Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

newline

Members
  • Content Count

    1,298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

newline last won the day on December 15 2018

newline had the most liked content!

About newline

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,094 profile views
  1. I'd also consider switching, if you also have genuine interest in the clinical research project since there are probably more upsides. I think there's too many unknowns on how the project will go and who you'd be working with to switch only because you believe it will make you more competitive. At least if you have genuine interest, then you'll feel satisfied regardless of how things end up.
  2. Any and all suggestions sound great. I don't think it would take that long to have a basic conversation, especially related to medical topics - probably within six months to a year. It sounds like McGill has some good programs available.
  3. Good summary by @NLengr. I think it's important to highlight that medicine isn't simply a new job - you're going to have to work hard, regardless of your background/competencies to achieve success with the possible downsides mentioned, with no guarantee of anything during the journey. None of the points are necessarily insurmountable or always true, but really knowing some of the concrete issues that could occur puts you in a much better position to evaluate whether medicine is right for you. Many people take years to make those realizations. Most older learners, especially with young families, tend to choose FM, which is a little more flexible and has less training time, but this isn't always the case for sure. Point 3 shouldn't be underestimated. It may also be a little more challenging to gel with your classmates because of age/life differences. Is it feasible? - yes, for sure, even under very challenging circumstances. Edit: I like @frenchpress nicely expressed anecdotal assessment that mentions how experience can sometimes be helpful, which I agree with as well (looks like we posted within a minute of each other).
  4. Never said going to the gym would make anyone a male model (as comedic it is to assume women would prioritize that). It's not just about earnings, man. People mature/change. Getting out of undergrad is a major adjustment for many - and so their values change too. Average age for marrying in Canada is over 30 - that's WAY after undergrad (only focusing on people that do actually go and complete a uni degree). Like I said, peace out! Live and let live - whatever you think is working for you, go with it. We're allowed to have differences of opinion.
  5. It's amazing we look at the same empirical data sources & have read studies and yet come to vastly different conclusions. Especially when it comes to "looksmatched "- to me it's far less common than the majority. As I mentioned, I've seen happy marriages with kids where there's no "looks match". Pro-athletes (unless they're at the top), don't necessarily makes heaps of cash. So it's kind of odd to me that all of a sudden at a certain level of wealth/celebrity, different rules would apply. It's more likely, that it's just the end of the scale that you see the extreme results, but which are present at all levels. Heck, I've seen/heard of physicians enter into relationships with 20+ yr age gaps. The term "trophy wife" is sad, but sometimes accurate term, for the status/relationship dynamics in society. Maybe the feminist version is "trophy husband"? Besides this - you seem to believe there's some kind of absolute objective looks "standard", which honestly I'm not convinced of at all. What part is false then if everyone should do what I say? I think underlying your argument is some kind of Tinder? metric which you really seem to think matters way more than it does (unless that's the only place you're looking). Trust me, the high-school "prom king", if struggling in life/career, is not going to impress anyone, not even the women who once adored him. True for lots of other men who simply didn't reach a certain level of success (especially after 30 or so). Honestly, I think you seem like the other poster to believe that there's some kind of amazing looks-meter, that transcends all culture, social-standing, etc. and determines who should date who. I've simply rarely seen this - it stands out if both people in a couple are physically attractive, because I haven't seen it happen that often (outside of maybe Hollywood). I simply find it hard to believe, like @lifeadvice, that you actually believe most women, especially as they get older, date for looks for long-term relationships. At this point though, I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion, because we're going in circles. At least, unlike the other poster, you seem to think there's a point in maximizing yourself, which we both can agree upon. As side from that, peace out man! Live and let live.
  6. I lay awake pitying Donald Trump. Edit: I'd actually say it's worse if you do actually date attractive women (or have very attractive women hit on you)[not simply physically attractive]- then you realize what you could have as a partner.
  7. Men behaving like stereotypes - but this is undergrad. People who are responding are older and have seen/gone through much more. Does it mean all women will behave like stereotypes - not at all. I don't think "equal looks" is important unless that's the basis of their relationship/attractiveness. If they both superficially prioritize looks, then yes. Otherwise, not at all. Trust me, I've seen kids come out of happy marriages with "unequal looks", but maybe complimentary strengths.
  8. That's really assuming that all men and women both prioritize physical attractiveness equally - which they don't (outside some kind of pure Tinder dating world with staged photos.. etc..)
  9. It's so much more about social standing/status for women. I can't tell you how many couples I see with a very attractive woman being with a not so attractive guy - but who does happen to be popular/successful/cool ... and as others have pointed out, this is especially true outside of the Tinder/etc world. ' And vice-versa - a guys who are considered highly attractive with less physically attractive partners. For sure, I acknowledge there are couples where the physical attractiveness is "matched", but this to me this isn't the usual case at all. Looks are only part of attractiveness - generally more important for men than for women, although women for sure do care, just like men often care about other traits besides physical attractiveness.
  10. This "debate" doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but here's my two cents to add to the discussion. Many women spend a lot of time (and sometimes money) trying to really look good for the camera. What you see is often the result of conscious/dedicated effort to present themselves in an appealing way: models takes this to the extreme. Many guys assume that if they simply take a half-ass photo and they don't look like Hollywood material, then they're not up to the mark. So this "absolute" beauty standard doesn't go that far - how many tabloid/paparazzi photos have you seen of female models/actors without makeup, not looking like anything special at all? That's the point - even if attractive, there's a lot of effort put into themselves portraying themselves in the best way possible. This should be a lesson that some could learn from - yes it helps if you go to the gym regularly, but even still good clothes, smile, looking confident and showing that you have a life/interests will impress woman a lot more than being male model material, but some kind of weird recluse. Honestly, just adding a smile and being socially engaged ups someone's attractiveness by a lot. Which is the point that has been made repeatedly - an average looking-guy, with a good attitude, smile, career, interests, style, etc.. can do well - yeah maybe not supermodels unless he's some sort of VC or the like, but probably much better than a guy who may be objectively more attractive, but doesn't have much else going for him.
  11. https://www.google.ca (the Doodle) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9491472/google-doodle-rene-favaloro-doctor-heart-bypass-surgery/ Sad story though.
  12. Even the French-speaking schools have gone P/F. McGill has been on P/F for a while (most med students start with the equivalent of 1-2 yrs undergrad in QC) .
  13. Great advice. Best chances are always where you do electives - which under the new universal cap could also help you, if you target some programs.
  14. I replied to your DM yesterday! Good luck with your decision.
  15. The only route I had was the route I made, with encouragement from a sibling who now works as community staff (but was then in residency). I saved up money and paid down student debt from my original education while working and then afterwards funded more of the "classic" pre-med experience (incl MCAT study time in the summer, volunteering..) over a couple of years. Fortunately, I was accepted to one school in Canada on my first round of application, although it involved its own share of sacrifice and really learning about resilience, etc. I didn't grow up in poverty at all, although there is no way I could have funded going abroad or to the US (or even another year), without leaning on the sibling, which I think would have been a terrible mistake in terms of the relationship. No other co-signor, etc.. would have been available.
×
×
  • Create New...