Why are so many premeds applying now of all times?

[Radishguy]

I think there’s a lot of grass-is-greener thinking going on here without any great footing in reality. There are definitely some great paying/great working environment tech jobs out there, but for every $200k+ job there are around a hundred sub $100k jobs. Saying that tech jobs are great because you can make a mil while working from Bermuda as you sip a mai tai is like saying becoming a Hollywood actor is a great job for the same reasons. Sure it is, and sure you can do all those things. Will you? Probably not. You’ll probably end up shooting herpesyl commercials during the day and then using the product after your nighttime shoot before crashing on that leather couch and then doing it all again in the morning.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Princeton Medical Student]

But Goro, this argument begs the question. Many adcoms use service or EC hours as a way to rank students, since many use scorings or formulas when doing so. Top school matriculants will then have a high number of service hours precisely because such high number was computed into the formula that got them in those schools.

I've read posts here on SDN of current doctors who said that 10-15 yrs ago they only showed like 80 hrs of community service, good academics, and they were golden! Are those doctors worse when it comes to servicing their patients than future graduates? How about IMGs who came from countries where the admissions focus is basically only academics (which tbh is the majority, speaking from personal experience)? Not long ago, there was a report saying that patients under the care of IMGs had statistically significant better mortality outcomes vs those treated by their US-graduated counterparts. It seems to me that EC hours have little impact on patient care and more on the SES of who gets into med school.

The point of recruiting by ECs is to a degree less so to recruit more competent physicians, but instead to recruit physicians who demonstrate the core principles of the profession.

Would you prefer your class to consist of identical 4.0/522 drones with no personality, hobbies, diversity, previous work exp outside of churning out some worthless pubs? Or would you instead prefer your class to be filled with Olympic athletes, representatives from diverse communities, prior military - people with actual life experience. I can tell you for the fact that my 7 yrs and 4k hours as an EMT has and will contribute to my training as a physician far more then my CARS score ever will.

 

[fullmetal]

Medicine always has been a solid bridge to a stable and well-paying job. It involves the least element of luck. Yeah, luck plays a roll in the admissions process, but once you are in all you have to do is work hard. Granted, you must work way harder than anyone doing an undergraduate or graduate degree and it's a long path. But if you keep your head down and put in the time you will come out with a respectable career and good pay. However if you don't have financial support from family or scholarships AND aren't planning to go into a specialty that pays on the higher end I wouldn't recommend it because the loans and loan interest will eat at your soul for the first decade at minimum.

For those who are gifted in other fields and don't have any interest in science, medicine or the human body, they would probably be wiser to pursue a career in a field they are interested in and are good at. Tech or finance is probably the easiest way to get a stable $100,000k+ job. Real estate sales can be a very lucrative field but you need connections. Same with law. And I think building a successful business is probably one of the only ways the average person can reach the upper class outside of insane things like movie stars and professional athletes.

Of course I'm probably missing a ton of niche things that can bring you wealth and success. But I think I'm mostly on the mark.

Richest guy I know that I grew up with became an electrician, invested in fixer-upper real estate early and kept dropping his savings into new rental properties, built connections and then started his own contracting company and now does the wiring for huge skyscrapers.

 

[MDMechEngr]

Yes. Those who can do Fourier transformation in their head are scary smart…

Love Laplace Transform Fourier Series. LOl

 

[CrazyHorseLady]

They'll learn how to talk to patients with time. Also from what I've seen, those with 1-2 gap years are really no better than the straight throughs (i.e. first job ever). They're not all doomed to never develop bedside manner lol. They'll learn that in M3-residency

I mean, I was with another MS-4 last month who has never worked before and they were whispering in the patient’s ear to “relax”. Creeped me and the patient out. This is just one example of the many things I have seen thru my short years in med school.

I don’t think working specifically in the healthcare industry is necessary- one of my jobs was a pharm tech and while it did give me some meaningful experiences to write about, it didn’t teach me anything about becoming a doctor. But that and all my retail experience taught me how to handle difficult customers/patients diplomatically, how to work well as a team to accomplish important tasks, and leadership/managerial experience that will help me as a physician that I just don’t think you can “pick up” that easily in med school or volunteering.

 

[psyspy]

I mean, I was with another MS-4 last month who has never worked before and they were whispering in the patient’s ear to “relax”. Creeped me and the patient out. This is just one example of the many things I have seen thru my short years in med school.

I don’t think working specifically in the healthcare industry is necessary- one of my jobs was a pharm tech and while it did give me some meaningful experiences to write about, it didn’t teach me anything about becoming a doctor. But that and all my retail experience taught me how to handle difficult customers/patients diplomatically, how to work well as a team to accomplish important tasks, and leadership/managerial experience that will help me as a physician that I just don’t think you can “pick up” that easily in med school or volunteering.

That’s an outlier. Most of the less work experienced people aren’t doing weird stuff like that. Also he’s an m4. He has plenty of time to learn and just needs a good talking to and he’ll likely gain insight not to do that or similar things again

 

[Mr.Smile12]

It is stories like these where the push for SJTs comes from. Granted a lot of workplaces are also implementing SJTs.

 

[deleted1139416]

It is stories like these where the push for SJTs comes from. Granted a lot of workplaces are also implementing SJTs.

Rather than SJTs we need to push for honest letters of evaluation.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Rather than SJTs we need to push for honest letters of evaluation.

Oh that's going to take us to a different thread entirely. There have been attempts to get a standard LOE for prehealth just as they have tried for GME. Let's just say, it isn't going to happen that easily.

 

[barrelgrubber321]

Just out of curiosity, about what percentage of applicants are legitimately unfit to be physicians

 

[deleted1139416]

Just out of curiosity, about what percentage of applicants are legitimately unfit to be physicians

That’s a loaded question, specifically because good student doesn’t equal good physician and bad student doesn’t equal bad physician. There are plenty of people who have the communication skills, empathy, and hard work to be excellent physicians but, for whatever reason, aren’t able to make it through the first two years of med school. Same goes for the reverse. There are plenty of people flying by the first two years of med school and turn out to lack communication skills, empathy, and common sense.

 

[Goro]

Just out of curiosity, about what percentage of applicants are legitimately unfit to be physicians

That's a great question!

Based upon the number of people we outright reject or place on a low priority wait list after interviews, my estimate is between 2 to 5%.

One has to actually work at getting rejected after an interview.

I'm not privy to the numbers about people at MD schools who get rejected for having absolutely horrible essays that drip with entitlement or some other pathology.

Wise @gyngyn, @Moko, @LunaOri , @lord999, @Mr.Smile12, @LizzyM. @Doctor-S, @wysdoc , what say you???

 

[gyngyn]

Rather than SJTs we need to push for honest letters of evaluation.

They would largely go:
I don't know Johnny at all. He got an A in my class, though!

 

[psyspy]

That's a great question!

Based upon the number of people we outright reject or place on a low priority wait list after interviews, my estimate is between 2 to 5%.

One has to actually work at getting rejected after an interview.

I'm not privy to the numbers about people at MD schools who get rejected for having absolutely horrible essays that drip with entitlement or some other pathology.

Wise @gyngyn, @Moko, @LunaOri , @lord999, @Mr.Smile12, @LizzyM. @Doctor-S, @wysdoc , what say you???

In terms of md schools, some schools such as Einstein give post interview rejections if chances are merely unrealistic, not necessarily because the person showed lack of fit for medicine

 

[Goro]

In terms of md schools, some schools such as Einstein give post interview rejections if chances are merely unrealistic, not necessarily because the person showed lack of fit for medicine

Interesting! Can you elaborate on the bolded?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Just out of curiosity, about what percentage of applicants are legitimately unfit to be physicians

Applicants? That's too hard to say. There's no way we can do a proper assessment of the entire pool of applicants aside from what is on the primary applications (AMCAS, AACOMAS, all other CASes). There is also the financial barrier of paying for application fees or the work barrier of requesting assistance which could weed out other "unfit" applicants.

It also depends on how you define as "legitimately unfit." Do you mean those who are unable to fulfill the technical requirements? There are slight terminology differences but not major content differences among programs. Those standards as well as our own applicant biases also filter out applicants.

Then you start getting controversial. Eliminate anyone whose first language is not English? Those who have significant disabilities? Those who have significant mental and neurodiverse challenges? Those from very poor backgrounds that they couldn't get a solid educational foundation, or those with little or no financial support to afford undergraduate or graduate education?

How about those who cheated on an exam, a paper, or an academic assignment? Even if they got away with it? If anonymous surveys that say that over 70% of college students as a whole have cheated once during their schooling (much higher in high school surveys), chances are pretty good that most of our applicants probably are legitimately unfit if you define academic integrity as a moral standard.

In short, the process weeds out a lot who are unqualified according to the collective expectations of the programs. But it does not perfectly screen out for "legitimately unfit" candidates... partly because I don't think we know how to define it.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

In terms of md schools, some schools such as Einstein give post interview rejections if chances are merely unrealistic, not necessarily because the person showed lack of fit for medicine

I agree, I don't get what you mean by giving any candidate an interview if their chances for admission are not within reach. That sounds like a real waste of resources and very bad "admissions practice."

ADDED: I presume the OP means actual post-interview rejections, not rejections that come after being placed on a waitlist.

 

[jstwannagraduaaate!!!]

Simple solution: go into rads, surgical field, or procedural medicine (Pain, derm, GI or cards). Those fields will be fine in private practice and will always be in demand. With corporations, fields like software engineering can change on a whim, just like petroleum engineering once was. Meanwhile, a cardiologist will always be in demand and always have patients, not to mention the respect they get from the public

 

[LizzyM]

In terms of md schools, some schools such as Einstein give post interview rejections if chances are merely unrealistic, not necessarily because the person showed lack of fit for medicine

What I hear you saying is that if the applicant would do well in medical school but is so deep on the waitlist that the chances of getting off of the waitlist are < 1%, (because there aren't enough seats for all the very qualified applicants) then Einstein will just reject them rather than the false hope of the waitlist. Is that correct?

 

[LizzyM]

Just out of curiosity, about what percentage of applicants are legitimately unfit to be physicians

This is something that is hard to quantify. There are some applicants who would be very good physicians, if they could manage not to flunk out of medical school or flunk the licensing exams. So, we don't admit them even though they could be very compassionate, competent physicians. Clearly if they lack the intelligence and/or executive function to successfully pass exams and be licensed, it might be argued that they are legitimately unfit to be physicians.

It is hard to say what proportion are psychopaths or have other pathology that would make them very poor physicians. (If you want to have a chilling experience in this regard, listen to the podcast, Dr. Death, season 1. ) It is, I suspect, < 1%.


Part of our problem is that we have far more qualified applicants than we have seats. We have very blunt instruments for identifying "qualified" and the quantitative measures (GPA, MCAT) tend to trump the qualitative characteristics such as social and emotional intelligence. When we do use those, some people cry that someone with a lower MCAT or lower GPA was selected over candidates with higher scores as if the highest scores are automatically the most qualified and the most deserving of admission.

 

[fxryker]

I'm grateful for the holistic process, for I've met many medical students and residents who would've benefitted from having more pre-medical clinical work experience.

 

[deleted1142566]

Just wanted to pitch in my $0.02 about working in tech. Yes, it’s true that tech people are getting all the rage right now, and some even making more than doctors ($200K+). Yes, it’s also true that some niches in tech are having layoffs. It’s a mixed bowl right now. But does that make tech a stable long term career? Not necessarily. There’s a reason why depression is so rampant amongst software engineers. It’s a GREAT job to have when you’re young, but when you get into your forties, you have to compete with younger college grads. This will likely be a big problem in 6-7 years, because the US is having the highest amount of people flocking into software it’s ever had, even compared to before the dotcom crash.

It’s kind of like RadOnc and EM - whenever a career has a good lifestyle and excellent pay, you get people flocking to it and it ruins the job market. This is even more so with software engineering because alongside the rise of the field itself, there has been a rise in coding boot-camps, not to mention the fact that it’s the only high paying job in the world that doesn’t require a college degree.

This. My parents work in tech, my sister is an OBGYN, and I’m a premed currently working in tech while applying for medical school.

Tech is good when you are young and your mental abilities are agile. But when you are in your 40s and 50s, new tech will come along with new hires. At that point, you won’t actually be working on new technology and instead you’ll be in a mostly managerial role. So it’s not all rainbows and sunshine in tech.

 

[doomer_md]

supervised essay writing during interview day.

??? What?

 

[deleted1139416]

This. My parents work in tech, my sister is an OBGYN, and I’m a premed currently working in tech while applying for medical school.

Tech is good when you are young and your mental abilities are agile. But when you are in your 40s and 50s, new tech will come along with new hires. At that point, you won’t actually be working on new technology and instead you’ll be in a mostly managerial role. So it’s not all rainbows and sunshine in tech.

I anticipate that a significant minority of software engineers in their 20s will probably have to do some major job switching in about 10 years

 

[Radishguy]

??? What?

I guess to see if they are the ones who actually wrote their statements. Or to just see if they can actually write an intelligent paper without a word processor, the internet, and endless time.

 

[psyspy]

Interesting! Can you elaborate on the bolded?

The school might get enough candidates from their interview day that they really like, so they’ll winnow their pool immediately down further just like that. Also not everyone is equal once they get to the interview. It could be on one occasion at one school that if their interview didn’t absolutely stand out, they’re not getting accepted

 

[TrigeminalNeuralgia]

But Goro, this argument begs the question. Many adcoms use service or EC hours as a way to rank students, since many use scorings or formulas when doing so. Top school matriculants will then have a high number of service hours precisely because such high number was computed into the formula that got them in those schools.

I've read posts here on SDN of current doctors who said that 10-15 yrs ago they only showed like 80 hrs of community service, good academics, and they were golden! Are those doctors worse when it comes to servicing their patients than future graduates? How about IMGs who came from countries where the admissions focus is basically only academics (which tbh is the majority, speaking from personal experience)? Not long ago, there was a report saying that patients under the care of IMGs had statistically significant better mortality outcomes vs those treated by their US-graduated counterparts. It seems to me that EC hours have little impact on patient care and more on the SES of who gets into med school.

As soon as EC hours becomes a critical metric for decisions, it ceases to be a useful indicator of humanistic qualities. It measures dogged willingness to jump through hoops, which is not nothing. At this point, EC hours absolutely compete with academic qualifications as a factor in decisions, especially at lower tier schools, and that could very well be bad for patients in the future. Unfortunately, the folks making admissions decisions couldn't be further removed from the consequences of their choices.

We have very blunt instruments for identifying "qualified" and the quantitative measures (GPA, MCAT) tend to trump the qualitative characteristics such as social and emotional intelligence. When we do use those, some people cry that someone with a lower MCAT or lower GPA was selected over candidates with higher scores as if the highest scores are automatically the most qualified and the most deserving of admission.

Except in cases of overt psychopathy and the like, your measures of qualitative characteristics are weak. They're often gameable, or they degenerate into measures of eloquence, extroversion, and grit. Emotional intelligence is not a psychologically validated concept.

In practice, it is very difficult to measure these qualitative traits, however desirable. It's not about anointing the most subjectively deserving. it's about acknowledging the limitations of qualitative measures, and weighing all measures in this light.

 

[Mad Jack]

Hard economic times tend to increase applicant numbers, as medicine is viewed as a safe and stable field. I think the pandemic also got a lot of people in the feels when it came to thinking about medicine, maybe figuring they could be big damn heroes or something someday. I think more applicants is always a good thing, I like to see a strong pool of up and coming doctors on their way to join me

 

[Goro]

As soon as EC hours becomes a critical metric for decisions, it ceases to be a useful indicator of humanistic qualities. It measures dogged willingness to jump through hoops, which is not nothing. At this point, EC hours absolutely compete with academic qualifications as a factor in decisions, especially at lower tier schools, and that could very well be bad for patients in the future.

But few people actually spend large numbers of hours at their volunteering. Just look at the WAMC threads. The avg is some 150-250 hrs. People who do >400 hrs stand out.

A dogged willingness to work at helping others is not a bad thing. I've also noticed that when interviewing people like these, thier passion comes through. They really love what they do and do what they love.

Unfortunately, the folks making admissions decisions couldn't be further removed from the consequences of their choices.

You've never done interviews, have you? We take our jobs VERY seriously. We're the last barrier between applicants and patients.

And we have to teach these people too. Every one of them, we look at and think "is this someone I want touching my kids?

 

[Staphbreak]

it will always be a great job i think so people will be applying

 

[LunaOri]

As soon as EC hours becomes a critical metric for decisions, it ceases to be a useful indicator of humanistic qualities. It measures dogged willingness to jump through hoops, which is not nothing. At this point, EC hours absolutely compete with academic qualifications as a factor in decisions, especially at lower tier schools, and that could very well be bad for patients in the future. Unfortunately, the folks making admissions decisions couldn't be further removed from the consequences of their choices.

Except in cases of overt psychopathy and the like, your measures of qualitative characteristics are weak. They're often gameable, or they degenerate into measures of eloquence, extroversion, and grit. Emotional intelligence is not a psychologically validated concept.

In practice, it is very difficult to measure these qualitative traits, however desirable. It's not about anointing the most subjectively deserving. it's about acknowledging the limitations of qualitative measures, and weighing all measures in this light.

What do you mean by “Emotional intelligence is not a psychologically validated concept”?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I guess to see if they are the ones who actually wrote their statements. Or to just see if they can actually write an intelligent paper without a word processor, the internet, and endless time.

Yep. The quality of legible handwriting though...

 

[Mr.Smile12]

As soon as EC hours becomes a critical metric for decisions, it ceases to be a useful indicator of humanistic qualities. It measures dogged willingness to jump through hoops, which is not nothing. At this point, EC hours absolutely compete with academic qualifications as a factor in decisions, especially at lower tier schools, and that could very well be bad for patients in the future. Unfortunately, the folks making admissions decisions couldn't be further removed from the consequences of their choices.

I don't completely disagree except EC descriptions and interviewing teases this out to some degree. Of course committees have students and residents serving with our without voting power to help the faculty understand the realities of current applicants.

Except in cases of overt psychopathy and the like, your measures of qualitative characteristics are weak. They're often gameable, or they degenerate into measures of eloquence, extroversion, and grit. Emotional intelligence is not a psychologically validated concept.

That's where MMI and SJT comes in handy, and there is validity with the format. At least when it comes to predicting OSCE-based exams and professionalism.

In practice, it is very difficult to measure these qualitative traits, however desirable. It's not about anointing the most subjectively deserving. it's about acknowledging the limitations of qualitative measures, and weighing all measures in this light.

Those who are subjectively deserving will likely get multiple offers so I'm not sure measuring these traits is as hard as you think. And yes we balance all of our measures. That's why we have committee deliberations and holistic review.

 

[Med Ed]

As soon as EC hours becomes a critical metric for decisions, it ceases to be a useful indicator of humanistic qualities. It measures dogged willingness to jump through hoops, which is not nothing. At this point, EC hours absolutely compete with academic qualifications as a factor in decisions, especially at lower tier schools, and that could very well be bad for patients in the future. Unfortunately, the folks making admissions decisions couldn't be further removed from the consequences of their choices.

No, we live with the consequences of our choices pretty quickly. And usually for four solid years (or more). We have every incentive to accept applicants who will be good students and great doctors. The alternative is misery for all involved.

 

[DOCOC15]

That's where MMI and SJT comes in handy, and there is validity with the format. At least when it comes to predicting OSCE-based exams and professionalism.

Do you have sources on SJT validity?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Do you have sources on SJT validity?

A few articles though the specifics on the format are not going to be universal to all "SJTs". Again, I'm open to hearing this discussed.

Situational judgement test validity for selection: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed (meta analysis)

The predictive validity of a situational judgement test and multiple-mini interview for entry into postgraduate training in Australia - BMC Medical Education

Background Evidence for the predictive validity of situational judgement tests (SJTs) and multiple-mini interviews (MMIs) is well-established in undergraduate selection contexts, however at present there is less evidence to support the validity of their use in postgraduate settings. More...

bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com

Development and Validation of a Situational Judgement Test to Assess Professionalism

Objective. The purpose of this study was to develop, pilot, and validate a situational judgement test (SJT) to assess professionalism in Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students.Methods. Test specifications were developed and faculty members were educated ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[skeptastic]

It is hard to say what proportion are psychopaths or have other pathology that would make them very poor physicians. (If you want to have a chilling experience in this regard, listen to the podcast, Dr. Death, season 1. ) It is, I suspect, < 1%.

A friend of mine informed me about the ex-physician given the moniker Dr. Death, so when the Peacock series about him came out, I watched the entire deal with great interest. Almost unbelievable what transpired.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

A friend of mine informed me about the ex-physician given the moniker Dr. Death, so when the Peacock series about him came out, I watched the entire deal with great interest. Almost unbelievable what transpired.

Seems like UTHSC was very negligent and apparently still a touchy subject there to this day

 

[skeptastic]

Seems like UTHSC was very negligent and apparently still a touchy subject there to this day

I believe it. It could not have helped their reputation, even though the guy had to be a major outlier in their school's history. If the show was accurate, the guy barely trained at all.

 

[dnyal]

As soon as EC hours becomes a critical metric for decisions, it ceases to be a useful indicator of humanistic qualities. It measures dogged willingness to jump through hoops, which is not nothing. At this point, EC hours absolutely compete with academic qualifications as a factor in decisions, especially at lower tier schools, and that could very well be bad for patients in the future. Unfortunately, the folks making admissions decisions couldn't be further removed from the consequences of their choices.

That’s precisely the point I’ve trying to make: if you make EC hours a requirement, everyone is gonna have them. Someone mentioned something before about diversity in the sense of having “Olympic athletes” and people with interesting backgrounds in medicine. Since when did that become a validated surrogate measure of future good bedside manners and competence? Does anyone think those “interesting” backgrounds abound in applicants from low SES?

My plea is that crazy EC requirements are hurting having more doctors from low SES. And that clearly shows, in my experience: I’ve had three different doctors of different races tell me or my husband, “That medication only costs $60-70! You can surely get it.” It’s very insensitive to say that because we would struggle to afford it. Not once have I had a physician in the U.S. discuss the cost of a treatment with me or my husband. I used to practice medicine overseas, and discussing the cost of treatment with my patients (even the seemingly high class ones) was always a part of the conversation.

 

[barrelgrubber321]

Not once have I had a physician in the U.S. discuss the cost of a treatment with me or my husband. I used to practice medicine overseas, and discussing the cost of treatment with my patients (even the seemingly high class ones) was always a part of the conversation.

Do you think a big part of this is the lack of understanding for how much things that the doctor orders actually costs their patients? Rather than a lack of empathy for how expensive medical care is

With the severe interference that insurance companies make in deciding clinical treatment, something like an MRI can cost 10 different patients 10 different amounts, arguably even if they all have the same insurance company (though that's probably a bit dramatic). I imagine that is difficult for physicians to discuss with patients being that its a broad ballpark of a number without a deep dive into the patient's insurance plan and history

I bet cosmetic plastic surgeons have no issue telling patients how much their commodities cost!

 

[deleted1142566]

That’s precisely the point I’ve trying to make: if you make EC hours a requirement, everyone is gonna have them. Someone mentioned something before about diversity in the sense of having “Olympic athletes” and people with interesting backgrounds in medicine. Since when did that become a validated surrogate measure of future good bedside manners and competence? Does anyone think those “interesting” backgrounds abound in applicants from low SES?

My plea is that crazy EC requirements are hurting having more doctors from low SES. And that clearly shows, in my experience: I’ve had three different doctors of different races tell me or my husband, “That medication only costs $60-70! You can surely get it.” It’s very insensitive to say that because we would struggle to afford it. Not once have I had a physician in the U.S. discuss the cost of a treatment with me or my husband. I used to practice medicine overseas, and discussing the cost of treatment with my patients (even the seemingly high class ones) was always a part of the conversation.

True. When you start relying on ECs, it’s just an additional barrier for low SES students to overcome.

You may argue that countries outside of the U.S. rely too much on standardized testing and create “robotic” doctors who can’t empathize, BUT at least in these countries low-income students can study hard for the exam and become a doctor.

Whereas in the U.S., low-income students are forced to choose between volunteering and a job, or low paid clinical experience vs well paid tech job. This is part of the reason why many American med students have parents who are also doctors.

And I know families where the older child wanted to become a doctor but didn’t pursue medicine simply because she had to provide financially for the family. And since tech had less hoops to jump through, it was a more economically viable option. Better than unpaid clinical volunteering as a premed, at least.

In fact I’m working in tech and am paying for med school apps on my own. Each school’s primary+secondary is approx $150, and I’m applying to 30 programs (which is about average). That’s $4500 just for applications. Which is more than half of my first paycheck.

So I don’t think that “holistic admissions” creates better doctors. It just leads to more doctors from wealthy backgrounds who had time and resources to pad their resumes.

And eventually, that leads to doctors who know nothing about the lack of affordable healthcare in America. I don’t care that my doctor was an Olympic athlete and has a lot of perseverance and grit; I care that they understand why I can’t afford a $700 Dexa bone density scan.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I am sharing the research I analyzed and co-published. The data suggest that, in spite of what we think is a forced choice, applicants who are in the low parental EO categories (suggesting lower socioeconomic status) have about the same number of hours for shadowing/clinical experience and volunteering/community service as those from higher SES categories. However, they do have a higher number of employment hours declared on the application.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.21815/JDE.019.144

As for knowing little about the healthcare system and lack of affordability... well, that's in the HPSA Becoming a Student Doctor course.

 

[deleted1142566]

I am sharing the research I analyzed and co-published. The data suggest that, in spite of what we think is a forced choice, applicants who are in the low parental EO categories (suggesting lower socioeconomic status) have about the same number of hours for shadowing/clinical experience and volunteering/community service as those from higher SES categories. However, they do have a higher number of employment hours declared on the application.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.21815/JDE.019.144

As for knowing little about the healthcare system and lack of affordability... well, that's in the HPSA Becoming a Student Doctor course.

Isn’t that selection bias though?

People who apply are going to be prepared with adequate hours, even if they are from low SES status. But how many people of low SES actually apply? Is it proportional to the percentage of low SES people in the U.S.? Or are there very few people of low SES status who even apply because they can’t afford the premed path?

 

[Radishguy]

In fact I’m working in tech and am paying for med school apps on my own. Each school’s primary+secondary is approx $150, and I’m applying to 30 programs (which is about average). That’s $4500 just for applications. Which is more than half of my first paycheck.

what tech job are you working where your first paycheck was around $8,000? Assuming biweekly pay, and appropriate taxes that’s around $300,000/year. You are giving up a job that started you at $300k to go to medical school? That’s amazing

 

[deleted1142566]

what tech job are you working where your first paycheck was around $8,000? Assuming biweekly pay, and appropriate taxes that’s around $300,000/year. You are giving up a job that started you at $300k to go to medical school? That’s amazing

It’s monthly pay, not biweekly.

 

[Goro]

It’s monthly pay, not biweekly.

Still not chicken feed.

Look, getting a medical education is a decade-long process in delayed gratification. If one can't afford to be able to work and engage in extracurriculars, one should be able to save up the money, and then take time off to do the extracurriculars. The students in my master's program have done that all the time

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Isn’t that selection bias though?

People who apply are going to be prepared with adequate hours, even if they are from low SES status. But how many people of low SES actually apply? Is it proportional to the percentage of low SES people in the U.S.? Or are there very few people of low SES status who even apply because they can’t afford the premed path?

Yes it captures applicants, but it is insightful that those who feel they are ready to apply present the hours that they do, and it includes those who had zero. It's the best one can do unless there is a survey that can be given to populations of pre-applicants, and that would be more challenging to identify them... cheaply.

 

[TrigeminalNeuralgia]

We take our jobs VERY seriously. We're the last barrier between applicants and patients.

I don't question that you guys take your jobs seriously, or your intentions. Seriousness doesn't prevent you from deluding yourself about the utility of soft qualitative subjective measures.

No, we live with the consequences of our choices pretty quickly. And usually for four solid years (or more). We have every incentive to accept applicants who will be good students and great doctors.

Are your incomes related to USMLE pass rate? Why not? Do people in admissions ever get fired? Will you guys be liable for the outcomes and malpractice of your alumni?

 

[Goro]

I don't question that you guys take your jobs seriously, or your intentions. Seriousness doesn't prevent you from deluding yourself about the utility of soft qualitative subjective measures.

You've never done admissions, have you?

Are your incomes related to USMLE pass rate? Why not? Do people in admissions ever get fired? Will you guys be liable for the outcomes and malpractice of your alumni?

No yes and no. For the last one, people are adults and responsible for their own decisions.

And should residency sites also be held accountable for their alums?