Why are so many premeds applying now of all times?

[ds1]

Having a cap for amount that research and ECs help. Base it more on GPA, MCAT, rigor/selectivity of undergrad, challenging interview situations, and supervised essay writing during interview day. Research, unless its done in a post-bac, PhD, etc should not really have any leeway because undergrads have minimal influence on the progression of the project they're on, and getting a poster at a pan-acceptance undergrad conference can be done by anyone. That and prize gap years a bit less. Training time is very long and older students are in fact quite limited in the specialties they can pick later

Placing more weight on gpa and test scores reduces diversity in the medical community. I’ve met plenty of really smart people (4.0/528 top 5 undergraduate program) that just can’t interact with other people which is literally the foundation of practicing medicine. Can those types of people learn to improve their interaction skills? Sure, but improvements are often slight and it’s a bit naive to think that anyone can just do it. In my professional opinion, making significant changes to one’s personality is rare even for smart people. The thing is, the way that you interact with others is a heck of a lot more important than your academic acumen to the patient who is scared.

Full disclosure, I was a low stat applicant in the traditional sense (3.3x/511). It’s likely that my military experience and clinical employment played larger roles in my acceptance than my gpa and test scores. Will my low stats make me a less capable physician than the 4.0/528 student? I don’t think so. Yeah maybe I will have a tougher time in the preclinical years, but I’ll get through it just like most other medical students.

The point I’m trying to make is that capping or limiting the subjective qualitative aspects of an applicant in favor of standardizable quantitative measurements like gpa and test scores doesn’t necessarily produce better medical students and physicians. Gpa, MCAT scores, and where you went to school, from what I have been told, used to be basically the only things looked at by admissions. There’s a reason that has changed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Med Ed]

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.

The job of the admissions committee has always been the same: lay the applications on the table and choose the ones you like best. I wouldn't say that we place too much emphasis on subjective measures. If anything, metrics continue to be king by a substantial margin. But the fact remains that if you put two candidates with similar numbers side-by-side, and one has spent several years consistently volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, and the other has a handful of volunteering one-offs (charity dance marathon? WFT?), which one do you think we'll lean toward? And would you choose differently?

Are your incomes related to USMLE pass rate? Why not? Do people in admissions ever get fired?

Incomes? No. Because it's a dumb idea. Fired? Absolutely, although usually done quietly.

Lots of people think they want to be admissions deans until they find out what the job actually entails: the tedium of application review, herding interviewers, herding applicants, serving the whims of the committee, traveling and giving the same presentation over and over, data management, event planning, extinguishing fires, fending off angry phone calls/emails, etc.

The toughest part, however, is navigating the competing interests. Every committee has members who are focused on different parts of the application, and they reflect the broader tensions present in each school. Assembling a class that satisfies every stakeholder is no easy task.

Will you guys be liable for the outcomes and malpractice of your alumni?

If the promotions committee doesn't do its job then yes, I would say the institution bears some moral responsibility. But if the alumni in question make it through residency and become board certified, then that burden is shared with GME.

 

[Goro]

The job of the admissions committee has always been the same: lay the applications on the table and choose the ones you like best. I wouldn't say that we place too much emphasis on subjective measures. If anything, metrics continue to be king by a substantial margin. But the fact remains that if you put two candidates with similar numbers side-by-side, and one has spent several years consistently volunteering for Habitat for Humanity, and the other has a handful of volunteering one-offs (charity dance marathon? WFT?), which one do you think we'll lean toward? And would you choose differently?

Indeed. As I Always point out, stats get you to the door, ECs get you through it.

Sadly, the people who constantly yap about how admissions should be meritocratic think "merit = high stats" and nothing else.

 

[psyspy]

Placing more weight on gpa and test scores reduces diversity in the medical community. I’ve met plenty of really smart people (4.0/528 top 5 undergraduate program) that just can’t interact with other people which is literally the foundation of practicing medicine. Can those types of people learn to improve their interaction skills? Sure, but improvements are often slight and it’s a bit naive to think that anyone can just do it. In my professional opinion, making significant changes to one’s personality is rare even for smart people. The thing is, the way that you interact with others is a heck of a lot more important than your academic acumen to the patient who is scared.

Full disclosure, I was a low stat applicant in the traditional sense (3.3x/511). It’s likely that my military experience and clinical employment played larger roles in my acceptance than my gpa and test scores. Will my low stats make me a less capable physician than the 4.0/528 student? I don’t think so. Yeah maybe I will have a tougher time in the preclinical years, but I’ll get through it just like most other medical students.

The point I’m trying to make is that capping or limiting the subjective qualitative aspects of an applicant in favor of standardizable quantitative measurements like gpa and test scores doesn’t necessarily produce better medical students and physicians. Gpa, MCAT scores, and where you went to school, from what I have been told, used to be basically the only things looked at by admissions. There’s a reason that has changed.

And most of the people I've met with good numbers interact with others just fine. Plenty of weird people with low numbers too. Your military experience does indeed add a lot.

All this said, I came to a recent realization. MCAT can be postponed as many times as one wants, and GPA can be increased with an easy major (which will also leave more time to study for BCPM type courses), so honestly, GPA and MCAT themselves might not even be incredibly accurate predictors, because you only get one chance at med school and step exams

 

[Mr.Smile12]

All this said, I came to a recent realization. MCAT can be postponed as many times as one wants, and GPA can be increased with an easy major (which will also leave more time to study for BCPM type courses), so honestly, GPA and MCAT themselves might not even be incredibly accurate predictors, because you only get one chance at med school and step exams

To be more precise with your correct realization: The GPA and MCAT together are more reliable in predicting student success in medical school, but they do not predict the future because of the different curricula and cultures. Standardized test performance usually predicts future standardized test performance and is reliant on quality of preparation and resources. GPA usually predicts first-year didactic GPA. But after that, the reliability goes down as the material you are learning becomes more important because of its relevance to your success. MMI also has predictive value for OSCE exams (which should surprise no one in education).

 

[ProReduction]

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

You are making this argument on a forum where 98% of the people had to Google "Fourier transformation". The audience is unlikely to appreciate that 90% of doctors could not make it through Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, Control Theory, Algorithms . . . much less an entire rigorous undergraduate engineering degree.

 

[deleted1142566]

You are making this argument on a forum where 98% of the people had to Google "Fourier transformation". The audience is unlikely to appreciate that 90% of doctors could not make it through Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, Control Theory, Algorithms . . . much less an entire rigorous undergraduate engineering degree.

Lol. I’m an engineer and didn’t like linear algebra. I stopped after the lower division linear algebra course at my school. It got too theoretical/abstract. My fav class instead was an electrical eng class on signal processing. Honestly I felt like a monkey with a room temp IQ in maths courses.

Instead, I liked engineering & ochem. Basically anything that was more applied than theory, as well as anything that was visual in nature. I really enjoyed building circuits, drawing molecules, and visualizing city plans.

Plus I grew up with 3 generations of engineers so engineering came naturally to me. My sister was a girly girl, so I was the “son” my father never had (I’m also a girl lol). He’d teach me how to mess with TV antennas, get free movies off the internet, and how to take apart laptops. When I was young we’d go to Home Depot and build stuff

 

[DNAJB6]

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

I think they're pretty average. 👿😆

 

[MDMechEngr]

Toughest for me was Advance Vector Dynamics for the ME major where we had to learn gyroscopic motion, which are motions in i j k space (i x j = k, i dot J = 1 etc..)with row, pitch and yaw angular motion. Real life application is a hellocopter. Set up the equation to describe the motion, take the first derivative for velocity, and second derivative for accelleration. Good stuff.

 

[dnyal]

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

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.

I agree with these stances. I was thinking that maybe doctors here do not discuss treatment costs because insurance coverage varies so much and the system is so crazy. I used to practice under universal health care, which standardized everything, but even there my last job was one where I saw people from poor to very wealthy backgrounds, and I would always discuss their ability to obtain treatment. This might sound crazy, but I even offered my poorer patients to fill out a prior authorization for their expensive medications should they need it; I would even have arguments with the medical auditors who were supposed to approve the PAs when they came back denied. That is unheard of here, having to deal with pestering doctor's offices myself to get them to do a PA for my husband's meds or resubmit them when they are denied. And I honestly don't think non-American doctors are some sort of academic robots just because foreign systems focus more on academics, and I know that for a fact!

 

[LeaveNoTrace]

You are making this argument on a forum where 98% of the people had to Google "Fourier transformation". The audience is unlikely to appreciate that 90% of doctors could not make it through Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, Control Theory, Algorithms . . . much less an entire rigorous undergraduate engineering degree.

I honestly do not know and doubt this - especially if the objective is simply to graduate, not to make it out with a 3.6+ GPA. I say this as a former math major. I think that most of my (US midtier) medschool class could make it through our undergrad’s engineering degree if we had to. And at least 25 percent would have 3.7+ GPAs.

 

[LeaveNoTrace]

Lol. I’m an engineer and didn’t like linear algebra. I stopped after the lower division linear algebra course at my school. It got too theoretical/abstract. My fav class instead was an electrical eng class on signal processing. Honestly I felt like a monkey with a room temp IQ in maths courses.

Instead, I liked engineering & ochem. Basically anything that was more applied than theory, as well as anything that was visual in nature. I really enjoyed building circuits, drawing molecules, and visualizing city plans.

Plus I grew up with 3 generations of engineers so engineering came naturally to me. My sister was a girly girl, so I was the “son” my father never had (I’m also a girl lol). He’d teach me how to mess with TV antennas, get free movies off the internet, and how to take apart laptops. When I was young we’d go to Home Depot and build stuff

Aww…I remember being six years old helping my mechanical engineer dad assemble bookcases from IKEA. He’d be telling me about the breaking strength of bolts as I handed him screws and tools. When a bolt was bent, he’d tell me that it had ‘passed its modulus of elasticity’ or something like that. My father, great grandfather, and great great grandfather were all engineers. Engineer families are interesting like that…

 

[Putkernerinthehall]

You are making this argument on a forum where 98% of the people had to Google "Fourier transformation". The audience is unlikely to appreciate that 90% of doctors could not make it through Linear Algebra, Differential Equations, Control Theory, Algorithms . . . much less an entire rigorous undergraduate engineering degree.

Completely disagree. A good portion (half?) of pre-meds at top universities could get through Engineering school with a decent 3.5+ GPA. It's hard (I know firsthand) but the combination of brains and grit most pre-meds possess would get them through.