Why is the American MD so long?

[sourdoughllama]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Doesn't mean a rat race? What do you think medical school admissions would be if the MCAT (or any test) and GPA were the only things that mattered? This would be a severe step backward in our huge movement to admit less-than-qualified (or below avg... however you want to look at it) underrepresented minorities to medical school. Also, as someone else mentioned earlier, I would think the education gap between low & high socioeconomic groups are greater in high school than college.

It clearly works for many, many countries. And I am against URM boosting so that would not sway my opinion at all. You seem to be unable to differentiate between foreign systems vs. the US. Just because the US stresses URM diversity, it doesnt mean health outcpmes that do not are worse. Likewise, just because the US deems medicine to be a graduate degree when pretty much the rest of the world considers it an undergraduate degree, it doesn't mean high schoolers are not fit to start med school. These are peceptions we as Americans hold to be true because that's how it works here.

 

[BestDoctorEver]

I don't think OP was so much in favor of high school to med school track. I think all OP was saying is: Why don't we just take the prereq in two years and ignore other unnecessary classes i.e Art Appreciation etc... (I have this class in my transcript.Lol)... I have also heard from a lot of medical students that the 4-year basic science in med school can be cut to 3-year... That will only make the degree a 5-year degree plus 3 years minimum residency so people can be a physician in 8-year. Does someone need to spend 11-year in training to become a good PCP? By the way, what is wrong with the current MCAT?

 

[mehc012]

Culturally having a BS/MD program exclusively doesn't make any sense. Teens are expected to be immature idiots. We don't let people drink legally until they are 21, or rent a car without jacking up the price until they are 25. People don't want green looking doctors.

Also the idea of reinvention is significant and having exclusively high school to med school would screw over non trads

One of the ER docs I work with is in his 40s, with a wife and 2 kids, and I still have patients catch me (the scribe) on my way out of the room to ask 'was that really the doctor? He looks so...young. Are you sure he's qualified?'

 

[Womb Raider]

It clearly works for many, many countries. And I am against URM boosting so that would not sway my opinion at all. You seem to be unable to differentiate between foreign systems vs. the US. Just because the US stresses URM diversity, it doesnt mean health outcpmes that do not are worse. Likewise, just because the US deems medicine to be a graduate degree when pretty much the rest of the world considers it an undergraduate degree, it doesn't mean high schoolers are not fit to start med school. These are peceptions we as Americans hold to be true because that's how it works here.

Sure it works for many countries. However, there's no such thing as a perfect analogy and just because something works in other countries doesn't mean it will work in America. We have different goals and we have different problems. Not to mention the fact that physicians in the US make more money than most other countries (if not all?) - that's a big deal because more money = more sought after = more competitive.

You guys aren't seeing the big picture. If we were to make a direct HS --> Med school approach, with no (or minimal) ECs, clinical experience, etc... requirements the system would HIGHLY favor the wealthy families and Asian populations. You think diversity is bad now? Make HS--> Med school direct approach and I'll watch your jaws drop as 99% of the medical school classes are made up of White, Asian and a few middle eastern matriculates. Of course, we could lower the standards for URMs like we are doing now, but the gap would be MUCH larger and this whole URM debate would blow up quite possibly cause the world to explode.

Comparing the US to other countries, although good in theory, isn't really that practical...

 

[sourdoughllama]

Also the idea of reinvention is significant and having exclusively high school to med school would screw over non trads

Why would it screw over non trads? I know with 100% accuracy that in Brazil, if you wish to go back to med school, you just take the national entrance exam, and enroll again - regardless of previous degrees or age. You could just go back to school like everyone else.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Sure it works for many countries. However, there's no such thing as a perfect analogy and just because something works in other countries doesn't mean it will work in America. We have different goals and we have different problems. Not to mention the fact that physicians in the US make more money than most other countries (if not all?) - that's a big deal because more money = more sought after = more competitive.

You guys aren't seeing the big picture. If we were to make a direct HS --> Med school approach, with no (or minimal) ECs, clinical experience, etc... requirements the system would HIGHLY favor the wealthy families and Asian populations. You think diversity is bad now? Make HS--> Med school direct approach and I'll watch your jaws drop as 99% of the medical school classes are made up of White, Asian and a few middle eastern matriculates. Of course, we could lower the standards for URMs like we are doing now, but the gap would be MUCH larger and this whole URM debate would blow up quite possibly cause the world to explode.

Comparing the US to other countries, although good in theory, isn't really that practical...

That is a very obvious outcome of this system. The question is whether this gap between whites and asians vs. URM is important. Many will argue it is, many will argue it's not. Again, that is the "big picture" for you because you buy into the AAMC's mission statement and believe it is an indispensible part of the medical field. That cannot be applied across all medical students/professionals, and much less across a whole country.

Edited because I misunderstood part of your post

 

[mehc012]

That is a very obvious outcome of this system. The question is whether this gap between whites and asians vs. URM is important. Many will argue it is, many will argue it's not. Again, that is the "big picture" for you because you buy into the AAMC's mission statement and believe it is an indispensible part of the medical field. That cannot be applied across all medical students/professionals, and much less across a whole country. Also nice assumption that in a meritocratic system, it will be "wealthy families and Asians." Asians are not all privileged.

Whites are not all privileged either...the point is which populations have large enough privileged group to overwhelm the available spots if such a system were implemented.
Personally, I don't care about the gap between whites and Asians and URM. I care about the giant, gaping socioeconomic gap that too much of the US tries to pretend is not there.

Some of the things I have heard the docs and (mostly) PAs at work say about poor people is horrifying. I sometimes have to bite my tongue to make it through shifts without snapping at people who sit there, with their six-figure salaries, and educate me on how 'when grow up' I will suddenly, magically, become as entitled as them and hate poor people because it's unfair that they get housing assistance in anywhere but the ****tiest places. Or a rant about how 'I have a kid and a house now, I cannot believe they are still making me pay taxes!' Well, you make like 100k, what the hell did you expect? I made 10k this year, spent half of it on education, and I still had to pay taxes! (curse the fact that 21-25yr olds magically don't qualify for EIC).
I have heard physicians and PAs discuss how the county should stop giving out assistance to poor people just so that none of them come live near them. And some of what they say about their poorer patients goes beyond the standard healthcare frustration with endless payment-free Emergency Department abuse. Of course, they are still good people - but that's the thing. They simply have no perspective on how easily their lives could be just as tenuous, or how incredibly lucky they've gotten. And yes, they've worked really hard too...people always treat luck and work as exclusive entities, but in reality, it almost always takes both to succeed. A few more physicians who understood that would be a very good thing.

I would be ecstatic if entry into terminal degree fields like medicine were less about money and more about actual merit. Hell, maybe starting admission in HS, where everyone has free education (of admittedly varying caliber) would be a good start, if it were implemented correctly.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

That's assuming that medical school admissions still keeps the same entrance standards. In many other countries, all it takes is a one-time, national entrance exam (like the MCAT), no ECs, no grades. So it doesn't necessarily mean a rat race - that's just how it is in the US. Also, many countries have education systems way worse than the US (like South America where I'm from). If you guys think the public education in the US is bad, try going to other countries that aren't rich European countries - it's not even remotely close. Every one of these countries has doctors and a medical education system that goes directly from high school to med school and they do just fine.

I come from a country where they do the national entrance exam style premed curriculum and it IS a rat race. Everyone in my family always comments on how you're trained to take "the test" from the moment you enter first grade. I hate the idea of that happening here. Putting everything into one test automatically favors people who can afford years of test prep. Especially if some kids are going to schools that might not prepare them for the test as well as schools in more affluent areas.

I would never argue that most countries have a weaker education system than ours. I mean, we're one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. I'm only saying that WITHIN our country our high schools do a bad job of giving everyone an even shot. Look at the kids who can afford to go to prep schools/magnet schools that feed into the ivies. These are probably going to be the majority of the kids who get into med school out of high school - outside of the few token "low-income kids" they'll accept for "diversity."

 

[sourdoughllama]

Whites are not all privileged either...the point is which populations have large enough privileged group to overwhelm the available spots if such a system were implemented.
Personally, I don't care about the gap between whites and Asians and URM. I care about the giant, gaping socioeconomic gap that too much of the US tries to pretend is not there.

Some of the things I have heard the docs and (mostly) PAs at work say about poor people is horrifying. I sometimes have to bite my tongue to make it through shifts without snapping at people who sit there, with their six-figure salaries, and educate me on how 'when grow up' I will suddenly, magically, become as entitled as them and hate poor people because it's unfair that they get housing assistance in anywhere but the ****tiest places. Or a rant about how 'I have a kid and a house now, I cannot believe they are still making me pay taxes!' Well, you make like 100k, what the hell did you expect? I made 10k this year, spent half of it on education, and I still had to pay taxes! (curse the fact that 21-25yr olds magically don't qualify for EIC).
I have heard physicians and PAs discuss how the county should stop giving out assistance to poor people just so that none of them come live near them. And some of what they say about their poorer patients goes beyond the standard healthcare frustration with endless payment-free Emergency Department abuse. Of course, they are still good people - but that's the thing. They simply have no perspective on how easily their lives could be just as tenuous, or how incredibly lucky they've gotten. And yes, they've worked really hard too...people always treat luck and work as exclusive entities, but in reality, it almost always takes both to succeed. A few more physicians who understood that would be a very good thing.

I would be ecstatic if entry into terminal degree fields like medicine were less about money and more about actual merit. Hell, maybe starting admission in HS, where everyone has free education (of admittedly varying caliber) would be a good start, if it were implemented correctly.

I'm for SES-conscious admissions practices as well. I would argue that gap is a lot more hindering than race

 

[sourdoughllama]

I come from a country where they do the national entrance exam style premed curriculum and it IS a rat race. Everyone in my family always comments on how you're trained to take "the test" from the moment you enter first grade. I hate the idea of that happening here. Putting everything into one test automatically favors people who can afford years of test prep. Especially if some kids are going to schools that might not prepare them for the test as well as schools in more affluent areas.

I would never argue that most countries have a weaker education system than ours. I mean, we're one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. I'm only saying that WITHIN our country our high schools do a bad job of giving everyone an even shot. Look at the kids who can afford to go to prep schools/magnet schools that feed into the ivies. These are probably going to be the majority of the kids who get into med school out of high school - outside of the few token "low-income kids" they'll accept for "diversity."

While I agree that a one-test system can favor those who can afford test prep, the way our system is set up favors wealthy people heavily (even more than the one-test system in my opinion). People CAN afford to scrounge up money for test prep, but once you start throwing in shadowing, life experiences, research opportunities, SAT/ACT and MCAT, access to better extra curriculars, etc, etc the gap between the rich and the poor is so much more apparent. At least with the one test, many people can achieve that.

 

[mehc012]

I'm for SES-conscious admissions practices as well. I would argue that gap is a lot more hindering than race

I always thought that the whole URM thing was just a poorly-conceived shortcut for addressing SES disparities. Like "hey, there is a problem leading too many minorities to be low SES. Also, unsurprisingly, SES people are disadvantaged...you know what, this is getting too complicated, let's just address the minority part because that involves a single checkbox and then a cursory glance to assess rather than getting into economics".

 

[mehc012]

While I agree that a one-test system can favor those who can afford test prep, the way our system is set up favors wealthy people heavily (even more than the one-test system in my opinion). People CAN afford to scrounge up money for test prep, but once you start throwing in shadowing, life experiences, research opportunities, SAT/ACT and MCAT, access to better extra curriculars, etc, etc the gap between the rich and the poor is so much more apparent. At least with the one test, many people can achieve that.

It's a lot easier to setup finaid programs for MCAT prep and fees than to set up a more pervasive program which helps with transportation costs to the hospital volunteering, free-for-all schmooze events with academics for that in on the research front, and of course, supplements income so that teens don't feel pressured to get a job...not to mention the costs of cello lessons and sports equipment, all of THAT transportation, ad nauseum until your head explodes. Plus, once you supplement all of that it's just considered welfare and then it's a giant political hairball instead of "hey, let's help more people afford the MCAT!"

 

[LizzyM]

While I agree that a one-test system can favor those who can afford test prep, the way our system is set up favors wealthy people heavily (even more than the one-test system in my opinion). People CAN afford to scrounge up money for test prep, but once you start throwing in shadowing, life experiences, research opportunities, SAT/ACT and MCAT, access to better extra curriculars, etc, etc the gap between the rich and the poor is so much more apparent. At least with the one test, many people can achieve that.

Keep in mind that aside from the test prep, the material taught would be covered in HS. In the US there is a range of HSs from piss poor publicly funded neighborhood schools, to selective enrollment public schools, charter schools, religious schools of varying quality, elite private day schools as well as boarding schools, a few of which are public schools focused on math and science but that are primarily elite schools with fees and resources that rival universities. Except for the state funded math and science academies, most public schools are funded with property taxes meaning that schools in wealthy districts are generally of higher quality than schools in poor communities. Yeah, a one-test system would not be biased, not at all.

A one-test system also suggests that nothing about maturity, personality, motivation for medicine matters.

 

[type12]

Keep in mind that aside from the test prep, the material taught would be covered in HS. In the US there is a range of HSs from piss poor publicly funded neighborhood schools, to selective enrollment public schools, charter schools, religious schools of varying quality, elite private day schools as well as boarding schools, a few of which are public schools focused on math and science but that are primarily elite schools with fees and resources that rival universities. Except for the state funded math and science academies, most public schools are funded with property taxes meaning that schools in wealthy districts are generally of higher quality than schools in poor communities. Yeah, a one-test system would not be biased, not at all.

A one-test system also suggests that nothing about maturity, personality, motivation for medicine matters.

I'm confused. Are you saying the current medical education system is or isn't broken? This sounds like support for the former, but the tone suggest the latter.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Keep in mind that aside from the test prep, the material taught would be covered in HS. In the US there is a range of HSs from piss poor publicly funded neighborhood schools, to selective enrollment public schools, charter schools, religious schools of varying quality, elite private day schools as well as boarding schools, a few of which are public schools focused on math and science but that are primarily elite schools with fees and resources that rival universities. Except for the state funded math and science academies, most public schools are funded with property taxes meaning that schools in wealthy districts are generally of higher quality than schools in poor communities. Yeah, a one-test system would not be biased, not at all.

A one-test system also suggests that nothing about maturity, personality, motivation for medicine matters.

That range of high schools is true everywhere. I highly doubt countries (with a few exceptions) have top-notch schools in ghetto areas. None of these plights are unique to America. A one-test system is obviously biased, but so is our current model. The rich get more resources, go to better HS, then better colleges, and land into med school much easier than poor kids. That is not any less biased than 1 test. If the need for random ad coms to assess other people's maturity is so vital, again, how do most other countries in the world deal with all these clearly immature med students? Good thing the US is one of the only countries in the world that has this figured out.

 

[LizzyM]

That range of high schools is true everywhere. I highly doubt countries (with a few exceptions) have top-notch schools in ghetto areas. None of these plights are unique to America. A one-test system is obviously biased, but so is our current model. The rich get more resources, go to better HS, then better colleges, and land into med school much easier than poor kids. That is not any less biased than 1 test. If the need for random ad coms to assess other people's maturity is so vital, again, how do most other countries in the world deal with all these clearly immature med students? Good thing the US is one of the only countries in the world that has this figured out.

Keep in mind that other countries pay their doctors a bit more than school teachers but not a whole lot more. There is no incentive to go into medicine for the money as there is in the US. That changes things.
If we made medical education shorter and cheaper, there would be little argument that docs needed high salaries to offset the opportunity costs of their many years of education and their high student loan burdens. Would you trade off a total 7 year training period (2 yrs college, 3 yrs med school, 2 yr residency) for a cap on salaries of $120K?

 

[sourdoughllama]

Keep in mind that other countries pay their doctors a bit more than school teachers but not a whole lot more. There is no incentive to go into medicine for the money as there is in the US. That changes things.
If we made medical education shorter and cheaper, there would be little argument that docs needed high salaries to offset the opportunity costs of their many years of education and their high student loan burdens. Would you trade off a total 7 year training period (2 yrs college, 3 yrs med school, 2 yr residency) for a cap on salaries of $120K?

Docs everywhere do on avg make a good amount above the normal population, and there is the prestige factor, but you're right, we get paid more here than basically anywhere else - I can see that bringing a lot more unwanted people into the applicant pool. Whether this justifies college and not the 1-test system, I don't really know if it does at all. If by cheap you mean free, and 7 years includes residency, I'd be fine with 120K.

 

[oncology2020]

Keep in mind that other countries pay their doctors a bit more than school teachers but not a whole lot more. There is no incentive to go into medicine for the money as there is in the US. That changes things.
If we made medical education shorter and cheaper, there would be little argument that docs needed high salaries to offset the opportunity costs of their many years of education and their high student loan burdens. Would you trade off a total 7 year training period (2 yrs college, 3 yrs med school, 2 yr residency) for a cap on salaries of $120K?

salary decreases are inevitable with the current climate..the more realistic question is would the cream of the crop students that are getting accepted now a days work at a constantly high level, sacrifice, time and debt for a 12-16 years (4 years of pre-med + 1 gap year + 4 years of medical school + 3 years of residency + 2 years of fellowship) to then eventually hunt for a job (job market is terrible for several specialities, the health care field is going through its own recession) to then "only" get a max salary of $120,000 before taxes..when you get the same amount with a PharmD (in 6 years) or dentist (who make $160,000-$200,000 in 8 years: 2-4 years of pre-dental + 4 years of dental school, no residency required). I'm not saying studens will be going into pharmacy or dentistry, but they will definitely give it a second thought..

 

[LuciusVorenus]

That range of high schools is true everywhere. I highly doubt countries (with a few exceptions) have top-notch schools in ghetto areas. None of these plights are unique to America. A one-test system is obviously biased, but so is our current model. The rich get more resources, go to better HS, then better colleges, and land into med school much easier than poor kids. That is not any less biased than 1 test. If the need for random ad coms to assess other people's maturity is so vital, again, how do most other countries in the world deal with all these clearly immature med students? Good thing the US is one of the only countries in the world that has this figured out.

It kind of is though. The U.S has the greatest degree of income inequality among any of the developed nations.

It's probably also a lot harder to overcome poverty as a minor living in a poor area than it is as an adult attending university and receiving financial aid. I agree that rich kids might be going to better colleges, but I still think the playing field is more even if you compare state school to top 20 versus a magnet/private high school to some high school in South Central LA.

 

[oncology2020]

Keep in mind that aside from the test prep, the material taught would be covered in HS. In the US there is a range of HSs from piss poor publicly funded neighborhood schools, to selective enrollment public schools, charter schools, religious schools of varying quality, elite private day schools as well as boarding schools, a few of which are public schools focused on math and science but that are primarily elite schools with fees and resources that rival universities. Except for the state funded math and science academies, most public schools are funded with property taxes meaning that schools in wealthy districts are generally of higher quality than schools in poor communities. Yeah, a one-test system would not be biased, not at all.

A one-test system also suggests that nothing about maturity, personality, motivation for medicine matters.

??? that wasn't some radical idea..there is already a "one-test" system in place for high schoolers..SATs (there is the ACT but it's essentially the same idea and majority of college students take the SAT anyways).. im not saying those exams arent biased (i think they're extremely biased) but obviously they're still being used as a major components of the application process

and you don't think the current one-test sytem (MCAT) is biased towards the affluent? it's extremely biased but obviously it's still being used and is often arguably more important than anything else on a person's application

 

[Womb Raider]

??? that wasn't some radical idea..there is already a "one-test" system in place for high schoolers..SATs (there is the ACT but it's essentially the same idea and majority of college students take the SAT anyways).. im not saying those exams arent biased (i think they're extremely biased) but obviously they're still being used as a major components of the application process

and you don't think the current one-test sytem (MCAT) is biased towards the affluent? it's extremely biased but obviously it's still being used and is often arguably more important than anything else on a person's application

Which professional careers are based solely off your SAT score and HS GPA?

 

[Sassafrass23]

It kind of is though. The U.S has the greatest degree of income inequality among any of the developed nations.

It's probably also a lot harder to overcome poverty as a minor living in a poor area than it is as an adult attending university and receiving financial aid. I agree that rich kids might be going to better colleges, but I still think the playing field is more even if you compare state school to top 20 versus a magnet/private high school to some high school in South Central LA.

Wat. We're definitely up there but not the highest. Where did you see that?

 

[mehc012]

Keep in mind that other countries pay their doctors a bit more than school teachers but not a whole lot more. There is no incentive to go into medicine for the money as there is in the US. That changes things.
If we made medical education shorter and cheaper, there would be little argument that docs needed high salaries to offset the opportunity costs of their many years of education and their high student loan burdens. Would you trade off a total 7 year training period (2 yrs college, 3 yrs med school, 2 yr residency) for a cap on salaries of $120K?

I would absolutely make that trade. I don't care about the length of education - if anything, I see it as a bit of a plus, as I like being a student and am in no rush to have to figure out my own practice or anything - but I would 100% trade no debt for a comfortable upper middle class salary. I would be a physician for $80k/yr if there were no debt involved, and I would feel incredibly lucky. But then, I cannot stand debt.

??? that wasn't some radical idea..there is already a "one-test" system in place for high schoolers..SATs (there is the ACT but it's essentially the same idea and majority of college students take the SAT anyways).. im not saying those exams arent biased (i think they're extremely biased) but obviously they're still being used as a major components of the application process

The SAT is a joke test, though. It doesn't require any studying at all unless you grew up at a disadvantage (aka low-SES, undervalues education, non-English speaking, or less-literate family group). It's simply not comparable. The APs are only marginally better - they at least require that you have taken the course.

Unfortunately, test prep for the SATs is only really a viable option for kids who don't need it - aka those with families which have money, schooling, and an understanding of the value of education.

 

[oncology2020]

Which professional careers are based solely off your SAT score and HS GPA?

? i don't think anyone proposed being able to practice medicine based solely off SAT or HS GPA..remember there are several barriers and ways to weed out at every step of our profession: must do well on 3 USMLEs then apply, interview and obtain a residency spot before you can be licensed to practice..and then before you can even be board-certified (insurances won't reimburse you if you're aren't board certified) there is also the speciality-specific board exams that you must pass and then re-take to re-certify every several years.

USMLE which is a LICENSING exam and was originally meant to serve as a function of whether you can be licensed or not but then was adapted by residencies as an MCAT-like selection factor to further weed out more people. It was never meant to serve that purpose which is why you can only take it once if you pass (there were whispers about making USMLE pass/fail). Point is there are many ways to weed out throughout the process which are already present. There are so many barriers to being a doctor (which is a good thing) that sometimes we forget.

and there are many ways around it: have the traditional 4 year undergrad option, but offer undergrads the option of applying in their 2nd year to enter the medical school program starting 3rd year so that it's not straight out of high school.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

Wat. We're definitely up there but not the highest. Where did you see that?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/GINI_Index_SVG.svg
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.3.3

A map of developed countries for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Developed_Countries_(CIA_World_Factbook_2008).png

Maybe I'm missing a country but it looks like we're at the top?

EDIT: Excluding South Africa I guess...

 

[oncology2020]

The SAT is a joke test, though. It doesn't require any studying at all unless you grew up at a disadvantage (aka low-SES, undervalues education, non-English speaking, or less-literate family group). It's simply not comparable. The APs are only marginally better - they at least require that you have taken the course.

Unfortunately, test prep for the SATs is only really a viable option for kids who don't need it - aka those with families which have money, schooling, and an understanding of the value of education.

speak for yourself, i found the SAT to be quite difficult (it was definitely not a joke or a walk in the park) and not at all an accurate assessment of knowledge. AP exams actually tested your knowledge. maybe you were more privelaged and/or just more intelligent than me.

 

[Sassafrass23]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/GINI_Index_SVG.svg
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.3.3

A map of developed countries for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Developed_Countries_(CIA_World_Factbook_2008).png

Maybe I'm missing a country but it looks like we're at the top?

EDIT: Excluding South Africa I guess...

It's really not a big deal, it just seemed like an incredibly bold statement so I looked it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

I know this is wikipedia buuut.....Bottom two charts can be sorted by income inequality using (something fancy called the) Gini coefficient.

 

[LuciusVorenus]

It's really not a big deal, it just seemed like an incredibly bold statement so I looked it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

I know this is wikipedia buuut.....Bottom two charts can be sorted by income inequality using (something fancy called the) Gini coefficient.

Interesting that the graph (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/World_Income_Gini_Map_(2013).svg) doesn't match the table, but either way it looks like we're in the top 3 after taxes (not including developing countries of course).

 

[Sassafrass23]

Interesting that the graph (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/World_Income_Gini_Map_(2013).svg) doesn't match the table, but either way it looks like we're in the top 3 after taxes (not including developing countries of course).

Eh, it's wiki. But yes, we definitely don't rock income equality here.

 

[mehc012]

speak for yourself, i found the SAT to be quite difficult (it was definitely not a joke or a walk in the park) and not at all an accurate assessment of knowledge. AP exams actually tested your knowledge. maybe you were more privelaged and/or just more intelligent than me.

Nah, I just read a lot cuz we were too broke for TV 😉
It is not really supposed to be a knowledge based test - it's a test of how well you take tests.
A basic HS education is expected; beyond that it's more about how you perform on exams.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of factors which can interfere with the HS education part (English language proficiency being a big one, cruddy schools and lack of support at home being another). These things can be addressed by HS students, but the students which need this are typically those less able to afford SAT prep (and it's really hard to overcome the barrier of 'I guess I am just not good at school' if your family has the same attitude).

AP exams are better in that they do require some knowledge, but again, you are honestly better off being 'good at tests' than having studied for them (again, with a cutoff level of 'took the class at all').

I'm looking forward to the MCAT as an exam which requires background knowledge and test skills. Cannot wait to dive into that one!

 

[LuciusVorenus]

Nah, I just read a lot cuz we were too broke for TV 😉
It is not really supposed to be a knowledge based test - it's a test of how well you take tests.
A basic HS education is expected; beyond that it's more about how you perform on exams.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of factors which can interfere with the HS education part (English language proficiency being a big one, cruddy schools and lack of support at home being another). These things can be addressed by HS students, but the students which need this are typically those less able to afford SAT prep (and it's really hard to overcome the barrier of 'I guess I am just not good at school' if your family has the same attitude).

AP exams are better in that they do require some knowledge, but again, you are honestly better off being 'good at tests' than having studied for them (again, with a cutoff level of 'took the class at all').

I'm looking forward to the MCAT as an exam which requires background knowledge and test skills. Cannot wait to dive into that one!

I agree on that part. I didn't even buy a single book for the SAT and got above a 2000. If I had tried that with the MCAT I would have gotten rekt. I hear the ACT is better than the SAT, but I never actually got to take it.

 

[mehc012]

I agree on that part. I didn't even buy a single book for the SAT and got above a 2000. If I had tried that with the MCAT I would have gotten rekt. I hear the ACT is better than the SAT, but I never actually got to take it.

I forgot I was taking it until the confirmation email the night before. My mother almost murdered me over that one...but since I found out just before going to bed and then got sick during the exam (ugh, try testing with awful stomach pain), she never had an opportunity to actually get mad, thankfully!

 

[VVH1003]

I could see a 6-year BSMD path as viable if we were to completely overhaul our high schools, say, splitting them into tiers the way the Germans do. But as long as 4-year 'high school for all' continues, and the focus remains on football, cheerleaders and socializing instead of serious learning, then IMO, we need that 4 years of college to get the education many students didn't get in high school.

This.

 

[FutureERDoc16]

Please no URM debate.

 

[mehc012]

Please no URM debate.

Totally wasn't going down that road, but thanks for popping that up to the forefront.

 

[phunky]

This is the kind of topic where premeds just have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[mehc012]

This is the kind of topic where premeds just have no idea what they're talking about.

Which is why we keep our uninformed discussions over here and out of the way! Feel free to enlighten us, though...input from people farther along in the process is 90% of the value of SDN.

 

[sourdoughllama]

This is the kind of topic where premeds just have no idea what they're talking about.

Says the pre med?

 

[hushcom]

Says the pre med?

Perhaps, but also says some of the folks who have been through the process and are old enough to have sired you. There is a reason why we don't let 14-year-olds decide the driving age.

 

[XmedBarney]

The SAT is a joke test, though. It doesn't require any studying at all unless you grew up at a disadvantage (aka low-SES, undervalues education, non-English speaking, or less-literate family group). It's simply not comparable. The APs are only marginally better - they at least require that you have taken the course.

Yep. It's an open secret that the SAT's/ACT's are a substitute for IQ tests, and colleges see them that way.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Perhaps, but also says some of the folks who have been through the process and are old enough to have sired you. There is a reason why we don't let 14-year-olds decide the driving age.

Actually, one has yet to take that step in accusing pre meds of being clueless except for a pre med. Feel free to search the thread

 

[hushcom]

Actually, one has yet to take that step in accusing pre meds of being clueless except for a pre med. Feel free to search the thread

Sounds like someone could use a bit more liberal arts.

 

[sourdoughllama]

Sounds like someone could use a bit more liberal arts.

Ok dude I'm not here for petty comments like these. I have brought up some valid points on this thread so far, and others that have opposing views have countered them with well thought out responses. Unless you have some hard data to support argument (you haven't said anything valuable), don't bother using the 'i'm older therefore I know better argument.' I don't really buy it

 

[mehc012]

Yep. It's an open secret that the SAT's/ACT's are a substitute for IQ tests, and colleges see them that way.

It's test-skills plus 'screw you ESL students and disadvantaged ones!'

 

[phunky]

Says the pre med?

Yes, says the premed. I haven't contributed to this discussion, because I do not have the experience or background knowledge to provide a worthwhile opinion.

 

[hushcom]

Unless you have some hard data to support argument (you haven't said anything valuable), don't bother using the 'i'm older therefore I know better argument.' I don't really buy it

I'm not even making an argument, dear boy. I'm just laughing.

 

[XmedBarney]

It's test-skills plus 'screw you ESL students and disadvantaged ones!'

What exactly are test taking skills?

 

[mehc012]

Yes, says the premed. I haven't contributed to this discussion, because I do not have the experience or background knowledge to provide a worthwhile opinion.

Bull. You can have a worthwhile discussion about something without being an expert.

I'm not even making an argument, dear boy. I'm just laughing.

Wow, that's super useful to anyone else ever and I'm so glad you took the time to contribute absolutely nothing while being an @$$ about it.

 

[hushcom]

Wow, that's super useful to anyone else ever and I'm so glad you took the time to contribute absolutely nothing while being an @$$ about it.

You are most welcome.

 

[mehc012]

What exactly are test taking skills?

IQ is touted as a measure of intelligence, when really it's more "are you good at taking tests". There are plenty of people who are intelligent, but who suck at taking tests. I prefer to call it what it is rather than lend credence to the notion that aptitude for exams = intelligence. Plus, people can practice testing and improve, whereas 'IQ' is generally regarded as some fixed personal characteristic.