<p>…“You can’t take any risks, or you won’t get in [to medical school] – you won’t get into the club,” he told the audience. But, he continued, that means weeding out creativity. Future doctors are being trained to “memorize certainty,” rather than think imaginatively. Having gone through the admissions process recently, I could relate to many of Dr. Scott’s sentiments. It’s true: preparing to get into medical school does little to encourage risk-taking. Admission criteria are rigid. And you know if you don’t do what they ask, there is no shortage of others who will. Want to become a doctor? You can’t slip up, or you’ll fall behind. You can’t rock the boat, or you won’t get admitted…"</p>
<p>I think his message is off point, or perhaps only based on his limited experiences at his own undergrad school and med school. His belief that a lock-step/cookie cutter approach as the only way students get into med school only reflects the experiences of the straight-out-of-undergrad segment of applicants. </p>
<p>At some schools, including the one D1 attends, the straight-out-of-undergrad segment accounts for only about 1/2 of the incoming MS1 class each year. </p>
<p>D1’s classmates are wonderful varied lot: a PhD in neuroscience from a top 20 school; a truck driver from Cameroon; a former gang member from the barrio; a wilderness guide from Alaska; a couple of ranch kids; Native Americans who grew up on various reservations; a high school teacher with teen aged children; the child of resettled political refugees; a missionary freshly back from South America…</p>
<p>All of these people have come to medicine from different, sometimes circuitous routes. They have taken risks. They’ve had experiences different from the mainstream of 'burban kids striving to get a golden ticket into med school. And I think this is a good thing. This diversity of individuals brings a maturity, a range of divergent expertise and a wide variety of viewpoints to the classroom discussion. </p>
<p>If this is the vision of creativity that the author wants…then some medical schools are already achieving it.</p>
<p>If anything I would like to see med school applicants be required to take a mandatory 2-3 year gap after undergrad to gain some life experience before they would be eligible to apply. Perhaps in some sort of national service program. However, given the ever-increasing length of a medical education (med school- residency-fellowship), I’m not convinced it’s an idea that’s entirely feasible. (And like everything else, is likely to result in a plethora of post-undergrads who ‘put in’ their 2 or 3 years at TFA or a research lab in hopes of securing a golden ticket but without much actual interest in their job.)</p>
<p>I hate the suggestion of ‘quota’ system by major. (Although both my kiddos would be beneficiaries under this idea.) There are already students trying to game the system by choosing majors they think will suitably impress adcomms/stand out as rare/unique and not because they value the field of study. I think a quota system would only accelerate the trend. (And would likely quickly become a major logistical headache for adcomms: Sorry, can’t accept you, we already filled our quota for dance majors this year. What we really need is three more cross-cultural studies majors. Or someone with a double major in Etruscan history and Russian literature.)</p>
<p>Additionally I’m not convinced that a English major thinks significantly differently than a computer science major. I’ve studied both formally (coursework) and have never felt I had to ‘think’ differently depending upon on what class I was turning work in for. Both disciplines require a kind of deep analysis that isn’t so different.</p>
<p>And yet schools are admitting students like the ones Wayoutwestmom is mentioning at her daughter’s med school. Same is true at son’s med school, many with Phds in other subjects, many from different walks of life. A large percentage, makes his classes and labs, discussion groups so much more interesting and so many different ideas and approaches.</p>
<p>Maybe this is the difference between med schools which rank high for research and those that rank high for primary care. Not so much rankings, but rather an emphasis (priority?) of one vs. the other. I have no empirical data just a hunch.</p>
<p>Also the schools might already be doing this, changing up a “typical” pre-med from something else. Son’s personal statement truely reflected who he was as a person and a scholar. Really set up what he was looking for in a school and letting the schools know who he was, so as much time wouldn’t be wasted in interviews where he would not “fit”.</p>
<p>And it seemed to work out that way, at least for the most part, not just a fit for the school itself but for his peers. It seemed in this round of applications (med school) vs. undergrad he had a much better feel where he would really flourish.</p>
<p>The ones where he was accepted he really clicked, he said he could just feel it. I think he was off by one but that was it. I do think some of the schools have a better handle on looking beyond the “typical” pre-meds than others. And it may just be a matter of time or maybe some schools just want to keep it the way it has been, at least for now.</p>
<p>I really not sure why we (as physicians) are held to such high standards. We have to be smart. And altruistic. And humble. And sociable. And, now apparently, creative.</p>
<p>Med school application is by far the most holistic of all grad school applications. There’s only one checkbox for law school apps and that’s your LSAT score. Getting into grad school is a matter of research, GRE score, and college GPA. Business school? Work experience and to a smaller extent, your GPA and GMAT.</p>
<p>But, med school applications: MCAT, GPA, LOR’s, volunteering, clinical experience, research experience, personal statements, secondary essays, personal interview. +interesting hobbies. And that’s still not enough? </p>
<p>No, it’s not about just the checklist. I did all of those checklist items. And I had a great GPA and MCAT and I still only got into a tiny fraction of the schools I applied to. Clearly, schools are looking for subjective factors that show through in the EC’s, essays, interviews, and LOR’s. Those are all opportunities for creativity. The expectations of perfection that society has for physicians frustrates me. We’re human beings like everyone else, not perfect.</p>
<p>It is in medical school itself where creativity really gets squashed. From my experience in medical school it appears the last thing in the world that an attending physician wants to hear is an original thought or idea from a medical student.</p>
<p>I agree. Medicine is a conservative profession. It is best not to rock the boat. All the more ironic with the complaining about creativity not being valued in admissions.</p>
<p>Ironically, going on the premed track and applying to med schools is a huge risk, in and of itself. You spend 4 years preparing for medical school, prepping extracurriculars that give you clinical experience, establishing a firm foundation in the life sciences by taking quite a few upper division biology classes, and then spending a wad of cash applying to 20+ med schools.</p>
<p>The admission rates are way too low compared to what’s given up to not be considered a risk.</p>
<p>Even after med school admissions, some students still drop out, even as late as the 4th year, discovering that medicine is not for them.</p>
<p>I thought that medical schools would be looking for students with maturity, discipline, knowledge, and passion. NCG, we trust that you got them all. Ultimately, students from various backgrounds will have to demonstrate these attributes. I would not want to see a doctor full of creativity and imagination while lacking the required discipline. On the other hand, such talented students can take advantage of their strength and aptitude more as an artist or a scientist. Some extremely talented individuals did not even want to finish their UG education. I doubt that they would want to touch medical schools with a 10-foot pole.</p>
<p>My opinion may be biased, but I agree that with this writer. So much of a focus on quantitative numbers and less on experiences/connections built during undergrad. I feel like if one aspect of your numbers, GPA or MCAT, for med schools is deficient, then your screwed regardless of your extracurricular activities. I think that in Law School admissions, MBA admissions subjective factors play a larger role. I have seen people with low 160’s lsats, get into Columbia Law simply because they worked in the DA office of Philadelphia. For MBA programs, if you work at Mckinsey consulting, you can pretty much get into many top 25 mba programs as long as your numbers are not atrocious. The same does not hold for medical school admissions. </p>
<p>I can’t wait to start my career and not have to deal with all these things required for admissions to the next level. Once you start your medical career, its more about how hard you work, the connections you build, and your experiences rather than a standardized test telling you that you are dumb.</p>
<p>^I was told the law school admission is all about numbers, at least for most students.</p>
<p>Get into a prestigious company like McKinsey consulting or a prestigious i-banking company? It is even more unfair because it has more to do about your college (are you from a top 6) and what your family’s connections are!</p>
<p>I agree with you that, in the long run, after you get into one of many careers, the non-numeric quality like personal charisma (yes, as shallow as it may be, the physical attractiveness) and the ability to establish connections (the family background makes a big difference here again) play a larger role in your success.</p>
<p>About a year ago, a CCer who was applying for residency positions posted that, the more prestigious places he interviewed at, the more “attractive” the interviewees would be. (Not 100 per cents sure about what he wrote exactly, but this is what I remember.)</p>
<p>I definitely agree with this. Creativity, while an evergrowing significant force in our society, isn’t incredibly important as the other factors. I definitely wish that creativity could be used in med school more, but as fun of an idea that sounds, it would be potentially detrimental to the quality of the medical profession.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also agree with this. As unfair and shallow as it seems, physical attractiveness somehow gives people an “edge” in the harsh world we live in. While it isn’t the end all determining factor (A super attractive person with mediocre grades and sub par work experience wouldn’t get into a prestigious business school) but it can be a tipping factor. </p>
<p>Subconciously, society treats people with more physical attractiveness better than someone that has less of it.</p>
<p>mcat2, that person you’re referring to is me. I was the one who posted that. I still think it’s true, and the implications are disturbing to me.</p>
<p>shardes_children, Of course I remember it was you.</p>
<p>Now I hope I could have passed on “good looking” genes to DS. However, since his track record for “attracting a girl” has never been that good, I doubt he would get any bonus points here :)</p>
<p>A personal experience: A physician who once had some surgery operation on my wife is short and, well, not that good looking. (It seems he is a single father with 2 teenage daughters. He was very busy both on his career front and his family front.) But many patients seem to like him for his competency.</p>
<p>Doesn’t bother me. At all. Speaking as a handsome man, everything is as it should be. Here’s a link to recent photo of me. [url=<a href=“Photo”>Photo]Photo[/url</a>]</p>
<p>I think it’s less that attractive people get treated better, and more that attractive people (or at least people who think they are attractive), have generally grown up to be more confident in themselves than those who think they are unattractive. It’s the same thing that happens with height. Take a look at the stats on the average height of male CEOs [Height</a> discrimination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination]Height”>Height discrimination - Wikipedia).</p>
<p>^ Coincident or not, the (male) CEOs of my current and previous companies are relatively tall (but not extremely tall) and physically fit, even though they are not that young.</p>
<p>Which Presidential candidate looks better? Obama or whoever gets nominated from the Republican side? Let’s vote the best looking one into the office. Our country deserves the best looking President in the world.</p>
<p>(Just think of this: Bill Clinton and JFK might have scored some points because of their look. There might not be other “better womanizer” Presidents than these two! Being younger might be a factor too.) Oops…I forgot to mention R. Reagan; his is not only good looking but also an “All American boy” who did not have so many women problems. No wonder so many Republicans love him so much.</p>
<p>curm, Of course you do not need to worry about your D at all, as she has been validated to be “extremely gorgeous” by THE BDM in person, and how quickly she was selected as “the one” by some “not-totally-random” boy.)</p>
<p>^ At least your height and look helped you to get some free money while you were standing on some street in New Haven a little bit too long. The CEO of the “Homeless Inc.”?</p>
Ultimately, students from various backgrounds will have to demonstrate these attributes. I would not want to see a doctor full of creativity and imagination while lacking the required discipline. On the other hand, such talented students can take advantage of their strength and aptitude more as an artist or a scientist. Some extremely talented individuals did not even want to finish their UG education. I doubt that they would want to touch medical schools with a 10-foot pole.</p>
