<p>I agree with FS. It sounds more like GB Shaw.</p>
<p>When I Googled the line, "If you were my husband....coffee," every source that popped up that named names said it was an exchange between Churchill and Lady Astor.</p>
<p>Remember, Churchill also is the one who was supposed to have given following response to some lady who said to him at a dinner party, "You are drunk:" "And you are ugly. And in the morning, I'll be sober, and you'll still be ugly."</p>
<p>Yes, the exchange about poison is definitely between Churchill and Nancy Astor (who was an American, actually).
Churchill consumed vast amount of drink starting early in the day, including during WWII.</p>
<p>audiophile asked if I would still
be proud to be her dad. </p>
<p>Touche audiophile
I didn't see that one coming.
Good question! I would have to
ascertain the drawbacks vs the
rewards. I then... might be
able to answer your question.</p>
<p>--First, schools skim off the obvious rejects and then average applicants. Then it's more like a crap-shoot, but not until after the first stages.</p>
<p>-I agree. But so many of our kids on this site are right in that 3.9/740 SAT "crap shoot" grouping!</p>
<p>At that stage the crap shoot has pretty good odds, far better than at the beginning. Also, the "better" the school (really, the harder it is to get into, meaning the better the applicant poo and fewer students they select), the more crap-shoot like it is. Most ccers would have a beeze with all but a hundred or so US schools, maybe even fewer than that.</p>
<p>Oh, Drab!</p>
<p>Do you really mean the applicant <em>poo</em> has better odds at crapshoot?</p>
<p>This is the most scatological exegesis of the college admission process I've ever read! :)</p>
<p>drab - better odds, I agree, but not good enough. 3.9. 1480, 8 APs, varsity captain, eagle scout was not enough to get our son into UVA (OOS) or Cornell. With that profile, couldn't even get into a state school...poo on that.</p>
<p>It always amuses me that professional diplomas, like all others, never mention class rank. The question that follows generally goes like this: Would I be in better hands if treated by Professional A who graduated in the bottom quarter of his class at Ivy U or Professional B that finished in the top quarter of State U? Diplomas are fun to look at but I wonder how many Professionals would display them promnently if rank were highly visible? My guess is about 25% or about the same as State U. Once inside the offiice it's the professional, not the doctor who exhibits the skill, not the diploma.</p>
<p>I agree with you pghdad! There are some medical professionals who I would not visit no matter what their degree said. Probably that goes for other professions too. When looking for professional services, I usually look for referrals from knowledgable and trusted friends. And while I have checked on board certifications in some cases, I have never researched what college was attended.</p>
<p>The old joke goes: "What do you call the person who was last in their medical school?"
Answer: "Doctor."
However, the reality is quite different. I don't see how where a doctor went as an undergraduate has any bearing whatsoever on their ability to handle trade school, or their ability as a doctor. One has nothing to do with the other. Also, people may hit their academic stride at different points in their life.
Also, it's kind of silly for someone who has a Ph.D. to introduce themself as "doctor", as if you can really compare a Ph.D. to an M.D. Not in the same league, I'm afraid. Think of the length of time it takes to get each degree, and then the amount of work it takes to become a medical doctor <em>after</em> getting the degree.
Secondly, we do not have enough doctors, because there are no new medical schools, and existing ones are not admitting more. There are far <em>more</em> qualified individuals than spaces in medical schools as a whole, not just the "selective" ones--a much harder ballgame than the undergraduate admissions scene. It's truly shocking to see the caliber and experience of those who are getting rejected these days.
Medical school is medical school. You go through such an extensive training, for such a long time, it's not as if a doctor who didn't go to a big name school is no good. Also, as in other graduate education, the "big name" schools are rarely the ones with the best programs in every specialty.</p>
<p>Does anyone really even look at those diplomas on the wall? I don't. I just ask doctors and nurses who they'd want to be treated by, and go to that person.</p>
<p>It usually takes 5-6 years of intense studies to get a PhD in sciences , so the time is more or less the same as for MDs. Postdoctoral studies( 2-3 years) usually follow, call it "residency" if you will.</p>
<p>I believe that the national admit rate to med school is about 46%, not horrible. That's is, about 46% of all students who apply get into some med school. (An aside: The median time for my Ph.D. program was 11 years, after intense efforts to decrease that time, it has recently dropped to 8.)</p>
<p>I response to those who say that students will not be engaged by their peers at lower-tier schools, I would like to add that students tend to hang out with those most like them. If your child is of the calibur to attend an Ivy, but chooses not to, chances are he/she will end up hanging out with students of a similar calibur. Furthermore, there seems to be this notion among parents and students that Ivy league students sit around discussing philosphy and the meaning of life all the time. This is not so. Ivy leaguers party as much and as hard as many state-U students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Secondly, we do not have enough doctors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you seriously believe that? Have you seen the figures for medical doctors per 100,000 population in various countries, including the United States? How many doctors would be enough?</p>
<p>
Where did you get this information? All the sources I looked up have much lower percentages.</p>
<p>tokenadult</p>
<p>There is a shortage of doctors in many fields and in many rural areas of the country that is becoming quite severe. Rheumetologists have wait times in the months to get to see one in some areas.</p>
<p>the poster could have been more specific but don't assume we have doctors in key areas running out our ears so to speak.</p>
<p>For 2005, the admittance rate to U.S. medical schools was about 46%. The exact figures are available on the AAMC web site (American Association of Medical Colleges, I believe). </p>
<p>In 2005:
37,364 applicants
17,004 matriculants</p>
<p>There have been at least forty years of efforts in the United States to entice more doctors to move into rural, poor areas by increasing the national number of doctors, but that is a failed strategy. Take a look at the number of doctors per 100,000 population in other countries of the world, and then look at what else is different about those countries. Moving doctors to particular places is a distinct issue from increasing their numbers nationwide.</p>
<p>Many students study for a few months, take the MCAT, realize that their scores are not high enough, and don't bother applying. Admit rates at some schools are as low as 3%. It's the total number of doctors that is the problem, though. There are not enough, and that is why we consistently import doctors from abroad. Unfortunately, many come here for medical school and then leave, worsening the shortage. Current doctors are happy with the resulting supply and demand, since a shortage allows them to still charge enough, despite the discounts they are taking by hooking up with HMOs.
It's true that some Ph.D's can take a long time, as some can take a short time. Obviously, an M.D.'s length of training will depend on the specialty. On average, however, it's longer and more arduous than a Ph.D. Radiology=13 years total (well, 17 if you count college). But doing research and writing for a number of years is a different experience from being slave labor in a hospital and not sleeping for 3 days at the drop of a hat.</p>