 8 years and they are taking up the spots of those that have more experience. They don't know what it is like to really be a researcher, I do."

That is just in the first post, I only switched it to different careers.

The attitude is elitist, the post drips of disdain towards those that don't have enough experience, whatever amount that might be in the OP's mind, which we were never told.

I don't know if that really helps or not, but maybe it does?

Though @WildZoo probably did a better job.


I guess ask yourself how would you feel if someone came up to you and said "I am super bothered that you had such low vet experience hours and I had years of experience and you are taking away a seat from someone who has wanted this for a long time." How would that make you feel? How do you think that is going to come across? Because that is how the post starts and how the rest of the tone for the post is read and how all the rest of that person's posts came across.

And you aren't agitating me, we are just discussing this. I'm not bolding anything yet to indicate agitation 😉

 

[KCgophervet]

@geldedgoat this is my interpretation of the original post:

Long story short, I am super bothered by applicants that are getting in with low veterinary experience hours.

Right off the bat it sounds like a pissed off applicant with tons of hours of experience who didn't get accepted and is mad that others with less experience did. This may not be what they meant, but that's what it reads as.

And listing 'Pet Ownership' as a experience? That is not something I think anyone should be placing on an application to medical school.

Reads to me as: all you *****s who put pets under animal experience are ridiculous and stupid. Everyone has pets and that doesn't matter at all (or, I forgot to list pet experience and so now my hours look low and I'm bitter about it).

Back to my point. I don't think anyone is doing themselves any favors by not working in a veterinary hospital/ veterinary setting before starting veterinary school.

Back to her/his point? What point? So far all this poster has done is seemingly insult people. It also goes right out and makes it sound like people who haven't had the opportunity to work in a vet clinic have basically screwed themselves over.

The sad, very real fact of the matter is that many graduate schools are choosing to admit veterinary students based of the fact that they will pass the program, gain the stats they need saying they had lots of graduates, and continue the cycle taking peoples money.

Which vet schools (not graduate schools, I get that it's like graduate level, but come on) exactly are doing this? And exactly what is wrong with selecting applicants who will pass the program? That actually seems pretty damn smart to me. This line again makes it sound like the poster didn't have great grades and was rejected.

They have no problem spitting you out into a field someone may be book smart about but not really have a real passion about.

How exactly is the poster deciding who does or does not have passion about vet med? And which schools are doing this? The OP hasn't been in vet school yet so has no real idea what they're talking about. It also sounds like they are claiming that those of us who haven't worked in a vet clinic (from previous lines) basically don't have passion for vet med, which is irksome to say the least.

I personally have worked in a veterinary hospital for the last 8 years of my life, accumulating thousands of hours of experience, working full time most of my undergraduate career. I know the good and the bad of veterinary medicine, I understand what I'm getting myself into, and I love what I do. I know no matter what I will love being a vet.

Well bloody good for you, OP. This is akin to saying well I know I have real passion about vet med because look at all the time I've dedicated to it. And for the record, as others have said, no one really knows they will love being a vet until they're in the field working as a vet.

At the hospital I'm currently working at as a technician, I have the pleasure of working with newly graduated veterinary students. Sadly, more then half of them regret there decisions DAILY choosing veterinary medicine. If schools were more keen on hiring those who have veterinary experience, MAYBE there wouldn't be such a high rate of those that switch into different jobs after graduating vet school.

This is just anecdotal evidence the OP is relaying from his/her own experience. And he/she doesn't even mention if these disillusioned vets had excessive vet experience coming into vet school or why they are disillusioned with vet med. It's a huge leap for the OP to make saying that the schools did a poor job selecting applicants, maybe the clinic she/he was working at just drove the vets there to ruin?

There are so many things to say regarding this topic, but long story short I am strongly against schools accepting applicants based mainly on grades.

Okay, that's nice, but what schools are actually doing this?

And to those who are reading this with low veterinary hours, you are really putting yourself at a disadvantage not only in school, but in your future as a vet.

Really? That is like coming at those of us with low vet hours (and he/she never defines what he/she considers low) with a swinging bat, saying we'll never be as good a vet as he/she obviously will. Maybe that's not how you read it, but it ruffled enough feathers around here to let me know I wasn't the only one.

On a side note, I am not a jaded applicant for this cycle, I was accepted into veterinary school and will be attending in the fall. However, I do want to hear/read everyone's thoughts on this. Please bite, chew, and scratch at what I have to say, or meow and purr; what ever you desire.

This was the most surprising part of this post. It really made me question why the OP even bothered bringing this up, other than seemingly to poke a stick at all the applicants who apply or are accepted with "low vet experience," whatever that means.

So there you have it. That is the context I read the post in (and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one) and why it lead to such a huge backlash on the OP. A little more tact and a lot less judgement would have carried this conversation in a much more pleasant direction, IF the OP truly meant it the way you read it.