<p>what is the most important part of the md/phd application? is it similar to the regular phd application in which research, recs and contacts make a huge difference in admissions? or is it the "bs" md admissions subjectivity that relies on other factors like being a well rounded student and other stuff?</p>
<p>... being a well-rounded student is more "BS" than contacts?</p>
<p>Glad to know that I'm a masterful "BS" student. Will probably make me a better doctor though.</p>
<p>sorry about the language BRM...i guess i was just venting. but seriously, isn't the MD admissions process more subjective than a PhD admissions process? at least it seems like it...</p>
<p>i'm kinda ****ed about the fact that students (like me) that come from top 10 schools don't seem to get enough respect in the med school admissions process. i work with a lot of phd students in my lab and they seem to have agreed upon the idea that success in medical school depends on your ability to memorize and spit out a lot of dry information. the phd admissions process seems to based more on your overall intelligence than anything else...maybe i'm wrong.</p>
<p>i'm interested in an md phd program, so i guess i'm wondering what the adcom really looks for in an applicant. apologies again, brm and bdm.</p>
<p>You do realize that they're discussing success in medical school, right? Not success in admissions?</p>
<p>BDM is right. There is a difference between:</p>
<p>a. success in admissions
b. success in medical school
c. success as a doctor</p>
<p>Lots of people seem to conflate all three.</p>
<p>I'm not entirely offended, just of the opinion that being well-rounded is something to be valued. While the first two years of medical school certainly require an ability to regurgitate, the third year (fourth year doesn't really count), most certainly requires more than that. Being able to talk to patients and work within a team (things that are certainly subjective) are equal in importance to being able to put together the science. </p>
<p>At least so far, at my medical school, through two clinical clerkships, grades are comprised of equal parts evaluations and shelf exam score, along with scores on an oral exam which makes up a lesser portion. The shelf represents science knowledge, while the evaluations include clinical knowledge but also things like professionalism, teamwork, and patient interaction. The oral exams are more practical things - what to do next, or testing that you can conduct a history properly - but still favor those of us who are capable of actually holding a conversation with another person.</p>
<p>Success as a doctor though depends much more on interpersonal skills, at least in primary care fields. Surgeons tend to get away with a lot more when it comes to lacking those skills. The research I did two summers ago allowed me to talk to a lot of patients about what they liked about their doctor, and the top things, far and away, that came up were "They're good listeners" and "they explain things to me so I can understand". For those that didn't like their doctor, it was always the opposite - "I don't think they listen". </p>
<p>It is because medicine is a multidisciplinary profession that admission to the training requires a multidisciplinary assessment. The admissions committees have a duty to future patients to select not the best students but those who will become the best physicians. It's why you hear the stories about the students with 4.0 GPA and 41 MCAT scores but nothing else, get rejected. It's not just about being the smartest person. </p>
<p>If this is something that really upsets you, then I think it might be a good idea to re-evaluate why you want to be a doctor. Even MD/PhD students do have clinical grades and you will enter a residency program in which research is only a portion of the curriculum (due to national guidelines). And even if your interest is in clinical research, being only a PhD doesn't preclude you from pursuing research in that area. My research a couple summers ago was with a Sociologist who was employed by my Department of Family Medicine and had no medical training or bench research at all in her CV.</p>
<p>Finally, I think you have a sense of entitlement due to where you go to school that is undeserved.</p>
<p>There may be a lot of students with high GPA, high MCATs, and research experience from lower than top 10 schools who rank much higher in humility and people skills.</p>
<p>Humility is a key ingredient to getting ones foot in the door.........</p>
<p>it seems like an impossible task to evaluate a candidate's "people skills" and "humility." i'm rather disgusted by is the fact that a candidate coming from a top school with lots of research, volunteering, high mcats + gpa can still be rejected from a top medical school because they lack certain subjective personality traits.</p>
<p>i'm considering medicine because i'd like to go into an academic profession or an industry position. i don't think i'd like being around patients in a hospital setting 24/7... sure being a phd doesn't preclude one from pursuing research in that area, but it's a hell of a lot harder to ascend the ladder in an academic/industry setting with only a phd. plus, i've been around enough phd's to know that there isn't real money in being a research scientist. my reason for the dual degree is a combination of the $$$ and intellectual (scientific) stimulation.</p>
<p>and is it unreasonable to have a sense of entitlement due to my undergrad. school when i'm paying a lot of cash to go here? it doesn't hurt to have high expectations...</p>
<p>Nor can the MCAT or GPA be a perfect reflection of someone's intelligence or work ethic. Perhaps, someone was sick on test day and that caused their score to drop 5 pts. Perhaps, someone had to work 30 hours/wk during undergrad and, thus, couldn't earn that 3.9. None of the components of the admissions process can be a perfect measure of what they purport to measure. That's why the med school admissions process is incredibly holistic. The idea is that the gestalt can allow adcoms to make a more informed decision as to an applicant's fitness to be a physician.</p>
<p>So, because you want to go into industry and you don't want patient contact, you deserve a spot over someone who is going to be a great clinical doctor? And because you don't want patient contact, you don't get judged by the same criteria as everyone else? </p>
<p>BS. Complete, total, and utter BS.</p>
<p>Never mind that the academic setting still has a ton of patient contact. Perhaps even more patient contact for brief periods of time (while leading an inpatient team, teaching residents and students) than any private clinician will have.</p>
<p>You made the decision to pay all that money. You should have looked to see if the difference between your high dollar education, and that you would have received elsewhere, was really worth the difference in price. As you are finding out, it doesn't appear to be so. Maybe you should go into Investment Banking, where they care about that sort of thing a lot more.</p>
<p>Again, remember, the adcom has a duty to find students who are going to be the best physicians. That's the duty they have to future generations of patients. Whether you like it or not, that's these are the rules of the game. If you don't like them, get out.</p>
<p>Sense of entitlement because you're paying a lot of money. Gold.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it seems like an impossible task to evaluate a candidate's "people skills" and "humility."
[/quote]
Not as difficult as you might think. We have a pretty good idea of yours, for example.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ascend the ladder in an academic/industry setting with only a phd.
[/quote]
A little slower? Sure. On the other hand, they have a four-year head start.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there isn't real money in being a research scientist.
[/quote]
There isn't much money in science, period. Want money? Go to Wall Street.</p>
<p>
[quote]
is it unreasonable to have a sense of entitlement
[/quote]
It's always unreasonable to have a sense of entitlement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
when i'm paying a lot of cash to go here?
[/quote]
So you're suggesting that in addition to MCATs and GPA, medical schools should also consider undergrad tuition?</p>
<p>do you think the majority of people go into medicine strictly because they LOVE helping people? that's garbage...people want the money too. and regardless of the economics of physician compensation, you still make BANK as a doctor. </p>
<p>"We have a pretty good idea of yours, for example."</p>
<p>i guess i'll have to beat the system then, eh? the concept of a noble doctor is dead.</p>
<p>Apparently, you've decided ignore what we're saying and lecture us -- three medical students, a researcher in the industry you claim to want, and a student who's in the application process right now -- about the state of medicine today.</p>
<p>"It's always unreasonable to have a sense of entitlement."</p>
<p>Do they teach this in med school nowadays?</p>
<p>i was unclear about my future goals brm. i confused academic with working at a national research institute, like the nih or nci. doesn't matter, anyway...</p>
<p>i've come to the conclusion that there are ways to avoid patient contact as a doctor (while still making money)...maybe not entirely, but for a good majority of one's career. i can have all the goddamn people skills in the world but that still isn't going to help me deal with ends upon ends of whiny, *****y patients. i'd rather work in an industry/setting that values intelligence and innovation over the (mal)practice of bastardized science.</p>
<p>I wouldn't be confident with anyone like you if I had to have life-altering surgery.</p>
<p>How would you feel if you needed a heart transplant and your surgeon was only in it for the money?</p>
<p>Granted, economic motivations ARE a big factor deciding things(limited resources, infinite needs, so who can get the treatments?), but I believe that the doctor who only cares about money is an exaggerated stereotype, with a few exceptions.</p>
<p>it's a combination of wanting money and contributing to the advancement of science, in my case. besides, how would you know if your surgeon was doing his job only for the money? are you going to ask him before the surgery? as long as he's intelligent and capable then you don't need to worry.</p>
<p>You may do a good job, but I would much rather prefer a doctor who can comfort me when unpredictable things happen(which can often happen even with today's advancements). Hypothetically speaking, if I develop chronic pains that cannot be explained by traditional biomedicine, I want a doctor who is a sympathetic when I call him or her over the phone instead of someone who just waives off the symptoms as fluff.</p>
<p>I won't know if the surgeon is only in it for the money, but I prefer a sympathetic surgeon over an uncaring one. Money is usually one of the factors that create unsympathetic surgeons. If you read the Hippocratic oath(modern version), healing is both an art and a science.</p>
<p>No, not feeling entitled is one of the core life lessons that decent people tend to acquire once they get past their terrible two's, no matter what they eventual do for a career.</p>
<p>For somebody who hates patients to be entering medical school is a bizarre combination. Go do something else.</p>