Why are ECs so important?

[deuist]

Wow, I don't know where you went to undergrad, but my undergrad experience was nothing like that! Medical school is actually a lot more of regurgitating information than anything I studied in undergrad. I didn't do math or engineering, but I used to analyze, write essays, and ponder various theories. Even orgo was fun because a lot of it felt like solving logic puzzles, not regurgitating information. Medical school, on the other hand, depends on memorizing a ton of stuff and then being able to quickly recall the information. For a good part of it, you don't have to think, you just have to memorize. Remember that quote: "Medical school is like crossing a river that is a mile long, but only an inch deep."

Writing essays is not thinking on your feet. I did liberal arts---so I have some experience in this field. Either you do an in-class essay on an exam---and rewrite what you've already been told---or you do an out-of-class assignment---which means that you'll have some time to think about the issue, read what others have written, and then formulate an opinion. Hardly sounds like thinking on your feet to me.

Yes, medical school does involve a lot of memorizing. But my original statement was that doing well in classes such as organic chemistry does not correlate with doing well in medical school. The only similarity is that you have to learn a lot in a short period of time. Getting good grades as an undergrad does not translate into being a great physician.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NapeSpikes]

... as of now i just tell things the way i see them.

That's why I can appreciate your posts and viewpoints, while vehemently disagreeing with pretty much all of them.

 

[Gavanshir]

yeah, i never deny these things. very possible my outlook will change over time. but as of now i just tell things the way i see them. ive lived a pretty easy and privileged life, so thats the context for my posts

How DARE YOU have an easy and privileged life!!

 

[Shredder]

How DARE YOU have an easy and privileged life!!

hey, ill admit it. i wish apps didnt force me and other privileged ppl, whether they admit it or not, to concoct all sorts of disadvantages and hardships that we have had to face throughout life. it only dilutes the claims of those who are truly disadvantaged. besides, privilege is relative. from my position, im envious of those who have legacies at good schools.

concerning the ECs and my prior statements...i guess i was a little extreme, but i do think they are overrated. i think they should be used the way AA was originally intended to be used--if there are two very similarly qualified applicants, use it as a tiebreaker. but hardly otherwise. it seems much too prominent as it currently stands

 

[Law2Doc]

law2doc ive been reading some grisham, just finished king of torts. whats your take? i thought youd be the most appropriate one to ask, the jaded lawyer as is typical of grisham books

I've actually not read that one -- got burnt out on grisham a few years back as all his books seemed to end too similarly. Is this one worth a read?

 

[Shredder]

I've actually not read that one -- got burnt out on grisham a few years back as all his books seemed to end too similarly. Is this one worth a read?

haha no not really, your characterization sounds right on. but apparently they make great translations to film

 

[deuist]

I've actually not read that one -- got burnt out on grisham a few years back as all his books seemed to end too similarly. Is this one worth a read?

He does seem to have a consistent formula. Jay Leno once had a joke that went: "John Grisham just came out with his latest book. It's entitled John Grisham's Next Book."

 

[TIGIBedHead]

It's great that you're motivated, but a certain degree of innate academic ability cannot be substituted by all the ECs in the world.

"No, I didn't build any orphanages in India, I was too busy studying!" Are they encouraging us to study less in college, and instead devote more time to ECs? That just doesn't sound right to me. My priority in college was always to spend as much time as I needed to secure the best academic performance I could, and then if and only if I had time left over would I indulge in ECs. That's why they're extracurricular. However, adcoms seem to be saying that you should only work just hard enough to maintain a ~3.7GPA and spend the rest of your time curing cancer. Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't make sense.

Here's where I find a problem.. on the one hand, you seem to equate higher gpa with a greater innate ability.. however, the reason you couldn't participate in ec's was because you studied so much in college.. If it were really innate ability, you would have a 4.0 and tons of ec's. But the reality is that most pre-meds who have high gpa's study... a lot. Now, true, instead of participating in more ec's and growing as an individual throughout my college career, I could have spent more time with my biochem textbook and attained a higher sci gpa. Yet rather than being a reflection of my innate ability, it would reflect my hard work and determination. So you might ask, aren't those important traits for a future physician to have? And the answer is, of course, yes. But there are many ways to show hard work, dedication, and passion. Some people do it through studying all day every day, others do it by balancing academics with extracurriculars, showing their passion for both intellectual and inter-personal aspects of life and medicine.

 

[Shredder]

In have said a few times on sdn. It is all BS man. People do Ec's to keep up with the pack. I would not do research or volunteering, etc, if med schools only looked at GPA and MCAT. I think all this EC crap is stupid and they shoold take the people with the best numbers. 20 yrs ago that is how med schools worked and it seems like they were able to produce good doctors.

i think its all politics that have become entangled with medicine. med schools are on social missions these days, theyre no longer solely in the business of producing the highest quality docs. you can see it all over their mission statements and admissions criteria. the trend is disturbing i think...the problem is how do you hold med schools accountable or track the proficiency of docs over time? its hard to make concrete comparisions between modern docs and docs of old, except by word of mouth. but im all for the system of 20 yrs ago

nice signature, you should link to the audio
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/mp3/obgyn.mp3
ever been to that site? its great, amusement time after time

Messerschmitts i agree with you, what it boils down to is that the opportunity cost of ECs is studying and learning. ive always been under the impression that thats the purpose of college

hey i found a good interview thats really pertinent to this discussion:
http://www.nas.org/publications/sci_newslist/6_7/b_robinson.htm

The AAMC president proposed that schools adopt floor values for GPA and MCAT scores -- and treat everyone meeting them as equally eligible for admission [see details in the next article].
This is an ominous sign. The possibility is real that the medical schools may not want to or be able to stop it. I can't tell you how important it is for members of the public -- all of whom are current or future patients -- to get in on this dialogue.

sounds eerily similar to lots of SDNers

 

[Law2Doc]

hey i found a good interview thats really pertinent to this discussion:
http://www.nas.org/publications/sci_newslist/6_7/b_robinson.htm
sounds eerily similar to lots of SDNers

Interesting - That interview was apparently back in 2002. Seems like the adcom world has moved the game a bit in the "well rounded" direction since then, so the concerns were unheeded. (A few schools now use floor cut offs for interviews, and some treat all interviewees as equal, precisely what the person interviewed was concerned about). However, note that since average matriculant numerical stats have actually gone up during this interval, this movement surely isn't doing any damage, and won't as long as the applicant pool stays strong. The problems would only occur if smart folks stopped wanting to become doctors. Thus I don't think the current model is a bad thing. Of course, as a nontrad, I'm at the side of the curve that benefitted from change .

 

[Shredder]

Interesting - That interview was apparently back in 2002. Seems like the adcom world has moved the game a bit in the "well rounded" direction since then, so the concerns were unheeded. (A few schools now use floor cut offs for interviews, and some treat all interviewees as equal, precisely what the person interviewed was concerned about). However, note that since average matriculant numerical stats have actually gone up during this interval, this movement surely isn't doing any damage, and won't as long as the applicant pool stays strong. The problems would only occur if smart folks stopped wanting to become doctors. Thus I don't think the current model is a bad thing. Of course, as a nontrad, I'm at the side of the curve that benefitted from change .

i dont know, a lot of times you hear stories about people with strong stats who are rejected from schools of choice due to this movement. of course, as a very trad with relatively strong numbers and weak ECs, im on the other side and scared of becoming one of those aforementioned people the guy does seem accurate in his portents though. smart folks may not necessarily stop wanting to become doctors, but they may be denied opportunities to study at top institutions for dubious reasons. and thats not only a detriment to them but also to society in the big picture. cure the patients first, then cuddle them.

early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy wealthy and wise, good going unlike me the college student studying at odd hours for finals

 

[Law2Doc]

early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy wealthy and wise, good going unlike me the college student studying at odd hours for finals

I'll settle for wise.

 

[CTSballer11]

i think its all politics that have become entangled with medicine. med schools are on social missions these days, theyre no longer solely in the business of producing the highest quality docs. you can see it all over their mission statements and admissions criteria. the trend is disturbing i think...the problem is how do you hold med schools accountable or track the proficiency of docs over time? its hard to make concrete comparisions between modern docs and docs of old, except by word of mouth. but im all for the system of 20 yrs ago

nice signature, you should link to the audio
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/mp3/obgyn.mp3
ever been to that site? its great, amusement time after time

Messerschmitts i agree with you, what it boils down to is that the opportunity cost of ECs is studying and learning. ive always been under the impression that thats the purpose of college

hey i found a good interview thats really pertinent to this discussion:
http://www.nas.org/publications/sci_newslist/6_7/b_robinson.htm
sounds eerily similar to lots of SDNers

That interview scares me a little. I find it funny how politicians etc, are telling doctors how to teach future docs. This "movement" had to be instigated by the left and their obsession with social justice, awareness, etc. I can understand that med schools want people with other interests besides studying, but the whole point of college is to educate yourself, not delve into a crap load of ec's. btw, that website is very amusing.

 

[Law2Doc]

I can understand that med schools want people with other interests besides studying, but the whole point of college is to educate yourself, not delve into a crap load of ec's.

I think you are missing some of the point of ECs -- they are a form of education if you choose them correctly. Not all learningin college is book learning. In fact, the stuff you learn from books is the stuff you tend to be more likely to forget. 20 years out, you will remember your experiences far more than your orgo.

 

[QofQuimica]

I think you are missing some of the point of ECs -- they are a form of education if you choose them correctly. Not all learningin college is book learning. In fact, the stuff you learn from books is the stuff you tend to be more likely to forget. 20 years out, you will remember your experiences far more than your orgo.

Ha! Speak for yourself. But then again, organic IS one of my "experiences."

 

[CTSballer11]

I think you are missing some of the point of ECs -- they are a form of education if you choose them correctly. Not all learningin college is book learning. In fact, the stuff you learn from books is the stuff you tend to be more likely to forget. 20 years out, you will remember your experiences far more than your orgo.

Good point there. The quality EC's are the good ones, but there are the bs ones and I know that many premeds, including myself do these to keep up with the pack.

 

[Law2Doc]

Good point there. The quality EC's are the good ones, but there are the bs ones and I know that many premeds, including myself do these to keep up with the pack.

I think adcoms are better than you think at ferretting out BS ECs and those which are done without any degree of committment. It's probably not all that hard for an experienced interviewer to see if someone is truly passionate about something in an interview, or if they are just doing it because all premeds do. A lot can be gleaned from non-academic LORs in this respect too.

 

[CTSballer11]

I think adcoms are better than you think at ferretting out BS ECs and those which are done without any degree of committment. It's probably not all that hard for an experienced interviewer to see if someone is truly passionate about something in an interview, or if they are just doing it because all premeds do. A lot can be gleaned from non-academic LORs in this respect too.

Sure, but my EC's do not look like bs, that is my attitude towards them. I would rather be chilling with my gf or playing basketball then tutoring, planning the next meeting or event, etc. Pretty soon I will be doing research, I guess I am a little bitter about this. I understand what you are saying and I am sure interviewers can smell a bad egg when it walks through the door. btw, why did u switch from law to med?

 

[Law2Doc]

Sure, but my EC's do not look like bs, that is my attitude towards them. I would rather be chilling with my gf or playing basketball then tutoring, planning the next meeting or event, etc. Pretty soon I will be doing research, I guess I am a little bitter about this.

Just bear in mind that in med school, you will have far less time to be chilling with the gf and playing basketball. Certainly less than in college, notwithstanding any ECs you may have. You are moving down a road where free time will be at a premium, and if that makes you "bitter", that's going to be a big problem for you.

 

[MiesVanDerMom]

In have said a few times on sdn. It is all BS man. People do Ec's to keep up with the pack. I would not do research or volunteering, etc, if med schools only looked at GPA and MCAT. I think all this EC crap is stupid and they shoold take the people with the best numbers. 20 yrs ago that is how med schools worked and it seems like they were able to produce good doctors.

Have you been to the doctor lately?

 

[CTSballer11]

Have you been to the doctor lately?

I guess we have different opinions on what makes a good doctor. To me a good doctor is one that makes the correct diagnoses, preforms the correct procedure etc. Cure then cuddle, i am afraid that with the new trend in med school admissions there will be a lot more cuddling and a lot less curing.

 

[CTSballer11]

Just bear in mind that in med school, you will have far less time to be chilling with the gf and playing basketball. Certainly less than in college, notwithstanding any ECs you may have. You are moving down a road where free time will be at a premium, and if that makes you "bitter", that's going to be a big problem for you.

I do not mind studying, of course there are things that are more entertaining, but the point is that in med school you are judged by your grades, board scores, AOA, and the research you do. I am fine with that.

 

[Law2Doc]

I do not mind studying, of course there are things that are more entertaining, but the point is that in med school you are judged by your grades, board scores, AOA, and the research you do. I am fine with that.

LOL. Personal connections matter throughout this whole ordeal. That's why LORs, interviews, etc. are not a one time thing upon admissions.

At any rate, people who succeed tend to be those who can adapt. The rules are now more about well roundedness, personality, civic mindedness, so one can either adapt to the new rules or fall by the wayside.

 

[Messerschmitts]

concerning the ECs and my prior statements...i guess i was a little extreme, but i do think they are overrated. i think they should be used the way AA was originally intended to be used--if there are two very similarly qualified applicants, use it as a tiebreaker. but hardly otherwise. it seems much too prominent as it currently stands

I disagree with some of your sentiments Shredder, but I think this idea is right on! I'm not "against" ECs being a factor, but they should have a minimal impact, used as a 'tiebreaker', as you said. Right now there's way too much emphasis placed upon them. I believe that as a college student, your primary obligation should be to your classes. Any ECs you do should be for fun, when you have extra time, and if you're motivated to do them. We shouldn't have to be pressured into them by the competition. They should be optional, in the true sense of the word, a kudos, but not a necessity. Otherwise why even attend college? Let's all just garner a bunch of impressive life-experiences to med school! We're applying for entry into a professional school, not giving out Nobel peace prizes here! 20 years ago, med school interviewers asked "do you have any activities you'd like to talk about?" Today they ask, "tell me about your activities." It's become a de facto prerequisite.

i dont know, a lot of times you hear stories about people with strong stats who are rejected from schools of choice due to this movement.

Guess what I am.

 

[Shredder]

This "movement" had to be instigated by the left and their obsession with social justice, awareness, etc. I can understand that med schools want people with other interests besides studying, but the whole point of college is to educate yourself, not delve into a crap load of ec's. btw, that website is very amusing.

all part of a bigger movement in which the left has totally taken over academia at large. as in college, theres not truly diversity of opinions or expression in med schools. its all a front. PC or perish. PC in your apps and interviews or face rejection. ive really had to struggle with my conscience throughout the whole app process, did my best not to sell out on my principles regarding this.

touchy feely medicine necessarily entails the "crowding out" of expertise in the sciences. med schools still 4 years long, and i doubt med students today are far busier than med schools of yesteryear. this means the social training is coming at the expense of the hardcore classes. and you can see this in med schools' current de-emphasis of scientific criteria for admission and scientific education in med school itself. push the students to interact with patients asap...they need to understand their feelings, and what kind of social background they come from...this will help them treat the patients better and make them feel good. im waiting for schools to reduce lectures to 1 year, all pass fail of course with as little competition as possible (since competition is evil and brings out the worst in ppl), and students begin seeing patients on day 1 to cure their social ills, nevermind the actual reasons they came to the hospital in the first place. the social ills take priority over everything, thats where the health problems stem from.

guys touchy feely medicine is brainwashing i tell you, dont buy into it. medicine of old is far superior. hopefully the borders will be opened up for docs so that hardcore foreign docs can displace all of the touchy feely american docs who are lacking in pure competence.

I disagree with some of your sentiments Shredder, but I think this idea is right on!

you got screwed in 2005, i feel you. sucks huh

 

[Gut Shot]

interpersonal skills take a back seat to proficiency and knowledge.

False. Physicians with good communication skills are far less likely to get sued by their patients, even in the face of lousy outcomes. From a Yahoo Groups post by David Dillard:

"This is a collection of citations to articles that focus on one or another
aspect of the interaction of medical personnel and patients as a
cause or preventative measure in the creation of malpractice litigation.


Author: Nuland, Sherwin B
Title: The Hazards of Hospitalization
Source: Wall Street Journal
December 2, 1999 p. A22


Author: White, Sue Ellen
Title: Best defense is no offense
Source: Hospitals & Health Networks
v. 71 no. 21 November 5, 1997 p.70


Title: Hey doc, let's talk!
Source: People's Medical Society Newsletter
v. 16 no. 4 August 1997 p. 1, 8


Title: Communication skills cut malpractice risk
Source: USA Today: The Magazine of the American Scene
v. 126 no. 2629 October 1997 p. 2-3


Title: Broken Stories: Patients, Families, and Clinicians
after Medical Error
Source: Literature & Medicine
v. 22 no. 2 Fall 2003 p. 230-240


Authors: Studdert, David M ; Mello, Michelle M ; Brennan,
Troyen A
Title: Medical Malpractice
Source: New England Journal of Medicine
v. 350 no. 3 January 15, 2004 p. 283-292


Author: Dobson, Roger
Title: Dulcet tones of a surgeon's voice may have a hidden
meaning
Source: British Medical Journal
v. 325 no. 7359 Aug 10, 2002 p. 297


Author: Robeznieks, Andis
Title: Being open may avoid lawsuits
Source: American Medical News
v. 45 no. 22 June 10, 2002 p. 13,16


Author: Levinson, Wendy
Title: Physician-patient communication
Source: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical
Association
v. 272 no. 20 Nov 23, 1994 p. 1619-1620


Author: Brienza, Julie
Title: Doctors with lax manners tend to get sued most,
Vanderbilt studies show
Source: Trial
v. 31 no. 2 Febuary 1995 p. 14-16


Author: Tammelleo, A David
Title: Speak up! When Silence Is Negligence
Source: R N
v. 55 no. 8 August 1992 p. 63


Author: Macready, Norra
Title: Physician behaviour may influence risk of
malpractice litigation
Source: Lancet
v. 349 no. 9051 February 22, 1997


Author: Huffman, Grace Brooke
Title: Physician communication and risk of malpractice
claims
Source: American Family Physician
v. 56 no. 1 July 1997 p. 239


Authors: Levinson, Wendy ; Roter, Debra L ; Mullooly, John P ;
Dull, Valerie T ; Frankel, Richard M
Title: Physician-patient communication: The relationship
with malpractice claims among primary care
physicians and surgeons
Source: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical
Association
v. 277 no. 7 February 19, 1997 p. 553-559


Authors: Peskin, Ted ; Micklitsch, Christie ; Quirk, Mark ;
Sims, Heather ; et al
Title: Malpractice, patient satisfaction, and
physician-patient communication--Comment/reply
Source: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical
Association
v. 274 no. 1 July 5, 1995 p. 22-24


Author: Hurley D
Title: Malpractice fueled by silence.
Source: Medical Tribune for the Family Physician
v. 35 no.24, 1994 Dec 15 p. 1, 6


Authors: Beckman HB ; Markakis KM ; Suchman AL ; Frankel RM
Title: The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice.
Lessons from plaintiff depositions.
Source: Arch Intern Med
v. 154 no.12 (1994 June 27 p. 1365-1370


Authors: Vincent C ; Young M ; Phillips A
Title: Why do people sue doctors? A study of patients and
relatives taking legal action [see comments]
Source: Lancet
v. 343 no. 8913 1994 Jun 25 p. 1609-1613

Title: Surgeons' tone of voice: A clue to malpractice
history
Source: Surgery
v. 132 no. 1 2002 p. 5-9


Authors
Moore PJ. Adler NE. Robertson PA.
Title
Medical malpractice: the effect of doctor-patient relations on
medical patient perceptions and malpractice intentions.
Source
Western Journal of Medicine.
173(4):244-50, 2000 Oct.


Authors
Stewart M. Brown JB. Boon H. Galajda J. Meredith L.
Sangster M.
Title
Evidence on patient-doctor communication.
Source
Cancer Prevention & Control.
3(1):25-30, 1999 Feb.


Authors
Virshup BB. Oppenberg AA. Coleman MM.
Title
Strategic risk management: reducing malpractice claims through
more effective patient-doctor communication.
Source
American Journal of Medical Quality.
14(4):153-9, 1999 Jul-Aug.


Author
Levinson W.
Title
In context: physician-patient communication and managed care.
Source
Journal of Medical Practice Management.
14(5):226-30, 1999 Mar-Apr.


Authors
Sanders PS. McBride DL.
Title
Malpractice prevention: good doctor-patient communication.
Source
Minnesota Medicine.
81(2):28-30, 1998 Feb.


Authors
Levinson W.
Title
Doctor-patient communication and medical malpractice: implications
for pediatricians.
Source
Pediatric Annals.
26(3):186-93, 1997 Mar.


Authors
Levinson W. Roter DL. Mullooly JP. Dull VT. Frankel RM.
Title
Physician-patient communication. The relationship with malpractice
claims among primary care physicians and surgeons.
[see comment].
Comments
Comment in: JAMA. 1997 Jun 4;277(21):1681;
author reply 1682; PMID:
9169891,
Comment in: JAMA. 1997 Jun 4;277(21):
1682; PMID: 9169892
Source
JAMA. 277(7):553-9, 1997 Feb 19.


Title
Medical malpractice and doctor-patient communication.
Source
Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association.
36(5):140-1, 1995 May.


Authors
Mellor AC. Milgrom P.
Title
Dentists' attitudes toward frustrating patient visits: relationship
to satisfaction and malpractice complaints.
Source
Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology.
23(1):15-9, 1995 Feb.


Authors
Bowers R.
Title
From lab tests to lawsuits: improving physician-patient
communication. TMA Communications and
Public Service Committee.
Source
Journal of the Tennessee Medical Association.
86(3):112, 1993 Mar."

 

[Shredder]

False. Physicians with good communication skills are far less likely to get sued by their patients, even in the face of lousy outcomes.

for people claiming to be selfless, whats more important in medicine, curing patients or smoothtalking ones way out of lawsuits? so basically the emphasis on ECs is to protect prospective premeds from getting sued later on? cant they assume that risk on their own without the unsolicited protection? i understand that getting sued is a real concern, but the situation should not arise as much for docs who know their stuff. ceteris paribus, yes, docs with better communication skills will get sued less. but all other things will not be equal at this rate. its a tradeoff between medical skill and smooth talking skill--again id prefer the rude, brilliant doc

 

[Law2Doc]

for people claiming to be selfless, whats more important in medicine, curing patients or smoothtalking ones way out of lawsuits? so basically the emphasis on ECs is to protect prospective premeds from getting sued later on? cant they assume that risk on their own without the unsolicited protection? i understand that getting sued is a real concern, but the situation should not arise as much for docs who know their stuff. ceteris paribus, yes, docs with better communication skills will get sued less. but all other things will not be equal at this rate. its a tradeoff between medical skill and smooth talking skill--again id prefer the rude, brilliant doc

While I don't think the goal of ECs is to create a generation of lawsuit proof physicians, Havarti666 has presented one legitimate reason why the current selection for people skills might make sense. There are also legislative changes that have changed the way that doctors practice -- the fact that hospital patients have a "bill of rights" now to be treated a certain way and have their privacy protected in a certain manner represents additional big changes in the profession. There will be others down the road. The fact that you'd prefer a rude brillian doctor is irrelevant -- you don't appear to be representative of the nation at large, I'm afraid.
As for whether better docs wouldn't get sued as much, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. EVERY doctor will be sued once or twice in his/her lifetime. Most likely, you will just be in the room or on the team or listed on the chart and not actually involved in the debacle. It may not even be a mistake -- things go bad some percent of the time (especially with the very young and old). But in law, every potential party must be listed or you lose your cause of action (as those listed tend to blame whoever wasn't -- the empty chair defense). So you can be brilliant and flawless -- you WILL still be sued if the patient is going to sue, and I can pretty much guaranty that you will get sued once or twice in your career no matter how good you are. Anything a doctor can do interpersonally to minimize the inevitability of a lawsuit is simply a smart business move.

 

[Gut Shot]

for people claiming to be selfless, whats more important in medicine, curing patients or smoothtalking ones way out of lawsuits? so basically the emphasis on ECs is to protect prospective premeds from getting sued later on? cant they assume that risk on their own without the unsolicited protection? i understand that getting sued is a real concern, but the situation should not arise as much for docs who know their stuff. ceteris paribus, yes, docs with better communication skills will get sued less. but all other things will not be equal at this rate. its a tradeoff between medical skill and smooth talking skill--again id prefer the rude, brilliant doc

Let me put it another way:

Communication IS a medical skill, and an imperative one, at that. If you do not or cannot listen to your patients, you are dead in the water. If you do not or cannot convey information to your patients, you are both dead in the water. Call it whatever you want, but developing an efficient bedside manner is one of the most challenging tasks you will face. It also happens to be one of the most important devices in your toolbox.

For your own good, you should really stop rationalizing your shortcomings as being unimportant.

 

[DrBowtie]

I think a split in medicine is coming atleast in the FP sector.

There will be boutique practices with frills and lots of face time with the doc where the good interpersonal doc will thrive the most.

There will also be clinics inside the grocery for the mom with 3 kids who has no time for a trip to the doc to pop in and get some meds for the sinus infection she has been dealing with. A quick diagnostic doc would thrive in this setting.

When it comes down to it both types are and will be needed in medicine.

 

[Law2Doc]

When it comes down to it both types are and will be needed in medicine.

Unless you can find folks with both skillsets -- which I think is the goal of having significant ECs etc PLUS decent numbers.

 

[DrBowtie]

Unless you can find folks with both skillsets -- which I think is the goal of having significant ECs etc PLUS decent numbers.

Yes there will be a spectrum of folks in between.

 

[Shredder]

While I don't think the goal of ECs is to create a generation of lawsuit proof physicians, Havarti666 has presented one legitimate reason why the current selection for people skills might make sense. There are also legislative changes that have changed the way that doctors practice -- the fact that hospital patients have a "bill of rights" now to be treated a certain way and have their privacy protected in a certain manner represents additional big changes in the profession. There will be others down the road. The fact that you'd prefer a rude brillian doctor is irrelevant -- you don't appear to be representative of the nation at large, I'm afraid.
As for whether better docs wouldn't get sued as much, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. EVERY doctor will be sued once or twice in his/her lifetime. Most likely, you will just be in the room or on the team or listed on the chart and not actually involved in the debacle. It may not even be a mistake -- things go bad some percent of the time (especially with the very young and old). But in law, every potential party must be listed or you lose your cause of action (as those listed tend to blame whoever wasn't -- the empty chair defense). So you can be brilliant and flawless -- you WILL still be sued if the patient is going to sue, and I can pretty much guaranty that you will get sued once or twice in your career no matter how good you are. Anything a doctor can do interpersonally to minimize the inevitability of a lawsuit is simply a smart business move.

yes, doctors will be sued no matter what. but medical schools should be in the business of producing the docs that are most adept at healing and saving lives, not lawsuit-proof doctors. i dont think the nation at large is insightful enough to see things as they really are, they are sheep. they will take whatever is given to them most of the time. brainwashing like this is especially effective, particularly given the liberal media to go complement these left wing movements. now that the left has hijacked academia whos going to stop them? the SAT EZ thread addresses the increasing shortcomings of american education. doctors can only be safe from that trend for so long. thus, foreign docs stepping in to fill the void of competent american ones.

 

[Law2Doc]

yes, doctors will be sued no matter what. but medical schools should be in the business of producing the docs that are most adept at healing and saving lives, not lawsuit-proof doctors. i dont think the nation at large is insightful enough to see things as they really are, they are sheep. they will take whatever is given to them most of the time. brainwashing like this is especially effective, particularly given the liberal media to go complement these left wing movements. now that the left has hijacked academia whos going to stop them? the SAT EZ thread addresses the increasing shortcomings of american education. doctors can only be safe from that trend for so long. thus, foreign docs stepping in to fill the void of competent american ones.

Foreign docs will never step in to fill any void in quality here -- I don't know why you keep going back to that or why you even think it would be of benefit. The quality of medicine here is actually at the high end of the spectrum compared to the rest of the world -- just very expensive. If you would prefer to be a foreign doctor, though, I suspect that option is open to you -- most of the world needs doctors.

 

[Shredder]

Unless you can find folks with both skillsets -- which I think is the goal of having significant ECs etc PLUS decent numbers.

you cant have your cake and eat it too. each comes, to some extent, at the cost of the other. and there are students with high stats out there that are getting screwed due to the EC fad. once that is no longer the case, then i will concede that you can have your cake and eat it too. but that will never be the case--ECs detract from studies, and there are only 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week to cram both into. and, if youre going the traditional route, 4 years of college. now, if the "traditional" route changes, say to a business school model where you dont go straight from college, thats another story.

maybe youre right about most americans wanting docs who cuddle them first then cure them. seeing as many of them care little about their health anyway (its true), they would like the docs who pay attention to them and make them feel important. so docs can become the new age shrinks. they should start incorporating leather recliners instead of medical beds.

havarti ill ignore your personal attacks. in fact i had you on ignore (for whatever affront you committed in the past, probably something similar to this) and apparently i shouldnt have disregarded that. curiosity kills the cat.

 

[Gut Shot]

for people claiming to be selfless, whats more important in medicine, curing patients or smoothtalking ones way out of lawsuits?

Wow, a strawman AND a false dichotomy in one sentence.

Here's the answer, despite your loaded question: if you intelligent and work hard, respect the intangible human side of medicine as much as the intellectual and mechanical side, maintain your humility, and treat every patient as you would your own mother, you will cure the curable, help the incurable, and never have to smooth talk your way out of anything.

 

[Shredder]

Foreign docs will never step in to fill any void in quality here -- I don't know why you keep going back to that or why you even think it would be of benefit. The quality of medicine here is actually at the high end of the spectrum compared to the rest of the world -- just very expensive. If you would prefer to be a foreign doctor, though, I suspect that option is open to you -- most of the world needs doctors.

i keep going back to that bc thats precisely whats happened to IT following the dumbing down of american schooling in that area. globalization is real and theres little reason medicine wont fall under it in the future. the medicine were seeing right now is the result of the policies of 20 years ago. the result of todays medical guidelines remain to be seen, but i think the touchy feely situation will produce poor results

 

[Gut Shot]

havarti ill ignore your personal attacks. in fact i had you on ignore (for whatever affront you committed in the past, probably something similar to this) and apparently i shouldnt have disregarded that. curiosity kills the cat.

Not much for criticism? I know you won't read this, but boy, you've got a really hard road ahead of you.

 

[CTSballer11]

Wow, a strawman AND a false dichotomy in one sentence.

Here's the answer, despite your loaded question: if you intelligent and work hard, respect the intangible human side of medicine as much as the intellectual and mechanical side, maintain your humility, and treat every patient as you would your own mother, you will cure the curable, help the incurable, and never have to smooth talk your way out of anything.

Easier said then done.

 

[Law2Doc]

now, if the "traditional" route changes, say to a business school model where you dont go straight from college, thats another story.

A lot of nontrads lived that model. But if one needs to take an extra year or two to knock the socks off the adcoms, I'm not really sure why that's a bad thing. (Other than that you'll be a year or two older at the other end -- but you are going to get older anyhow)

 

[CTSballer11]

I wonder how many medical students continue to pursue those "worthwhile" Ec's once they are in medical school?

 

[Shredder]

Easier said then done.

yeah, basically if youre perfect, nothing will ever go wrong

 

[Gut Shot]

Easier said then done.

That's why they pay us the big bucks.

 

[Law2Doc]

i keep going back to that bc thats precisely whats happened to IT following the dumbing down of american schooling in that area. globalization is real and theres little reason medicine wont fall under it in the future. the medicine were seeing right now is the result of the policies of 20 years ago. the result of todays medical guidelines remain to be seen, but i think the touchy feely situation will produce poor results

IT folks don't need a special license to do IT. Doctors do. It's a formidable hurdle to get past if you are foreign and don't get a vote.

 

[Shredder]

IT folks don't need a special license to do IT. Doctors do. It's a formidable hurdle to get past if you are foreign and don't get a vote.

protectionism at its finest. when politics mix with business or medicine, consumers/patients lose out in favor of special interests. wheres the selflessness?

but on second thought you raise a good point. if foreign docs arent good enough to pass the licensing test then theyre not good enough. still, this is based on competing against the docs of old. the results of nouveau medicine wont be witnessed for a while, i just dont expect them to be good. of course, i could raise qualms about the USMLE being culturally biased, but i wont be one of those people. i will mention though that harvard stopped publishing their board scores bc supposedly they dropped as a result of harvards heavy emphasis on diversity in recent years. will EC emphasis paint a similar picture?

 

[Law2Doc]

I wonder how many medical students continue to pursue those "worthwhile" Ec's once they are in medical school?

Many do -- med school organizations tend to be well attended (but attendance is admittedly often dependant on free food). Others shadow, and do various charitable things. Most med students use the summer after the first year to do stuff like research. During the actual semester, there really aren't the hours in the day to do a lot else you might want to do.

 

[Gut Shot]

yeah, basically if youre perfect, nothing will ever go wrong

That's not what I'm saying at all. Obviously nobody is perfect, but some doctors are a lot better than others, and it's rarely a matter of smarts. If you want to be a competent, highly esteemed physician, you have to devote yourself to it, and you can't just ignore or minimize certain aspects that you find distasteful.

Every doctor is going to screw up majorly at some point. The question is how you choose to approach your professional life, and that choice has direct bearing on the success of your practice and the happiness and well being of those you treat.

 

[CTSballer11]

Many do -- med school organizations tend to be well attended (but attendance is admittedly often dependant on free food). Others shadow, and do various charitable things. Most med students use the summer after the first year to do stuff like research. During the actual semester, there really aren't the hours in the day to do a lot else you might want to do.

I am well aware of that. I meant the fuzzy soup kitchen crap.

 

[Law2Doc]

I am well aware of that. I meant the fuzzy soup kitchen crap.

You definitely see a ton of holiday related and disaster related charitable stuff. Significantly less of the ongoing committments but certainly some folks do.

 

[masterMood]

1) E.C.s coupled with high gpa shows that you're smart/efficient in time management/and can handle both the academia and "outside interests" at the same time. Compare this to the guy who studies 15 hours a day, and gets a 4.0. What happens when the course load increases? There won't be enough time in one day to study at that rate and depth.
2) "The Universe tends to unfold the way it should." ~ Black Guy In Jail from Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle

I think that those who are more interested in caring for patients, and are more philanthropic will go into primary care whereas those who are very competitive and want the prestige/money/etc will go into the more competitive residencies which often involve less patient to doctor interaction and more physical work. So for the most part, you're not really going to see as many socially adept/apathetic doctors in general practice versus the more competitive residencies.