Do I Need a Serious Reality Check?

<p>I'm returning to school after a 2 year break due to financial / personal reasons. My previous science grades are horrible... should I give up on the dream of Med school?</p>

<p>Chem I : B
Chem II : C+
Chem Lab : A-
Bio I : D
Bio Lab I : A
Bio II : C-
Bio Lab II : B+</p>

<p>Orgo (over the summer) E (Stupidly, I stopped going)</p>

<p>Should I just retake everything, or give up? I know all grades from all science courses are computed into your science GPA. With these grades my science GPA is like a 1.75. </p>

<p>Thanks for the time.</p>

<p>I think you know that you’re about 5 and 1/2 feet down a 6 foot hole. Has anybody climbed out before the gravediggers started shoveling the dirt over them? Sure. In the history of pre-meds, I’m positive it has happened many times. Will you be the next one to do it? Only you know that. </p>

<p>You can control what you input into the process and ,really, that’s all you can do. My suggestion? I’d bring all you got. Rain or shine. Everyday. And I’d tell all the naysayers “I ain’t dead just yet”.</p>

<p>At the end of the process, successful or un-successful, you’ll be proud of what you see in the mirror. Good luck.</p>

<p>I would retake anything below a C for sure, it’s required. If you are a science major, you could pull up your science GPA considerably by taking new courses. MD medical schools only average scores that you retake, DO school however do replace them. If you don’t intend to take a lot of science other than the pre-reqs you might consider retaking anything below a B. If you show a lot of improvement from before then you still have a chance. They like positive trends.</p>

<p>Interesting article from the nytimes:</p>

<p>Doctor and Patient
Do You Have the ‘Right Stuff’ to Be a Doctor? </p>

<p>By PAULINE W. CHEN, M.D.
Published: January 14, 2010
Not long ago, a friend confessed that her son, who spends much of his free time volunteering at a children’s hospital and who is applying to medical school, has been particularly anxious about his future. “His test scores are just O.K.,” my friend said, the despair in her voice nearly palpable. “I know he’d be a great doctor, but who he is doesn’t seem to matter to medical schools as much as how he does on tests.”</p>

<p>Her comment brought me back to the many anxious conversations I had had with friends when we were applying to medical school. Over and over again, we asked ourselves: Do we really need to be good at multiple-choice exams in order to be a good doctor? </p>

<p>We were referring of course to not just any exam, but to the Big One — the Medical College Admission Test, or MCAT, the standardized cognitive assessment exam that measures mastery of the premedical curriculum. Back then, as now, American medical school admissions committees required every applicant to sit for the MCAT. </p>

<p>While medical schools have since taken pains to assure applicants that recommendation letters and essays also weigh heavily, many candidates continue to believe, erroneously or not, that the MCAT can make or break one’s chances. Competition to get into medical school remains fierce, with over 42,000 highly qualified individuals vying for just a few more than 18,000 slots at medical schools across the country. </p>

<p>With those kinds of statistics and no reliable standardized way to evaluate personality, it is inevitable that the MCAT will have a crucial role in medical school admissions. But does that guarantee that the applicants admitted are also destined to become the best doctors? </p>

<p>Maybe not. </p>

<p>According to a recent study in The Journal of Applied Psychology, there is another kind of exam that may be more predictive of how successful students will be in medicine: personality testing.</p>

<p>For nearly a decade, three industrial and organizational psychologists from the United States and Europe followed more than 600 medical students in Belgium, where premedical and medical school curriculums are combined into a single seven-year program. As in the United States, the early portion of their education is focused on acquiring basic science knowledge through lectures and classroom work; the latter part is devoted to mastering clinical knowledge and spending time with patients.</p>

<p>At the start of the study, the researchers administered a standardized personality test and assessed each student for five different dimensions of personality — extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. They then followed the students through their schooling, taking note of the students’ grades, performance and attrition rates.</p>

<p>The investigators found that the results of the personality test had a striking correlation with the students’ performance. Neuroticism, or an individual’s likelihood of becoming emotionally upset, was a constant predictor of a student’s poor academic performance and even attrition. Being conscientious, on the other hand, was a particularly important predictor of success throughout medical school. And the importance of openness and agreeableness increased over time, though neither did as significantly as extraversion. Extraverts invariably struggled early on but ended up excelling as their training entailed less time in the classroom and more time with patients.</p>

<p>“The noncognitive, personality domain is an untapped area for medical school admissions,” said Deniz S. Ones, a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota and one of the authors of the study. “We typically address it in a more haphazard way than we do cognitive ability, relying on recommendations, essays and either structured or unstructured interviews. We need to close the loop on all of this.” </p>

<p>Some schools have tried to use a quantitative rating system to evaluate applicant essays and letters of recommendation, but the results remain inconsistent. “Even with these attempts to make the process more sophisticated, there is no standardization,” Dr. Ones said. “Some references might emphasize conscientiousness, and some interviewers might focus on extraversion. That nonstandardization has costs in terms of making wrong decisions based on personality characteristics.” </p>

<p>By using standardized assessments of personality, a medical school admissions committee can get a better sense of how a candidate stands relative to others. “If I know someone is not just stress-prone, but stress-prone at the 95th percentile rather than the 65th,” Dr. Ones said, “I would have to ask myself if that person could handle the stress of medicine.” </p>

<p>While standardized tests like the MCAT and the SAT have been criticized for putting certain population groups at a disadvantage, the particular personality test used in this study has been shown to work consistently across different cultures and backgrounds. “This test shows virtually none or very tiny differences between different ethnic or minority groups,” Dr. Ones noted. Because of this reliability, the test is a potentially invaluable adjunct to more traditional knowledge-based testing. “It could work as an additional predictive tool in the system,” she said.</p>

<p>One perennial question that personality testing could help to answer is whether hard work can make up for differences in cognitive ability. “Some of our data says yes,” Dr. Ones said. “If someone is at the 15th percentile of the cognitive test but at the 95th percentile of conscientiousness, chances are that the student is going to make it.” That student may even eventually outperform peers who have higher cognitive test scores but who are less conscientious or more neurotic and stress-prone.</p>

<p>But these standardized tests, personality or cognitive, can be useful only after medical schools, and the public they serve, decide what characteristics are most important for the next generation of doctors. “If a medical school is all about graduating great researchers, then I would tell them not to weigh the results of the personality test that heavily,” Dr. Ones said. “But if you want doctors who are practitioners, valued members in terms of serving greater public, then you have to pay close attention to these results.”</p>

<p>She added: “When you ask your friends, they will describe you in terms of your personality. Rarely will you get a description of your cognitive ability. Personality is what makes us who we are.”</p>

<p>^I like thatI! I did OK on standardized tests like SAT’s and MCAT’s ( real world OK, not CC okay), but I think I really blew “them” out of the water on my oral boards.</p>

<p>^^that’s a really interesting read. I actually think that would be a great idea if it were to be implemented in the future. one test playing such a large role in the admission process is absurd. There are probably many great doc’s every year that don’t become doctors and those who would make terrible doctors, personality-wise, that make it every year due to the MCAT.</p>

<p>Hm. Curious to see their definitions. For example:

</p>

<p>How exactly are these distinguished?</p>

<p>Anyway, I suspect that even if this were widely in use, it would screen out relatively few candidates (10%?) – and therefore would open up relatively few spots for low-MCAT scorers. But of course it depends on how the test is used.</p>

<p>bluedevilmike, do you know off hand,which specialties still have oral boards?</p>

<p>I haven’t the slightest idea, unfortunately. =( Offhand, I’d have guessed that none of them do – but I wouldn’t be able to vouch for that.</p>

<p>From an '09 post on another forum…</p>

<p>"My understanding is that family practice, internal medicine, and pathology do not have oral exams. Those physicians fill in a lot of bubbles and BAM—they’re board certified.</p>

<p>Radiology, surgery, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and neurology have oral exams. (These are not comprehensive lists. These lists tell you more about the physicians I know and talk with.)"</p>