Confused....why do the tough undergrad route?

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
81

<p>bluedevilmike you have a lot of good points and i appreciate those... but i have definitely considered many career paths at this point and am glad that i've had many passions in a wide range of areas that have helped me come to the conclusion that i'm at now
like a lot of people i'd been set on business for awhile... but i don't think i fully understood what business really involved. I took a course in economics over the summer at cambridge university and while it was taught VERY well and i found it very interesting, i realized that its just not for me
i've also been down the whole computer route... in my earlier years i would venture to say that i was by far the most knowledgeable person with programming web design/development etc in my class.... but again i've come to realize that that type of work isn't what I want to do for a living
research science.... considered it as well, and actually took a class this year that was pure research with dna/bacteria.... but i'm more of a people person and don't see myself in this area either</p>

<p>so please don't think that i'm just jumping on the premed track blindly</p>

<p>as for someone willing to do everything.... as i tried to explain in another thread... the class of 2010 has more great transcripts in it than anyone else.... people in my school have spent countless ammounts of $$$ on sat tutoring and interview tutoring which gave most of them exactly what they wanted...... my point is, if i'm not spending more time than what you consider "normal" to study for the mcat..... there are more than enough people in my class that will be and i'm by no means going to let that happen. I am very confident in my skills and simply am aware of what i'm up against, if i'm not putting in the extra effort, someone else will.</p>

82

<p>If things are going to get more competitive - and actually there are rumors that medical schools are about to expand, which would make things a lot easier - then fine, spend twice as much time as I did on your MCAT prep and go to four months instead of two.</p>

<p>But years? When you get to that level, it's just excessive and disturbing.</p>

83

<p>haha don't worry... i don't really intend to be studying for it now.... i just want to be informed about what i'm going to need to know and figure out what areas that are tested i need to focus my attentoin on most over the next couple years that i have. After browsing through a pratice mcat i know there is no point for me to be studying for it now... i simply don't have the information(and really doubt ANY highschool senior has it) needed to take most of it</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
Second, I object to the students who are willing to do anything to get into medical school - even compromise their own education. The world needs to know that its doctors are being chosen and trained through a process that screens for drivenness, compassion, and competence - and while a high school student who is studying for the MCAT is demonstrating drivenness towards his own career goals, he is demonstrating that he believes he is incompetent as well as breeding traits in himself which will not lend themselves towards compassionate, humanitarian physicians.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While I sympathize with this position, I would have to say that the blame for this has to rest on the med-school adcoms themselves. The truth is, if the med-school adcoms really did admit people who would make the best doctors, then there would be no gamesmanship, because there's nothing to game. People game the system because there are flaws in the system. </p>

<p>The sad truth is, while the med-schools may SAY they want people who will make the best doctors, in actuality, they don't really mean it. When push comes to shove, they tend to admit people with the best numbers, regardless of whether they will make the best doctors or not. </p>

<p>I have recounted how people who go to extremely difficult schools and take extremely difficult classes can easily end up with grades that will knock them out of contention for med-school, despite the fact that they may actually be more driven and would make better doctors than somebody who took easy classes. But the adcoms aren't interested in that. In short, they don't know, and they don't want to know about the various grading policies used by various majors and various schools. They deliberately turn a blind eye to the issue.</p>

<p>So you mention that you don't appreciate how certain students might take easy classes at easy schools in order to game their way into med-school. You know what? I don't like it either. The problem is that it works. It shouldn't work. But it does work. People who game the system really can beat out somebody who didn't. And people see that it works. People see that candidate X gamed the system by taking extremely easy classes, and he got admitted, and candidate Y didn't game the system, and he didn't get in, so they naturally decide to emulate candidate X. That's the fault of the adcoms. It is their job to make sure that gaming doesn't work. If people get in by gaming the system, then it is the adcoms who deserve to be blamed. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that I don't blame individual students for doing what works. I blame the people who allow it to work. If they refuse to see that, for example, a C grade in Advanced Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics is harder to get than an A grade in Introduction to Hooky, then it's only natural that people will game the system.</p>

85

<p>Why can't you hold both groups of people responsible, sakky?</p>

<p>Premeds may see that it works - but that doesn't make it a good thing to do.</p>

86

<p>By the way, in this case, my (admittedly unclear) complaint was actually against grossly excessive MCAT preparation, not easy courseloads... and there's no way adcoms can screen for that.</p>

87

<p>
[quote]
Why can't you hold both groups of people responsible, sakky?</p>

<p>Premeds may see that it works - but that doesn't make it a good thing to do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because ultimately, it is the job of the adcoms to see that gaming doesn't work. It is the adcoms that are supposed to be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the system, not the premeds. After all, the adcoms are getting paid to care about the integrity of the process. It's part of their job description. If they're not doing that, then they're not really doing what they're getting paid to do, and they shouldn't be on the adcom. Nobody is paying the premeds to care about the integrity of the process. In fact, the way the system is set up, they have a strong incentive to game the system, and no incentive not to.</p>

88

<p>sakky is right....my dad is an assistant professor at a med school here in ohio and he says the exact same thing. It's sad how med schools don't really care about how hard the place is or how difficult the class may have been...it's 99% all about the scores at the end of the day</p>

<p>He also says though, that this maybe because if medical schools took that route in looking really high on the kids from MIT or w/e moreso than the smaller college kids, it would create a two tier system where the kids from the better schools would have a considerably better chance in getting into med school and the kids from smaller colleges would barely have a chance. </p>

<p>This is also a kind of unfair system because what if the kid is going to a smaller school because of financial means? family issues? or something else</p>

<p>It's complicated but yea..I dunno...med schools need to revise how admissions works in this country somehow.</p>

89

<p>See, sakky, you tell me premeds have an incentive to engage in gamesmanship, and therefore you don't blame them for doing so.</p>

<p>But medical schools have an incentive, too: they want high-scoring kids because 1.) the information is easier to obtain and 2.) it makes them look better for US News, which residencies and premeds pay attention to.</p>

<p>US News has an incentive to make these rankings because... well, people buy them.</p>

<p>Residencies have an incentive to recruit kids from top med schools - according to US News - to make their hospital look good.</p>

<p>And patients want to go to good hospitals because in the absence of information, they believe they'll get better care there.</p>

<p>(For the most part, actually, most of these things are right - because most schools and courses aren't different enough to give kids a C-is-harder-than-A differential, etc.)</p>

<p>See, I understand that everybody has incentives to behave the way they do - but I still ask them to behave according to a higher standard - especially if they're planning to be the future doctors in this country, I ask them to get the best education they possibly can.</p>

90

<p>people SHOULD behave the way bluedevil wants but I guess the fact of the matter is...people won't cause well...we live in reality unfortunately. You just gotta do w/e it takes sometimes to survive</p>

91

<p>Still, that isn't true. Actually, most of the most successful premedical students in the country do come from top-notch institutions, did major in "real" fields like economics, chemistry, etc., did real research that really interested them, and served in community projects that they genuinely believed in.</p>

<p>These are the premeds I know, the premeds I talk to on a daily basis. They're tough, smart, and good kids, who are boosting not their applications but their actual qualifications for their job; they chose a school not for ease or prestige but for love of the game.</p>

<p>And they perform overwhelmingly well. THESE should be the role models these boards extoll - not the do-whatever-it-takes types who are willing to get a worse education if it boosts their odds.</p>

92

<p>a lot of kids from avg schools also do tons of research, major in "real" fields, and did the best they could in ways other than academics. Just cause you don't go to harvard undergrad doesn't mean your not doing a good job in preparing yourself for med school</p>

<p>I get your point but not everyone is cut out for that sort of game which is involved at top notch universities. But just because you can't beat out the kid sitting next to you with a 1500 SAT, 4.0 science gpa score doesn't mean you're not cut out for med school</p>

<p>Premed is simply a weeding process to get kids to think about if they really do want to be a physician and if they think they're determined enough to make it at the end. A lot of docs tell me that med school is nowhere near as hard as undergrad and the only reason some people didn't get to med school at the end was cause they gave up at the hard stage of the process which is what is intended for of course</p>

<p>I understand your point though</p>

93

<p>As I've always said, if you go to a second-tier university because:</p>

<p>1.) That's where you got in
2.) Financial reasons
3.) Some kind of family constraint - you have a mother with cancer and need to take care of her, for example</p>

<p>I certainly respect those.</p>

<p>If you choose a second tier university because
4.) You believe, despite the reputation, you will get a better education there</p>

<p>Then I not only respect but admire that.</p>

<p>What frustrates me is
5.) You believe you will have a stronger GPA and a weaker education but believe this improves your odds.</p>

<p>This is engaging in gamesmanship that exploits a flaw in the system to pursue your own career goals at the expense of students who will someday make better doctors.</p>

<hr>

<p>As you can see, it is not that I believe everybody has to go to Harvard! I just believe everybody should pursue the top education they can get, at every level.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
I get your point but not everyone is cut out for that sort of game which is involved at top notch universities. But just because you can't beat out the kid sitting next to you with a 1500 SAT, 4.0 science gpa score doesn't mean you're not cut out for med school

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While this is true, you still need to get solid enough qualifications that you will be able to succeed as a doctor and absorb the massive amounts of information they expect you to know. So, even though your score of lets say 25 and a 3.4 are the averages, you're not cut out for med school persay. Perhaps if you got more "life experience" working in the field and doing a post bacc program medical schools would be more willing to look past your sub-par grades/MCAT. So yes you can still become a doctor even if you have lower than necessary grades, but it will just take longer and require more effort out of you. </p>

<p>Some people realize this effort isn't worth it; this is fine. Perhaps they find a career that fits them better or doesn't take nearly the effort that medicine does. Not everyone is cut out to become a doctor; only the best and brightest do -- at least if you want to go to med school straight after college. </p>

<p>I took this off of the AAMC (American Association of Medical Colleges) website:</p>

<p>"Is getting into medical school as tough as they say?</p>

<p>No question about it—medical schools are looking for the finest minds and the most motivated students who have a strong and demonstrated interest in working with people. It takes a special type of person to even dream of a career in medicine and it takes hard work and commitment to make it to medical school. Today, only about one-half of those who apply are accepted."</p>

95

<p>well yea I agree with that stanford...I'm just saying in general...of course you can't get a 25 and 3.4</p>

96

<p>
[quote]
This is also a kind of unfair system because what if the kid is going to a smaller school because of financial means? family issues? or something else

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, look, any meritocratic system will always have winners or losers. Just like in sports, somebody has to win, somebody has to lose. This, I do not have a problem with. </p>

<p>What I have a problem with is the WAY that winners and losers are determined. Simply put, from what I have seen, some of the 'winners' of the process should not really have won, and some of the 'losers' should not really have lost. Right now, I believe that admissions are focused far too much on raw grades, which does not take into account the difficulty of your school and/or your coursework. Like I said, it's as if the adcoms don't know and don't want to know that some schools are more difficult than others. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But medical schools have an incentive, too: they want high-scoring kids because 1.) the information is easier to obtain and 2.) it makes them look better for US News, which residencies and premeds pay attention to.</p>

<p>US News has an incentive to make these rankings because... well, people buy them.</p>

<p>Residencies have an incentive to recruit kids from top med schools - according to US News - to make their hospital look good.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet this is precisely where the perverse incentives come from. I agree with you about how the perverse incentives came to be. But I also believe that they could be fixed.</p>

<p>For example, one way that they could be easily fixed is to simply not use grades at all. Instead, use only the MCAT for the numerical portion of admissions. Yes, you can still also consider things like EC's and interview skills and all of that. But I'm talking about for just the numerical "academic" part of the application process, just use the MCAT. That way, everything is completely fair. Everybody takes the exact same test under controlled conditions. Either you know the material, or you don't. If you know the material, then who really cares if you get terrible grades? You know the material and that's all that should really matter. Conversely, if you get a terrible MCAT score, then who cares if you got straight A+'s? At the end of the day, you apparently never learned the material, and you instead probably gamed your way to getting A+'s. You should not be rewarded for doing that.</p>

<p>Some of you might say that the MCAT doesn't really measure everything and is not comprehensive.. True. But then the solution is to then design a better MCAT that is more comprehensive. Either that, or individual med-schools can design their own admissions test. You either score highly on this test, or you don't.</p>

<p>Another way to accomplish the same goal is for difficult schools to help their students by simply not reporting bad grades to outside parties. Since med-school adcoms have proved time and time again to behave extremely irresponsibly with the information they are provided, they should be denied this information. Difficult schools should offer a cleaned-up transcript to help students look good for top graduate schools. </p>

<p>This is not a radical idea. For example, MIT actually has TWO separate transcripts for its students. One is the so-called "internal" transcript that contains all of your grades. Only MIT administrators can see this transcript. The other is the "external" transcript. This is the transcript that MIT will send to outsiders, like med-school adcoms. The problem is that the external transcript does not really conceal your bad grades. But I think it should. </p>

<p>Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that it's unfair for a school to deliberately hide bad grades from adcoms. To that, I would say that the current system is unfair in that it rewards grade inflation. I doubt that my system would be any more unfair than the current one. For example, take a situation where MIT gives students a bunch of bad grades, but then conceals these bad grades from med-school adcoms in order to make the students look good. How is that any worse than grade-inflated schools like Harvard and Stanford that make their students look good by simply not giving out bad grades in the first place? If these schools can help their students through grade inflation, then I see no problem with MIT helping its students though grade concealment. What's fair is fair. </p>

<p>Lest you think this is a radical proposal, let me say that this was precisely how all elite college admissions used to be run in the US back about 100 years ago. If you wanted to go to Harvard or Yale or MIT, your high school grades don't matter. Each one of these schools had an admissions exam. Everybody who wants to get admitted takes that exam. Those who score the highest are admitted. It's fair. It's clean. Everybody has the same shot. </p>

<p>What changed the system was that the elite schools realized that "too many" Jews were gaining admission this way. Essentially put, lots of Jewish students were beating out the sons of WASP privilege that wanted to attend these schools. So these schools began to implement considerations of 'well-roundedness', which was basically code words for fewer Jews. Hence, now these schools had the perfect excuse for not admitting Jews even if they scored highly on the admissions exam. They could always just say that they were not well-rounded enough. On the other hand, the dumb and lazy son of a rich, well-respected WASP family could be deemed to be very well rounded and admitted. That's how George W. Bush got admitted to Yale and Al Gore and the Kennedy's got admitted to Harvard. The truth is, they were bad students. They were lazy and they didn't care about studying. But they came from privileged powerful families, so they were deemed to be 'well-rounded'. </p>

<p>Now, lest you think that this was confined to Jews, let me assure you that it was not. The elite colleges then realized that this could be used as a weapon against anybody that they didn't like. For example, the Ivies then began to deliberately discriminate against blacks. Columbia University implemented a secret policy to not admit any blacks, and other Ivies greatly restricted the number of blacks admitted. Basically, back in those old days, if you were black and wanted to go to an Ivy, you had to present an application that was far far better than most other applicants, such that your skill can overcome their prejudice. I read a story about how one guy got admitted to an Ivy and then showed up to campus, only for the Ivy to discover that the guy is black, and the Ivy never would have admitted him if it had known he was black, and this caused a scandal on campus. They also discriminated against Catholics, especially Irish and Italian Catholics, against Asians (whether East Asians or Indians or Middle Easterners or whoever) - basically, everybody who wasn't a rich WASP. They would rather admit a George W Bush or an Al Gore than a hard-working non-WASP. </p>

<p>The point is, all of these complex applications procedures that we use today for college or grad-school had a highly racist and discriminatory origin. This is why I don't particularly trust adcoms to do the right thing. Look at their history. You will see many instances of adcoms deliberately trying to pervert the process by doing the wrong thing.</p>

97

<p>It is the epitome of irony, though, that it is certain races that would protest if standardized tests were emphasized more.</p>

98

<p>Actually, sakky, my idea has always been that schools should mandate that all their classes give out similar curves - say, 20-30% A's.</p>

<p>This would still leave the problem of difficult curves - i.e. your average biology major is going to be smarter than your average, I don't know, communications major - but it brings us a step closer.</p>

<p>If all undergraduate schools had similar ranges, that would go a long way, too - again, not all the way.</p>

99

<p>Sakky, don't hate the playa (med schools), hate the game. ;) </p>

<p>In a difficult situation, a playa (student) must adapt. They want best grades + MCATs...you give them that. You work hard and you get them what they want. From "Death of a Salesman", Charley says, "The only thing you got in this world is what you can sell." </p>

<p>So what? It's a game. Yes, then if so you had better adapt to accomplish your goal of becoming a doctor. No one's saying its not unfair; it is. But since when have you been naive enough to believe LIFE is fair? Deal with it.</p>

100

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, don't hate the playa (med schools), hate the game.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, but the med-school adcoms ARE the game. They make the rules.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So what? It's a game. Yes, then if so you had better adapt to accomplish your goal of becoming a doctor. No one's saying its not unfair; it is. But since when have you been naive enough to believe LIFE is fair? Deal with it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, the issue is not about me having to deal with it. I am far too old to be attending med-school now. </p>

<p>The issue is about how can we as a society devise a system that is more socially optimal. </p>

<p>The way you create social change is to discuss possible solutions, then discuss possible ways to effect those solutions.</p>

<p>Let me put it to you in this context. What if African-Americans in the 1950's and early 1960's had just rolled over and accepted Jim Crow laws, with the attitude that since life is unfair, they just have to accept discriminatory laws and practices? If that had been their attitude, then none of the Civil Rights movement would have happened and the country would still have separate water fountains and schools and swimming pools for different races. And they would still be standing in the back of the bus and not getting served by hotels and restaurants. Instead of just rolling over, they stood up and pushed for social change. The country is a better place for it. </p>

<p>The same can be said about every other major social movement in history - the abolition of slavery, women's rights, religious freedoms, the right of non-landowners to vote - every one of these social changes occurred because people didn't just "deal with it", but rather protested that certain things are unfair and ought to be changed to produce a more optimal society.</p>