Can Ritalin really improve my grades?

[holiday1001]

i don't see what's so wrong with the analogy.. it's called academic 'doping' for a reason.

[aaronjw]

not sure how i can make it more clear for you??????

 

cant you connect the dots

 

its not legal in athletics and its not legal in academia (see university rules on possession of illegal drugs and its illegal to have ritalin without a prescription)

 

The poster was saying that we should all accept that people will use illegal methods to get ahead - and I dont think we as a society do accept it because of the examples above.

 

And by the way - if you dont agree with something why dont you just say so instead of saying, wake up.

 

Athletes are NOT disqualified when they test positive. If you had any insight into athletics at a collegiate, professional or national/Olympic level you'd know the dirty secret is that many fail tests and still get to compete. National team members fail tests and their athletic committees cover it up, usually I dressing their testing to ensure athlete won't throw a positive during competition or on random checks.

 

Professional athletes have routinely tested positive and still got to play.

 

Collegiate level athletes test positive and still get to play.

 

There is no such thing as purity and the idealism you espouse is simply incorrect. Right or wrong, it happens and quite often is it allowed just like the physician who pops modafinil and other narc meds to be able to keep awake for longer periods of time. It happens and right or wrong it's one of the dirty little secrets that's allowed to go on.

 

So, as a society we DO accept it.

[PhoenixFlare500]

Sports is a valid example because in theory, the athlete would get disqualified for doping. The actions of some people that cover it up shouldn't negate that.

 

Also, just because cheating is allowed to happen in one setting does not mean it should be allowed everywhere. And just because it was allowed to happen at one point in a setting does not make it ok to continue allowing it to happen. Of course none of us are in any position to make that call or do anything about it for now but you can at least form some kind of moral compass to base your actions on.

[Robin Hood]

Athletes are NOT disqualified when they test positive. If you had any insight into athletics at a collegiate, professional or national/Olympic level you'd know the dirty secret is that many fail tests and still get to compete. National team members fail tests and their athletic committees cover it up, usually I dressing their testing to ensure athlete won't throw a positive during competition or on random checks.

 

Professional athletes have routinely tested positive and still got to play.

 

Collegiate level athletes test positive and still get to play.

 

There is no such thing as purity and the idealism you espouse is simply incorrect. Right or wrong, it happens and quite often is it allowed just like the physician who pops modafinil and other narc meds to be able to keep awake for longer periods of time. It happens and right or wrong it's one of the dirty little secrets that's allowed to go on.

 

So, as a society we DO accept it.

 

It's accepted only when it benefits you.

[aaronjw]

Sports is a valid example because in theory, the athlete would get disqualified for doping. The actions of some people that cover it up shouldn't negate that.

 

Also, just because cheating is allowed to happen in one setting does not mean it should be allowed everywhere. And just because it was allowed to happen at one point in a setting does not make it ok to continue allowing it to happen. Of course none of us are in any position to make that call or do anything about it for now but you can at least form some kind of moral compass to base your actions on.

 

But this does happen. And in the medical profession, despite self-regulation, cover ups happen quite often as well until a problem physician can no longer be covered for.

 

The point isnt that cheating should or shouldn't be allowed. The point is that society, over time, HAS condoned such behavior and many professions illustrate this.

 

It's a fact of life. Not saying it's right but better to be aware of reality over idealism that it doesn't and if it does, that it's dealt with because it's quite often not dealt with.

 

We all act in our

[PhoenixFlare500]

why the need to "cover it up" if its accepted by society????? You said it yourself its a dirty "secret".

 

why dont you think about that!

It's accepted only when it benefits you.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_the_Olympic_Games

^Some examples here showing that society as a whole does not accept this kind of behavior from athletes.

 

Bringing it back to the main discussion, just look at how House is portrayed in at least S1-3 (haven't really kept up with later ones). More importantly, how other people react to his drug use (ignore his enablers, that kind of negates my argument).

[aaronjw]

PS: modafinil is NOT a narcotic.

 

But it is used to help treat narcolepsy.

[aaronjw]

Uh excuse me, but are you even reading?

 

The sheer fact that you have to cover something up, means that you are afraid of the reaction = == its not accepted by society, otherwise athletes would not need someone to cover it up.

 

Not explicitly. Society can tolerate many things yet in a legal sense they wouldn't be accepted.

 

politics is a great example of cheating and moral corruptness to get ahead yet society seems to condone it on the basis that "they all do it"

[aaronjw]

to your other post: just because something is used to treat narcolepsy does not mean its classified as a narcotic, dont take my word for it, check the facts, go to merck Manuel or any other site.

 

 

I wrote "narc" not as a narcotic abbreviation but as an Abbreviation for narcolepsy.

[PhoenixFlare500]

Oh Wikipedia, the best resource of them all

[aaronjw]

Please learn to fing read

 

I wrote "narc" not as a narcotic abbreviation but as an Abbreviation for narcolepsy.

 

 

 

I do realize that you arent a med student so I guess i should help you out here:

 

Narcolepsy I am sure you are aware of is a sleeping disorder charc. by sudden sleep attacks, hypnogogic /pomepc hallucinations, etc a bunch of other things you can look up.

The treatment of choice here is actually a stimulant.( Amphetamine and Dextroamphetamine)

 

Modafinil can be used here but not as first line. So its used to treat narcolepsy but its not a narcotic.

 

 

Narcotics are drugs that INDUCE sleep.

 

ie morphine

 

Modafinil is still a controlled drug but not a narcotic.

[PhoenixFlare500]

Its your responsibility to be clear in your arguments. Dont be lazy and use the full form...mmkay?

It's degrading discussions that result in posts like this that make me cry on the inside.

[aaronjw]

this is too easy. why are they so scared of scandels and stuff? what happens when there is a huge scandel and they dont get re-elected? what s that called?

 

If that's the case then explain election victories of Paul Martin (Canada) in 2004, George Bush in 2004 US), and Steven Harper in 2011 (Canada).

 

To name a few.

[holiday1001]

wow guys we should open up an arena section on this forum where if two of you have issues then you make it a thread there, instead of polluting threads. 2012canfm.. if he doesn't get it/ doesn't want to accept it, just give up. it's the internet.

[aaronjw]

wow guys we should open up an arena section on this forum where if two of you have issues then you make it a thread there, instead of polluting threads. 2012canfm.. if he doesn't get it/ doesn't want to accept it, just give up. it's the internet.

 

I think it's more how realism trumps idealism and those who hold onto idealistic virtues end up getting bit in the arse at some point.

 

The world is a cold, hard, mean place lol

 

For the record, healthy debate is good and I thank 2012canfm for engaging in rigorous discourse

[holiday1001]

I think it's more how realism trumps idealism and those who hold onto idealistic virtues end up getting bit in the arse at some point.

 

The world is a cold, hard, mean place lol

 

For the record, healthy debate is good and I thank 2012canfm for engaging in rigorous discourse

but are you really saying that we shouldn't uphold the ideal that doping (athletic, academic, whatever) is bad and should be done? even if there are exceptions, we have to hold to the ideals or else we have nothing. you may have just been playing devil's advocate, but it seemed like you don't think doping is unacceptable. it looks you were actually trying to say that the reaility is not all dopers get caught and punished. perhaps a misunderstanding?

[holiday1001]

back to the subject, I just felt weirded out the replies to this thread were supporting the idea of using ritalin for studying. it's one thing to realize that in reality,some people do use it, but another to actually encourage what is inherently (arguably I suppose) wrong.

[aaronjw]

back to the subject, I just felt weirded out the replies to this thread were supporting the idea of using ritalin for studying. it's one thing to realize that in reality,some people do use it, but another to actually encourage what is inherently (arguably I suppose) wrong.

 

My issue is those railing against such practices in that it is immoral, cheating amd illegal is that these people also wanting to enter the profession of medicine will be part of a group that does similar things as in my example of modafinil and other prescription stimulants to keep awake during long hours at work.

 

This does go on and while they may have found someone to script thm a supply, doing so without a medical reason to do so is illegal.

 

I,m not saying whether it's right or wrong. Personal choices which affect no one other than the user is none of my business but these things go and while being kept on the Downlo and to believe otherwise is naive.

[10wattbulb]

Personally, I feel that if one can't concentrate and do well on their exams without taking Ritalin and/or other stimulants (caffeine pills, which are common, for ex), then I'd be very concern to know how this person is going to cope during his/her medical school studies, and later on in life as an actual doctor.

 

Med school is in many ways much more intense than undergrad, and so, I stongly advise those who are serious about becoming doctors to see undergrad as a test for themselves to gauge whether or not they can truly thrive in a med school program.

 

If you are struggling too much with undergrad and specifically with the life sciences courses, then it might be that you have to reassess whether medical school is really the right choice for you. Keep in mind, though, that the first year courses (esp. orgo chemistry and biochem) always tend to be the hardest courses. So, getting a 70% on an occasional tough course is usually no big deal.

[Robin Hood]

AGREE

 

Oh God! Not again!

[inspiring-curmudgeon]

Med school is in many ways much more intense than undergrad

- Not in preclerkship.

 

I stongly advise those who are serious about becoming doctors to see undergrad as a test for themselves to gauge whether or not they can truly thrive in a med school program.

- TONS of people take undergrads much easier than medical school, and much easier than science.

 

If you are struggling too much with undergrad and specifically with the life sciences courses, then it might be that you have to reassess whether medical school is really the right choice for you.

- Please tell that to all the non-science majors in med school

[10wattbulb]

To inspiring-curmudgeon:

 

You say TONS of people take undergrads much easier than medical school, and much easier than science. But previously, you claim that preclerkship is not necessarily more intense than undergrad. You're not very consistent in your arguments.

 

I know that undergrad is not the same thing as medical school. But if you struggle in your undergrad degree, and it's a relatively easy one (health science tends to be easy), then imagine how much more you'll struggle in medical school. That's why I encourage people to look at their undergrad performance to have an idea of how fit they are for medical school. The medical schools do that themselves; they all look at your cGPA to decide whether or not you're fit for their med program.

 

Then you say: Please tell that to all the non-science majors in med school.

 

Most non-science majors still have to take prerequisite life science courses to do well on the MCAT and to be accepted in most med programs, as uOttawa and U of T for instance. And U of T considers the Bio section of the MCAT to be the most important and representative for Medicine. Things are different at McMaster and other med schools. But it's a fact that the courses that will most likely resemble med school are the life sciences and health sciences courses.

[10wattbulb]

Yes, it's true that attrition rates are indeed very low. But let's face it: the vast majority of students being accepted into med schools these days have a science or health sciences background. Even at McMaster, the most liberal of all med schools, most of their students come from the sciences/health sciences or medically-related programs. Look at the stats. And I suspect that in most med schools, students who have an untraditional educational background, such as a Bachelors in Music, will have the rest of their file (MCAT, extracurriculars, and letters of reference) scrutinized much more closely.

 

Please don't misunderstand me on this topic; I do believe that people with an untraditional background can get into med school and can become good doctors. However, it is not as evident that a student with a 3.9 cGPA in music (where the class average is of ~ can do as well in med school as a student who has a 3.9 cGPA in biochemistry (where the class average might only be ~C).

 

To come back on topic, I strongly believe that everyone should AVOID using any drugs they don't need, especially if going to med school. Ritalin is one of the most over-prescribed and abused drugs. Unless you actually have an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), using Ritalin is NOT the solution to getting better marks neither as an undergrad nor as an MD student.

[PhoenixFlare500]

Yes, it's true that attrition rates are indeed very low. But let's face it: the vast majority of students being accepted into med schools these days have a science or health sciences background. Even at McMaster, the most liberal of all med schools, most of their students come from the sciences/health sciences or medically-related programs. Look at the stats. And I suspect that in most med schools, students who have an untraditional educational background, such as a Bachelors in Music, will have the rest of their file (MCAT, extracurriculars, and letters of reference) scrutinized much more closely.

The type of degree you take doesn't matter, it's your GPA that comes out of it. It is true that there are more science students in med, but you're implying a causal relationship from science to med, where it's actually more likely that students going for med will take a science degree.

 

Each school has a certain percentage of an applicant's total score that's allotted to each stat. Those aren't going to change based on whether the student came from music or science.

[10wattbulb]

Hey PhoenixFlare500, don't misunderstand me. I don't want to imply that ADCOMs have an inherent preference for science students or that science students actually do better in med school than arts students. But I do what to point out that the vast majority of premeders do choose to do their undergrad in the life/health sciences because they feel that going through such a program will better prepare them for Med school. After all, medicine does have a very strong scientific component attached to it, especially during the preclerkship years. This is common sense regardless of what the different ADCOMs think. But I do know that in all 4 Quebec med schools, they calculate something called the <<cote R>>. The cote R gives an idea of how good a student is in comparison to the rest of his/her class. Hence, if you're taking too many easy courses to boost up your grades, your cote R might end up being lower than you'd expect (hence, less chances of getting in). Most other Canadian Med schools do look at the MCAT scores; this is often their way of 'standardizing' performance.

 

In terms of attrition rates, I do want to mention that when you have to pay $20,000 in tuition fees annually (in addition to other fees), you really don't have the choice but to work your behind out in order to graduate with your MD diploma in the end. This is what I believe to be the main reason why attrition rates in medical school are very low (although med students do generally tend to be high achievers and among the top of the premed flock).

 

Ergo, if you have a concentration problem and a hard time to do well in your undergrad, especially in your life science courses, then you should better start figuring out what your problem is and how to fix it because chances are that you'll probably have the same problem in Med school.

 

Using Ritalin without a prescription is quite wrong in my opinion for both moral/ethical and health reasons. I won't comment on the moral issues surrounding this dilema, but healthwise, Ritalin has a ton of side effects (including nervousness, drowsiness and insomnia) and won't actually do anything beneficial to you unless you actually suffer from ADHD. I don't know about you guys, but personally, I tend to feel somehwhat nervous before going in for a final exam. The additional stimulation from a drug would only push one over the top in anxiety and nervousness.