Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About amazonrainforest

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Exactly--there's no way to know for sure. And there's no way to ever make an admissions process completely fair and holistic. That's why schools should never tout their admissions process as "fair and holistic", but "as fair and holistic as they can hope to make it, and as much as they are able to". The first statement implies that everyone should accept the results are they are, whereas the second acknowledges the element of human subjectivity in the admissions process. The first essentially claims perfection (i.e. arrogance), whereas the second acknowledges that there's bound to be oversight and an inability to accurately judge a person's aptitude and character.
  2. I don't think it's anything to be unhappy about. Anyone who understands that getting into med school is a privilege (and not a right), and who possessed any hint of humility and knows how to be grateful, should not feel unhappy about this what's wrong with people being better than you? Getting into med does not make me better than everyone else who failed to get into med.
  3. It's one thing if the not-so-qualified people get in -- evaluations and interviews ARE subjective, and that's unavoidable. What's puzzling is when those who have serious issues in real life get in, despite the fact that one strength of the MMI is meant to screen out questionable people. In my humble opinion--feel free to disagree --the MMI, even though it's one of the better identifiers of aptitude, depending on the schools and how they conduct it, can sometimes overlook/neglect the equally, if not more, important aspect of character. Character =/= Aptitude (or skills).
  4. Even if they are aware of it, I don't know if they will admit it To admit that the admissions system is imperfect is tantamount to saying: "yes, there are people who do not deserve to be in med, whom we have allowed to be in med". Now obviously that won't stand in an institution that is striving to be world-class and best in the country. Which is also why it is so heartening to see schools like Queen's, whose dean would personally acknowledge that their admissions system is far from perfect, i.e. there are many individuals who they fail to admit every year who are far more qualified and deserving than those they actually ended up offering a spot to. And which is why they are so open to feedback for how to improve their admissions, year after year. What has resulted is their combined use of the MMI and the more traditional and personal panel interview. I've spoken to a few friends who have gotten in to UBC, and either i) they are ignorant, ii) naive, iii) in denial, or iv) have quite low people standards, for saying things like: "that's impossible! everyone in our class really, really deserves to be here".
  5. If you think this pre-interview evaluation is unfair, wait till you get to the MMI. For all it's worth, the MMI somehow manages to let in students who have serious character flaws. Students who in their daily lives have zero etiquette (even to their own peers), no empathy, and what many would term "douchebags", are able to impress strangers for 7 minutes x 10, and they are deemed worthy and great potential doctors. And this seems to be happening more frequently every year. Don't cheat just because everyone else is doing it. It's vexing enough for many that the system is a flawed one in the way it screens students. Don't add to it by getting in through unfair means.
  6. On a related note, I have a copy of Doing Right for $40, if anyone is interested. pm
  7. Hello! I am in the same boat as you (i.e. thinking of applying to Australia to do medicine). Got into med school a few years ago in England but decided to give it up and try again because my family moved here. I do have rather competitive stats, enough to get me an interview to my own province's med school last year (ultimately rejected for poor interview score) and interviews at every school I applied to this year! I'm currently waitlisted for one of them, but even if I do get an offer I am very seriously considering heading to Aussie, because I recently visited the place and fell in love with it (to the point where I can see myself living there for the rest of my life). And so i've been doing some research the past couple of days and might be able to help you with some of your questions I hope. 1) I wouldn't think it's completely unrealistic, especially if your aim is to do family practice in a rural setting. In fact, that probably puts you at the greatest probability of coming back here to work. It's difficult, but not impossible. 2) Line of credit seems to be the best option out there, and is what I'm thinking of as well, but I have yet to speak to the banks here about that, so I cannot help you much here. 3) Australia's postgraduate medical training is different from North America. There, all graduates do 2 years of general hospital work (i.e. more rotations, all of your choice, but this time, you are already a Doctor and receiving actual salary), and thereafter apply to specialize (like our residency matching). How easy it would be for you to get a training spot depends very much on the state where you attend medical school. Different states have different priorities for allocating internship spots, and in recent years there has been a country-wide "internship crisis" that's affecting not only international medical students, but also domestic ones. Basically, after you graduate, internships are given out randomly (yes, randomly, where your grades and references and own qualifications will not put you at any advantage over others) by the state, and if you apply to more states, you have a higher chance of landing an internship. For more info, see https://www.amsa.org.au/advocacy/internship-crisis/. It is something that I am thinking very seriously about myself... Either I keep applying here in Canada (or US) and have a guaranteed / higher chance of coming back to Canada to train/work, or go to Australia where I really want to be, even if it means facing the risk of not being to come back here AND not being to get an internship there (at least for the few months immediately following graduation).
  8. And I also have to disagree with your first point, somewhat. Therein lies the problem. Like you already alluded to, in EVERY GROUP (age, race, culture, sexual orientation, religion, scientific view, country, occupation, sport, school), there will always be bigots, and troublemakers. The LGBTQ community will definitely have some who give the rest of them a bad name. And likewise, the religious community will definitely have some who give the rest of them a bad name. You really shouldn't be speaking in such absolute terms.
  9. I actually beg to differ (about your second point). Perhaps it also depends on our background, your line of work etc. (e.g. where I grew up, not in Canada). It seems to me that "hateful" attitudes, or hateful words and speech (I only just saw one of your earlier posts!) are actually more prevalent and common among the non-religious. In fact, I've noticed that some of the most hateful comments (both in quantity and quality) are usually targeted against the religious. The very nature of this whole thread itself is already somewhat directed against the religious. To even ask such a question in the first place, already reveals an underlying bias against those who do follow a religion. I was reading the entire first page again, and I guess everyone has pretty much already covered what we're going on and on about. I liked our discussion!
  10. I have come across many of such statements, unfortunately whether overhearing, or seeing them posted online etc. against people who belong to a religion, and even coming from people who belong to religion. Within religions, outside of religious groups. It goes both ways, and hurtful statements like these exist everywhere. What is deemed harmful is, to some extent, determined by the society in which one is found. In some countries/cultures, homophobia is unacceptable; in others, the opposite is true, where homosexuality is unacceptable. In one, homophobia is harmful; in the other, homosexuality is harmful. How do we reconcile this? Who is correct? Do you see what i'm trying to get at? (I don't ask this in an argumentative tone, but as a genuine question)
  11. I guess the whole point of the story is this: everyone in this world will have their own convictions, about everything-- from the most minor issues to the most major ones. The problem is not with having convictions, but how you approach people with differing views. "This religion's view on __________ (fill in the blank) is wrong" "Religious people are nutcases" "People who have their religion are idiots; how can they ignore all the science that's around them?" Statements like these are full of hate themselves, and are no different from the things that you might dislike hearing from them as well. Would it not be better to say things like: "I don't agree with this religion's view on ___________ (fill in the blank). Why they would believe in this, I also can't understand, but I do not agree" The thing is, who decides what's right and wrong? The person from religion X believes he is absolutely correct about something, the person from religion Y believes otherwise, the person who does not associate himself with any religion believes yet otherwise. Who is right and who is wrong? Will you ever know for sure? Why have standards been changing over the years? Which is the right standard? Are we progressing for the better or for worse as a human race? So please don't hate on people who have different views from you. Yes, by all means, express your own view, speak out against another view, but don't start attacking the person or the group because more often than not, they have their good reasons (even if it might really not be correct.. who is to say for sure?) for believing in it. Have you listened to the WCBA podcast on Makayla's choice? Where they talked about Aboriginal rights/culture/medicine vs Western "evidence-based" medicine. If you haven't, it's an excellent podcast that really highlighted clashing cultures/views
  12. You go, Glen Coco. Or should I say, You Go, Goku. You Go, Ku. You Goku.
  13. The certainty that religion is wrong, is also wrong. The certainty that you can be certain about uncertainty, is also wrong. It's one thing to have a set of beliefs (God, no God, which God, don't know), but it's another to be disrespectful. On agnosticism, if one is genuinely uncertain (or simply indifferent), sure I guess that makes it a non-religion! But I have met "agnostics" who are absolutely certain that you have to be uncertain, and those people, I believe, have just shot themselves in the foot and found themselves now under the the religion of agnosticism.
  14. Yes, they should still have this right. There should be no double standards. If people of a certain religion are expected to not impose their beliefs on others, people that belong to no religion should likewise be expected to not impose their own beliefs on those who are of a religion. What if their religion demands something from them? If their religion clearly states that they should not murder, and that person interprets and considers abortion as a form of murder, by telling this person that he/she has to forgo this right of and perform abortion no matter what, is to shove your own "religion" (your beliefs) down that person's throat, and to impose your own beliefs on them by disregarding theirs. In fact, I think that anti-religionism is as much of a religion as religions themselves are. "A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence". (Wikipedia)
  15. Let's take Christianity for example. True Bible-based Christianity believes that all humans are fundamentally bad and sinful, whether or not you are homosexual. Homosexuality just happens to be one of the sins, along with lying, hating, coveting, disobeying your parents etc. Christians who are properly informed and have their thoughts and actions based on what the Bible teaches, should not be doing whatever you've mentioned. This includes refusing to treat someone because their parents are lesbians etc. Even if that Christian doctor doesn't agree with homosexuality, he/she is still called to love and to help others, and believe that God is the one who will bring every human being into judgement one day. If a Christian doctor does not believe that abortion is right, he is still obligated to help a patient who is seeking abortion by referring her to another doctor, because to do otherwise would be to violate many other biblical principles. Whoever speaks out against "religion" as being toxic and detrimental to Science and society at large, are clearly ignorant (to some degree) themselves. Among my mentors are 2 amazing doctors, both of whom are Clinician-Scientists, and both of whom follow their "religion" rather strictly; one is Catholic, one is Buddhist. These 2 physicians are perhaps the most incredible, most compassionate, most inspiring, and brilliant doctors and human beings I've ever met. If anything, all the sad and vexing things that you see happening around you, are not so much religious issues, but moral issues. It's not religion that gets in the way of being a good doctor, or being a good scientist for that matter, but people who fail to comprehend and understand what their religion really expects of them. Misinformed people, in other words.
  • Create New...