Nursing To Md

[GPS]

I would expect the NP programs provide enough education on the rationale behind ordering tests, medications, taking on certain clinical actions and so on. I have not done an NP or MD program yet, so I think only someone who was exposed to both would be able to differentiate the quality of training/education.

Nurses, PTs, OTs and so on often have to understand very well the patient's situation and why things are done. Otherwise, it is nearly impossible to function safely in a clinical setting. What you might be implying is that often there is a lack of communication from physicians to the rest of the clinical staff, which is not always in the best interest of the patient, and unfortunately is sometimes employed as a stategy to make everyone but the Doctor look "stupid". I have not seen other disciplines avoiding communicating information in the same manner. Another factor to consider is that often other disciplines do not even have access to the full history of the patient.  I have a lot of respect for everyone who works in acute care and often people around you understand more than you might think or expect. And, let's be honest, RNs in some settings function based on directives, they make a lot of decisions according to the patient's condition and often are unable to reach a physician fast enough to have everything "dictated" to them, as some people assume. WIth the worsening in staffing ratios, I expect this group will become even more autonomous, they are just forced to know and understand a lot more than 50 years ago.

[GPS]

I wanted to add also that protocols and learned actions are wrong in most cases, because, as you know, no two patients are the same. A lot of patients you see hospitalized nowadays are very complex and not really treatable with protocols.

I do agree though, that I might have underestimated the clerkship training, as I have not undertaken this yet, so I can speak only as an external observer. It is very possible that clerkship is much more intense than what I think it is. Please, excuse me if this is the case.

[NLengr]

What you might be implying is that often there is a lack of communication from physicians to the rest of the clinical staff, which is not always in the best interest of the patient, and unfortunately is sometimes employed as a stategy to make everyone but the Doctor look "stupid". I have not seen other disciplines avoiding communicating information in the same manner

Nope that's not what I was implying at all. My major overarching point was that non structured clinical experience does not replace or equal formal training (especially when structured clinical experience is included as a component of that formal training).

[CalvinW]

I'm an RN turned Med student, feel free to message me for any advice/info. I both agree and disagree with many of these posts.

Hey I'm just wondering did you take the 4 year Nursing program or did you do the 2 year accelerated one? Do you think that the 2 year nursing degrees are looked down upon by admission committees? 

[CalvinW]

I'm an RN turned Med student, feel free to message me for any advice/info. I both agree and disagree with many of these posts.

Oh sorry I was just wondering would you recommend taking a 2 year degree over the 4 year degree before trying to apply to medical school?

[amichel]

I would expect the NP programs provide enough education on the rationale behind ordering tests, medications, taking on certain clinical actions and so on. I have not done an NP or MD program yet, so I think only someone who was exposed to both would be able to differentiate the quality of training/education.

Nurses, PTs, OTs and so on often have to understand very well the patient's situation and why things are done. Otherwise, it is nearly impossible to function safely in a clinical setting. What you might be implying is that often there is a lack of communication from physicians to the rest of the clinical staff, which is not always in the best interest of the patient, and unfortunately is sometimes employed as a stategy to make everyone but the Doctor look "stupid". I have not seen other disciplines avoiding communicating information in the same manner. Another factor to consider is that often other disciplines do not even have access to the full history of the patient. I have a lot of respect for everyone who works in acute care and often people around you understand more than you might think or expect. And, let's be honest, RNs in some settings function based on directives, they make a lot of decisions according to the patient's condition and often are unable to reach a physician fast enough to have everything "dictated" to them, as some people assume. WIth the worsening in staffing ratios, I expect this group will become even more autonomous, they are just forced to know and understand a lot more than 50 years ago.

Meh, I know plenty of nurses that will take any opportunity to point out how stupid they think the doctors are. It goes both ways for sure.

[GPS]

Nope that's not what I was implying at all. My major overarching point was that non structured clinical experience does not replace or equal formal training (especially when structured clinical experience is included as a component of that formal training).

I currently work in a non-nursing discipline, but I think I understand what you are saying. From a medical perspective, anything else you do in the hospital seems "unstructured" I guess. It is true from the perspective of Medicine, since other professionals do not practice Medicine, but Physiotherapy, Nursing, OT, etc.

[GPS]

Meh, I know plenty of nurses that will take any opportunity to point out how stupid they think the doctors are. It goes both ways for sure.

Hehe, for some reason I do not know that many. Usually, everyone knows well their own professional role and responsibilities. 

But, you will encounter a lot of arrogant people in both disciplines, and frankly, some get to the point of being unsafe out of misunderstood pride and stupidity. I think interviewers in both fields need to weed out people who behave like Gods and are unable to participate in constructive interactions with others.

[GPS]

Oh sorry I was just wondering would you recommend taking a 2 year degree over the 4 year degree before trying to apply to medical school?

I am not the OP, but I will just give you my own opinion:

Why would you go for a second Undergraduate (the fast track nursing degree), if you can get competitive GPA in your first one?

Even in Nursing, you can get an excellent GPA if you work hard. It is not easy, because you take a lot of pre-med sciences, pathophysiology and pharmacy for nurses + psychology+ essays and nursing theory, and your clinical performance also affects your grades. So, you have to be a pretty rounded student to excel in Nursing school, but it is possible, very possible and I would choose it over 2 more years in Undergrad.

If you happen to have a lower than expected GPA, you can always take another undergrad or take Masters. The risk with Nursing school dropping your grades is even higher with the fast track program.

[GH0ST]

I was going to write something else ... but realize there's no point trying to discuss it. 

 

- G

[medhope15]

-

[GH0ST]

At the end of the day it comes down to : "Do you want an MD?"

If the answer is Yes, then look realistically at trends of acceptance (GPA + MCAT being the FIRST cut and barrier for most people) then other things (experiences etc).

Med school admissions could not care less what your program of study was, what your experiences outside of school are, how many papers you publish, UNTIL you pass the GPA and MCAT cut for the schools. If we look at the trends, at this point in time to guarantee interviews you need like a 3.85+ in every single year and an MCAT equivalent of I would say MINIMUM 10 in each section although some schools want more like a 32 total, so realistically the equivalent of 11 in each section and 3.85+ in each year will land you interviews.

At that point, forget grades and see what experiences make you stand out. But you can't get to the experiences and LOR section without the grades in Canada anyway.

So I would say, do what you have to do to get the grades. You really honestly need just a handful of long term experiences and relationships to secure a positive EC section.

I've seen med students with zero patient exposure but strong grades and qualitative research and degrees in social science / music. You do not need to be a brainy mad scientist anymore. You could do research examining the feelings of children or something. You could pursue ECs in tutoring kids or working in a soup kitchen instead of an inpatient unit.

 

What I'm trying to say is that there is a formula to success in Canadian schools. Take it from me as an usuccessful candidate in Canada who examined the system thoroughly and has many regrets about course choices. Why did I take an advanced path course (simply my own pure interest) with 4 hours lab, an essay, and 3 tests...and drop my GPA by having a B+ stain? When my friends took a popular culture course and got A+ for writing their feelings about a TV advertisement for the their final paper?? There is no recognition in Canada for the hard work you do in your program, for taking challenging courses in the sciences etc. They just care about the final GPA. You do not need advanced classes to succeed on the MCAT. You will learn all the pathology,physiology, patient skills as a med student. Just work hard on getting a high GPA.

 

I didn't really want to comment on some of your previous posts but I feel that your myopic point of view has to be addressed for the benefit of the readers.

 

It goes without saying that GPA and MCAT are major determinants of succeeding in medical admissions, but to say blatantly wrong information such as "you need like a 3.85+ in every single year and an MCAT equivalent of I would say MINIMUM 10 in each section although some schools want more like a 32 total" is doing a disservice to other premed students seeking guidance. In the ideal world you want to aim for the highest you can for these determinants, but you do not need those for an interview (this is setting aside the fact that different schools have different ways of evaluating GPA and MCAT relative to the overall application). I was fortunate to receive an II despite a low (~3.75 after adjustment) GPA and MCAT (balanced 31) and what distinguished myself was my experiences throughout my educational background.

• Is it more challenging this way? Yes it is.
• Are there proportionately more people who have high GPA/MCAT that eventually enter medical schools? There probably is (although the data suggests a left skew is theoretically more common).
• On the other hand, is there a significant number of people who use other determinants (LORs, ECs, better application writing skills) to distinguish themselves. Absolutely.

The reason why using ECs to counteract lower GPA/MCAT is so difficult is because of its relative subjectivity.  Take a basic situation comparing A who worked at hospital 1 for 500 hrs vs B who volunteered at hospital 2 for 1000. It's not so clear cut who would be better for a number of reasons: 1) person A may have had a larger role in the organization, 2) person B had more hours, 3) person B's volunteering had more beneficial consequences, 4) person A's work had a more dramatic effect on their growth as a person..... the list goes on and on. Even with three independent reviewers you can have an event where all three think your work is meaningful or meaningless... at least with GPA / MCAT these are either hard cutoffs or converted to a standardized score with no room for subjectivity (that said, one may take into account more challenging programs in the overall application... just not in the GPA calculations/standardizations). Realistically, it would be less of an uphill battle for people to aim for a strong application in two of the three areas (GPA, MCAT, ECs) to make up for an average or below average remaining area.

• That said, don't overextend too far and try to juggle too many things at once if it compromises your ability to do anything. Be conscientious of your own abilities.
• You don't need too many experiences technically, but like I mentioned with the example... it comes down to how you grow as a result of your experiences.... some need more (like me), some need less

Overall, unless your GPA is tanking < 3.0, it will hold you back, but not nearly in the same way as what @medhope15 suggests. By that point however, one should evaluate how they are studying instead... as that's a separate problem.

 

This next point is even more exasperating ...

"I've seen med students with zero patient exposure but strong grades and qualitative research and degrees in social science / music. You do not need to be a brainy mad scientist anymore. You could do research examining the feelings of children or something. You could pursue ECs in tutoring kids or working in a soup kitchen instead of an inpatient unit."

 

Yes there are plenty of people who do not do research or have an academic EC background... but to talk down on other ECs is simply narrow minded ... this attitude is why there's such an unnecessary stigma on having a diversity of experience.

 

To your last point... at best there is a mathematical expression or inequality comparing the chance for admission, but there's never a set formula for getting into medical school. If anything, you should be less concerned about other people's success and more about your negative projections towards the admissions process from your own shortcomings. At the end of the day there's many qualified candidates that differentiating between people is hard.... there's always going to be a lot of disappointed people. If you're concerned that a four hour lab, an essay, and three exams (as if that's the hardest thing you'll face in life...) dropping your GPA... maybe it's important to also consider the other side of the coin that you could have studied better or work harder.... or that some "pop culture" classes are to the interest of your friends. 

 

If you think recognition is what matters for your hard work... then you haven't worked for the right reasons. You don't need advanced classes to do well, but it doesn't excuse not doing well regardless of where your passion lies. I figure from your posts that you're a non-trad applicant and can understand a more jaded view... it's simply that... a view, and a disingenuous one at that.

 

- G

[medhope15]

-

[46dr]

I think it's interesting that these discussions always come up when talking about nursing as an undergrad. Somehow it seems to be this weird thing that evokes a lot of opinions, whereas a lot of other healthcare professions never have this stigma. Not many people really seems to have a lot to say about PT/OT/Pharm or any other professionals working towards med. 

 

It's interesting. 

[GH0ST]

These are fair comments and I will address each of them in the reply below.

 

- G

 

Wow thanks for the feedback.

 

You seem to attack my point but what I am telling the candidates is what will come up in 100s of threads come spring with students asking why they didn't get in or get interviews despite doing hard work, taking harder courses and having decent grades in the 3.7 to 3.8 range.

 

People ask this because they are frustrated... reasonably so given the harsh realities of limited supply. I believe Dr. Walker's blog explaining these difficulties in this entry phrases it better - http://mdadmissions.ucalgaryblogs.ca/2015/02/07/more-reflections-on-this-interview-cycle/

 

I don't want to do the work for you or the OP but most schools clearly publish yearly average GPAs and some even GPA trends of students who do not get in. In fact, I've spent time attending med school admission prep nights, speaking with admission committees on the phone and speaking with current med students, and have colleagues who have sat in on interviews / read essays, so I know a little bit about how admissions run.

 

I have been fortunate to be well connected and studied these numbers with my background during my off-time. At face value it definitely appears bleak.

 

There is in fact a "structure" in most Canadian schools.

Step 1 = a computer looks at the GPAs and cuts off all people who don't meet the cut-off. Now yes this is in fact AFTER a careful review of enterd marks/transcripts and AFTER a review of "special circumstances" which some schools will allow to publish. No matter what your background, if you do NOT meet the cut-off, the school NEVER EVEN GLANCES at any other part of your application. None of your input ECs or essays are even read,your LORs never opened, your file is simply tossed. So I am not wrong in saying that a HIGH GPA is the only guarantee in passing Step 1. Those few people with below cut-off GPAs are those very very very lucky few who have some special circumstance and had the rest of the file reviewed. That 3.6 that might be listed in the range, might be 1 student out of 5000 applicants.

 

How many schools truly have that cutoff that's unreasonable (with the exclusion of OOP)? A reasonable proportion of schools have substantially lower GPA cutoffs or none at all.

 

I especially like your view in regards to my  "shortcomings". Yes, I so truly agree that a B+ in a super challenging 4th year class is such a shortcoming ...

 

Getting a B+ is not the biggest issue... but you'd be dreaming if you think that's the only thing holding you back from medical school.

 

The reality is, the system in this country is flawed which is why many Canadian students (myself included) go abroad. I don't think there is anything wrong with criticizing a system that one sees as flawed, and I have no problem with offering my views or criticisms now or in the future in terms of the healthcare system as a whole. This is the only way we are going to change and improve things. It is interesting to me to see that there are people out there who just take and accept everything as it is handed without consideration to the reality of the situation or without comparing to other ways things are done around the world. Naturally, anyone who doesn't get in is upset. I would have loved to study in Canada. And I know there are many people who are very well qualified who get in, many who don't. At the end of the day the only thing that upsets me is the fact that the process is biased against students who challenge themselves academically and have a slightly lower GPA. If you don't believe people take bird courses to boost GPA for admissions, or understand why every undergrad college forum is filled with "how hard is this course?" "what are the bird courses?" threads just so people can get ahead (insead of a love for pop culture), you are being very naive IMO.

 

I agree the system is quite flawed and there are those that play the game... It is incredibly unfair to those that demonstrate that they are capable but that doesn't mean it won't be recognized over time...those that apply multiple times are much more likely to be recognized if they demonstrated their capabilities. I recognize that even then, it's not a good scenario and can be incredibly exhausting

 

In comparison in the USA (again you can do the work and print off the average GPAs and most schools even publish ranges), they look at YOUR ENTIRE FILE. Even Harvard has some average GPA below the averages of most Canadian schools. But funny thing is, Harvard requires all 3 sciences with labs and maths/stats...so clearly there is some relationship with harder science courses and slightly lower GPAs given their trend, and that of the majority of US schools. What I mean in terms of recognition is not wanting a pat on the back for my hard work (I don't know where this younger generation misunderstands things...or perhaps it is the overt PC culture these days)..what I mean is this: you set into undergrad with a dream of going into med and an interest in hard sciences, you do the hard work, take advanced classes and score slightly lower (we could have another debate about difficulty of certain fields if you need to understand this point better), then apply to MD 4 years later with a 3.70 and get zero interviews at your choice schools, your roommate who took random bird courses and graduated with a 3.9 applies and gets interviews. This is not a jealousy or shortcoming issue. This is recognizing those students who set out on a path early on who are being disadvantaged by a system who allows anyone with a high GPA to compete with them, especially now as many schools drop pre-reqs. Do you honestly see no problem with this? Do you not see how it might encourage students to take bird courses and less sciences??

 

Yes I see a problem... so you're going to complain that taking upper year courses isn't fair for medical entry even though people need to grow up to finish their education? Or the fact that the alternative is to somehow have a relative weighting for every individualized program and rank them on difficulty... since when has education become a pursuit of who can get the easiest marks?

 

I'm not interested in starting any kind of argument. We might disagree in the approach. What I'm simply saying to the OP, is to be realistic of how things are done in Canada. Don't be naive in thinking that most successful applicants did not figure this out and make choices to boost their chances.

 

We definitely disagree

 

Lastly, I think you read into my post in a completely OVER EMOTIONAL WAY. No point of my post was talking down to people. I'm simply saying, there used to be this picture of an MD candidate as a sciency person holding test tubes in a lab and shadowing ORs, but nowadays it is much different. You can do much different ECs and volunteer experiences. It's simply how you play the game...I think OP just needs to keep this in mind if they consider a field that might be more challenging or time consuming / demanding when balancing their need for ECs and GPA.

 

Again, I disagree. It's clear we won't see eye to eye on the intricacies of this issue. What I hope this does is at least let readers see our sides and make a decision for themselves.

[medhope15]

I think it's interesting that these discussions always come up when talking about nursing as an undergrad. Somehow it seems to be this weird thing that evokes a lot of opinions, whereas a lot of other healthcare professions never have this stigma. Not many people really seems to have a lot to say about PT/OT/Pharm or any other professionals working towards med. 

 

It's interesting. 

I think it's about choosing an undergrad path to med and what the best options are to succeed. The other programs are professional schools.

 

OP, keep in mind what you enjoy and want to learn but also keep in mind that MD is a competition and there will be many other applicants who do everything they can to get in. So pick the program that gives you the most advantages in terms of grades + time for other ECs.

[waitinghere]

I think it's about choosing an undergrad path to med and what the best options are to succeed. The other programs are professional schools.

 

OP, keep in mind what you enjoy and want to learn but also keep in mind that MD is a competition and there will be many other applicants who do everything they can to get in. So pick the program that gives you the most advantages in terms of grades + time for other ECs.

 

Thanks for all the insightful replies everyone! 

 

I know that nursing is not the traditional way but I don't think I want to complete a "useless" degree. 

 

Anyways I'm applying to nursing programs and kin programs and I guess i'll really need to do my research and just decide when I get my acceptance letters (hopefully!  )

 

Can anyone comment on the difficulty to obtain a high GPA at McMaster for nursing? I live in Hamilton so I'll be attending mac for whichever programs anyways! Any input is appreciated.. thanks! 

[GH0ST]

Nursing is a great undergraduate degree to do before Medicine. I had 5 nurses in my class!

 

Pick something that will give you a job at the end of the 4 year degree and Nursing is one of them! Congratulations on picking something that is useful in your life and also can support you if you don't get in your first few tries.

 

Hey everyone,   that was a great diagram. I can't believe how much time it must have taken.

 

I'm an MD in Calgary and have suffered through the medical school application system. I applied 44 times over 8 years, and then after not taking advice form everyone, and doing some research and finding out the secrets, I decided to re-apply. I got in to Dalhousie in NS at 30 yrs of age, and graduated at 34. 

 

When I finished I knew I wanted to give back so that others don't suffer like I had to. Lost my father, had kids, so much happened along the way. The journey was wonderful - but would love to keep your journey to A LOT less years. 

 

I'm doing a book tour across Canada and the US - all free seminars - raising awareness for university students and parents. 

 

If you're interested check out my website - www.braidacademy.com - go to the "book page". 

You can buy my book on amazon, itunes, ibooks, kindle, from my website, or in person. 

 

I hope it helps and you won't have to go through what I had to. 

As you know there are over 25,000 applications that are rejected every year. I'd like for you to be one of the over 2200. 

All you need is a Goal, a plan, take action - and you will succeed. 

Good Luck everyone!

 

If you'd like me to do a free seminar in your town - let me know - info@braidacademy.com 

 

Same spam, different second of the day.

 

Stop while you're ahead.

 

- G