What should I read to be "well-read"?

[Its_MurDAH]

The day before your interview look up comparisons and contrasts between the 3 major health systems in the world today: Canada, England, and the USA

That's all you really need.

Read the New Yorker once in a while if you ever get a chance. If not, forget it. No big deal. You don't have to go out there and buy a hundred books and throw away hundreds of dollars on pricey subscriptions to magazines and journals you are never going to read once you get into medical school. Most of the stuff people on here are talking about is really going overboard unless you are heavily into researching or are pursuing a PhD

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lilmissfickle]

You don't have to go out there and buy a hundred books and throw away hundreds of dollars on pricey subscriptions to magazines and journals you are never going to read once you get into medical school.

I would hope that one wouldn't stop reading the paper just because they got into medical school! Likewise, I expect my doctors to keep up on medical literature.

Keeping up on current events can seem intimidating once you start, because you lack a lot of the background info, but once you do get started, it's hard to go back to being ignorant -- once you're in the habit of knowing and caring what's going on in the world you start to get uneasy without your daily news fix.

That's why it's a good idea to get into the habit of talking politics regularly with your family or friends. It keeps you in the habit of being informed so you have something to talk about.

 

[Its_MurDAH]

I would hope that one wouldn't stop reading the paper just because they got into medical school! Likewise, I expect my doctors to keep up on medical literature.

Keeping up on current events can seem intimidating once you start, because you lack a lot of the background info, but once you do get started, it's hard to go back to being ignorant -- once you're in the habit of knowing and caring what's going on in the world you start to get uneasy without your daily news fix.

That's why it's a good idea to get into the habit of talking politics regularly with your family or friends. It keeps you in the habit of being informed so you have something to talk about.

Always re-read a person's post before replying to it. Especially if you are going to criticize it.

Nowhere in my post do I suggest to stop reading the paper once in medical school nor do I suggest that the OP should "go back to being ignorant" once accepted. My post simply referred to the flurry of posts about buying subscriptions to expensive journals and reading tons of books to be prepared for interview season. In my opinion, going to such lengths is a bit excessive and unnecessary. Reading a few articles online and talking with people will keep you just as up-to-date.

And of course you would expect your doctor to be up on his/her medical literature. The profession demands it. But who among us is a doctor yet?

 

[Uncle_Tbag]

JAMA is only $65 for a student, which includes print and online.

 

[lilmissfickle]

My post simply referred to the flurry of posts about buying subscriptions to expensive journals and reading tons of books to be prepared for interview season. In my opinion, going to such lengths is a bit excessive and unnecessary. Reading a few articles online and talking with people will keep you just as up-to-date.

And of course you would expect your doctor to be up on his/her medical literature. The profession demands it. But who among us is a doctor yet?

But my point was that I don't think it's a waste of time to start reading the economist or nature. It's not excessive or even expensive (if you're a university student, which most premeds are, it's free through your library), and I think reading books about the health care system, which as a doctor you would be working within, is a pretty good idea before you shell out the time, money, and effort for med school apps (akin to gaining clinical experience).

Also, I wouldn't rely on talking with others as an accurate source of information on current events.

I'd think the reason that adcoms ask questions about the healthcare system or current events is because they want to see that you take the initiative to inform yourself about what's going on around you, not because they want to see you jump through hoops.

 

[notdeadyet]

Interesting. This title should probably be changed from "What should I read to be 'well-read'" to "What should I read to impress adcoms".

For the latter, read a couple good books on health policy. A book on emerging trends and technology in healthcare is a good idea. A survey on bioethics would be smashing.

For the former, it's a long haul. If you're a typical premed who's taken mostly science classes and not broadened your horizons in reading before now, it ain't gonna happen before interview season. Becoming "well read" is something that requires an actual (i.e.: not-faked) love of literature and the written word.

You need a good sampling of the British canon (Marvel, Donne, etc.). You need some of the contemporary American ethnic literature that's been so good (Morrison, Silko, etc.). You need the latin american literature that's changed the way the world writes (Marquez, Vargas, etc.). You need some of the folks who've turned nonfiction into pleasure reading (Wolfe, Friedman, etc.) Ultimately, you need to read deep and wide and ignore lists that others make for you (including mine).

If you really want to be well-read, read what you love and then expand your horizons. But don't treat it like the MCAT. It's not a hoop you can jump through.

 

[prana_md]

What's a good national newspaper to read? I live in Alabama, so is the USA Today a good option, or is that just a bunch of crap? I suppose I could order the new york times. I really want to change my hobbies some from wasting time on the internet to spending more time learning .

Oh, sweet Jesus, put down the USA Today!

New York Times is awsome ... great health reporting. Free registration will get you most of the content on their web site:
http://www.nytimes.com

Los Angeles Times is also a great option, albeit a little lefty (hey, it's Cali). Free registration gets you in:
http://www.latimes.com

Washington Post is also fantastic. They discovered Watergate. Free reg:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Enjoy!

 

[prana_md]

When I worked as a journalist, we read (okay, peons like me skimmed, then got back to fact-checking) Right, Center, and Left every day: Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times. I know Panda will not be happy with this selection, but it's industry standard. I'm sure they have the same newspapers in the break room at the National Review.

 

[45408]

i subscribe to nature and sci-am. As several people have mentioned, sci-am is "kind-of" dumbed down but makes a good compromise between being scientifically precise and catering to the science laity.

Um, SciAm is dumbed down if you have a degree in that topic, but I frequently find myself in over my head in the physics/quantum computing types of articles. Sure, the biology stuff is cake when they're using analogies for DNA enzymes, but it's still fairly dense. I like it a lot though - I've got a subscription to Scientific American, GQ, and Road & Track.

 

[45408]

The economist being a little boring is an understatement.

Maybe they should put in some cartoons and jokes to make genocide a little funnier?

 

[thes_hunter]

for a nice sociological text with some v. cool historical insight on the field of medicine, check out paul starr's _the social transformation of american medicine_.

Just curious but was that a Dr. Peters-Golden Med anthro reading?

 

[Its_MurDAH]

But my point was that I don't think it's a waste of time to start reading the economist or nature. It's not excessive or even expensive (if you're a university student, which most premeds are, it's free through your library), and I think reading books about the health care system, which as a doctor you would be working within, is a pretty good idea before you shell out the time, money, and effort for med school apps (akin to gaining clinical experience).

Also, I wouldn't rely on talking with others as an accurate source of information on current events.

I'd think the reason that adcoms ask questions about the healthcare system or current events is because they want to see that you take the initiative to inform yourself about what's going on around you, not because they want to see you jump through hoops.

Man, you don't have to be an expert on healthcare subjects and know current events inside out by reading a million magazines and books. Have you even been to a med school interview yet? You just need to keep up with major happenings: something that you will be able to do if you aren't a zombie. This is where TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE comes in. Also, like I said in my earlier post, to know about our healthcare sytem just read about the three major ones and you will be all set. The adcoms don't expect you to be some sort of an authority on current events. By the way, if you go back and read the OP's post, he/she is applying this cycle and just wants to know what to do to get ready for interview season (read: they want a quick and dirty fix). It isn't a bad thing and I bet most pre-meds are in the same boat.

Anyway, to each their own. I was just stating my opinion.

Read on!

 

[prana_md]

Maybe they should put in some cartoons and jokes to make genocide a little funnier?

That's what the New Yorker does ... sometimes I'm reading along in some really heavy article and one of those funny little drawings appears in the margin and I think ...

 

[SeventhSon]

another thing i want to caution about, is that just because a publication is biased doesn't mean that it is garbage and you shouldn't read it.

e.g. Newsweek is blatantly leftist, and the writing is garbage
LA Times is blatantly leftist, and it is the best-written, most intelligent paper i have read.

Just make sure that when you are reading publications you ask questions and examine the authors' axioms and assumptions, and read news articles from numerous points of view to get a truly "fair and balanced" view of some national issue.

 

[thes_hunter]

at my NYU interview, this old bear of a microbiology professor started out our interview by plopping down the NY Times and asking me what I thought of the headline on the front page.

Wow, I wish my interviewers had done that. But then again I tend to be well informed about current events and therefore this would play to my strengths.

 

[Liz10185]

By the way, if you go back and read the OP's post, he/she is applying this cycle and just wants to know what to do to get ready for interview season (read: they want a quick and dirty fix).

err...

I guess from my post I sound like I'm trying to find a quick fix to learn everything in the world just for my interview. The interview is part of my concern, but of course I'm also looking at the big picture and the importance of being aware of what is happening in the world.

Wow I feel so ignorant A couple of people pointed out that this thread should be changed to "What should I read to appear to be well-read" but what I was trying to ask was "what should I read to keep up with current events, especially with the pressure of interviews coming up" (I do love reading and am a pretty avid reader- just nothing relating to history or politics or current affairs ) All of your suggestions have been great... got a subscription to the NY Times and am looking at other books/magazines you guys mentioned to see what interests me.

 

[topdogg82]

this question kinda reminds me of when people ask what courses they should take for the mcat biology, and you get varied opinions from just the basic intro classes to guys adamant that biochem and other high level classes are essential for success. honestly though, something in between was good enough, and similarly in this case, just reading some basic stuff on ethics/healthcare system to have a background is a great start. you dont suddenly need to get 5 different subscriptions to the economist, new yorker, NYT... to have good interviews IMO, and certainly even reading them is no guarantee. of course, reading them won't hurt you but its not like they're some type of requirement to be successful, so if you're not a big reader, you dont have to do a 180 and change your habits that drastically.

 

[45408]

I would agree with the post that said you should be aware of the US's, Canada's and England's healthcare systems, because that could easily come up.

 

[grapeflavorsoda]

Hi everyone-

I'm applying to med schools this summer and I'm already starting to get anxious about my interviews- I know embarrassingly little about what is going on in the world and in medicine. I've started reading the New York Times regularly, but I have gaps in my background knowledge of what is going on in politics, etc. Anyone have any suggestions for educating myself- like a "Current Events for Dummies" guide or something- lol. Also, any good magazines I should be looking at? Time? Newsweek?

I've also started reading Scientific American Mind, since I'm a neuroscience major. Is that considered a quality publication? Any other suggestions on the best (preferably not too lengthy) publications to keep abreast of what is going on in research, healthcare issues, etc.?

Thanks!

fine gentlemen's only magazine, playboy.

 

[notdeadyet]

Plug for my favorite website: Arts & Letters Daily , interesting articles of all topics selected from the web, updated daily.

GREAT website. Lots of variety.

 

[Thundrstorm]

I read the paper every morning on the train, and I read Nature just about every Friday afternoon (I fortunuately got it for free at the NIH), and I read a couple of dummed down articles online about our healthcare system, medicaid, and medicare. I also read a lot of fiction for pleasure, so if anyone had ever asked me what I was reading, I had an answer. Alas, no one did. I only had one conversation about ethics and all I really needed was common sense, not background knowledge. You should be informed of the world around you for your own good, but I wouldn't stress too much about "studying" for interviews. That being said, it is a good idea to read the paper every day, or atleast cnn.com (they even have a health section with medical news). That's just an important part of being a citizen of the world, and an adult. You could also make it a goal to read a certain number of books each month (nonfiction, new literature, classics, whatever), which would 1. make you feel more informed, 2. give you conversation pieces with interviewers and fellow interviewees (for instance, I had a great discussion during down-time at an interview about intelligent design, which I had been reading about in detail in Nature), and 3. might introduce you to new topics that you find interesting and can study in detail. For me, one topic that has nothing to do with my career goals, yet which I always find great books about is the Holocaust; so I have this whole collection of Holocaust memoirs, and I've had some very interesting discussions about the topic, and always have a section of the bookstore or library in mind when I just don't know what book to read next. Likewise, with books in infectious diseases, or travel writing. Reading regularly helps you to be a more well-rounded person, thus making you more interesting to talk to. (And better at Jeopardy ).

 

[cwb]

First off I was only grilled about medical issues in one of my interviews and it sucked. But one piece of advice is to be honest - if you don't know the answer respond but then say something like "I'm obviously not an expert on the subject and feel that one learns best by experience which is what I look forward to doing at med school)". I was actually told by my interviewer that often times this is used as a weed-out tactic to see which interviewees think they know everything and which are going to be willing to learn (remember your interviewer has an opinion and if you act like your answer is 100% right and they don't you just dug yourself a hole).

If you're doing it for knowledge talk to as many doctors as you can. This will help you with interviewing because you are able to better communicate the issues and most doctors are very opinionated and you get a million different viewpoints - much more fun and informative than sitting down reading some dry-ass article imo.

 

[gonzo9]

read the economist and you will be good to go

 

[TCIrish03]

Agreed. The National Review makes no bones about the fact that it is a conservative rag. The NYT at least pretends to be without bias.

Biased or not, the Times has gotten pretty unreadable. It's sad, because not long ago despite the bias it was still a great paper.

Nobody has mentioned Aristotle? Aquinas? Sophocles? Virgil? Bill Shakespeare (feel like improving your vocabulary)? I'm shocked

 

[Gabujabu]

Pick up "Second Opinions" by Dr. Jerome Groopman. Great read that highlights several case studies and pertinent issues to the medical world today. You could probably read it in a day if you really wanted!

Dr. Groopman is the type of doctor any one of us should aspire to be like!

Cool, I actually took a class with him a few years ago. Great guy.

 

[45408]

Interesting. This title should probably be changed from "What should I read to be 'well-read'" to "What should I read to impress adcoms".

For the latter, read a couple good books on health policy. A book on emerging trends and technology in healthcare is a good idea. A survey on bioethics would be smashing.

For the former, it's a long haul. If you're a typical premed who's taken mostly science classes and not broadened your horizons in reading before now, it ain't gonna happen before interview season. Becoming "well read" is something that requires an actual (i.e.: not-faked) love of literature and the written word.

You need a good sampling of the British canon (Marvel, Donne, etc.). You need some of the contemporary American ethnic literature that's been so good (Morrison, Silko, etc.). You need the latin american literature that's changed the way the world writes (Marquez, Vargas, etc.). You need some of the folks who've turned nonfiction into pleasure reading (Wolfe, Friedman, etc.) Ultimately, you need to read deep and wide and ignore lists that others make for you (including mine).

If you really want to be well-read, read what you love and then expand your horizons. But don't treat it like the MCAT. It's not a hoop you can jump through.

was this to show off how much you learned as an English major?

 

[Its_MurDAH]

was this to show off how much you learned as an English major?

for real

 

[LADoc00]

The Story of O by Reage. Quote it liberally in your interview process to really impress. Im completely serious, there is no other single book as motivational to young docs.

 

[Pemberley]

For the former, it's a long haul. If you're a typical premed who's taken mostly science classes and not broadened your horizons in reading before now, it ain't gonna happen before interview season. Becoming "well read" is something that requires an actual (i.e.: not-faked) love of literature and the written word.

And a few decades in which to indulge that love. A few decades subsequent to the med school / residency / fellowship decade when you'll be lucky to read anything longer than this post.

 

[notdeadyet]

was this to show off how much you learned as an English major?

Nah. I just find it amusing that so many pre-meds assume that everything can be done in pre-med fashion. Checklist style. Things you need to be done with before you apply to med school.

1 year w/lab for Bio/Chem/OChem/Phys? Check. 100 hours clinical? Check. 100 hours nonmed volunteering? Check? 6 months research assistant? Check.

You can't take this approach for reading. You can't do the pre-med thing very well for the liberal arts. Just doesn't work. Typical science majors may outscore us liberal arts types on the MCAT by a few points, but when it comes to talking books and whatnot, it'll be our turn.... ;-)

 

[EBI831]

please don't read such books. read what you find interesting. i'm sure adcoms don't want to have the same interview over and over with ppl regurgitating info from the same 5 books. as for current events, i agree with the consensus: CNN/ yahoo whatev(even tabloids hahha). and you don't have to be well read if you're well spoken ie if you are good with your b.s. and you know enough background and current events(no need to spew mindless facts). also no matter how much you read and how gripping the book was, if you don't know what the heck it means beyond what everyone else says then you don't seem well read you just seem like a poser who read a book because it looked good to do so. i highly doubt adcoms want to hear that your favorite book is the complex cavities of the human body or some other b.s.; i'm yawning just thinking about it. OP read what makes you happy and watch the news/read the news.

 

[astrolux]

You asked what to read to be "well-read." Go with LITERATURE. Please. Other than that, screw reading, watch the Daily Show.

 

[Its_MurDAH]

//dbl post//

 

[Its_MurDAH]

please don't read such books. read what you find interesting. i'm sure adcoms don't want to have the same interview over and over with ppl regurgitating info from the same 5 books. as for current events, i agree with the consensus: CNN/ yahoo whatev(even tabloids hahha). and you don't have to be well read if you're well spoken ie if you are good with your b.s. and you know enough background and current events(no need to spew mindless facts). also no matter how much you read and how gripping the book was, if you don't know what the heck it means beyond what everyone else says then you don't seem well read you just seem like a poser who read a book because it looked good to do so. i highly doubt adcoms want to hear that your favorite book is the complex cavities of the human body or some other b.s.; i'm yawning just thinking about it. OP read what makes you happy and watch the news/read the news.

Your entire post reads like one long sentence.

 

[notdeadyet]

You asked what to read to be "well-read." Go with LITERATURE. Please. Other than that, screw reading, watch the Daily Show.

Amen. Hard to beat the Daily Show. Best thing on TV...

 

[EBI831]

Its_Murdah--i was not aware that i was writing for a grade. But since we are here's a statement: When posting on SDN, it is imperative that you use superb grammar and punctuation in order for your message to be understood. (1) say what the statement means, (2)provide a counterexample, and (3)specify times when each applies.

 

[8744]

lol dude of course he's kidding.

Why would I be kidding? The trouble is with the New York Times (and other organs of the Left like NPR) is that its editors and writers have internalized their liberalism to the point where they don't even recognize their bias. I'm sure every writer in the paper's stable believes that they are objective and don't put their own slant into the news but it is exceedingly easy to pick out the the assumptions and core beliefs of the writers of every story, even those which should be "hard news."

You're never, for example, going to see any story in the New York Times that gives any credence to the conservative point of view. The pro-gun, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, low-tax, and pro-war point of view does not exist for the New York Times and most of the liberal press except as the philosophy of little inbred enclaves in the hollows of Arkansas.

Many of you on SDN also have internalized your liberalism and are also incapable of seeing any other point of view. This is probably because your have spent your entire educational lives in one liberal enclave or another where the leftist orthodoxy is neither challenged nor defended.

Conservatism, on the other hand, is always under attack and so most politically active conservatives understand the foundations of their beliefs.

This explains why you can still find die-hard proponents of communism in academia. Like most religions, leftism is accepted on faith often in direct contradiction of objective evidence. The college communists believes in Marxism on an emotional level despite the evidence of the last eighty years of the disaster that communism has been.

So if you want to be well-read, you'll read things that offer you insight into the way things are, not the way somebody wishes they would be. Reading the New York Times or its ilk will just train you to regurgitate the usual pap that you're going to vomit up anyways on your interviews because you're already indoctrinated in it.

As for literature...well...read real books. Eschew the crap. It goes without saying that reading something like the Da Vinci Code which I started and stopped after the first five pages because the writing was truly awful (I think there where fifty italicized French words in the first chapter) is a waste of time and will leave you less literate than when you started it.

 

[8744]

Oh, and avoid "Ethnic Literature." If Maya Angelou were white she'd be just another fifth-rate poet working at the some government job. You may have to grin and shuck and pretend to like political correctness but I don't think your Director of Diversity (or whatever the position is called at your school) has agents at Barnes and Nobles.

This doesn't mean that you shouldn't read translations of other country's authors, just that if all they talk about is race you might as well save the car-fare as you are probably already stuffed to the gills with more race-knowledge than you really need or is good for you.

Give that sort of thing a rest and expand your mind to other subjects.

 

[Zoom-Zoom]

Phil/Poli Sci: Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem.
Phil: Aristotle's Categories, Nietzche's The Birth of Tragedy or Thus Spoke Zarathustra (kind of cliche but I think still important).
Other: Jared Diamond is a pretty good name to drop and interesting too.

 

[MossPoh]

Typical science majors may outscore us liberal arts types on the MCAT by a few points, but when it comes to talking books and whatnot, it'll be our turn.... ;-)

I've actually seen somewhere that *suppossedly* liberal arts people (that have taken the premed courses of course) tend to do better on the MCAT...I think it was like a princeton review book or something. Stuff like that is kind of hard to prove either way though.

 

[MossPoh]

The economist being a little boring is an understatement.

I bought one in London because I was tired of reading German stuff and I surprisingly really enjoyed it.lol I mean there were tangents about obscure stuff all of 15 people in the entire world care about but other than that it wasn't that bad...but I think the fact I am forced to read german feminist lit this semester makes everything seem more exciting...

Obviously I am working backwards through the thread.lol

Panda ..You seem like a very Fox News type person. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and pretty much everyone is spoon fed their opinions before hand to some degree. As far as ethnic arts and Maya Angelou..well Inaugural Poem is pretty darn good. The likes of Fatih Akin (doubt most of you know him), Spike Lee have done huge things for film. Langston Hughes, Jessie Fauset are better than a large majority of poets, regardless of race around. MLK Jr. wrote and gave more moving speeches than anything I have heard in recent days conservative or liberal. Pretty much every area of modern music has been or is influenced by the works of blacks, arabs, hispanics asians and whatever group I have left off. Being conservative is fine...there are conservatives in every ethnic group..albeit some dominate a bit more than others. Dislike of an author and saying they are only popular because they are a minority is more than a bit racist. Being racist and being conservative don't have to go together. This "if you aren't with us, then you are against us" mentality has to really end...I have voted for democrats and I have voted for republicans. Most people are moderate with a slight lean towards the right or the left. Both sides get so hellbent on stuff they fail to see the people in the middle that just want compromise. It is a lot easier to scream "YES" and "NO" at each other than to sit there in the middle and scream "BE REASONABLE".....

 

[notdeadyet]

Oh, and avoid "Ethnic Literature."

No reply to that, I just find it fun to look at. It must be a keeper since folks in academia have been saying it in one form or another for hundreds of years around the world.

 

[Its_MurDAH]

Why would I be kidding? The trouble is with the New York Times (and other organs of the Left like NPR) is that its editors and writers have internalized their liberalism to the point where they don't even recognize their bias. I'm sure every writer in the paper's stable believes that they are objective and don't put their own slant into the news but it is exceedingly easy to pick out the the assumptions and core beliefs of the writers of every story, even those which should be "hard news."

You're never, for example, going to see any story in the New York Times that gives any credence to the conservative point of view. The pro-gun, pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, low-tax, and pro-war point of view does not exist for the New York Times and most of the liberal press except as the philosophy of little inbred enclaves in the hollows of Arkansas.

Many of you on SDN also have internalized your liberalism and are also incapable of seeing any other point of view. This is probably because your have spent your entire educational lives in one liberal enclave or another where the leftist orthodoxy is neither challenged nor defended.

Conservatism, on the other hand, is always under attack and so most politically active conservatives understand the foundations of their beliefs.

This explains why you can still find die-hard proponents of communism in academia. Like most religions, leftism is accepted on faith often in direct contradiction of objective evidence. The college communists believes in Marxism on an emotional level despite the evidence of the last eighty years of the disaster that communism has been.

So if you want to be well-read, you'll read things that offer you insight into the way things are, not the way somebody wishes they would be. Reading the New York Times or its ilk will just train you to regurgitate the usual pap that you're going to vomit up anyways on your interviews because you're already indoctrinated in it.

As for literature...well...read real books. Eschew the crap. It goes without saying that reading something like the Da Vinci Code which I started and stopped after the first five pages because the writing was truly awful (I think there where fifty italicized French words in the first chapter) is a waste of time and will leave you less literate than when you started it.

wow you are so smart!!
and witty and cool and intellectual...

I want to be a badass just like you!

 

[notdeadyet]

Conservatism, on the other hand, is always under attack

Hee-hee.... This post is even better than your perfect Personal Statement post. I love it.

Conservatives own the presidency, congress and the supreme court. The executive, the legislative, the judicial. In other words: every branch of the U.S. government.

"Under attack"? Cry me a river. the democrats would LOVE to be so under attack.

 

[GWmdwannabe]

at my NYU interview, this old bear of a microbiology professor started out our interview by plopping down the NY Times and asking me what I thought of the headline on the front page.

What was the headline?

 

[Pose]

I sorta enjoy the Economist, and I sorta enjoy NEJM. Journal Watch is pretty lovely.

Although, I can't say I'd recommend subscribing to either to become well-read, or quickly "catch up" in an attempt to become well-rounded in your reading. I read selected articles because they're interesting -- many of the things are over my head, or simply boring. One option is to subscribe to table of contents, and order individual publications.

But hey, that Arts & Letters website is pretty damn cool.

 

[Writer1985]

You could get a free online subscription to a national paper (I have the WP, many other papers would have the same deal, I'm sure), or a print subscription if you have the money.

My preferred source for news, however, is Google News. It pulls articles from all the major news agencies, including some foreign ones. Let's you see how different places cover the same "objective reality."

 

[LizzyM]

You asked what to read to be "well-read." Go with LITERATURE. Please. Other than that, screw reading, watch the Daily Show.

Read beyond the headline and you'll see that the OP wanted to know what to read to keep up on current events. Reading LITERATURE isn't going to help in that regard and aside from the Governor of Illinois who appeared on the Daily Show not knowing that it was a comedy show ( and he's a relatively young guy), it might be entertaining but not be best way to keep up on current events.

Get into the habit of reading something (online or paper) for at least a few minutes every day. It may be hard to follow for the first few weeks but eventually you'll be able to skim, scan and keep up with your favorite topics with a minimum of effort.

The main point is that when you get asked about a current event (such as a bill in the California Legislature to legalize assisted suicide - if you are from California) that you don't draw a blank.

 

[Brainsucker]

Read Complications by Atul Gawande. Everyone I know who ever read it loved it. A lot of it is plain fun, but he writes on quite a few issues in medicine that you might get asked about. Good background and good fun, what could be better?

 

[8744]

Hee-hee.... This post is even better than your perfect Personal Statement post. I love it.

Conservatives own the presidency, congress and the supreme court. The executive, the legislative, the judicial. In other words: every branch of the U.S. government.

"Under attack"? Cry me a river. the democrats would LOVE to be so under attack.

I of course mean in the media and academia. Still, with talk-radio and the internet it's a lot easier for the conservative point-of-view to be heard than it was formerly, especially when I was younger.