Very Interesting View from an ADCOM

[Knocked Up]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Interesting article. Kind of old though.... Could this be another area where the DO mentality differs significantly from allo mentality?

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/9690/survey-shows-mcat-gpa-crucial

Megan R. Price, director of admissions of the Va. College of Osteopathic Medicine, said the science GPA best predicts the GPA that the student will receive at VCOM and is a good indicator of National Board Exam pass rate. To become physicians, medical students must take and pass three steps of the Board Exam.

"As long as the science GPA is strong, it almost nullifies the MCAT," Price said.

 

[sector9]

I think it's more school dependent rather than a MD vs. DO issue

 

[mishaS]

MCAT is important, but I wouldn't take anything released by Kaplan too seriously. They aren't going to release survey results titled "MCAT score, it doesn't really matter so don't waste your money on us."

 

[aSagacious]

False. sGPA is a mediocre predictor at best (r = .18 and .10 for COMLEX I and II, respectively).

Source: Table I --> Dixon, Donna. "Relation Between Variables of Preadmission, Medical School Performance, and COMLEX–USA Levels 1 and 2 Performance." J Am Osteopath Assoc August 1, 2004 vol. 104 no. 8 332-336.

 

[sector9]

False. sGPA is a mediocre predictor at best (r = .18 and .10 for COMLEX I and II, respectively).

Source: Table I --> Dixon, Donna. "Relation Between Variables of Preadmission, Medical School Performance, and COMLEX–USA Levels 1 and 2 Performance." J Am Osteopath Assoc August 1, 2004 vol. 104 no. 8 332-336.

Agreed that the adcom's statement isn't true. However, I'm going to guess that adcom's have different opinions regardless and some still believe such statements to be true

 

[Narmerguy]

False. sGPA is a mediocre predictor at best (r = .18 and .10 for COMLEX I and II, respectively).

Source: Table I --> Dixon, Donna. "Relation Between Variables of Preadmission, Medical School Performance, and COMLEX–USA Levels 1 and 2 Performance." J Am Osteopath Assoc August 1, 2004 vol. 104 no. 8 332-336.

I didn't read that paper, but her statement was that it was a good indicator of passing. I don't know what those correlations you provided are for, but I imagine it might be correlation with actual COMLEX scores and not simply pass vs nonpass.

 

[aSagacious]

I didn't read that paper, but her statement was that it was a good indicator of passing. I don't know what those correlations you provided are for, but I imagine it might be correlation with actual COMLEX scores and not simply pass vs nonpass.

Probably true, but even if it were a correlation for overall performance what that means in words is "a strong correlation necessitates that for any given GPA we can reasonably estimate a COMLEX score." Since a 'pass' is a fancy word for a given COMLEX score, and GPA demonstrated a poor correlative strength, then her claim is invalidated.

 

[Local Native]

False. sGPA is a mediocre predictor at best (r = .18 and .10 for COMLEX I and II, respectively).

Source: Table I --> Dixon, Donna. "Relation Between Variables of Preadmission, Medical School Performance, and COMLEX–USA Levels 1 and 2 Performance." J Am Osteopath Assoc August 1, 2004 vol. 104 no. 8 332-336.

I thought I would put it into picture form for you:

 

[aSagacious]

^ thanks.

 

[Narmerguy]

Probably true, but even if it were a correlation for overall performance what that means in words is "a strong correlation necessitates that for any given GPA we can reasonably estimate a COMLEX score." Since a 'pass' is a fancy word for a given COMLEX score, and GPA demonstrated a poor correlative strength, then her claim is invalidated.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by these.

A pass is an indication of a score above a given COMLEX score. Two numbers can both be considered a 'pass' but one may be 99th percentile while the other is 70th percentile.

Because of this, a strong correlation need not suggest we can predict a COMLEX score. It would only require that we can predict whether their future COMLEX score will be 'pass' or 'nonpass', not concerning ourselves with trying to distinguish the 99percentiles from the 70percentiles.

 

[aSagacious]

Ok, rereading her quote I agree that we wouldn't need a strong correlation for simply estimating pass rate. For all practical purposes, though, one would like to maximize their matriculants' scores (not just pass rate) for residency placement, so her statement is still a bit misleading in my opinion.

 

[LifeTake2]

What I take from the article is not the quote on the MCAT/GPA but this:

"Looking at MCAT scores and GPA will give you great candidates that will give you great academic students, but not great doctors," Price said. "We screen very heavily for those skills we believe will determine bedside manner."

This summarizes the reality that scores serve as a filter but do not define what will make a great physician (or even a decent one).

 

[centrigeugle]

Good luck finding something that correlates with board scores more than GPA and MCAT scores.

 

[aSagacious]

This summarizes the reality that scores serve as a filter but do not define what will make a great physician (or even a decent one).

Nice catch. What I would have liked to hear from her, instead of a vague write-off of academic studs, is what variable she finds to be the best predictor of 'good doctors' and back it up with data.

 

[jdok]

I thought I would put it into picture form for you:

Lmfao, I lost it.

 

[gettheleadout]

Nice catch. What I would have liked to hear from her, instead of a vague write-off of academic studs, is what variable she finds to be the best predictor of 'good doctors' and back it up with data.

Yeah, it seems like she's playing to the whole "as a DO school we look at both the patients and the applicants holistically" deal.

 

[Autarkeia]

Nice catch. What I would have liked to hear from her, instead of a vague write-off of academic studs, is what variable she finds to be the best predictor of 'good doctors' and back it up with data.

Such data would fall into the the domain of psychology, a field this forum largely dismissed as 'unscientific' a couple days ago. You can't ask for data on the humanity of doctors from a stance that would dismiss what's given on the grounds that it's 'too fuzzy'.

Regardless, fact is, academics have nothing to do with relational skills and doctoring requires relational skills. The onus is on you to supply the data for the positive correlation between 'academic studs' and 'good doctors'.

Medicine is science, and academic success is a good predictor of a person's ability to understand it. The practice of medicine is art, and that's where the 'intangibles' come into play. Why else would ad coms consider extracurriculars, personal statements, interviews, etc? They're trying to get a look at the hard-to-quantify humanity of an applicant, something every medical school sees as just as important as academic qualities.

 

[aSagacious]

Such data would fall into the the domain of psychology, a field this forum largely dismissed as 'unscientific' a couple days ago. You can't ask for data on the humanity of doctors and then dismiss what's given on the grounds that it's 'too fuzzy'. The fact is, academics have nothing to do with relational skills and doctoring is at core a relational activity. The onus is on you to supply the data for a positive correlation there...

If you want to define 'good doctors' by their bedside manners, then yes you'd need psychology. I would be more inclined to judge a doctor by patient outcomes, minimized costs, and efficiency... but that's just me.

 

[tmh]

Good luck finding something that correlates with board scores more than GPA and MCAT scores.

Hours of shadowing.

 

[Gigantron]

Good luck finding something that correlates with board scores more than GPA and MCAT scores.

Your avatar sums up how I felt after reading your post quite nicely.

 

[Autarkeia]

If you want to define 'good doctors' by their bedside manners, then yes you'd need psychology. I would be more inclined to judge a doctor by patient outcomes, minimized costs, and efficiency... but that's just me.

Indeed.

Reality is, in any specialty that involves patient contact, the three factors you listed--patient outcomes, minimized costs, and efficiency--all heavily depend upon what you call 'bedside manners'. Especially the first, since the desired outcome is maximized quality-of-life.

Anyway, I think you missed my point about psychology, which had to do with asking the author for evidence that can only come from a field of study that is considered illegitimate by many here. Even the post I quoted shows the absurdity of your question since you've begged the question, defining 'good doctor' in terms that rely solely on intellect.

 

[aSagacious]

Reality is, in any specialty that involves patient contact, the three factors you listed--patient outcomes, minimized costs, and efficiency--all heavily depend upon what you call 'bedside manners'. Especially the first, since the desired outcome is maximized quality-of-life.

I disagree 100% with you here, but it is unlikely that either of us will change our minds.

Anyway, I think you missed my point about psychology, which had to do with you asking the author for evidence that you'll dismiss as prima facie irrelevant.

I ignored this point for two reasons: first, I agree with you that psychology is the best measure of 'people skills' and second I do not write off the field of psychology as irrelevant.

 

[gettheleadout]

Reality is, in any specialty that involves patient contact, the three factors you listed--patient outcomes, minimized costs, and efficiency--all heavily depend upon what you call 'bedside manners'. Especially the first, since the desired outcome is maximized quality-of-life.

I disagree 100% with you here, but it is unlikely that either of us will change our minds.

I feel like we could pretty easily distinguish between "outcome" in the sense of treatment success and in the sense of patient satisfaction at the end of treatment.

 

[Autarkeia]

I disagree 100% with you here, but it is unlikely that either of us will change our minds.

I ignored this point for two reasons: first, I agree with you that psychology is the best measure of 'people skills' and second I do not write off the field of psychology as irrelevant.

Well, you're just wrong, and based on how you're wrong, my guess is you're pretty young and inexperienced. You'll mature though.

Since you claim to reopen to evidence (from psychology) that you're wrong, here you go:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19916659/

That said, I'll admit I overstated my position. The traditional metrics measure qualities that are necessary conditions for a good doctor. However, contra your view, they are not sufficient conditions.

 

[Autarkeia]

I feel like we could pretty easily distinguish between "outcome" in the sense of treatment success and in the sense of patient satisfaction at the end of treatment.

Really? In palliative, they're one and the same. The hard wedge most pre-meds drive between them is artificial, and thankfully, one medicine is starting to repudiate. Sit in on medical ethics board meetings sometime.

 

[aSagacious]

Well, you're just wrong, and based on how you're wrong, my guess is you're pretty young and inexperienced. You'll mature though.

I'm done here. Have a nice day. 🙄

 

[gettheleadout]

Really? In palliative, they're one and the same. The hard wedge most pre-meds drive between them is artificial, and thankfully, one medicine is starting to repudiate. Sit in on medical ethics board meetings sometime.

Condescension really helps get your point across. Good day.

 

[235009]

"As long as the science GPA is strong, it almost nullifies the MCAT," Price said.

of course she's going to say that since

the average MCAT score for VCOM admission is 24

....she has to justify admitting all those people who scored below the 50th percentile on the MCAT somehow ...and with grade replacement its just that much easier to artificially inflate GPAs

 

[kpcrew]

Well, you're just wrong, and based on how you're wrong, my guess is you're pretty young and inexperienced. You'll mature though.

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Autarkeia]

Condescension really helps get your point across. Good day.

I was not condescending to you, and if you perceived it that way, I suspect it was because of my response to the other individual.

The fact is, palliative and pathology make any hard relationship between the concepts of 'patient satisfaction' and 'patient outcome' very difficult to define. There's a continuum, and wherever there's a continuum, delineated concepts are elusive.

Perhaps my response seemed condescending thanks to the 'ethics committee' comment. If so, I apologize. I was short on time. My point was that the heady times of modernism in medicine are over, and the best place to see that is in a meeting of an ethics committee. Or, study the evolution of 'informed consent'.

[Edit: Or maybe you didn't like the 'repudiation' clause. In that case, take a look at Duke's brochure on medical admissions. So many medical schools are redefining their process because they have rejected the early 20th century model in favor of a 21st century model. The point is, keep up or get out, because times, they are a changin'.]

However, my guess is, you assumed condescension because I condescended to the other individual. How could I not? Do you understand that he/she is either exceedingly green or engaged in mental masturbation? How else could he/she maintain that bedside manner is unrelated to patient outcome? Good luck achieving good patient outcomes when your patient thinks you're a horrible human being...

 

[Autarkeia]

I'm done here. Have a nice day. 🙄

I like it. You ask for data and don't address it because you didn't like the delivery. How does it feel to have no integrity, contradicting your own position?

The funny thing is, you know you can't get into medical schools if you stick to your position. The question is, do you know your position is BS, or do you lack the integrity to stand by it when you apply?

 

[kpcrew]

pm from Autarkeia
"i'm glad i took a spot from someone like you because i'm so kewl you guys, i got into medical school nyah nyah"

 

[WorldChanger36]

I think this is a really good example of how each school is looking for different things. Yeah VCOM is a DO school so they do down play the MCAT more than MD schools but the average GPA to these schools isn't exactly on the floor. I think it shows if you want to get a lot of interviews at different schools you are better off with good GPA. ( 3.6 to 3.7).
Now in regards to the sGPA being a good predictor of medical school success, I have my doubts. I don't think anything undergrad could be a good predictor of medical school success. Only an SMP could be a strong predictor of medical school success, which is why SMPs exist.