Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Edict

  1. Yes, i've heard the same as well from surgeons, but i think the notion that they can teach anyone to operate is true, but there are still people who are better than others, just like we can teach anyone to play soccer, there are some who are going to be better at soccer than others. Spending 5 hours teaching someone surgery may result in different skill levels. The notion of technical skill is likely going to be more important in certain operations over others, so it is possible that in many surgical specialties this really is their belief. However, by the end of training, you will find some residents will be known for their operative skills more than others and this will have likely been a combination of mentorship, opportunities, talent etc. I agree that willingness to bear hardship is hard to really test. You don't really know if you are able to handle it without really just doing it unforunately. This may be why in some countries you do an internship or junior surgical year or two that give you a sense without really holding you back. The issue mainly with the current system is that transferring isn't always easy and you often have to restart training. Theres pros and cons to either approach for sure though.
  2. The issue is that the medical school selection process selects for bright, hardworking, intelligent, empathetic individuals and this is fantastic for the physician workforce. However, one skill that is missing from that equation is technical skill and hand-eye coordination and an extra dose of willingness to bear hardships. These factors plus the aforementioned ones are probably what surgeons are looking for. The issue is, we don't really test for technical skill/hand-eye coordination much and it really is hard to simulate the willingness to bear hardships with a few electives. Elective students these days will mostly get to suture/staple skin and not much else while 2-3 week electives can't really simulate the difficulties of doing the same for 5-10 years. If we want to reduce attrition, i would probably start with developing better evaluation tools so that surgical residency admission processes can be more effective.
  3. I genuinely think that it won't ever change. At the end of the day, the issue remains that the current resident selection system isn't really suited to select good surgeons. We don't really look at knowledge or technical skills in our applications, we look mostly at electives and interest which have their flaws. Part of the issue remains that some people who get into the program, are probably not suited to becoming a staff surgeon for various reasons. I think many of the staff surgeons in Canada silently believe that some attrition even at the resident level is necessary to 1. keep the remaining residents on their toes 2. weed out the ones who couldn't have been weeded out through the residency selection process. The issue with surgery is that it carries defined outcomes. It is hard to know if you are a good or bad internist/psychiatrist because the waters are muddy in these fields. This makes it easier to say a certain surgeon is better than another. The other issue is that surgery often carries life changing outcomes and patients care. Which means surgeons are watched much more closely than other specialists are. This means that to become a staff you need to be at a high level of performance and keep it up or someone will find out and address your issue for you.
  4. The unfortunate thing is, the competition doesn't really end after you match to residency. The incentives change, but in reality, most fields these days are going to be competitive for the desirable positions and its true, some people get these spots because they are great with people and networking, others get it because they are in the right place at the right time, others get it because they have the hardwork and skillset needed etc. Theres a lot of reasons for sure, but again i think if you are afraid of the competition, ortho probably isn't the right field for you rn.
  5. I've also seen an ortho who via CBME finished residency in 4 years, did one year of fellowship and got a community job in the GTA in the last few years, so i think there are jobs but i guess they will be given to the talented and good networkers.
  6. It seems like ortho is eligible for board certification in the US. So i don't see any issues with applying for US jobs.
  7. Edict

    Call charges and roaming

    I have a question. If i'm with Bell with a Canada wide talk plan and I have a Toronto number and i'm in Toronto calling a person who is in Toronto but has a US number. Do I still get charged for that? Thanks
  8. To be fair, NPs are very useful on surgical and medical services that have routine cases. They definitely do have a role, they free up time for residents to go to do OR or go to teaching etc.
  9. They have to be a cheaper option, but i don't know the numbers. Its 4 years of nursing as a bachelor's or 2 years if you have 2 years of undergrad and then 2 years of work experience preferably in med/surg/icu and 2 years of NP school which is a lot less than 4+4+2.
  10. Edict

    Call charges and roaming

    Ah I see, what if they call you?
  11. I think its a good idea. I have friends in med who did engineering, it isn't easy, but at the same time it is a good career on its own. If you would be happy as an engineer, its the way to go.
  12. Not sure actually. Honestly, I don't know if there is a good resource out there. Ultimately though, the exam isn't actually that hard and you don't need to study in a CDM style Q style format specifically. I'd just make myself familiar with the style of question and study accordingly.
  13. Has anyone else noticed that connecting often doesn't have all the information, or sometimes it lists tests that when you click, you can't actually read? I find it shocking that in 2018, we only securely know details about visits you've had to that specific hospital only. I find it a huge issue in Toronto especially given our sheer number of different hospitals. I'm sure this is the cause of so many errors.
  14. Edict

    Connecting GTA

    But even the academic sites I feel like sometimes don't allow you to access information. Not sure who's doing the uploading and if its just a poor job of uploading things to this system. I guess i'm just blown away by how slow and inefficient the system actually is in 2019. I think some of these hospital rights/privacy concerns need to be set aside for patient safety and we should just have a unified system. It would be heaven for research as well and it would save the government a lot in unnecessary tests.
  15. Edict

    Connecting GTA

    Thanks, i guess i meant ConnectingGTA.
  16. Perhaps, I don't think we disagree. I guess my main point summed up is that we have less opportunity and more competition for those opportunities than in the US.
  17. I'd just use Toronto Notes and Uworld. I've never used canadaqbank, but i heard that it had typos and irrelevant questions.
  18. Yeah, but using PhDs isn't the best metric. The reason i'm saying this is because there are minorities in the US that produce doctors at lower rates per population, Whereas in Canada we mostly have minorities that produce doctors at higher rates per population. Its all in the numbers fundamentally. Getting into med school in Canada is much harder, we have less opportunities for IMGs than the US does, this is all because of the above.
  19. It is better, overall. There is more demand for doctors there, its easier to get into medical school and there are more non-clinical career opportunities in the US that are well paying alternatives. In Canada, its not the case. A big part of this is actually because the Canadian population is much better educated and more ambitious as a result than the US population as a whole due our differing patterns of immigration. Another advantage America has is they have the critical mass to really develop niche fields and due to our location close to the US, we essentially end up serving like a vassal state. A lot of the more lucrative R&D type jobs are done in the US, and the more menial, dependent jobs are done in Canada. A classic example is our automotive industry. Its the big US car companies that do their R&D in Detroit and then build the cars in Canada due to government tax incentives, but the best jobs will always be at their HQ in Detroit and when they want to pack up and leave, we can't even stop them. We are proud of our automotive industry, but if you take a deeper look, we are actually just producing parts, we aren't actually innovating and creating. Same goes for our oil industry. We do the menial stuff like taking it out of the ground and our US overlords make the real profit by refining it. This plays a role in why our top law firms and investment banks don't take part in the big deals American firms do, and consequently make less money. We don't have a healthcare consulting industry because we just don't have the size and the private healthcare system to support one. Which does close a big door to the corporate world for MDs to take.
  20. Do it if you are interested in it, don't do it because it sounds cooler. Of course, keep in mind job prospects and alternative paths. Doing a BMSc degree might not be the smartest if you don't like lab work since thats what it often leads to if you don't get into professional school.
  21. Different countries use physicians differently. In Canada and the US, doctors are really at the highest end of the totem pole. There is an expectation that physicians make the intellectual decisions and as much as possible the menial routine work is not left up to the physician to complete. In Europe, there are doctors that never make it to consultant staff. More doctors there work in mid-grade roles for life, leave medicine to do other things. In some countries in Europe, they staff ambulances with doctors. Doctors in the UK take blood, which as you can imagine, means each individual doctor sees less patients. Our x of doctors/population is less than some countries because of this reason. I think the way things are going are reasonable. I would definitely keep the number of medical school spots capped at current levels, maybe some small reductions in Quebec would be reasonable.
  22. No, no one makes assumptions like that. Reviewers go through many applications from people with all different life stories and backgrounds. It is impossible to make value judgments like that. The reality of med school admissions isn't comparing you vs your clone who majored in biomed instead of environmental sci. It's comparing a 27 y/o from Guelph with a PhD, 3 pubs, 7 volunteer activities, 3 leadership activities with good essays against a 21 y/o from Western in 3rd yr of BMSc, 0 pubs, a few major awards, 2 volunteer activities, 1 leadership activities and good essays. How do you even rate these people against each other? If you start to delve into intentions you will never escape that cave. As far as I can see, there is no such thing as prestige in Canada universities. Your reviewers are likely so far removed from undergrad, that they don't remember anything about undergrad or their perceptions may be outdated. The kind of things that everyone at Ryerson knows about that one bird course, no one who is reviewing med apps knows.
  23. Not sure, but i don't think there particularly were more than other schools.
  24. why do you ask? and good enough to match to a competitive location or anywhere?
  25. My advice is, don't factor med apps into what you do otherwise. As a reviewer, no one is going to look closely at minutiae like this. No one would say: "I like the labourer who worked for 7 years, but not the labourer who worked for 5 years and a security guard who worked for 2 years". It's just not relevant. Reviewers have a hard enough time balancing the EC accomplishments of someone applying after 3rd yr vs someone applying after a masters, they don't care about small things like this.