- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 2,125
- Reaction score
- 4,803
How about requiring an applicant to have a full time job and being financially independent before applying?
Just curious.
Just curious.
The fact that you're asking this question leads me to believe that you have strongly considered this.
Personally, I've never once considered this. The concept is entirely foreign to me.
Seeing as I haven't thought about this idea enough to come up with a coherent answer, I'd like to hear what your reasoning would be for supporting this.
Love to hear your reasoning.No this is a terrible idea and I would be 200% against it.
That's a good point. The gist is to fix the current system. Finding a way to ensure applicants have work force skills but also lower the debt burden is important.That sounds like a terrible idea. What an unnecessary waste of time. It is also biased against people of poorer backgrounds that can't really afford to work a minimum wage scribe job and give up a couple years of their life.
If anything, I would add more extensive career experience in middle school and high school so that kids know more clearly what path they want in college. Then I would streamline the pre-med curriculum and make a two year pre-med track that has bio, Chem/orgo/physics/math (only the small portion that you need to know as a physician) so that you can go into med school by 19 or 20, and be working as an attending by late 20s/early 30s.
Doctors are highly trained professionals. Every year of unnecessary training and education is 1) an unnecessary debt burden 2) an opportunity cost for the physician and for society which misses on that doctor's service.
Ok I think it's clear what the consensus of the board is - that this would be a bad idea. I was leaning that way myself.
I still want to hear out the OP, though. Surely you've thought of some reasons for entertaining this idea. What are they?
It's not something I'm considering. I've just heard it being proposed and I wanted to hear thoughts. I don't learn one way or the other.
One of the arguments for it is that residencies are starting to place emphasis on full time work experience. Some of the attendings in my school's ED and ENT department actively rank residents that have more life experience, took gap years, have full time work experience. So, it actually matters to people controlling your fate.
Other reasons include that young applicants without diverse experiences may be going in for the wrong reasons, aren't well rounded, are immature, would benefit from more experience in the work force before entering medical school. I understand this forum will be biased as most are young premeds, but try playing devils advocate.
Other reasons include that young applicants without diverse experiences may be going in for the wrong reasons, aren't well rounded, are immature, would benefit from more experience in the work force before entering medical school. I understand this forum will be biased as most are young premeds, but try playing devils advocate.
Really?
Well if people in leadership strongly believe this and there's a good chance that this trend continues, then I think it won't be long before medical schools start dropping in competitiveness.
A single gap year is already a de facto requirement due to the new MCAT implementing biochemistry, which most students don't learn until their 3rd year of undergrad. One gap year BEFORE applying equals two gap years total. Once word gets out that the youngest you could be is 32 in order to become a fully fledged physician, it won't be long before the medical schools will have serious trouble filling spots.
I'm willing to bet it goes up sharply this cycle because of the new MCAT. Going off of the numbers you posted, I'm going to guess that this year only 35% will be K -> MD applicants. Once it's a ll said and done, where could I check my prediction?A trend certainly exists but gap years are not de facto requirements. Probably 40% of matriculants are K->MD applicants.
True. Not all gap years are created equal haha. I guess what I'm saying is that some people think work experience and self sufficiency is extremely important. Accepting residents is a huge thing. 3-5+ year commitment. Knowing someone has the work experience competency is a huge bonus.Mmm maybe but that if taking a gap year or working is a requirement and not a decision then it just becomes another box to tick, don't expect people coming out of box-ticking to be enlightened and reflective individuals.
I'm willing to bet it goes up sharply this cycle because of the new MCAT. Going off of the numbers you posted, I'm going to guess that this year only 35% will be K -> MD applicants. Once it's a ll said and done, where could I check my prediction?
Seems a bit like they're trying to solve one problem by making more problems. I understand the problems you've outlined, but I just don't see why the solution outlined in your OP is the right one. I would be curious as to what their thinking is.True. Not all gap years are created equal haha. I guess what I'm saying is that some people think work experience and self sufficiency is extremely important. Accepting residents is a huge thing. 3-5+ year commitment. Knowing someone has the work experience competency is a huge bonus.
I seeWhen AAMC releases the data for this cycle
I mean think about it from there perspective. They're just attendings/directors for a residency program. What's easier for them to do: change the entire medical school application structure with the AAMC, or select their residents in part using prior work experience and other methods of "maturity"? Pretty straight forward.Seems a bit like they're trying to solve one problem by making more problems. I understand the problems you've outlined, but I just don't see why the solution outlined in your OP is the right one. I would be curious as to what their thinking is.
True. Not all gap years are created equal haha. I guess what I'm saying is that some people think work experience and self sufficiency is extremely important. Accepting residents is a huge thing. 3-5+ year commitment. Knowing someone has the work experience competency is a huge bonus.
Will someone who worked retail for a year be more professional than someone who didnt? How about someone who did independent research? I'm not sure if it is a better metric than characteristics from undergrad already are.
True. That reasoning makes logical sense, but in my opinion it's a terrible reason in every other sense. I'm hoping the physicians you spoke about constitute only a small minority of PD's.I mean think about it from there perspective. They're just attendings/directors for a residency program. What's easier for them to do: change the entire medical school application structure with the AAMC, or select their residents in part using prior work experience and other methods of "maturity"? Pretty straight forward.
Will someone who worked retail for a year be more professional than someone who didnt? How about someone who did independent research? I'm not sure if it is a better metric than characteristics from undergrad already are.
So, I applied in my late 30's. The vast difference between my life experience and my traditional classmates was very interesting to me. But the biggest differences were nothing that a year or two of enforced waiting would change.
A couple of guys who sit near me were talking about how it might be interesting to get a part time job over the summer, just for a week or two, to find out what it is like to have one. Both are from affluent backgrounds and had literally never worked for an employer even one day in their lives. They've never not known how the rent would get paid, or what it is like to go without eating for a couple of days because there is no food and no money to buy any, or how it feels to wear shoes with holes in them in the winter. There are challenges that many of their patients will experience that they cannot even imagine.
A minimum age, or a requirement to have worked at a job, or even to have gone on a mission trip, none of those things are going to ensure that anyone has a wide range of life experiences. Even if you required people to have a prescribed set of character building experiences, they would still know that they had their normal lives to get back to, their career ladder would be there waiting for them. You'd just be introducing a new set of barriers, a new set of boxes to be checked. At that would be easier for some than for others.
You'd also be unnecessarily limiting the progress of that handful of gifted folks who are ahead of the academic game. Why do that? What on earth would you gain?
We already have a good system of evaluating applicants on meaningful measures of maturity and potential. Nothing would be gained by adding a new, inflexible barrier.
A minimum age, or a requirement to have worked at a job, or even to have gone on a mission trip, none of those things are going to ensure that anyone has a wide range of life experiences. Even if you required people to have a prescribed set of character building experiences, they would still know that they had their normal lives to get back to, their career ladder would be there waiting for them. You'd just be introducing a new set of barriers, a new set of boxes to be checked. At that would be easier for some than for others.
a lot of undergrads aren't really ready even when they graduate.
That's an interesting statement. I mean what is the metric for determining readiness? Becoming a doctor is a big commitment, do you think majority of 20-something year olds are able to properly gauge the exact moment in their lives that they are "ready"? Or do they need someone (ADCOMS etc) to look at their resume and life experiences and say hey you're ready/not ready! Are the 60% of applicants who don't get in every year "not ready" or is there just not enough space or a combo of both?
A couple of guys who sit near me were talking about how it might be interesting to get a part time job over the summer, just for a week or two, to find out what it is like to have one. Both are from affluent backgrounds and had literally never worked for an employer even one day in their lives. They've never not known how the rent would get paid, or what it is like to go without eating for a couple of days because there is no food and no money to buy any, or how it feels to wear shoes with holes in them in the winter. There are challenges that many of their patients will experience that they cannot even imagine.
Yes, I totally agree. I also think it is ridiculous to have 18/19 year olds start medical school.OP, I think that it's better for anyone thinking about graduate and/or professional school to have a year or more of "real world experience" under their belts before going off to those schools. By the time you finish those programs, you'll be in your late twenties if not early thirties. If you're in medicine, you'll have a few more years of residency training before you're off in the "real world" on your own. Don't you think it's absurd to have somebody in his or her early thirties who has never negotiated a salary and never received a real salary (at least until residency)? I think it's insane.
That's an interesting statement. I mean what is the metric for determining readiness? Becoming a doctor is a big commitment, do you think majority of 20-something year olds are able to properly gauge the exact moment in their lives that they are "ready"? Or do they need someone (ADCOMS etc) to look at their resume and life experiences and say hey you're ready/not ready! Are the 60% of applicants who don't get in every year "not ready" or is there just not enough space or a combo of both?
Yes, I totally agree. I also think it is ridiculous to have 18/19 year olds start medical school.
Ok I think it's clear what the consensus of the board is - that this would be a bad idea. I was leaning that way myself.
I still want to hear out the OP, though. Surely you've thought of some reasons for entertaining this idea. What are they?
I'm a good chunk of the way into my gap year and don't feel like I've learned/matured that much. But I also worked part time semesters, full time summers, and have been on my own with loans+scholarship for funding college. I think if people have already experienced stuff like renting an apartment, and paying their expenses with work and debt instead of parents, there isn't that much to be gained.
Living and traveling abroad for a semester honestly taught me a lot more. Plus it was awesome. I vote for mandatory semesters in Europe.
Yes, I totally agree. I also think it is ridiculous to have 18/19 year olds start medical school.
How about requiring an applicant to have a full time job and being financially independent before applying?
Just curious.
I agree with this. Prior to my gap year I only had generic college student part time gigs (aka super flexible, let you take time off for tests, etc) that did not really prepare me for what it's like to work in the real world full time.I'd like a requirement for some type of employment. Residency directors are noticing that more and more newly minted doctors have poor employment attitudes, because residency is literally the first work that they've had.
Prior to that, they're professional students. So they do things like ask to go home at 5pm, or can they take a vacation a week after they start their residency!
I'd like a requirement for some type of employment. Residency directors are noticing that more and more newly minted doctors have poor employment attitudes, because residency is literally the first work that they've had.
Prior to that, they're professional students. So they do things like ask to go home at 5pm, or can they take a vacation a week after they start their residency!
they do things like ask to go home at 5pm, or can they take a vacation a week after they start their residency!