Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Edict

Members
  • Content Count

    1,738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Edict last won the day on December 14 2018

Edict had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Edict

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Medical Student

Recent Profile Visitors

2,860 profile views
  1. True, good point about the US DO + Residency then Canadian practice. It depends on what your goals are. If your goals are community practice in Canada no matter what, i'd agree, DO is the best. If you just want to practice in North America, DO is the best. There are DOs that have made it to the upper echelon's of academic medicine in the US. I still think there is a role for Ireland/Aussie etc. however, doing your residency in Canada does still help when it comes to getting more desirable jobs in Canada. Bottom line: if you go to a US DO school, you can rest assured u'll be a doctor somewhere in North America. You will have the potential of community to academic medicine and subspecialty as well in the US and definitely have the potential of community practice in Canada depending on the job market. The only negative i'd say is DO schools may not be in as desirable places to live and if you aren't too keen on the US, it may not be great. If you go to Australia, you'll probably be a doctor somewhere, Australia hasn't let anyone graduate and not let them stay so far, there have been crises where things became political but in the end things were resolved. Your chances of matching back to Canada are somewhere around 60%, the other 10-20% will probably get into the US. Or you can stay in Australia. CaRMS isn't a cakewalk, which means you will have to work hard, but neither is doing your USMLEs in the US. The benefits though would be you get to live in Australia for 4 years which is nice but expensive.
  2. Edict

    Curious Q, prestigious US med

    It's not easy. Can't say for sure but a few do get in and go each year. The class sizes at these schools are similar to ours, so not big. Harvard takes about 150 or so a year, Yale and Stanford probably take even less. So you can imagine these schools may take 0-5 Canadians a year or so. Theres an expectation of good GPA and MCAT scores, but they are likely to really look at ECs to distinguish people. They will probably like to see big ECs rather than a bunch of regular cookie cutter ECs, something that shows you really put in effort, creativity, leadership into something that you were passionate about.
  3. The match rate from these Irish/Aussie schools is something around 50-60% to Canada. Another 20-30% are going to match to the US and most of the rest will find themselves getting trained in Australia, Ireland i'm not so sure, so unless they are EU they may find some trouble. All in all, its not a bad option, there are way more Canadians going to Ireland and Australia and the Caribbean and they have been for years. If you get into a US DO program then great. If your goal is NA doctor or bust, US DO is a better option. But if your goal is Canada or just a doctor somewhere in the world, then Aus/Ire may be better. I genuinely have never met a DO in training here, i'd say 30% Caribbean, 50% Irish/UK, 20% aussie approximately from the CSAs i've seen, this is anecdotal of course.
  4. I think east of Manitoba would work. Again, this is all anecdotal and guess work, but generally for someone from the west coast, something in Ontario will work for Ontario schools and will still have some effect for Quebec and the East Coast.
  5. It doesn't make much of a difference, but why not just stay in Calgary, if ur GPA is good, at least you get IP in Calgary. Unless the person is from Alberta originally and would be getting IP in Ontario by going to UWO. Also, UWO Med Sci is not a prestigious program in the eyes of adcoms.
  6. No not really, if you are on the east coast, doing one in BC will get you access to all of the west coast, it mainly shows you are willing to go away for residency.
  7. I would go to Australia if you can afford it, living costs are expensive and so is tuition, but Australia is an absolutely beautiful country with great weather. Broadly, all these options are similar, if you just wanted to be a doctor in the US/Canada, US DO is going to be better, but lets be real. A lot of people grew up viewing Doctor = MD and the thought of being a DO for the rest of your life can feel uncomfortable, especially if you do end up practicing in a country like Canada where there is much less recognition for DO's. With the MBBS or MB ChB degrees you get in Ireland and some Aussie schools, you are allowed to call yourself an MD once you get licensed in the US at least. Before, when US DO's were considered CMGs, there was an argument in favour of US DO schools, but now, things are different. Australia and Ireland match much better to Canada than US DO's, i've yet to meet a US DO in real life but I have met a lot of Irish grads and a few Aussie ones.
  8. Anecdotally, i've noticed diminishing returns when you do more electives in the same location. One elective is enough to establish interest, the rest is up to how they evaluate you as a person and how they view your application as a whole. I think the mantra of "its all about the electives, stupid", which has been the motto of pm101 for several years now, may not be fully accurate. By doing an elective at UBC, you are establishing interest there, and you are also giving yourself a chance to get a letter from there which shows interest. However, interest is only a checkbox. You can be the most interested person in a certain center in the world and you still need to convince them why they should take you. This goes doubly for programs that are geographically popular like UBC. You want to come here, cool story, so does everyone else... what do you bring to the table? While you don't lose anything from doing one 3 week elective at UBC, you would lose a lot by doing only electives at UBC and your home school. Other programs will look at your application and be less likely to interview you as it seems like you have clear preferences. Depending on where your home school is, doing an elective geographically far away would be important. If you go to a west coast school and you don't do a single elective in the east, there will likely be some programs that won't interview you. All in all, 3 weeks is plenty to show interest. I would do an elective at your 3rd or 4th choice school especially if it is geographically far away.
  9. Medicine is almost the opposite of creativity haha, a lot of innovation happens outside medicine, so one option is to go for a career that lets you make your own schedule like family medicine. If by design you mean you have a knack for spatial orientation, mechanical stuff and working with your hands as opposed to designing aesthetic things, consider a procedural specialty. Although, keep in mind that procedural specialties are long hours and training and tend to have cultures that stifle creativity.
  10. Don't forget that it is still possible to transfer into Health Sci at Mac in 2nd year. If you go to life sci at mac do well and transfer into health sci in 2nd year, no one will know. If you are serious about med school and don't get into health sci at Mac, from what i've seen, your chances are broadly similar at all the schools except uoft life sci.
  11. You can always apply to both, at this point you definitely could easily match to general surgery since you haven't booked your electives yet. How do you feel about your other surgical subspecialty? If you feel similar to both, you may want to keep one leg on each boat for now, since you may switch back. You definitely have a shot at more competitive programs still, you have about a year to make the transition so its not too late. Do some deep thinking, if you really feel like gen surg is your passion and it trumps the other field you are interested in, then i would start networking, getting involved in research as well as shadowing and making contacts.
  12. Edict

    Radiology as a backup...?

    My last point was basically your first point, yes imaging demand will go up which will soften the blow. I think however that like others have rightly mentioned, radiology has been a rising star so far, record levels of compensation, record demand, but if AI begins to read imaging there will be drops in pay and demand. Pilots used to be demigods, "your life in their hands", but with the safety systems in place, pilots have become monitors, backups, ready to step in. Demand hasn't dropped but income and prestige have. There will always be a role for radiology, but it just may not be the same as what we know today.
  13. Edict

    Radiology as a backup...?

    Yes, its very true that in some things healthcare is unbelievably ancient, and EMR is one of those. Canada though tends to fund things that will make a difference in patient care as well as things that are flashy. For example, they will fund the latest CT/MRI machines, hybrid ORs, surgical toys, but they won't change EMRs, paper based resources that are considerably less exciting and easily explainable to the public. Also, because some older physicians prefer to use pen and paper, and these physicians remain in powerful positions, these kinds of old techniques have remained. At the same time, there isn't much political will to try to use tech to get rid of these paper pushers, no one is funding studies to show that an electronic system of CT/MR is better than pen and paper. Also, some centers are now moving towards electronic order entry even for CTs/MRIs. However, i believe software reading scans may be different. If research can show that the software is consistently better than radiologists at diagnosis, it becomes a hot topic issue, there becomes political will to make it happen. It is just like how we spend millions on the latest CT scanner, but we will still use pen and paper for EMR. When there is a political and public will, these things get accelerated. As you can see the well publicized competitions between software and humans, there will be this kind of public attention. This is in part because this is a concept that is easily explained and understandable to the public. Like i mentioned elsewhere, there will be a radiology lobby that will argue against this technology and in many cases they may be right, and so the rollout may be delayed, it may affect certain types of imaging more than others, but if you look at the career of someone who is currently 25 in medical school and plans to retire at 65, that is a 40 year career and it would not shock me that in 30 years we would have this kind of tech on radiology desks around the country. It won't replace all radiologists, and it won't even replace a proportional number of radiologists, but it would reduce the number of radiologists needed to read a certain number of scans. It is likely that low risk imaging will be replaced first over complex, high risk imaging. Lastly, yes a radiologist's work isn't only image reading, so i don't think just because we read images 6x faster that we will need 1/6th the number of radiologists. This sort of change will come slowly and gradually, it is very possible that the number of radiologists needed will be halved if all scans were read 6x faster for example and like i mentioned before, it is unlikely they are going to kick radiologists out who are mid career. These things will happen slowly, retiring radiologists won't be replaced, there may be less work for existing radiologists, fewer radiology residents, more opportunities in other related fields, more opportunities to do research etc. There will also be a compensatory increase in imaging ordered if scans become easier and quicker to read, so it won't be a dramatic drop in the number of radiologists immediately.
  14. Edict

    Radiology as a backup...?

    The technology though is advancing at a rapid pace, and it wouldn't be shocking that they will have this down in 10-15 years as a concept. It may take another 10-15 years for that technology to truly land in the hands of radiologists depending on the center (academic centers may begin using it earlier). I don't think these technologies could replace diagnostic rads entirely, but i could definitely see demand being reduced. Time to read scans can go down which would mean fewer radiologists are needed to run a department, this could ultimately mean less jobs, like i mentioned above, people currently in med school and residents today probably have less to be worried about. Once this technology truly lands in the hands of radiologists across Canada, most of the people now will have already been hired and likely will be able to stay employed, they just won't hire new radiologists. Radiology departments are expensive and as governments get tight on cash and demand for imaging keeps going up, this kind of technology will probably be adopted by hospitals and governments around the world.
×