<p>Watson&Crick, I have to take issue with a few of your points. Narrowly focusing one’s career path as such an early stage is hardly beneficial to everyone, much of the reason for why the US university system is held in such high esteem is because it enables students to explore numerous fields and discover what it truly is they want to do with their lives, something that is sorely lacking in the European system. The U.S. system, while it indeed requires a significantly longer training time than others, is also much more amenable to taking in those who decide they wish to become a physician later on in life, and ultimately produces more mature, well-rounded doctors. There’s a reason why many students around the world avidly pursue education in the US (whether it be at the undergrad or graduate school level) and there is very little flow in the other direction.</p>
<p>While all that investment in time doesn’t go down the drain completely, all of the options that you presented are only second-best choices. </p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way. Let’s say that somehow, everybody who wasn’t going to get into med-school could be told that fact before they invested any time in the process. How many people would still undergo the process? I think we would agree, very few would. The ones who now decide that they would rather pursue Biology PhD programs would then choose to spend their time optimizing their chances for that route, as opposed to spending time on things that won’t really help them get into such programs (i.e. they won’t waste time prepping for the MCAT, as that won’t help them get them into a Bio Phd program). The ones who decide to pursue other medicine-related careers would then optimize their time to do that. </p>
<p>The salient point is that the present system creates severe suboptimalities. Of course the medical schools don’t care about that. They’re not paying. They risk nothing. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by such a system. It is the individual students that are forced to take the risk. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the (harsh) reality is that even once you find out what you truly want to do with your life, that doesn’t mean that you actually get to do it. Plenty don’t. For example, plenty of students find out that they truly want to be doctors… and then can’t get into medical school. What’s the point of finding out what you want to do if you don’t actually get to do it? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know about that. I think that’s an empirical question. I think we should look at the system from more of a customer-based point of view. The salient question is not whether US doctors really are more mature or well-rounded than are doctors in Europe. Rather, it is, do US doctors really provide better overall medical care than European doctors do? After all, that’s the question that really matters. After all, woud it really matter if doctors are more well-rounded and more mature if they don’t provide better care? </p>
<p>I am not aware of any strong empirical evidence that would indicate that US doctors really do provide better care than do doctors in Europe. If you or anybody else has some evidence, I am all ears.</p>
<p>Which is why colleges should do a better job of weeding out premeds. The number of medical school slots is capped. The only thing that can change is the number of applicants. It would be much better for premeds to learn that they’re not going to be doctors after their freshman or sophomore years than to discover the fact during the application process.</p>
<p>SAKKY! I can’t believe you just made that point. I don’t know where to begin so I will respond by taking it to the extreme. How would our lives be altered if God came down from heaven and told us not to worry because once we die we can enjoy a life of paradise for eternity, guaranteed?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that not everybody can do what they want to do with their lives is a good thing. If this wasn’t the case then economies/governments/the world would implode.</p>
<p>Are you saying that shooting for anything in life is pointless if you don’t actually get to do it? Because that would make the majority of our lives pointless.</p>
<p>Failure and competition are inherent features of life no matter what area one choses to enter if one wants to distinguish oneself. The key is to learn to accept them as well as their consequences. One can then either keep trying or move into another area where one can find more success.There are a lot of sucessful, happy, and contributing people out there who did not get into medical school. They found other ways to find meaning in their work and to provide for their families.</p>
<p>Uh, what does this has to do with anything? I’m simply talking improving the efficiency of a particular system, which I think is quite feasibe. Take a look at norcalguy’s response. That is one perfectly feasible way to tackle the problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not what I’m talking about. When did I ever said that everybody who wanted to become a doctor would be allowed to be one?</p>
<p>I am simply talking about providing people with earlier information about who isn’t going to make it. If somebody isn’t going to make it, it is better to tell that person as early as possible so that he doesn’t waste time trying. So you would still have the same number of people not making it. They would just know to do something else. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Like I said, you would STILL have to shoot for your goal. Again, it would STILL be just as hard to become a doctor. The major difference is that if you’re not going to make it, you would know that fact earlier so that you don’t waste time.</p>
<p>The system doesn’t have to be coercive. I am not necessarily asking for a system that would force anybody to leave the premed process. What I am asking for is a system of earlier information such that people can decide for themselves whether they should leave or not and hence not spend further time on something that isn’t going to happen. Think of it as an early warning system. </p>
<p>Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say that the drop deadline of your course is November 1. In that case, it is extremely helpful to have a midterm exam before that deadline, not afterwards. That way, you can assess whether you are likely to do well in that course or not, and if you do poorly on the midterm, then you can decide to drop the course and not waste further time. Now, of course, I am not forcing you to drop. If you do poorly on the midterm, but you still think you can do well on the final exam, then you are free to try. But at least you would have information that would allow you to assess your chances. You can then decide for yourself whether you want to continue or not. That’s a lot better than having the midterm exam after the drop date, because then you don’t have the information you need. </p>
<p>Let me give you another analogy. If a tough major, say chemical engineering, is going to weed people out, would it better for the weedout courses to be the first course of the major, or the last course? I think it’s quite clear that it is better that it be the first course of the major. People who are going to be weeded out should be weeded out as early as possible. That’s a lot better than having some people spend 4 years taking chemical engineering coursework, and then not being able to graduate because they can’t pass the final (weeder) course. </p>
<p>Which is why I support norcalguy’s proposal. Colleges can aid by weeding out their premeds as early in the process as possible. If you’re going to weed, it’s better to do it early so that people have early warning. Another possibility is to have something like “pre-MCAT” exams (like the PSAT): like the MCAT, under full test conditions, but the scores don’t actually count for admissions purposes. If you do terrible on this “pre-MCAT”, then that would serve as a strong warning that you’re probably going to do terrible on the real MCAT, and that should make you question whether you really want to continue. </p>
<p>All I am asking for is a system of better and earlier information. It is a simple truism in decision science and economics that earlier and better information will let people make better decisions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is disputing that failure and competition are inherent features of life. The question is, can we make the failure and competition less wasteful. Again, if somebody is going to fail at something, it is better for him to know that sooner rather than later so that he can decide to pursue something at which he is going to proceed.</p>
<p>I agree it would be better for a significant number of people to know that they’re in trouble sooner rather than later. I had kids in the Kaplan classes I taught who would get 7s or 8’s - cumulative scores, mind you - on their diagnostic exams…and then get lower scores on the practice full lengths. And several were just convinced they could still get into med school because they had great grades. </p>
<p>Certainly those people need wake up calls and someone to say “I’m sorry, but this just isn’t going to work out”. </p>
<p>But what about the kid with the 3.6 and the 25? Those students don’t have great chances, but they have some. What do you tell them? </p>
<p>Or what about the California resident who has a 3.6 and a 30? Someone who by all accounts would be a great doctor, and a near lock for a spot if he had only grown up in Oklahoma or South Dakota or nearly any state other than CA? But as it stands, his home state won’t take him and he’s identical to a 1000 other candidates in the eyes of most private schools?</p>
<p>As I’ve long said, the medical admissions process is a ****ed up one. Plenty of the decisions don’t make sense. But, I think, to a certain extent, that drives the quality of the applicants. While it may be “wasteful” it forces the cream to rise to the top for an extended period of time. There are plenty of people who handle the science well, who test well, but realize after several years that their heart is not in medicine, and they need to find something else. Not every “failed” pre-med drops it because they can’t handle it. If you have a system that weeds out early, and virtually assures completion once you get past the main barriers, what motivation lies on the other side for continued improvement/dedication/involvement? There are plenty of failed applicants who could have put their nose to the grindstone for two years to get through the weed out courses but would be awful doctors (like the issues we’ve had with p reepa on this board). So I think it’s important to recognize that there is worth to the system, even if it is inefficient.</p>
<p>I would give that kid the chart of past applicants who had the same stats that they had, and I would note the percentage of such applicants who actually got admitted, and where they got into. I would then leave it up to that kid to decide whether he wants to proceed or not.</p>
<p>This gets to another aspect of the process. I think colleges should be more forthcoming about the statistics of the admitted premeds. Med-schools should do the same. They should be publishing this information publicly. Right now, many colleges and med-schools simply choose not to provide proper admissions information. That sort of information would allow for better decision-making. I don’t understand why they hide this information. At the end of the day, hidden information simply fosters bad decision-making. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would then advise that student that, if he can’t get into any med school this round, then perhaps he should consider spending a year after graduation establishing residency in another state, and point him to information about exactly how to establish that residency. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not claiming that my proposals will make for a perfect system. They don’t have to. They just have to improve the status quo. I’m sure you would agree that the status quo ain’t that good. Just because we can’t get rid of all of the inefficiency doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to get rid of some of it. That would be better than doing nothing at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it seems to me that that is precisely what we have today anyway. After all, I think we can all agree that it is practically impossible to actually flunk out of med-school. The hardest part of med school is simply getting admitted, but once you’re in, it’s almost impossible to be thrown out. Hence, that would seem to me to raise the same issues regarding continued improvement/dedication/involvement.</p>
<p>Because they’re embarassed by their admissions procedures and criteria. It’s probably worse in undergrad admissions, where the bonuses afforded to legacies, athletes, and racial/geographic admits (along with yield rejections) are probably much larger than admissions departments would like to be publicly known.</p>
<p>At least medical schools don’t worry about athletes.</p>
<hr>
<p>I will say this. Many of the premeds who are applying ought to know that they are ineligible for medical school. Many have been supplied with perfectly enough information. There are some who simply won’t be dissuaded.</p>
<p>(For reference: 25% of students who take the MCAT are eventually admitted to medical school.)</p>
<p>My instinct? Barring a coercive system, you can give them all the information you want, and your admissions rate probably isn’t going to get a lot higher than 33%. Of course – that is still an improvement.</p>
<p>“Which is why colleges should do a better job of weeding out premeds”</p>
<p>NCG, you have just hit the bull’s eye by saying this. THis is exactly what should occur in the FIRST year of college. The only way to do this is to fuse medical school/undergrad for premeds, so that other non-premeds don’t get any disadvantage. THis is done in EU countries, and they do a pretty good job at weeding out students who are unqualified academically. It is much better to be weeded out 1st yr, than to remain for 4 yrs struggling to finally not know what to do with your life because you were just rejected.</p>
<p>"Many of the premeds who are applying ought to know that they are ineligible for medical school. "</p>
<p>Yeah, but those you ARE unqualified can’t know it until they apply, which is after 4 yrs of painstaking work for an elusive acceptance letter. THis is what I call wasteful. THe best way to MAKE them know they are uneligible is to weed out right at the beginning of college, and not wait until they paid thousands of dollars in MCAT courses, books etc… to finally learn they just don’t have what it takes to be accepted.</p>
<p>You missed the entire point of what I said. My point was that many premeds SHOULD know before application time that they’re simply not eligible. Many of them persist anyway.</p>
<p>Another point I want to make is about the wastefulness of the whole medical system:</p>
<p>“One can then either keep trying or move into another area where one can find more success.”
pmyen, not everyone has the money and time to invest 4 yrs of their life (sometimes more) to “keep trying” or “move into another area where on can find more success”.</p>
<p>Another interesting thing is that doctors in the US have the highest rate of divorce, drug use, and the youngest age of death among the occupations. They also have one of the highest rate of stress. The golden postsecondary educational system, indeed, creates “mature” individuals. But what is the point of taking in mature and interesting individuals if you make of them mole like creatures and zombies?</p>
<p>From an educational standpoint, it can be useful have breadth in your college courses. But not everyone has the money or time to invest thousands of dollars just to take courses for fun. That’s why in EU countries students take what US considers “college” courses in High school for FREE. Going to college is the time to specialize, to pursue sth you want to do the rest of your life. It is not the time to seek what you want. That’s what you should do in High School.</p>
<p>Sorry, I may have sounded rude, but I had to vent that out or I was going to explode.</p>
<p>Why? because the system does a bad job at weeding them out. How can you prevent sb from aspiring to be a doctor simply by putting grueful statistics on a website?</p>
<p>Besides, if you know you are unlegible after 4 yrs of work, you don’t really want to abandon because you invested too much energy into it. This is what I call a waste.</p>
<p>“So you’re suggesting a coercive system? Bar students from applying if they get below a 28 on the MCAT?”</p>
<p>Bar them using final exams at college (right in the first year). The MCAT is more of a aptitude test than an achievement test. It is much more dependent on your test-taking skills than your dedication.</p>
<p>No. Students who fail the extremely grade deflated premed courses should not be allowed to continue to 2nd yr of premed education. WHich implies that the whole system has to be changed, with premeds taking their own education (which should be much more rigorous) separately. Of course, a national standart about those courses should be set.</p>
<p>You keep adding centralization, coercion, and early lock-in features into your system.</p>
<p>The dead-weight loss is clearly not ideal. But I’ll take the flexibility, breadth, and well-roundedness of the American system any day over what you’re suggesting.</p>
<p>Far from it. Curbing the premed years actually leaves more possibility for those who fail, since they will still have the energy, time, money and motivation to change their path earlier instead of wasting time doing things that lead to nowhere.</p>
<p>On the other hand, those who survive will actually start their medical education earlier. This system prevents them from “cramming” knowledge during their 2 first years of medical school. You have said yourself (can’t find the post) that the difficulty in medical school is not the level of the material, but the volume of the material. So why not start earlier to prevent so much cramming?</p>
<p>What about kids who get pegged for medicine at age 18, finish two years of medical school successfully, and then decide they don’t want to be doctors?</p>
<p>First, they got “tracked” at age 18 – meaning they usually didn’t have time to really determine what they wanted. Second, it’s not like they can change career paths. All the law school kids, engineers, or businessmen probably also got “tracked” at age 18, and – besides that – they don’t have a liberal arts education to serve as the foundation.</p>
<p>So a perfectly competent student who decides he doesn’t like medicine – too bad, he’s stuck.</p>