<p>No matter how you look at it, the fact remains that the ratio of Med. School spots available to pool of applicants is close to 40% (it went below 50% actually). Hypothetically, assume incredibly unattainable scenario, that all applicants are brilliant, got GPA close to 4.0, and MCAT close to 40 and did EVERYTHING correct during their application process. Their brilliant stats are NOT going to change this % into higher number. So, over 50% of these geniuses still will not get into med. school. So, as SAKKY mentioned, guarantee of BS/MD is invaluable. Another point - I am not sure about BS/MDs being that much better than average premeds. HS students are very well informed and those who are not making it really good in HS do not even think about carrier in medicine any more, they are aware of competition. Another point is there are plenty of med. school graduates from lower ranked med. schools (regular or BS/MD) who are making into incredible residencies - it seems more a personal achievement, than school name that makes it possible. And the last point in regard to maintaining eligibility in BS/MD program, there are programs that reguire higher GPA - 3.6 (at CASE) and even 3.8 (Washington??, not sure). 3.25 at NEOUCOM (Kent, Akron, Youngstown) and MCAT=24 are the lowest I have seen. However, there are reasons for it: the NEOUCOM program is accelerated (6 years, with option of 7), incredibly intense (with over 20 hours in each semester, 2 short breaks in first 2 years) and they are taking MCAT in their second summer (some of them are still 18 years old!!!). In addition, since NEOUCOM accepts 105 with over 95% being from Ohio, the applicants' stats are somewhat lower than other BS/MDs. However, the program is very impressive, very well run and puts all participants in a very elite group with very special treatments at each university. Another huge advantage of the program like this that is completely overlooked is that it removes competition within your peers, they are actually very supportive for each other, because they know that ALL of them have a spot in med. school and they actually want to keep their freinds around, not to loose them for attrition (this one is a fact, not a hypothesis).</p>
<p>That's a silly argument to make. Of course if all candidates uniformly improved, the ratio wouldn't be any higher. But -- and this is very, very obvious -- we're not discussing all candidates uniformly improving. We're discussing some candidates being of a much higher caliber than the average of the pool. Seriously. Come on.</p>
<p>50% remains a ridiculous scare tactic.</p>
<hr>
<p>And I remain insistent that competitive premeds are also a ridiculous scare tactic.</p>
<hr>
<p>The major failure of diversification is a failure to implement it by applying to only a handful of too-selective (or not-selective-enough) schools. The strategy itself works just fine.</p>
<p>Of course, if everybody did it, its effectiveness would drop. But that's not the world we live in.</p>
<p>"For example, I'd point out that, frankly, a lot of practicing doctors today, especially the older ones, probably couldn't get into med school today"</p>
<p>I do not know how much 'older' you are referring to, but it was much harder to get into medical school in the 1970's(height of baby boomer applicants when there were 3 applicants for every medical school slot) than it is today(when there are 2 applicants for every slot). My father has many stories of those 'cut throat' days.</p>
<p>Candidates are uniformly improving in small increments over time and ratio is actually going down, and odds are below 50% statistically and not much individual can do to greatly improve their personal odds. This is not silly at all but the facts that everybody have to face before they are seriously evaluating about spending 4+ years in pre-med and end up with Biology degree and not much more, just to be told that they lack any marketable skills. However, there are people who can afford it or choose to afford it. Not everybody have to worry about investing time and money, and there are some who go for "college" life experience, then it makes sense that Harvard is the one to attach to your name, Kent State is just not impressive enough. There is no much point in the argument anyway. People have different circumstances and backgrounds and they have to find a comfortable match. What works for one, will not work for another. There is no better or worse way, but the matter of personal preference.</p>
<p>My point is not that BS/MD programs are always wrong. My point is that the fear that pushes kids into them is dramatically overhyped.</p>
<p>
[quote]
not much individual can do to greatly improve their personal odds.
[/quote]
is a case in point. Scoring a 30 greatly improves your personal odds. Being the kind of student who can get into a BS/MD program in the first place dramatically increases your personal odds. Doing some -- any -- research spectacularly increases your personal odds. To say that all individuals face 50% odds, with few or no ways to improve, is propaganda of the highest order.</p>
<p>Norcalguy, here is what you say: "Doctors are saddled with enormous responsibility. I would want my doctor to have survived the most rigorous training and to be held to the highest standards and I would expect the same expectations to be levied upon myself as a premed. Maybe if you are one of the 80% that drop out of premed, you were never meant to be a doctor."</p>
<p>Hey, do you assume that all the 85% or so of Cornell students who didn't make it to med school were necessarily not academically competitive enough to become doctors? I makes not sense. An engineer with 3.5 GPA can be much more academically qualified than an art major with 3.7 GPA, yet the engineer will still be weeded out from the premed process(the premed process does not necessarily select most academically qualified, but those with the highest numbers). Besides, a good doctor is a lot more than simple numbers. They have to practice the "science" of medecine as well as the "art" of medecine. Those with low numbers could probably become great doctors, even better doctors than those with high numbers. Yet they will be disqualified. The premed process allows a LOT of inequity, and that's why people choose BA/MDs. It's to avoid such inequity. </p>
<p>Also, you once said it's a lot harder to get 30 on the MCAT than 1400/1600 on the SAT. Besides, college courses are WAY harder than APs (according to you, once again). That means a lot of BA/MD kids could have not made to medical school if they were to go through the classical premed process. That counters BDM's argument that BA/MD unjustly exploits the uncertainties of 17 year old overachievers who will inevitably end up in medical school whether or not they accept to go to the BA/MD. Because that uncertainty DO exist, and that many overachievers who got into BA/MD can possibly not be accepted to medical school later if they go through the classical premed process.</p>
<p>Very well said, Watson&Crick. Just want to repeat that it is your risk aversion, personal circumstances and cool headed non-emoptional evaluation of facts and statistics (which is not scare tactics, but the actual numbers) should make you to decide one way or another.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the premed process does not necessarily select most academically qualified, but those with the highest numbers
[/quote]
That's a bogus thing to say. It's not the most academically qualified, but it's certainly not all about numbers.</p>
<p>And besides, obviously I'm not trying to suggest that these kids will have 100% shots at medical school after that. For all I know their school could get hit by a meteor. The point is that the odds are a lot higher than 50%.</p>
<p>If some kid wants to come on here and tell me that that 10% means a lot to them, fine, whatever. But that's not what I hear. I keep hearing jabbering about 50%, which is ridiculous.</p>
<p>It's not all about numbers, but the GPA and MCAT are the most important factors for admission. Without an appropriate combination between the two, admission chances can becomes significantly lower. After having passed the 1st threshold will your ECs and interview be important. Sb with high MCAT/GPA but bad interview skills can still make it to the interview quite painlessly, while sb with low MCAT/GPA will probably not make it until the interview. As an onco-gynecolo surgeon said, the "MCAT will make or break you."</p>
<p>I also remember how much you emphasize that if you don't join the academia or a few other options, your medical school probably doesn't matter. A graduate from VCU, Drexel medical school and other schools with BA/MDs will not necessarily worse than a graduate from Harvard medical school. I depends more on your capacity to exploit your potential than on the name-branding of your school.
Besides, let's suppose that you go the traditional pathway, and apply to many med school but are accepted only to one or two low ranked med school like Galveston medical school that you don't like (which is obviously a good scenario). BDM, would you have refused to go to medical school, since you consider that school bad? Would you refuse to become a doctor?</p>
<p>Are those who severily criticize BS/MD programs closely familiar with any of them? Did you, guys, apply, go to interviews, go to open houses, talk to a lot of faculty and students, gather reguirements and trends over time? It does take time to fully appreciate an opportunity, and I have seen opinions changed dramtically over time. If you were not involved with any of these activities, than your opinion reflects lack of knowledge. Of course, anybody is free to express any opinion. However, others are equally free to interpret them.</p>
<p>It's certainly true that the prestige of your medical school isn't a big deal. What is a big deal is how much you like it -- as well as how much you liked your undergrad.</p>
<p>Look. If you want to go to that school anyway, then hey -- go. No complaints. But too many students get pressured by propaganda about how scary premed is. It's really not that scary for students of that caliber.</p>
<p>"That means a lot of BA/MD kids could have not made to medical school if they were to go through the classical premed process. That counters BDM's argument that BA/MD unjustly exploits the uncertainties of 17 year old overachievers who will inevitably end up in medical school whether or not they accept to go to the BA/MD."</p>
<p>Yes, it does. Do I have to agree with Mike on everything? </p>
<p>It's not about finding merely qualified aplicants. Plenty of people can graduate from medical school. It is about finding the MOST qualified (ie people who would make the BEST doctors). I don't think you can make as good a judgement from HS GPA and SAT scores as you can from college GPA and MCAT scores.</p>
<p>"Yes, it does. Do I have to agree with Mike on everything?"
Sorry, but because BDM and you are so omnipotent&ominpresent on CC thread, that you have joined the godly premed clubs. :) We, the plebeian CC posters get used to put you guys in the same pack, the untouchables.</p>
<p>BTW: the BEST doctors are not necessarily those with the highest academics. Above a certain threshold and academics no longer matter (especially if you don't join the academia). Besides, an MCAT/GPA score cannot be correlated to how a premed will fare as a doctor. It correlates to your reading/comprehension speed, which is tangential to your success in medical school, and is even more tangential to your success as a doctor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do not know how much 'older' you are referring to, but it was much harder to get into medical school in the 1970's(height of baby boomer applicants when there were 3 applicants for every medical school slot) than it is today(when there are 2 applicants for every slot). My father has many stories of those 'cut throat' days.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allright, maybe I shouldn't have emphasized 'older'. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the standards of med school admissions are arbitrary, and are affected by socio-economic considerations like, as you said, during times when becoming a doctor becomes especially popular.</p>
<p>At least statistically speaking, matriculated med students in 1995 were less qualified than matriculated med students of today. Hence, it would seem to me that some current doctors who got into med school in 1995 wouldn't have gotten in if they had applied today. Yet nobody is proposing to revoke their license to practice medicine. </p>
<p>The point is, there are no constant standards for deciding who gets admitted to med school. Sometimes it's easier to get in. Sometimes it's harder. Hence, we cannot conclude that every practicing doctor out there really did undergo an equivalently rigorous premed training and selection process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not about finding merely qualified aplicants. Plenty of people can graduate from medical school. It is about finding the MOST qualified (ie people who would make the BEST doctors). I don't think you can make as good a judgement from HS GPA and SAT scores as you can from college GPA and MCAT scores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, norcalguy, it seems that you are now arguing about a point regarding social welfare: what is best for society as a whole. But that's not really the issue on the table. The issue on the table is what is the best path for you, * as an individual*, to get into med school. While this might sound ghoulishly selfish, social welfare doesn't really matter when you're dealing with the latter question. If a loophole in the system exists, then while that may be bad for society, that also means that you as an individual should want to exploit it. After all, if you don't, somebody else will. </p>
<p>What you might say is that BS/MD programs are bad for the state of medicine and should be abolished. That's a perfectly defensible position. But as long as those programs exist, then you as an individual should want to take advantage of them. </p>
<p>I would personally argue that if there is really a loophole in the system, I would suspect it would be regarding those Caribbean medical schools. Those schools really do admit quite a few students who did not perform particularly well in the regular premed process. Yet if you graduate from them, you have a good chance of garnering a US residency and becoming a fully licensed US doctor.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you have a good chance of garnering a US residency
[/quote]
I don't mean to nitpick, but I'd say instead that the chance is "non-negligible". We know that only about 2/3 of them pass the first of three (two relevant) board exams on their first try, and that about 1/2 of them who eventually apply for US residencies will actually get one.</p>
<p>What's not clear to me is how the probabilities stack.</p>
<p>How many of them pass board exams eventually?
How many of them fail Step II?</p>
<p>If the answers to those two questions cancel out, then we see that people attending a Caribbean medical school have about a 1/3 chance of becoming a physician.</p>
<p>Non-negligible, definitely.</p>
<p>"Well, norcalguy, it seems that you are now arguing about a point regarding social welfare: what is best for society as a whole. But that's not really the issue on the table. The issue on the table is what is the best path for you, as an individual, to get into med school. While this might sound ghoulishly selfish, social welfare doesn't really matter when you're dealing with the latter question. If a loophole in the system exists, then while that may be bad for society, that also means that you as an individual should want to exploit it. After all, if you don't, somebody else will."</p>
<p>For once, I agree with you sakky. BS/MD programs, in my opinion, are the easiest way to become a doctor. If that's what the OP was wondering about, then that's my opinion.</p>
<p>I don't think most BS/MDers would make it to medical school otherwise just as most Harvard premeds and most Cornell premeds don't make it to medical school. From a health care perspective, I don't think BS/MD programs are healthy (pardon the pun) for either the medical school or the high schooler.</p>
<p>Sorry, I was hoping to turn this into more of a discussion thread since most other threads in this forum only deal with practical matters.</p>
<p>"BTW: the BEST doctors are not necessarily those with the highest academics. Above a certain threshold and academics no longer matter (especially if you don't join the academia). Besides, an MCAT/GPA score cannot be correlated to how a premed will fare as a doctor. It correlates to your reading/comprehension speed, which is tangential to your success in medical school, and is even more tangential to your success as a doctor."</p>
<p>You don't need a 43 or a 4.0 to be a good doctor. But I don't think a 3.5/30 is too much to ask. The thing is, most BS/MDers (just as with most premeds) are not capable of attaining this. The attrition rates at even elite schools like Cornell or Berkeley attest to the fact that most smart high schoolers are not smart enough/dedicated enough/driven enough/whatever to make it to senior year with 3.5/30 stats. </p>
<p>A 2003 study found that out of all US allopathic medical schools, graduates from Meharry and Howard (the two schools with the lowest statistics) were disciplined 10 times as much as doctors produced from other schools. Clearly, there is some correlation between GPA/MCAT and your competence as a doctor. You need more qualities than GPA/MCAT but those are two factors you absolutely need to have. The ridiculous 3.2/25 or whatever threshold that BS/MDers are held to is not enough as Meharry and Howard demonstrate.</p>
<p>See, I think just the opposite: I don't think these programs are actually offering all that much (i.e. the guarantee is overblown) and they're asking you to sacrifice an awful lot (i.e. you don't get to go to the college you want to).</p>