Which premed activity was your least favorite?

[sharkbyte]

Agree that shadowing was great. I got to shadow an orthopedic surgeon and witness some cool surgeries. Studying for the MCAT was decidedly not fun at all.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Not that I have any good ideas for better alternatives.

Biggest alternative that can remove many of the issues is to make things more standardized.

Several ways to do this

1) De-emphasize the role of "GPA" in admission. Replace the weight GPA is given by having more "Standardized " exams in various sciences. It is pretty clear the MCAT is better at predicting medical school success than the GPA(although both arent good). The biggest reason you often hear about why we limit the weight of the MCAT is because its only one test. Well increase the number of standardized tests. Just like we have in high school with the SAT Subject Tests and AP exams. For a certain amount of "pre-req" classes have standardized exams at teh end of the year(or throughout the year whatever strategy you want). Make everybody in the country take the same test. This way you can actually see how much someone has really mastered material. Have different subjects test different skills. If the MCAT tests critical reasoning and working memory, maybe have a standardized biochem or anatomy test that focuses mostly on if you can memorize massive amounts of information. If we can do all this for high school with gazillions of AP tests and SAT subject tests, we can do something similar to this. This will do alot to remove all the unecessary subjectivity in "accounting for rigor of UG" "accounting for major" etc.

2) Value easily verifiable and translateable skills and experiences. Value language speaking skills. Value publications. Value specific experiences(ie Americorps, Peace Corps). Value research awards. Value specific clinical skills or experience(ie certain skills learned in someone who has a job in a hospital). If someone wants to show they volunteer and make a big impact in their community, value specific things like "being on an executive board of a non profit" or "raising X amount of money for their community". The more concrete the things you are valuing, the less "gamesmanship" goes on. In many ways, for as laughably flawed as UG Admission is this is alot of how it works. Those at the top schools in many cases have clear awards, or national recognition often in the areas they are interested in. Just saying you "volunteered 500 hours" to show how great a person you are and why you should be admitted doesnt fly at all with the top UG schools. Instead of having rules like "If you dont have X hours of shadowing itll hurt you alot" or "without volunteering your application is toast" value impact and value specific assets, skills and awards etc.

And if we do 1) then that means by people only having to focus on specific tests they have alot more time to work on 2) and less time on tedious class projects and HW etc. Those who have the skills and ability to stand out will in a clear way in many cases.

 

[eteshoe]

Biggest alternative that can remove many of the issues is to make things more standardized.

Several ways to do this

1) De-emphasize the role of "GPA" in admission. Replace the weight GPA is given by having more "Standardized " exams in various sciences. It is pretty clear the MCAT is better at predicting medical school success than the GPA(although both arent good). The biggest reason you often hear about why we limit the weight of the MCAT is because its only one test. Well increase the number of standardized tests. Just like we have in high school with the SAT Subject Tests and AP exams. For a certain amount of "pre-req" classes have standardized exams at teh end of the year(or throughout the year whatever strategy you want). Make everybody in the country take the same test. This way you can actually see how much someone has really mastered material. Have different subjects test different skills. If the MCAT tests critical reasoning and working memory, maybe have a standardized biochem or anatomy test that focuses mostly on if you can memorize massive amounts of information. If we can do all this for high school with gazillions of AP tests and SAT subject tests, we can do something similar to this. This will do alot to remove all the unecessary subjectivity in "accounting for rigor of UG" "accounting for major" etc....

They already have these - the ACS (American Chemical Society) standardized exams. Any school that has an ACS accredited chemistry degree usually has to pass all the various subtopics - well at least that was the case at my school.

 

[efle]

1) De-emphasize the role of "GPA" in admission. Replace the weight GPA is given by having more "Standardized " exams in various sciences. It is pretty clear the MCAT is better at predicting medical school success than the GPA(although both arent good). The biggest reason you often hear about why we limit the weight of the MCAT is because its only one test. Well increase the number of standardized tests. Just like we have in high school with the SAT Subject Tests and AP exams. For a certain amount of "pre-req" classes have standardized exams at teh end of the year(or throughout the year whatever strategy you want). Make everybody in the country take the same test. This way you can actually see how much someone has really mastered material. Have different subjects test different skills. If the MCAT tests critical reasoning and working memory, maybe have a standardized biochem or anatomy test that focuses mostly on if you can memorize massive amounts of information. If we can do all this for high school with gazillions of AP tests and SAT subject tests, we can do something similar to this. This will do alot to remove all the unecessary subjectivity in "accounting for rigor of UG" "accounting for major" etc.

Don't some schools proctor the ACS exam and award grades by performance on that? Does seem possible to standardize...

2) Value easily verifiable and translateable skills and experiences. Value language speaking skills. Value publications. Value specific experiences(ie Americorps, Peace Corps). Value research awards. Value specific clinical skills or experience(ie certain skills learned in someone who has a job in a hospital). If someone wants to show they volunteer and make a big impact in their community, value specific things like "being on an executive board of a non profit" or "raising X amount of money for their community". The more concrete the things you are valuing, the less "gamesmanship" goes on. In many ways, for as laughably flawed as UG Admission is this is alot of how it works. Those at the top schools in many cases have clear awards, or national recognition often in the areas they are interested in. Just saying you "volunteered 500 hours" to show how great a person you are and why you should be admitted doesnt fly at all with the top UG schools. Instead of having rules like "If you dont have X hours of shadowing itll hurt you alot" or "without volunteering your application is toast" value impact and value specific assets, skills and awards etc.

This would certainly select for self-starters but excludes a lot of great, but not specially recognized volunteerism. For example my roomie tutors patients at the children's hospital, there's no room there for national recognition or fund raising or exec positions etc, but it is meaningful I think. Thing is, someone who hates children and hates teaching and has a heart two sizes too small could easily fool the system. There's no good way to actually check a person's motivation or whether they enjoyed what they did, as long as they are convincing in interviews. You can select for high impact but not for real altruism.

 

[GrapesofRath]

They already have these - the ACS (American Chemical Society) standardized exams. Any school that has an ACS accredited chemistry degree usually has to pass all the various subtopics - well at least that was the case at my school.

Yep i was just about to say but that post was getting too long. Although I've never seen the test and obviously you would have to vet it to a fair extent to make it so it test types of skills and abilities most relevant to medical school and medicine. It'd take a lot of effort but it would be well spent IMO

 

[efle]

They already have these - the ACS (American Chemical Society) standardized exams. Any school that has an ACS accredited chemistry degree usually has to pass all the various subtopics - well at least that was the case at my school.

So why isn't this spreading! You'd think there would be demand for a standard metric. Very useful to know someone is competent against a national standard, rather than good enough for some certain professor at some certain college

 

[Lawpy]

1) De-emphasize the role of "GPA" in admission. Replace the weight GPA is given by having more "Standardized " exams in various sciences. It is pretty clear the MCAT is better at predicting medical school success than the GPA(although both arent good). The biggest reason you often hear about why we limit the weight of the MCAT is because its only one test. Well increase the number of standardized tests. Just like we have in high school with the SAT Subject Tests and AP exams. For a certain amount of "pre-req" classes have standardized exams at teh end of the year(or throughout the year whatever strategy you want). Make everybody in the country take the same test. This way you can actually see how much someone has really mastered material. Have different subjects test different skills. If the MCAT tests critical reasoning and working memory, maybe have a standardized biochem or anatomy test that focuses mostly on if you can memorize massive amounts of information. If we can do all this for high school with gazillions of AP tests and SAT subject tests, we can do something similar to this. This will do alot to remove all the unecessary subjectivity in "accounting for rigor of UG" "accounting for major" etc.

I could see the MCAT medians shooting off the charts with this approach. As if things weren't already stressful as they currently are.

So why isn't this spreading! You'd think there would be demand for a standard metric. Very useful to know someone is competent against a national standard, rather than good enough for some certain professor at some certain college

Standardizing intro courses would make sense to reinforce the weedouts. Kinda useless to standardize the upper level courses (especially in engineering/physics/math/philosophy/humanities) that are inherently so difficult.

 

[Sgucci]

Interviewing at medical schools. Nothing is worse than a dragged out day of smoke and mirrors, lofty idealism, and the chance that a simple miscommunication (even if you clarify) or bs assumption on the interviewer's part could lead to your downfall. Add in the hellish flights, unpredictable nature of air travel, and long waits post-interview, there's nothing to like about this.

 

[GrapesofRath]

Don't some schools proctor the ACS exam and award grades by performance on that? Does seem possible to standardize...


This would certainly select for self-starters but excludes a lot of great, but not specially recognized volunteerism. For example my roomie tutors patients at the children's hospital, there's no room there for national recognition or fund raising or exec positions etc, but it is meaningful I think. Thing is, someone who hates children and hates teaching and has a heart two sizes too small could easily fool the system. There's no good way to actually check a person's motivation or whether they enjoyed what they did, as long as they are convincing in interviews. You can select for high impact but not for real altruism.

You alluded to this but the thing is none of the problems with lesser scale volunteering you are talking about are really resolved with the current system. We still cant really measure "Altruism" past a certain point like you said.

To me I think a bigger focus should be on "accountability" and "proven ability to take on significant responsibility" an applicant has shown more than that vague term of altruism. That is what separates so many come MS3/4 residency and beyond.

The biggest problem with volunteering in so many cases is the complete lack of accountability and responsibility youre given. In many cases completely non stressful environment, you have lots of freedom in what you can do and if you dont want to do something not to do it etc. There is a difference between being truly altruistic when you have no pressure or responsibility and when you are under stress and have lots of responsibility and medicine is all about the latter not the former.

That's why when I really think altruism in many ways it's with Americorps activities and to some extent even employment. Working in a hospital(ie as a CNA) and working with patients nobody else wants to, working in a job for people that nobody else wants to even if it's not clinical; that to me is a more relevant form of altruism and showing service in ways that many arent willing to. And the types of thing I was talking about, organizing fund raising, doing specific things in a community that can be measured, IMO are often a greater sign of true altruism and sacrifice and interest to others than just a generic hospital volunteer gig. They just also happen to show far more "accountability" and "ability to handle responsibility".

As much as anything I think trying to predict who is most likely to be "accountable" as a MS3/4 and resident and most likely to survive the stress/pressure the best is what really should be a major focus, not necessairly this idea of "altruism".

 

[eteshoe]

I could see the MCAT medians shooting off the charts with this approach. As if things weren't already stressful as they currently are.



Standardizing intro courses would make sense to reinforce the weedouts. Kinda useless to standardize the upper level courses (especially in engineering/physics/math/philosophy/humanities) that are inherently so difficult.

They do have standardized exams for engineering (Fundamentals of Engineering - sucked but hey what can you expect from an 8 hr exam) and math (can't remember the name)

So why isn't this spreading! You'd think there would be demand for a standard metric. Very useful to know someone is competent against a national standard, rather than good enough for some certain professor at some certain college

It's really popular on the chemistry side to compare the strength of each program against the national average. The exams really suck (at least the quantum chem and biochem) though so it might not be popular enough to be wide spread.

 

[MoDiddy]

So far, the Post-test anxiety isn't fun

 

[Ho0v-man]

Secondaries. Nothing quite so soul-sucking as to write a bunch of essays that no one is ever going to read and then pay $100 just for someone to send you a standardized email that essentially reads:

"After careful consideration and confirmation that your check has cleared, we've decided not to waste our time talking to you in person. However, you have proven that you do indeed enjoy setting your money on fire. Please consider applying for our $30,000 post-bacc program. It's just like being in medical school, but you don't get to be a doctor at the end. Wouldn't that be cool?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lucca]

I agree with @efle in that I reflexively dislike the "premed game". If I had it my way nobody could be pre anything and everyone would just go to college. However I disagree on that studying for the MCAT blew. Waiting for the score is lame but does not suck as bad as preparing for it and taking it.

I would be all for a subset of standardized exams for the pre-reqs like @GrapesofRath suggested only if they are considered P/F. If we had to study to try to score in the 90th + %ile just to be competitive on more than one standardized exam i think I would go insane. I understand that there are 1 million more standardized exams in medicine but that's not the point, the point is fighting credentialism and useless metric pushing

 

[21Rush12]

I really didn't hate any of it, although I would do some things differently if I had had some knowledge during high school about the process or level of competition. I wish I had done a degree in something easy like French and just did prerequisites during elective times...would have made for a better cGPA.

I also really dislike the BSing that seems almost required to make it. Every one of the premed students that I met in UG were always talking up how great they were trying to impress people. Mix that with the "I'm doing this to look good" kind of people that seem to show up to check boxes volunteering instead of actually wanting to help people and I'd say those are the worst aspects of premed.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I agree with @efle in that I reflexively dislike the "premed game". If I had it my way nobody could be pre anything and everyone would just go to college. However I disagree on that studying for the MCAT blew. Waiting for the score is lame but does not suck as bad as preparing for it and taking it.

I would be all for a subset of standardized exams for the pre-reqs like @GrapesofRath suggested only if they are considered P/F. If we had to study to try to score in the 90th + %ile just to be competitive on more than one standardized exam i think I would go insane. I understand that there are 1 million more standardized exams in medicine but that's not the point, the point is fighting credentialism and useless metric pushing

As you kinda alluded to, the problem is "metric pushing" never really goes away even once medical school begins. Alot of residency programs set really high Step 1 screen out scores. I get people's objection to "numbers pushing" but there's a reason it exists. The best predictor of high end matches is a high Step 1 score. The best predictor of a high Step 1 score is a high MCAT score. So if you want to call metric pushing "useless", I get it and that's fine, but for what medical schools want/are interested in, it's really not useless. It's one thing when a top school focuses heavily on the difference between a 41 vs 37 which I think we all roll our eyes at, but by and large the numbers obsession exists for a reason.

Basically what's the point of making standardized exams like this P/F? If you Pass it says nothing and it doesnt show that even if you got a lower grade that you actually knew the material well. The point was to try to make more ways of comparing applicants and not overly relying on one MCAT score. In many ways, if you take a number of exams you dont have to hit 90th+ percentile on each; it's about trends and your overall performance. Me personally, if I could have simply had to study for a standardized exam or two per class instead of professor written midterms and tedious assignments with no value, I would gladly choose the former and I think it helps evaluate an applicant much better in comparison to their peers.

 

[tunicaexterna]

the mcat. studying for it, taking the test and waiting for the score.

 

[Glandzburg]

Entering my credit card info into AMCAS and ponying up that dough.

 

[Person1345]

Looking back on it, I have no idea why we had to shadow. Imagine if you are applying for real person jobs, and you listed that you shadowed a programmer or banker or accountant.

Known as an internship...be happy shadowing isn't competitive like an IB summer gig

Ah, but the distinction being that my IB friends earned $10K for a 3 month summer analyst job in NYC

 

[GrapesofRath]

Ah, but the distinction being that my IB friends earned $10K for a 3 month summer analyst job in NYC

10? Ive seen 20-22k being made in 10-12 week IB internship gigs.

 

[Person1345]

10? Ive seen 20-22k being made in 10-12 week IB internship gigs.

Thus further proving our point

 

[Lucca]

As you kinda alluded to, the problem is "metric pushing" never really goes away even once medical school begins. The reason why top med schools are often numbers ****** is because these schools are heavily focused on their match lists and getting those top matches in the greatest quantity they can. The best predictor of such matches is a high Step 1 score. The best predictor of a high Step 1 score is a high MCAT score. So if you want to call metric pushing "useless", I get it and that's fine, but for what medical schools want/are interested in, it's really not useless. It's one thing when a top school focuses heavily on the difference between a 41 vs 37 which I think we all roll our eyes at, but by and large the numbers obsession exists for a reason.

Basically what's the point of making standardized exams like this P/F? If you Pass it says nothing and it doesnt show that even if you got a lower grade that you actually knew the material well. The point was to try to make more ways of comparing applicants and not overly relying on one MCAT score. In many ways, if you take a number of exams you dont have to hit 90th+ percentile on each; it's about trends and your overall performance. Me personally, if I could have simply had to study for a standardized exam or two per class instead of professor written midterms and tedious assignments with no value, I would gladly choose the former and I think it helps evaluate an applicant much better in comparison to their peers.

See you are betraying the bias we all have about standardized exams in this very post. Maybe because we are the no child left behind generation. P/f doesn't have to mean that passing doesn't mean anything. If you want s high bar, then set the bar high. If you say "jump" then I will say "how high". But the truth is that with all of these metrics they are useful up to a point. I agree with what you say about medical schools having certain incentives and goals that lead them to care about these metrics. I call them useless because I understand that, like all standardized metrics, they are predictive of something useful up to a point and then there are diminishing returns. I don't care what medical schools care about. I know what they ought to care about: figure out the way to train the best physicians possible. If evidence and experience suggest that means putting the pass bar for the biochemistry national exam at 90%ile then so be it but let's not kid ourselves and say that there is truly a meaningful difference between whatever would be the equivalent of a 37 and 41 MCAT score.

Tl;dr. The bar doesn't have to be low. It can be high, but focusing too much on metrics can detract from the qualities that we all defend to be more important for physicians to have. If we keep this same system and complain about doctors lacking this or that then what a joke evidence based anything is.

 

[Lawpy]

They do have standardized exams for engineering (Fundamentals of Engineering - sucked but hey what can you expect from an 8 hr exam) and math (can't remember the name)

Yes for intro-level courses. Standardized tests help reinforce weedout in this regard. However, they are meaningless for upper levels, because these courses are inherently very difficult.

See you are betraying the bias we all have about standardized exams in this very post. Maybe because we are the no child left behind generation. P/f doesn't have to mean that passing doesn't mean anything. If you want s high bar, then set the bar high. If you say "jump" then I will say "how high". But the truth is that with all of these metrics they are useful up to a point. I agree with what you say about medical schools having certain incentives and goals that lead them to care about these metrics. I call them useless because I understand that, like all standardized metrics, they are predictive of something useful up to a point and then there are diminishing returns. I don't care what medical schools care about. I know what they ought to care about: figure out the way to train the best physicians possible. If evidence and experience suggest that means putting the pass bar for the biochemistry national exam at 90%ile then so be it but let's not kid ourselves and say that there is truly a meaningful difference between whatever would be the equivalent of a 37 and 41 MCAT score.

Tl;dr. The bar doesn't have to be low. It can be high, but focusing too much on metrics can detract from the qualities that we all defend to be more important for physicians to have. If we keep this same system and complain about doctors lacking this or that then what a joke evidence based anything is.

A pass/fail standardized system with pass being set at 70th percentile would be very nice.

 

[iqe2010]

Reading these kinds of threads make me feel so lazy lol.

I hope working as an EMT can make up for a lack of shadowing & volunteering.

I could never see myself doing meaningless tasks like pushing wheelchairs and stocking shelves.

However, I do feel I need to get some good shadowing under my belt before I apply.

 

[Lucca]

Yes for intro-level courses. Standardized tests help reinforce weedout in this regard. However, they are meaningless for upper levels, because these courses are inherently very difficult.



A pass/fail standardized system with pass being set at 70th percentile would be very nice.

It seems to me that schools want to set the bar at 80th %ile in terms of MCAT score so I'd be happy with that as a realistic target. I'm sure national subject exams could be designed around similar targets or something

 

[GrapesofRath]

See you are betraying the bias we all have about standardized exams in this very post. Maybe because we are the no child left behind generation. P/f doesn't have to mean that passing doesn't mean anything. If you want s high bar, then set the bar high. If you say "jump" then I will say "how high". But the truth is that with all of these metrics they are useful up to a point. I agree with what you say about medical schools having certain incentives and goals that lead them to care about these metrics. I call them useless because I understand that, like all standardized metrics, they are predictive of something useful up to a point and then there are diminishing returns. I don't care what medical schools care about. I know what they ought to care about: figure out the way to train the best physicians possible. If evidence and experience suggest that means putting the pass bar for the biochemistry national exam at 90%ile then so be it but let's not kid ourselves and say that there is truly a meaningful difference between whatever would be the equivalent of a 37 and 41 MCAT score.

Tl;dr. The bar doesn't have to be low. It can be high, but focusing too much on metrics can detract from the qualities that we all defend to be more important for physicians to have. If we keep this same system and complain about doctors lacking this or that then what a joke evidence based anything is.

Yeah I get what you're saying but I think you missed the point. This really wasnt about replacing the weight of ECs with more standardized tests. This was more about replacing the weight GPA is given with additional standardized tests to really measure mastery of the material objectively while keeping the same focus on ECs and the other soft factors. As is, we already place a ton of weight in GPA in the current system. Might as well go about a better way of measuring academic performance comparing each applicant to the entire pool.

Unfortunately the whole "37 vs 41" thing comes down to what is best for an individual medical school vs medicine in general. The two things are not equivalent as often as we like to think on many issues. As LizzyM has said in the past, as long as those US News and other types of rankings exist, the desire to ***** out for the 520+ scores isnt going anywhere. The alternate universe where top schools routinely take the 31's and 32's of the world provides no simple way of objectively proving yourself to be a top school which simply isnt a world individual schools want to live in .

 

[Lawpy]

Reading these kinds of threads make me feel so lazy lol.

I hope working as an EMT can make up for a lack of shadowing & volunteering.

I could never see myself doing meaningless tasks like pushing wheelchairs and stocking shelves.

However, I do feel I need to get some good shadowing under my belt before I apply.

Rather than feeling compelled to do something, just use this whole "checklist" as a simple guide to understand and appreciate medicine at various levels. I look at pushing wheelchairs, stocking shelves and other chores as ability to contribute to teamwork and streamline efficiency. I mean someone has to do it right?

Just my 0.02

It seems to me that schools want to set the bar at 80th %ile in terms of MCAT score so I'd be happy with that as a realistic target. I'm sure national subject exams could be designed around similar targets or something

Oh i was just referring to standardized tests in general, not just the MCAT. 80th percentile seemed a tad high but reasonable.

 

[Spinach Dip]

A pass/fail standardized system with pass being set at 70th percentile would be very nice.

It seems to me that schools want to set the bar at 80th %ile in terms of MCAT score so I'd be happy with that as a realistic target. I'm sure national subject exams could be designed around similar targets or something

Perhaps a simplified percentile score would be better? (Say, rounding to the nearest 10? So final scores would be ie 100, 90, 80, 70, etc...)



I can imagine a world where 80% of premeds who finish biochem FAIL the final exam, and that is a world I don't want to live in.

 

[Lucca]

Yeah I get what you're saying but I think you missed the point. This really wasnt about replacing the weight of ECs with more standardized tests. This was more about replacing the weight GPA is given with additional standardized tests to really measure mastery of the material objectively while keeping the same focus on ECs and the other soft factors. As is, we already place a ton of weight in GPA in the current system. Might as well go about a better way of measuring academic performance comparing each applicant to the entire pool.

Unfortunately the whole "37 vs 41" thing comes down to what is best for an individual medical school vs medicine in general. The two things are not equivalent as often as we like to think on many issues. As LizzyM has said in the past, as long as those US News and other types of rankings exist, the desire to ***** out for the 520+ scores isnt going anywhere.

I guess we have different philosophies towards academic metrics. Yours is probably more reasonable given the current admissions system we have. I like to imagine a system where a box pops up and says "this person is good enough to go to medical school on academic terms alone" and then we spend the rest of our energy sorting out what they as individuals could bring to the medical school. Everyone else just gets told not to bother applying until such a time when they are eligible. Someone scoring 10 points higher on step 1, 1 more Derm match, 1 more AOA student, etc, none of that honestly matters to me as a patient or as a citizen but I can understand why medical students and schools care.

I think the whole ranking thing is a real shame. Ideally, everyone would get together and collectively agree that it doesn't matter but the truth is that it does and I can understand why schools care.

 

[md-2020]

Ah, but the distinction being that my IB friends earned $10K for a 3 month summer analyst job in NYC

10? Ive seen 20-22k being made in 10-12 week IB internship gigs.

Idk about other firms but mine really made you earn that check though

Please do let me know if you're working your butt off at that shadowing gig

 

[GrapesofRath]

I guess we have different philosophies towards academic metrics. Yours is probably more reasonable given the current admissions system we have. I like to imagine a system where a box pops up and says "this person is good enough to go to medical school on academic terms alone" and then we spend the rest of our energy sorting out what they as individuals could bring to the medical school. Everyone else just gets told not to bother applying until such a time when they are eligible. Someone scoring 10 points higher on step 1, 1 more Derm match, 1 more AOA student, etc, none of that honestly matters to me as a patient or as a citizen but I can understand why medical students and schools care.

I think the whole ranking thing is a real shame. Ideally, everyone would get together and collectively agree that it doesn't matter but the truth is that it does and I can understand why schools care.

In theory I agree with everything you say. Just the reality of trying to implement such a system is not going to be as glamorous as we might think.

Itll lead to largely very subjective interpretations of applications and your odds to a single school will be tied to a significant extent to the biases of the own individual evaluator reviewing your app. In a perfect world, this would work out just fine. But itll also force people now to pick up on minute parts of their EC's. Instead of fraeking out about the 34 vs 38, theyll freak out about the 3 publications vs 2, being in PeaceCorps vs being a Goldwater Scholar, nitpicking your essays in a way that a school that is interested in identifying the best physicians shouldnt be etc. That's just how hyper competitive admission works, everything gets scrutinzed and when there are so many impressive accomplishments you arent left to awe in them when you have to pick one out of 10. Instead you have to actively find the flaws in the other 9 and that's where what I'm saying above comes into play.

There's just no perfect system either way. And this says nothing of the fact attrition rates, Step 1 failure % etc will go up with less adherence to stats. Considering how much medical schools invest in these students and how bad these things are to the institutions, I can see why they do all they can in their power to avoid such things and how even trying to figure out a way to make only 4% of your class fail Step 1 vs 7% being something that makes a real difference to them.

 

[Lucca]

In theory I agree with everything you say. Just the reality of trying to implement such a system is not going to be as glamorous as we might think.

Itll lead to largely very subjective interpretations of applications and your odds to a single school will be tied to a significant extent to the biases of the own individual evaluator reviewing your app. In a perfect world, this would work out just fine. But itll also force people now to pick up on minute parts of their EC's. Instead of fraeking out about the 34 vs 38, theyll freak out about the 3 publications vs 2, being in PeaceCorps vs being a Goldwater Scholar, nitpicking your essays in a way that a school that is interested in identifying the best physicians shouldnt be etc. That's just how hyper competitive admission works, everything gets scrutinzed and when there are so many impressive accomplishments you arent left to awe in them when you have to pick one out of 10. Instead you have to actively find the flaws in the other 9 and that's where what I'm saying above comes into play.

There's just no perfect system either way. And this says nothing of the fact attrition rates, Step 1 failure % etc will go up with less adherence to stats. Considering how much medical schools invest in these students and how bad these things are to the institutions, I can see why they do all they can in their power to avoid such things and how even trying to figure out a way to make only 4% of your class fail Step 1 vs 7% being something that makes a real difference to them.

I definitely agree. In my ideal world, this system would be less about one accolade versus another and more about depth and content of character and skills. I don't think it's reasonable for every physician to do know everything there is to know about every possible angle of healthcare from bottom to top, but I do think we would all be better off if schools emphasized having a broad education but a focused interest in a particular healthcare space. To some extent we already really value people with strong records AND cohesive narratives and it is unknown to me how specifically any given medical school class is tailored to fit a vision (I imagine it is more than we might expect).

I agree though, it would never work. It would have to be an admissions system that relies on an open system with plenty of demand for physicians at all levels and ready to take anyone who would fit the mold; not one based around a scarcity of educational resources created by a narrow, fixed training funnel (residency).

 

[Lawpy]

Perhaps a simplified percentile score would be better? (Say, rounding to the nearest 10? So final scores would be ie 100, 90, 80, 70, etc...)



I can imagine a world where 80% of premeds who finish biochem FAIL the final exam, and that is a world I don't want to live in.

This is why if this approach were implemented, the MCAT medians/averages would be severely skewed to the top-percentile end.

 

[GrapesofRath]

I definitely agree. In my ideal world, this system would be less about one accolade versus another and more about depth and content of character and skills. I don't think it's reasonable for every physician to do know everything there is to know about every possible angle of healthcare from bottom to top, but I do think we would all be better off if schools emphasized having a broad education but a focused interest in a particular healthcare space. To some extent we already really value people with strong records AND cohesive narratives and it is unknown to me how specifically any given medical school class is tailored to fit a vision (I imagine it is more than we might expect).

I agree though, it would never work. It would have to be an admissions system that relies on an open system with plenty of demand for physicians at all levels and ready to take anyone who would fit the mold; not one based around a scarcity of educational resources created by a narrow, fixed training funnel (residency).

Sure would be a great world to live in if this could happen, one thing I will say is given how incredibly frequent it is for peoples specific interests to change in medicine once they get to medical school, Im not sure if the bolded is all that beneficial. At the same time though, I do think there should be some level of required understanding of the health care system in our country, the issues it faces etc. It's kind of comical how ignorant so many medical students I know are of those types of issues. Obviously there's no great way to "test" per se someone's knowledge of the current health care system; we already have interviewers who ask about it to applicants. But I do think there is a problem when so many high stat applicants who are supposed to be the "top" candidates schools crave and see as the most desireable candidates to become future doctors lack even a basic understanding of the issues in our health care system and its basic structure.

 

[sliceofbread136]

I disliked both shadowing and hospital volunteering. Past maybe 10 hours the two experiences are quite worthless imo

 

[Dr.TonySoprano]

Secondaries. Nothing quite so soul-sucking as to write a bunch of essays that no one is ever going to read and then pay $100 just for someone to send you a standardized email that essentially reads:

"After careful consideration and confirmation that your check has cleared, we've decided not to waste our time talking to you in person. However, you have proven that you do indeed enjoy setting your money on fire. Please consider applying for our $30,000 post-bacc program. It's just like being in medical school, but you don't get to be a doctor at the end. Wouldn't that be cool?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

this is the best post I've ever read on here

 

[Officer Farva]

I take back every post I made on this thread before:

The interview days: Being in limbo between acceptance and non-acceptance. Flying out to some random city for lots of money and spending the night in an overpriced hotel room. Sometimes having to attend that "optional" happy hour the night before with medical students and applicants where people are too uptight to order more than one beer, and half the people there end up drinking water/diet coke.

The next day finding the admissions building using google maps on your iphone. Attending the countless presentations about how unique their curriculum is, you know how their school perfectly blends basic science with clinical medicine, and oh boy, look at all the elective and dual degree offerings!!! That boring financial aid presentation. Eating that mediocre lunch and not being able to eat more than half a sandwich (except that time at WashU, the food was dope).
Making forced small-talk with medical students and medical interviewees, talking about our undergrads and hometowns.

Then, the interview itself. Talking to a doctor about my research, my volunteering, etc. Why medicine, blah blah blah. If I get a nasty faculty member, being forced to defend while I will come to their small town from my big city, defending my research interests since the faculty member doesnt care about science, explaining my family's home country and very PERSONAL details, and even that one time where the faculty member was digging into my financial details. If I get a student, getting interviewed by some guy in sweat pants or shorts while I am looking good in a suit, so annoying.

The interview trail is arguably worse than organic chemistry, volunteering, shadowing, and grade-grubbing premeds combined!!

 

[Dr.TonySoprano]

all of it sucks but we just continue on with it

 

[mistafab]

Applying and interviewing

 

[Officer Farva]

Applying and interviewing

This guy gets it!

 

[Dandine]

APPS! My gosh, apps. Not so much the writing of the apps since I did a lot in advance, but the checking and the waiting...

College had its tough moments, but there wasn't anything I disliked in terms of activities. Even classes, annoying as they were, weren't as crushing as those long periods of waiting for schools to reply. Even the MCAT--long as it was--didn't amount to that.

Really the most difficult part of the whole process was having patience with myself and being chill with the future.

 

[Officer Farva]

APPS! My gosh, apps. Not so much the writing of the apps since I did a lot in advance, but the checking and the waiting...

College had its tough moments, but there wasn't anything I disliked in terms of activities. Even classes, annoying as they were, weren't as crushing as those long periods of waiting for schools to reply. Even the MCAT--long as it was--didn't amount to that.

Really the most difficult part of the whole process was having patience with myself and being chill with the future.

The application process puts in 4 years of premed stress into one year. At least grades in your classes/MCAT was somewhat dependent on your effort. I will say, the medical school process is not a bad process because it is competitive. It is an awful process because of the randomness and waiting. When you have a process where someone less competitive than you gets into 10 schools but someone more competitive than you gets in at the last second off a WL, thats a problem.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

I found Biology insufferable at my school. Incredibly PhD/basic science research geared and packed to the brim with gunners.

I actually found shadowing the most fun, but I was lucky and had a mentor who loved teaching and helping premeds.

 

[Lawpy]

I take back every post I made on this thread before:

The interview days: Being in limbo between acceptance and non-acceptance. Flying out to some random city for lots of money and spending the night in an overpriced hotel room. Sometimes having to attend that "optional" happy hour the night before with medical students and applicants where people are too uptight to order more than one beer, and half the people there end up drinking water/diet coke.

The next day finding the admissions building using google maps on your iphone. Attending the countless presentations about how unique their curriculum is, you know how their school perfectly blends basic science with clinical medicine, and oh boy, look at all the elective and dual degree offerings!!! That boring financial aid presentation. Eating that mediocre lunch and not being able to eat more than half a sandwich (except that time at WashU, the food was dope).
Making forced small-talk with medical students and medical interviewees, talking about our undergrads and hometowns.

Then, the interview itself. Talking to a doctor about my research, my volunteering, etc. Why medicine, blah blah blah. If I get a nasty faculty member, being forced to defend while I will come to their small town from my big city, defending my research interests since the faculty member doesnt care about science, explaining my family's home country and very PERSONAL details, and even that one time where the faculty member was digging into my financial details. If I get a student, getting interviewed by some guy in sweat pants or shorts while I am looking good in a suit, so annoying.

The interview trail is arguably worse than organic chemistry, volunteering, shadowing, and grade-grubbing premeds combined!!

This could actually be one of the most realistic posts i have read in a while. Of course, you may be dismissed as a paranoid skeptic but such impressions seem to be shared by many many interviewees..... Every. Single. Cycle.

 

[Officer Farva]

This could actually be one of the most realistic posts i have read in a while. Of course, you may be dismissed as a paranoid skeptic but such impressions seem to be shared by many many interviewees..... Every. Single. Cycle.

That feeling of annoyance and monotony is magnified even more by schools that over-interview for a small amount of seats. Ahem Albany Medical College ahem hofstra. Going through those motions knowing chances aren't too great.

 

[Sgucci]

This guy gets it!

Yea, interviewing is straight up ****. A lot of interviewers have some serious narcissism and arrogance. When this is the way they treat us as applicants I'm not surprised doctors often have a bad rep with lay people. These are the kind of doctors who automatically assume a patient is non-compliant when the patient has questions or needs clarifications, or their diagnosis doesn't fit.

 

[leonardoson]

I hate general bio, but I love all the other parts of it, like biochem, immunology, microbiology, and my research methods course. I believe in evolution, that goes without saying. But I couldn't care less about phylogenetic trees and protists.

I HATE PHYLOGENY. anything other than human bio sucks.

 

[efle]

I HATE PHYLOGENY. anything other than human bio sucks.

Neuroethology is one of my favorite classes!