Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Here's my take on why the medical school admissions system is inherently flawed, but before I start let me state a few obvious points:
1) Im not bitching about it, just trying to say why I think its flawed, which leads to
2) I don't expect AAMCAS to magically change the system overnight, I realize that I have no choice of getting into medical school unless I actually go through with this system when I apply.
3) Any admissions system, be it undergrad, grad, medical, law, etc. is flawed in some sense since many qualified candidates are rejected due to space limitations, etc.
4) This is pretty biased, would I post this if I had a 3.9 cGPA at Harvard and awesome ec's/lor's? I don't know, but thats not where I am.
Getting into medical school is different from getting into any other professional school because being a doctor is different than any other kind of profession out there. Being a doctor places a sense of responsibility that transcends the kind of work any other profession will require. No one is going to die if they lose revenue, no one is going to die if their experiment fails, or if they lose a court case. That kind of assurance isn't prevalent in this field because if a doctor makes a mistake, the patient may very well die.
Yes all of this is obvious, but moving on, we're dealing with a profession where the cost of failure may result in death or some serious permanent physical or mental problem. Therefore a medical student needs to be able to deal with that kind of pressure, be successful in a high-paced academic environment, and still be sane after all of it because there's four years of school + a lifetime of pressure. Therefore the motivation to be a doctor can't stem from an external source in a person because the pressure of med school will outweigh the pleasure of having those external benefits. Therefore the motivation to be a doctor must be purely internal. Most medical schools follow a standard in the admission of such qualified candidates.
GPA - The filtering factor. Shows the kind of work ethic a candidate has displayed through four years of undergraduate education.
MCAT - Said to measure the potential to do well in med school in a candidate.
LOR/Essay - Reveals character.
EC's - Also reveals character, shows interest and maturity.
Undergrad institution - A very tertiary or quaternary factor, but plays a much bigger role in the higher ranked medical schools.
Im not saying that the system is wrong, because each of these factors need to be considered, just that its flawed. Adcoms are too focused on selecting their version of the "best" candidate. i.e. the one who excels in all of the four fields above, but unlike undergraduate admissions, a candidate who does not excel in one of the above fields is severely disadvantaged due to the fact that the competition is much more.
But let's look at this from a different angle. Take my story, im not writing this for some pity "awww poor you" response, or "don't worry about it, you'll get in" response. There are several others out there like me, and im stating this for the sole purpose of showing a flaw in the system. My cGPA is a 3.3, I had a 2.8 in my first two years of undergraduate where I didn't care, worked at a hospital, saw what medicine was about, and then got a 4.0 in my last two years, with a 38S MCAT. There are several stories like mine out there, and I think that people who did poorly, then "woke up" later have a solid understanding of what to sacrifice, what it takes, and the will to succeed. If I had gotten a consistent 3.8 my entire undergraduate, I don't think I would fully appreciate why I was working so hard beyond the fact that med schools need to see a high GPA.
Before you nerds out there pounce on me, let me finish. Compare this to someone who slacked off for two years, went through a traumatic experience and did really well after. My motivation is not stimulated by some admissions process criteria, but an internal lesson that I learned while working at a hospital in India. A lot of you nerds out there have some internal motivation to be a doctor as well as a 4.0 gpa, and good for you, I wish that I was in your boat, but you live and you learn.
Am I calling myself more intelligent or capable than the 4.0 Harvard grad? No, im an Indian whose Indian friends all go to schools like Cornell, MIT, Berkley, and have 3.8 gpa's while im the only one in my family and family friends circle at a small college in southern Illinois with a 3.3 gpa. Im not saying that Im more intelligent or capable at all.
To summarize so far:
- Being a physician places a responsibility on someone which transcends the responsibility of other professions.
- The motivation to want to be a physician should be internal.
- The admissions system relies on a specific set of criteria for admission.
- Its focused on analyzing which candidate is the "best" in the given criteria.
- Late bloomers have an internal motivation to be a doctor.
The flaw (finally!):
The flaw of this system is that it never really allows candidates who were late bloomers to get a fair review, because:
1) The fact that they have a compromised GPA is seen as a red flag, rather than asking why its so.
2) Academic elitism and favoritism is just wrong. What's the point of having a great character if that 3.8 Harvard grad is going to get preference anyway?
3) Even though we are free to discuss this in the essay and interview, it still gets stacked against us when compared to an applicant with superior "criteria". This isn't entirely wrong, since it makes sense, but it leads to my final point
I think that med school admissions should include GPA, MCAT, but not admit people compromising their motivation and character. This is especially true for the top med schools, since I doubt my file would even get read at HMS or Columbia since my gpa isn't a 3.8 and I didn't graduate from Princeton (the only exception to this rule is a URM, and boy I wish I was Latino) and almost every Indian there had/has a 4.0 gpa. I think the system works in the opposite direction. If a candidate has an X gpa and an X MCAT score, we can look at his/her motivational aspects. I think that the motivational aspects should be the primary factor when reviewing an application before looking at the numerical "data". As a patient I would much rather be treated by the doctor who wanted to be a doctor because of a true internal motive, rather than some admissions criteria or solid numbers. Anyways go ahead and rip this post apart 😀.
1) Im not bitching about it, just trying to say why I think its flawed, which leads to
2) I don't expect AAMCAS to magically change the system overnight, I realize that I have no choice of getting into medical school unless I actually go through with this system when I apply.
3) Any admissions system, be it undergrad, grad, medical, law, etc. is flawed in some sense since many qualified candidates are rejected due to space limitations, etc.
4) This is pretty biased, would I post this if I had a 3.9 cGPA at Harvard and awesome ec's/lor's? I don't know, but thats not where I am.
Getting into medical school is different from getting into any other professional school because being a doctor is different than any other kind of profession out there. Being a doctor places a sense of responsibility that transcends the kind of work any other profession will require. No one is going to die if they lose revenue, no one is going to die if their experiment fails, or if they lose a court case. That kind of assurance isn't prevalent in this field because if a doctor makes a mistake, the patient may very well die.
Yes all of this is obvious, but moving on, we're dealing with a profession where the cost of failure may result in death or some serious permanent physical or mental problem. Therefore a medical student needs to be able to deal with that kind of pressure, be successful in a high-paced academic environment, and still be sane after all of it because there's four years of school + a lifetime of pressure. Therefore the motivation to be a doctor can't stem from an external source in a person because the pressure of med school will outweigh the pleasure of having those external benefits. Therefore the motivation to be a doctor must be purely internal. Most medical schools follow a standard in the admission of such qualified candidates.
GPA - The filtering factor. Shows the kind of work ethic a candidate has displayed through four years of undergraduate education.
MCAT - Said to measure the potential to do well in med school in a candidate.
LOR/Essay - Reveals character.
EC's - Also reveals character, shows interest and maturity.
Undergrad institution - A very tertiary or quaternary factor, but plays a much bigger role in the higher ranked medical schools.
Im not saying that the system is wrong, because each of these factors need to be considered, just that its flawed. Adcoms are too focused on selecting their version of the "best" candidate. i.e. the one who excels in all of the four fields above, but unlike undergraduate admissions, a candidate who does not excel in one of the above fields is severely disadvantaged due to the fact that the competition is much more.
But let's look at this from a different angle. Take my story, im not writing this for some pity "awww poor you" response, or "don't worry about it, you'll get in" response. There are several others out there like me, and im stating this for the sole purpose of showing a flaw in the system. My cGPA is a 3.3, I had a 2.8 in my first two years of undergraduate where I didn't care, worked at a hospital, saw what medicine was about, and then got a 4.0 in my last two years, with a 38S MCAT. There are several stories like mine out there, and I think that people who did poorly, then "woke up" later have a solid understanding of what to sacrifice, what it takes, and the will to succeed. If I had gotten a consistent 3.8 my entire undergraduate, I don't think I would fully appreciate why I was working so hard beyond the fact that med schools need to see a high GPA.
Before you nerds out there pounce on me, let me finish. Compare this to someone who slacked off for two years, went through a traumatic experience and did really well after. My motivation is not stimulated by some admissions process criteria, but an internal lesson that I learned while working at a hospital in India. A lot of you nerds out there have some internal motivation to be a doctor as well as a 4.0 gpa, and good for you, I wish that I was in your boat, but you live and you learn.
Am I calling myself more intelligent or capable than the 4.0 Harvard grad? No, im an Indian whose Indian friends all go to schools like Cornell, MIT, Berkley, and have 3.8 gpa's while im the only one in my family and family friends circle at a small college in southern Illinois with a 3.3 gpa. Im not saying that Im more intelligent or capable at all.
To summarize so far:
- Being a physician places a responsibility on someone which transcends the responsibility of other professions.
- The motivation to want to be a physician should be internal.
- The admissions system relies on a specific set of criteria for admission.
- Its focused on analyzing which candidate is the "best" in the given criteria.
- Late bloomers have an internal motivation to be a doctor.
The flaw (finally!):
The flaw of this system is that it never really allows candidates who were late bloomers to get a fair review, because:
1) The fact that they have a compromised GPA is seen as a red flag, rather than asking why its so.
2) Academic elitism and favoritism is just wrong. What's the point of having a great character if that 3.8 Harvard grad is going to get preference anyway?
3) Even though we are free to discuss this in the essay and interview, it still gets stacked against us when compared to an applicant with superior "criteria". This isn't entirely wrong, since it makes sense, but it leads to my final point
I think that med school admissions should include GPA, MCAT, but not admit people compromising their motivation and character. This is especially true for the top med schools, since I doubt my file would even get read at HMS or Columbia since my gpa isn't a 3.8 and I didn't graduate from Princeton (the only exception to this rule is a URM, and boy I wish I was Latino) and almost every Indian there had/has a 4.0 gpa. I think the system works in the opposite direction. If a candidate has an X gpa and an X MCAT score, we can look at his/her motivational aspects. I think that the motivational aspects should be the primary factor when reviewing an application before looking at the numerical "data". As a patient I would much rather be treated by the doctor who wanted to be a doctor because of a true internal motive, rather than some admissions criteria or solid numbers. Anyways go ahead and rip this post apart 😀.
