- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
One thing I particularly like about the pre-med forum, is all the worthless ethics threads. I marvel at all the Qs on what is right, what a doctor should do, blah, blah.
How come none of you ask yourself questions that actually apply to your situation, that productively influence the chance of getting into med school?
No matter how great arguments you have, and how content you are with the ethical reasoning, it seems incredible naive to think that you have the power to change ppls opinion by the weight of an argument alone. If admission directors are anything like me, they shut their ears the second they sense your argument is taking them towards a position they are not comfortable with. If worse, they are like me during PMS, and then you can wave good bye to your precious application right away.
For instance, say that you were asked during an interview session, "how you would react to a friend who asked for advice about abortion." There is NO way you are gonna convince the son of a pastor, active church member, anti-abortion dean of any med school, not just loma linda, that abortion as a matter of fact, is just like having a meal at McDonald's. Fat chance.
Any how-to-get-a-job book tells you that in order to seal the deal, they have to like you. This means researching what you are up against, and customizing arguments for that situation, not taking generic crap off SDN and steal the argument of whoever seems most rhetorically capable. Because not just deans, but ppl in general tend to like those who are like themselves.
That is the sort of thing I don't see exchanged on SDN, even though there would be a mutual benefit to SDN members, as the total applicant base way outnumbers members here. You should exchange what tactics seem to have the best statistical outcome, should you fog, should you evade, and so on. What strategy is the most viable against an opponent with a KNOWN set of opposing values, and what strategy works best when up against a dean/admission responsible with UNKNOWN values.
Wouldn't that be far more valuable than reading the different opinions on what you should do and shouldn't do? Frankly, I don't give a damn about what anyone at Loma Linda or any other sick 7th dayer means about anything ethically, but I think I would have had a great chance of getting in there. Wouldn't that be an idea, figuring out how?
How come none of you ask yourself questions that actually apply to your situation, that productively influence the chance of getting into med school?
No matter how great arguments you have, and how content you are with the ethical reasoning, it seems incredible naive to think that you have the power to change ppls opinion by the weight of an argument alone. If admission directors are anything like me, they shut their ears the second they sense your argument is taking them towards a position they are not comfortable with. If worse, they are like me during PMS, and then you can wave good bye to your precious application right away.
For instance, say that you were asked during an interview session, "how you would react to a friend who asked for advice about abortion." There is NO way you are gonna convince the son of a pastor, active church member, anti-abortion dean of any med school, not just loma linda, that abortion as a matter of fact, is just like having a meal at McDonald's. Fat chance.
Any how-to-get-a-job book tells you that in order to seal the deal, they have to like you. This means researching what you are up against, and customizing arguments for that situation, not taking generic crap off SDN and steal the argument of whoever seems most rhetorically capable. Because not just deans, but ppl in general tend to like those who are like themselves.
That is the sort of thing I don't see exchanged on SDN, even though there would be a mutual benefit to SDN members, as the total applicant base way outnumbers members here. You should exchange what tactics seem to have the best statistical outcome, should you fog, should you evade, and so on. What strategy is the most viable against an opponent with a KNOWN set of opposing values, and what strategy works best when up against a dean/admission responsible with UNKNOWN values.
Wouldn't that be far more valuable than reading the different opinions on what you should do and shouldn't do? Frankly, I don't give a damn about what anyone at Loma Linda or any other sick 7th dayer means about anything ethically, but I think I would have had a great chance of getting in there. Wouldn't that be an idea, figuring out how?
