Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Coldery

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,091 profile views
  1. I purchased a condo on a mortgage about 3 weeks ago. Living there now. From what I recall, the big banks have a program where they assume your future income for mortgage application if you're: a resident or an M4. I was still able to use my LOC for the downpayment. Two caveats I believe that the government just enacted a law which prevents anyone from using an LOC for mortgage financing including the downpayment. Saw it in the news just a week or two after my mortgage was confirmed. I believe it is going to go into effect July 1st but don't quote me on it. Also, unsure as to whether it applies to Canada or BC (I'm from BC). The bank that you have the LOC with may restrict what you may or may not use the LOC for. I'm with RBC and they said I was not allowed to use it for any non-educational expenses. I was about to cancel with them until one of them told me that it is "up to you how you would define an educational expense". Is a new property an educational expense? You decide.
  2. Tuesday and Thursday AMs are always free. The only exception is when there is a Monday statutory holiday. In such a case, they usually end up squeezing the missed lectures into the Tuesday morning. Tuesday and Thursday PMs are usually filled with communication skills, clinical skills, or family practice visits/seminars/lectures. The schedules vary from person to person. Depending on the group/individual schedule, you could be placed at LSC (UBC), VGH, BC Children's, or even St Paul's. Also, there will almost always be several free Tuesday/Thursdays once your family practice visits are completed (if you're scheduled for a visit in the first place; there is a very small minority of people who end up not matched to one...) or once your FP seminars/lectures are completed. Edit: Tuesday and Thursday AMs are obviously also not free during the first two intro weeks lol
  3. I mean Bill Gates or the one 15 year old kid I know who makes $70k/month also exist. An anecdote will only ever be an anecdote, meaning nothing in the face of data. The statistics on the 50th percentile of each specialty (including opthos) exist. Stratify it by province and you get more detailed numbers. The 20-year compensation chart has this data. The average optho makes $1,250,000 in Alberta, $944k in BC. It's technically the mean and not the median but do a quick search for your local ophthalmologist and check their billings on your provincial website. Not sure about Ontario but BC has almost all salaries listed on their MSP "Bluebook". I'll guarantee you that it isn't just 1%-5% of the ophthalmologists hoarding the green mass. Also, check the stats on the 50th percentile BCom grad. Compare mid-range BCom to mid-range Opthos (or even mid-range MDs at-large) then think about it. Physician billings as a whole isn't as much of a concern as the top specialties who get all the cream. Leaving the healthcare system in a GP drought due to an artificially-imposed specialty brain-drain is not ethical and spits in the face of those who need the care.
  4. How do I get a VP job at an IB? Hit me up if you know. The reality is that not every business school grad comes out and works at a VP job making $1mil-$6mil after a decade or two. It takes a certain type of person to: climb over others, suck up to the right people, and strike while others are down, to get to the top of the business world. They call them sociopaths. Very common phenomenon at the top of the corporate ladder. To top that, statistically speaking, how many people with business degrees can be VP/directors/managing directors at IBs? Most of my business peers are happy to get a job as a retail banker. Medicine hedges those who go into it with a guarantee of employment with the additional benefit of guaranteed top 1% incomes. The business world doesn't do any of this. The belief that medicine doesn't remunerate its practitioners handsomely (minus GPs) is just short of delusional and it angers me. Especially when there are so many others around us that have it much worse, barely getting by on their monthly paycheck.
  5. Hey guys. Just a few questions about IM, GIM, and CCM. I'm also still a first-year medical student so mind my ignorance if I ask any dumb questions here: With 4 year IM programs still being a thing and with many internists writing the Royal College exam in their 3rd year, what prevents other subspecialists from also qualifying as a (non-General) Internal Medicine doctor and working in community settings? From what I've heard, the job market for CCM is one of the worst out of all of the MSM specialties. Is this true? If #1 is possible, could someone going into CCM hedge it with the possibility of practicing IM while waiting for a job in the ICU? I believe that GIMs can practise in ICU settings too so could you technically work in community ICUs as a quasi-intensivist? Thanks!
  6. CaRMS has all the data you're looking for. https://www.carms.ca/data-reports/r1-data-reports/ I don't believe they have the # of applicants for any specific program though. Only overall applications to the discipline in Canada.
  7. From my previous application, I believe it was continuous. It wouldn't make sense to score it on a discrete scale either.
  8. The guy has been pretty rude/arrogant at certain parts of the thread, just read it in its entirety. Nothing about him screams of "physician material" from what he has said here. Of course everyone has a chance to mature and that's probably what he has going for him right now. I'm sure there could have been a more mature way to respond to criticism as realistic as it may come. It's a line I would expect from my 8 year-old brother but, even then, I'm sure he would know better. If it was a joke (which probably isn't totally the case) then he still certainly has some work to do with trivializing others' perspectives and slight delusion. The guy he was responding to didn't say anything inflammatory either.
  9. They simply take your raw GPA (no rounding) and use it in their calculations. The cutoff is 85% for OOP applicants to receive a full file review so I'm not sure if you would be eligible right now. Their website seems to imply that the rural evaluation is done only if you get a full file review (???). Either way, you should call the adcom's office to enquire about whether the same rule applies to them too. I believe I've read of some NMP med students with lower GPA's than what you would find at the other sites but I'm not too sure about how far it goes.
  10. I never contended physician billing as a whole. I was only referring to the unequal billing of different physician specialties. The average Albertan ophthalmologist bills $1,250,000/year ($800k/year average across Canada) in a relatively "lifestyle", PGY-5 specialty. If something is done to equalize unusually high billing specialties (by cutting billings down to a more reasonable level), more money could be diverted into programs that direly need it, namely FM (cite nationwide FP shortage). If you run the numbers, curbing just the optho $/year to average specialty $/year (after accounting for higher overhead costs) while reallocating all of the extra funds to FM, you'd be giving family docs a $5.7k/year raise nationwide. (Source 1, Source 2) Quite substantial considering that it is only one, albeit very high paying, specialty. With CaRMS booking FM vacancies year by year, making FM more desirable in any way possible will likely be a good step in the right direction. Whether things are done so simply is another question (lobbying and other politics).
  11. It does seem like physician salaries account for a pretty sizable portion of total healthcare spending in Ontario/nationwide though. It apparently accounts for about 10% of total provincial spending in Ontario (as a proportion of all spending made by the provincial government). If you do the math, it works out similarly all across Canada too. Something will have to give way eventually and the unusually high billing specialties should be the first one's to sustain it. Treatments have evolved but the billing codes haven't. This is also coming from someone whose close relative(s) benefit from this pretty significantly.
  12. I have talked to UBC FOM phone line about it this past cycle and at least one of them (possibly a second several years before) advised against it unless it continued into your undergrad degree (the conversation is still pretty fresh in my mind). OMSAS allows any activity above the age of 16 for their application so their system is definitely different but what I said did come from the horse's mouth. I think it'd be best if OP called them about this one to clarify. I myself did end up omitting several high school activities because of it but my awards section was filled pretty much entirely with high school stuff (and I got in) so I think it's more a matter of perception then an actual hard fast rule. The UBC blog has something about it from 2014 that you could use as reference though: "There is no time limit on how far back activities and awards can go, but please keep in mind that we are interested in your most significant experiences. Generally speaking, for most applicants these significant activities take place after high school, but if one or more of your most important accomplishments occurred in high school feel free to include them on the application." So the advisor may have just been hyperbolizing but, of course, use your best judgment.
  13. Generally, I would only use high school activities if there is some sort of continuity into university. Otherwise, only do it if your NAQ section is looking really scant.
  14. If you talking strictly on the basis of commitment to this single volunteer group, understand too that people have their own lives and obligations. They may have other commitment(s) where they are already demonstrating the effort that you speak of for those that weren't interviewed or accepted. If you are talking about a situation where they demonstrate an outright lack of care or negligence then that would be different. Otherwise, you'd have to get the full view before coming to a conclusion.
  15. I don't believe that technological progress is the main point of contention. I'm sure that technology will inevitably eclipse human beings in most possible faculties excluding those that require human ingenuity and creativity (?). The main argument is whether you can get human beings to personally accept handing over their ultimate fate to a non-sentient robot. From day one, the mass majority of us are inculcated with a certain sense of trust towards other humans having been raised by them and entrusting them with any concern we had about ourselves, regardless of the effectiveness of their help. By moving from a system with which we are all familiar to one that disregards it, we effectively relinquish: 1. Any sort of accountability that we used to have for others mistakes: A robot can't "pay"/feel any sort of true remorse for mistakes it makes. It's a robot. 2. Human-human interaction: One of the most vital characteristics of a good clinician is being able to show the other person that you actually care so they know that they aren't in this alone. This won't be the case with a robot doctor unless you: a) develop a robot that is indistinguishable from a human being (pass the Turing test) and b) don't let the patient know that their doctor is a robot => Ethical issues There are very few, if any, technologies that are used in the mainstream which are fully operated by robots (no human control at all) that hold the balance of life and death. Airplanes, self-driving cars, and mass rail transit cars all still have human operators. Whether we will accept human-unaided AI tech for these parts of our life within the next several decades is somewhat unlikely. Second half of the 21st century or into the 22nd century? Maybe. Science fiction loves to speculate about the future of everything we currently take for granted, a primary reason for its appeal. Whether things pan out the way they've speculated is another issue. Leonardo Da Vinci's blueprint for self-propelled flying contraptions weren't perfect predictions but there definitely were similarities. The only thing we can truly bet on is the inevitability of change. As for how this applies to the medical field, as most people have already said, it's unlikely that we are fully replaced by robots in the near future but AI as another check on diagnosis is most definitely a possibility.
  • Create New...