somemaybedoc said:
This process will make you feel like #2.SailCrazy said:I'd like to be a number...
... #1!
But seriously, I do understand how you feel - even if I'm very glad (both as a former applicant and as a health care consumer) that med schools don't go just "by the numbers."
Most schools accept 1/3 of the applicants they interview. Do you really believe the 2/3 that are rejected are freaks? Maybe this method will help eliminate the rare few who are "freaks" but it is sure expensive and a waste of time for the ~2/3 that get screwed.Church said:I understand what you're saying, Swifty, but this is what I was told at my interviews:
"If you got an interview notice, we have already decided that you can handle the academics. The interviews are to weed out people who are too freaky to be around patients."
Or something to that effect. That was from a pathologist, so him referring to other people as freaky was a little humorous in itself. He wasn't trying to be funny tho
I agree. There's more to it than being a "freak." (what does that even mean?)swifty100850 said:
You don't have to. Albert Einstein was a Nobel-winning research scientist. So you only have be a hybrid between Mother Theresa and Einstein.baylormed said:I wish I didn't have to pretend to be a hybrid between Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein, and a Nobel-winning research scientist in order to gain admission.
Truth be told, only about 10% get rejected and the remainder are waitlisted because they aren't freaks but there just isn't room for everyone who is good enough to interview and good enough to admit. It is a very tough situation. It would be nice to interview fewer so that an interview is almost a guarantee of admission but it would be horrible to interview only 3-4% of the applicants. It is hard enough to whittle the stack of applications down to the 15% who get interview invitations as it is.swifty100850 said:
Not that it is not always, there is some relevance to the type of people lawyers as a whole have a reputation for being.swifty100850 said:
That is certainly much of the reason that we don't want doctors selected just by the numbers!I guess interviews help schools select the most physically attractive student body. A 2X2 photograph isn't enough to develop a good idea (you know what I'm talking about -- on myspace how everyone looks slightly better than they do in real lifebaylormed said:I agree. There's more to it than being a "freak." (what does that even mean?)
If that was the case, why don't they ask us to visit our college counseling center and mail a psych. evaluation from them? Objective and less expensive than traveling hundresds or thousands of miles for an interview.
Yes, this process is weird.
)
You're absolutely right. The process certainly does prevent some stellar scientists from entering an MD program.swifty100850 said:
If it weeds out antisocials...how do we end up with all those pathologists and radiologists?????SailCrazy said:You're absolutely right. The process certainly does prevent some stellar scientists from entering an MD program.
That's why those potentially good scientists should be giving very serious consideration to a PhD, or an MD/PhD.
Don't most medical researchers just have an MD? There are very few MD/PhD seats and the extra 4 years are unnecessary. Also, since there are so few seats, most people have no shot MD/PhD -- they need to go straight MD.SailCrazy said:You're absolutely right. The process certainly does prevent some stellar scientists from entering an MD program.
That's why those potentially good scientists should be giving very serious consideration to a PhD, or an MD/PhD.
I didn't think we were talking about "most people". I thought we were talking about the good scientists that truly lacked the personality for MD admission. Honestly, is that really a group of overwhelming size?swifty100850 said:
Good point.baylormed said:
Considering that I had no GPA for UG, no.somemaybedoc said:
to everyone applying.
No. It is very difficult to be successful in science if you are an "antisocial personality." The days of one lone ranger working in his lab are gone. Modern research is very collaborative, and if you can't get along with your colleagues, you won't get very far. Most of the highly successful scientists that I've met are extremely personable and charming. There is as much politics in science as there is in anything else.SailCrazy said:I didn't think we were talking about "most people". I thought we were talking about the good scientists that truly lacked the personality for MD admission. Honestly, is that really a group of overwhelming size?
Great to have one of our own resident succcessful scientist, personable and charming members comfirm that I'm not totally out in left field!QofQuimica said:
I was thinking of people interested in a career in medical research. There aren't enough MD/PhD seats for them and they need to go the MD route.SailCrazy said:I didn't think we were talking about "most people". I thought we were talking about the good scientists that truly lacked the personality for MD admission. Honestly, is that really a group of overwhelming size?
Most is the key word there.swifty100850 said:
