Ever Feel Like Med School Is A Big Rich Kids Club?

[RichardDegrasseSagan]

I love how you edited your post after seeing my response. I just hope you realize that you just implied that Humanities students are from weaker educational backgrounds. I don't really understand how you can claim that one discipline is a weaker education than another, but okay. Also you're missing the point of what lower SES does to you. It's not simply about having less education. It's about being less able to attain the same level of education due to lack of resources. If you put two identical individuals somewhere and give one of them more resources, the one with more resources is more likely to thrive and succeed relative to the other. This will apply in medical school as well and likely also be correlated with physician competency.

 

I mentioned humanities as the evidence for a lack of pre-requisite medical knowledge for Ontario medical schools. Definitely not to denigrate humanities students.

[Neurophilic]

Because high school isn't just about what is being taught...? How about the students who can afford to have their evenings free to play sports or join clubs or hang out with friends instead of having to be home or work a job most evenings to support their families? Or even about that same amount of time that they are limited to study for these classes and either fail courses or barely pass? High school to undergrad is one issue, but having these strains on their education and experiences from undergrad in hopes of getting into med makes it much harder than someone with a higher SES. I'm not saying higher SES = more free time but usually, other commitments like work are more of a choice than someone whose family is having trouble making ends meet. 

The same way that this applies to someone in highschool it will apply to someone in undergrad. I would also say that those who need to work to support family and such during highschool are more likely going to have to work to support their families during undergrad if they can afford to be in undergrad. So when you look at the big picture it applies and is a valid analogy. 

[Neurophilic]

I mentioned humanities as the evidence for a lack of pre-requisite medical knowledge for Ontario medical schools. Definitely not to denigrate humanities students.

Given the context, that's not how it would be inferred. And in what world would not having a science background give you a weaker educational background?

[RichardDegrasseSagan]

Given the context, that's not how it would be inferred. And in what world would not having a science background give you a weaker educational background?

 

(because teach you everything you need to know about being a doctor in medical school; hence humanities students being accepted)

 

 

Given the context, that's not how it would be inferred. And in what world would not having a science background give you a weaker educational background?

 

 

hmm? not sure what this is asking since I already cleared up the confusion in the post you quoted

 

The same way that this applies to someone in highschool it will apply to someone in undergrad. I would also say that those who need to work to support family and such during highschool are more likely going to have to work to support their families during undergrad if they can afford to be in undergrad. So when you look at the big picture it applies and is a valid analogy. 

 

Ultimately, from this point of view, it comes down to whether we choose to facilitate the growth of marginalized applicants (and indirectly, marginalized communities). It's a pretty subjective thing. Some are against it for the sake of "marginal efficiency" (which isn't really even proven), whereas others aren't. 

 

Speaking from a more "pragmatic" perspective, all these factors are much more equalized in medical school. Medical schools provide an abundant amount of resources for their students to succeed. Ontario applicants can choose to take out one or more students loans, which they can use for pressing financial situations etc. From the perspective of a policy maker, the indirect contribution to marginalized communities imo outweighs any small (speculated) benefit to efficiency.

 

It's insane that I am arguing against a perspective that says, "should we even accept poor people? They're ~likely/statistically~ going to do shitty anyway." 

[Neurophilic]

(because teach you everything you need to know about being a doctor in medical school; hence humanities students being accepted)

Your words: "You can afford to invite students from marginally weaker educational background (because teach you everything you need to know about being a doctor in medical school; hence humanities students being accepted)"

 

FYI context also includes the sentence preceding your brackets. In fact it's actually part of the same sentence.

[Neurophilic]

Ultimately, from this point of view, it comes down to whether we choose to facilitate the growth of marginalized applicants (and indirectly, marginalized communities). It's a pretty subjective thing. Some are against it for the sake of "marginal efficiency" (which isn't really even proven), whereas others aren't. 

 

Speaking from a more "pragmatic" perspective, all these factors are much more equalized in medical school. Medical schools provide an abundant amount of resources for their students to succeed. Ontario applicants can choose to take out one or more students loans, which they can use for pressing financial situations etc. From the perspective of a policy maker, the indirect contribution to marginalized communities imo outweighs any small (speculated) benefit to efficiency.

 

It's insane that I am arguing against a perspective that says, "should we even accept poor people? They're ~likely/statistically~ going to do shitty anyway." 

The external factors are equalized but the population is all very similar (higher SES). How about the internal factors which would not be equalized if there was a larger gap in SES within the med student class? (i.e. neurological nourishment from a child leading to the ability and confidence to realize your maximum potential) 

[Neurophilic]

Regardless, the issue at hand here is the lack of positions available. If there were more positions available, perhaps it would be easier to allocate those positions to result in a more equitable distribution without sacrificing overall quality.

[RichardDegrasseSagan]

The external factors are equalized but the population is all very similar (higher SES). How about the internal factors which would not be equalized if there was a larger gap in SES within the med student class? (i.e. neurological nourishment from a child leading to the ability and confidence to realize your maximum potential) 

 

You're just throwing out random ideas that are unsubstantiated at this point. I graduated with a neuroscience/psych/physiology majors/minors, so let me break down some of your neuroscience misconceptions youngin:

 

It's a fact that a lack of environmental enrichment during childhood will hinder the development of children. However, you have 0 idea of what the developmental trajectory of lower SES applicants is. In fact, they may have had even more environmental enrichment than their high SES counterparts. No one is arguing for adcoms to let in applicants who've been severely compromised in their cognitive growth and attained a 1.85 cGPA. We're talking about giving leniency to students of lower SES who have high grades, but may not have had made straight 4.0s due to extenuating financial/social circumstances.

 

As for your "neurological nourishment from a child leading to the ability and confidence to realize your maximum potential" bullcrap. You could just as easily, and arbitrarily, argue that those who're in lower SES will be 1000x more confident given the knowledge that they've come so far despite their disadvantages and completely outshine every single one of their peers.

[RichardDegrasseSagan]

Also Neurophilic, I just popped off my phone and onto my computer and re-read the thread and realize a lot of my dry humor may not have translated well over text. But I honestly meant a lot of that in good fun. So, hope you weren't offended my young whipper snapper. 

[Neurophilic]

You're just throwing out random ideas that are unsubstantiated at this point. I graduated with a neuroscience/psych/physiology majors/minors, so let me break some of these down for your neuroscience misconceptions youngin:

 

It's a fact that a lack of environmental enrichment during childhood will hinder the development of children. However, you have 0 idea of what the developmental trajectory of lower SES applicants is. In fact, they may have had even more environmental enrichment than their high SES counterparts. No one is arguing for adcoms to let in applicants who've been severely compromised in their cognitive growth and attained a 1.85 cGPA. We're talking about giving leniency to students of lower SES who have high grades, but may not have had made straight 4.0s due to extenuating financial/social circumstances.

 

As for your "neurological nourishment from a child leading to the ability and confidence to realize your maximum potential" bullcrap. You could just as easily, and arbitrarily, argue that those who're in lower SES will be 1000x more confident given the knowledge that they've come so far despite their disadvantages and completely outshine every single one of their peers.

Lmao! You can continue to throw all the anecdotes you want but correlations are correlations and that's what I'm talking about. You have yet to understand the difference between causation and correlation and that I have been referring to correlations the whole time. I never claimed that someone from a low SES could never have more neurological nourishment compared to someone from a higher SES. I only stated the correlation and all of my claims have been substantiated with research (FYI my undergrad focus was the biopsychosocial model of health so trust me I understand a thing or two about SES). You can claim you graduated with whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that you cannot understand what I am saying and you continue to make inferences that have not been implied.

 

Whether the person in the lower SES scores 0.5 points lower or 1.5 points lower, the fact is that they did not perform as well as the person from the higher SES. What you are asking is for the adcomms to admit somebody who has performed worse than somebody else (in other words, let's take away meritocracy). And no, this doesn't only apply to grades, it happens at the interview stage as well. Why would they admit somebody, who by THEIR measures, is predicted to perform worse? It makes no sense. They want the best doctors possible for the very limited positions. If you disagree with what the adcomms believe indicates a better physician then that's a different story.   

[Neurophilic]

Also Neurophilic, I just popped off my phone and onto my computer and re-read the thread and realize a lot of my dry humor may not have translated well over text. But I honestly meant a lot of that in good fun. So, hope you weren't offended my young whipper snapper. 

I'm not offended, its all in good conversation. They are your ideas and I have mine. They just don't happen to align, that's all. 

[InstantRamen]

Premed101 is a scary place.

[RichardDegrasseSagan]

Whether the person in the lower SES scores 0.5 points lower or 1.5 points lower, the fact is that they did not perform as well as the person from the higher SES. What you are asking is for the adcomms admit somebody who has performed worse than somebody else (in other words, let's take away meritocracy). And no, this doesn't only apply to grades, it happens at the interview stage as well. Why would they admit somebody, who by THEIR measures, is predicted to perform worse? It makes no sense. They want the best doctors possible for the very limited positions. If you disagree with what the adcomms believe indicates a better physician then that's a different story.   

 

Your objective definition of performance is skewed/confounded. A lower SES application who achieves cGPA that's lower by 0.02 than his higher SES counterpart, while facing greater adversity (and there will be a lot of this in clinical practice), is in my objective opinion, a much more qualified applicant than his higher SES counterpart. 

 

You can continue to throw all the anecdotes you want but correlations are correlations and that's what I'm talking about. You have yet to understand the difference between causation and correlation and that I have been referring to correlations the whole time. I never claimed that someone from a low SES could never have more neurological nourishment compared to someone from a higher SES. I only stated the correlation and all of my claims have been substantiated with research (FYI my undergrad focus was the biopsychosocial model of health so trust me I understand a thing or two about SES). 

 

What anecdotes? Is lower SES applicants facing more difficult financial/social circumstances an anecdote? Also I have no idea how I am confusing causation and correlation? You were the one that brought up the example of the greater neurological nourishment and increased ability of that random kid. I think his name was Neurophilic or something. 

[Neurophilic]

Here's the very simply solution. This is what adcomms need to do. First off we need studies which include all university students (this will take years to attain) that show correlations between GPA and SES (use household income as a proxy for this and form quintiles or even deciles). Make one of the quintiles the standard where GPA and MCAT scores are not altered. Every other quintile will have their GPA altered, some will increase and other will decrease by a factor determined by the correlational data. Let's say the top quintile on average has gpa scores that are 0.3 points higher than the quintile under it, then adcomms will subtract 0.3 points from the higher quintile to standardize them to the lower quintile. Essentially this will attempt to control for SES. The same can be applied MCAT and we can also apply the formula to different "races" (i personally don't believe in different races but just using that term for ease). If this could be done, I would be all for it. Any thoughts on this theoretical approach? 

[Neurophilic]

Your objective definition of performance is skewed/confounded. A lower SES application who achieves cGPA that's lower by 0.02 than his higher SES counterpart, while facing greater adversity (and there will be a lot of this in clinical practice), is in my objective opinion, a much more qualified applicant than his higher SES counterpart.  

Yes to a certain extent. We need to control for SES and then see (something the adcomms do not currently do and cannot do because of the lack of data). I have explained in my previous post

[Neurophilic]

What anecdotes? Is lower SES applicants facing more difficult financial/social circumstances an anecdote? Also I have no idea how I am confusing causation and correlation? You were the one that brought up the example of the greater neurological nourishment and increased ability of that random kid. I think his name was Neurophilic or something.

lol not an anecdote. Just an example of the result of more resources if you'd like to frame it that way. 

 

Edit:

 

Oh and there have been studies correlating SES with neurological development if you were wondering (no the measures are not solely IQ testing which has it's own biases).

[RichardDegrasseSagan]

lol not an anecdote. Just an example of the result of more resources if you'd like to frame it that way. 

 

Edit:

 

Oh and there have been studies correlating SES with neurological development if you were wondering (no the measures are not solely IQ testing which has it's own biases).

 

For sure, I know about the effects of SES on neurobiological development. But again, my point was that it's a correlation, and that there's a distribution of effect. So although there will be those who's neurobiological development isn't affected, it's going to be a fact that these folks will still face SES issues, because they're objectively in the lower SES. 

 

Also, I was just making some hot chocolate and was thinking about my little brother from Big Big Big Sisters. And I remember having a conversation with him about what jobs he was interested in the first few months of our match. He said something along the lines of "my mom and teacher had a talk with me about me going into construction when I am 18, so I am probably going to do that." Fuck that noise. This kid was 10, super intelligent, and he's already being told what he can and can't do? The world should be a wide open place for him. He might want to ultimately do construction, but that's for him to decide. That conversation broke my heart because I thought about myself at 10, dreaming of being an astronaut or some other crazy things. Sigh.

 

So yeah, I am a teeny bit biased when it comes to this topic.

[Neurophilic]

For sure, I know about the effects of SES on neurobiological development. But again, my point was that it's a correlation, and that there's a distribution of effect. So although there will be those who's neurobiological development isn't affect, it's going to be a fact that these folks will still face SES issues, because they're objectively in the lower SES. 

 

Also, I was just making some hot chocolate and was thinking about my little brother from Big Big Big Sisters. And I remember having a conversation with him about what jobs he was interested in the first few months of our match. He said something along the lines of "my mom and teacher had a talk with me about me going into construction when I am 18, so I am probably going to do that." Fuck that noise. This kid was 10, super intelligent, and he's already being told what he can and can't do? The world should be a wide open place for him. That conversation broke my heart.

 

So yeah, I am a teeny bit biased when it comes to this topic.

I understand exactly what you're saying and yeah that story is really sad. The difference between you and I is that your approach is idealistic whereas mine is realistic. If we did have the resources and could control for SES and it's effects and choose applicants that way, then yes I would be all for it and that would be the correct way to do it. However, that's not the case and the best we can do right now is what we are doing. Believe me when I say I feel for those from lower SES. I've learned about how much of a disadvantage they have and to be quite frank, I don't exactly come from a high SES either. I am the first in my family (and I'm talking down to 3rd and 4th cousins) to even get into university let alone graduate and get a degree. So don't think that I'm this brat that has this huge privilege and denies the existence of it because that's simply not the case.  

[daftjustice]

Your objective definition of performance is skewed/confounded. A lower SES application who achieves cGPA that's lower by 0.02 than his higher SES counterpart, while facing greater adversity (and there will be a lot of this in clinical practice), is in my objective opinion, a much more qualified applicant than his higher SES counterpart. 

 

 

It seems that people in this thread have some pretty serious dogs in this fight. I think that a balance must be achieved between merit and ability to serve the Canadian population. There is more to assessing merit than decimal differences on GPA, or differences in SES. What's the solution, implement a GPA modifier based off of SES status?

 

SES is not  the only reason that someone would face adversity. What about adversity such as learning disabilities, social support, life tragedies (illnesses, family problems, etc.) that, in a particular individual's case, may have had nothing to do with their SES status but rather some other factor? (Let me just say that all of these problems I listed can of course be worsened by low-SES. I'm just arguing that you can't necessarily look at two individuals and conclusively know who faced greater adversity by only looking at SES).

 

 I took a very interesting psychology course at McGill (PSYC440 maybe) on human motivation, willpower, and learning. It also dealt with the impact of psychological factors on success and achievements in the context of SES. One of the more interesting things I learned is that those who fare the worst in terms of social support, isolation and mental well-being were found at BOTH extremes of the SES scale. I still remember my prof making a quip "good luck convincing people that the children of the 1% might ever be disadvantaged"

 

One could argue "High SES people don't understand the plight of low-SES people!" Someone could just as much fire back with "People escaping low-SES situations don't want to look back!" or "People who escape low-SES don't sympathize with those still stuck down there, because if they could escape it, why can't others?" So much of this is anecdotal or supported by agenda-drive research.

 

 

Medicine is not the only way to rectify SES inequality in our country. Did a quick google search and found this from 2013: Wealth management accounts for the almost 40% of one percenters. Health sector comes in second at 14% Let's get more of us from low-SES into the wealth management sector. If economic opportunity is the name of the game, there are other jobs to seek out besides medicine.

 

What med admissions should be trying to do is pick the most qualified applicants, with a blind eye to anything other than qualifications. That being said, my definition of 'qualified' extends past MCATs and GPAs,# of unpaid volunteer hours, and being varsity athletes in sports of various levels of competitive-rigour; I believe it includes empathy and compassion and the ability to build a rapport with your fellow human beings. Sure, maybe some high-SES people lack these qualities. Med schools must simply get better weeding out people lacking these qualities. If they do this much of this debate becomes moot. It shouldn't matter what SES status you came from if you can do the job of a doctor.

I think Canadian medical schools are trending towards this and I'm sure many of you agree (maybe not as quick as we would like, though. And maybe that's the core problem).

 

And let's say med schools come up with a perfect system that identifies individuals meeting the minimum requirements making them suitable for the pursuit of medicine (adequate intelligence, emotional intelligence, etc.). And by minimum requirements I mean a threshold past which incremental differences don't make much of a difference. The number of eligible applicants would still probably outnumber the available spots.

If we then don't want to select people past this threshold based on minute differences, then just admit people from this pool lottery style. I for one (as someone from a middling income family) am ambivalent on whether I would actually be happy with a lottery in practice.

[Neurophilic]

It seems that people in this thread have some pretty serious dogs in this fight. I think that a balance must be achieved between merit and ability to serve the Canadian population. There is more to assessing merit than decimal differences on GPA, or differences in SES. What's the solution, implement a GPA modifier based off of SES status?

 

SES is not  the only reason that someone would face adversity. What about adversity such as learning disabilities, social support, life tragedies (illnesses, family problems, etc.) that, in a particular individual's case, may have had nothing to do with their SES status but rather some other factor? (Let me just say that all of these problems I listed can of course be worsened by low-SES. I'm just arguing that you can't necessarily look at two individuals and conclusively know who faced greater adversity by only looking at SES).

 

 I took a very interesting psychology course at McGill (PSYC440 maybe) on human motivation, willpower, and learning. It also dealt with the impact of psychological factors on success and achievements in the context of SES. One of the more interesting things I learned is that those who fare the worst in terms of social support, isolation and mental well-being were found at BOTH extremes of the SES scale. I still remember my prof making a quip "good luck convincing people that the children of the 1% might ever be disadvantaged"

 

One could argue "High SES people don't understand the plight of low-SES people!" Someone could just as much fire back with "People escaping low-SES situations don't want to look back!" or "People who escape low-SES don't sympathize with those still stuck down there, because if they could escape it, why can't others?" So much of this is anecdotal or supported by agenda-drive research.

 

 

Medicine is not the only way to rectify SES inequality in our country. Did a quick google search and found this from 2013: Wealth management accounts for the almost 40% of one percenters. Health sector comes in second at 14% Let's get more of us from low-SES into the wealth management sector. If economic opportunity is the name of the game, there are other jobs to seek out besides medicine.

 

What med admissions should be trying to do is pick the most qualified applicants, with a blind eye to anything other than qualifications. That being said, my definition of 'qualified' extends past MCATs and GPAs,# of unpaid volunteer hours, and being varsity athletes in sports of various levels of competitive-rigour; I believe it includes empathy and compassion and the ability to build a rapport with your fellow human beings. Sure, maybe some high-SES people lack these qualities. Med schools must simply get better weeding out people lacking these qualities. If they do this much of this debate becomes moot. It shouldn't matter what SES status you came from if you can do the job of a doctor.

I think Canadian medical schools are trending towards this and I'm sure many of you agree (maybe not as quick as we would like, though. And maybe that's the core problem).

 

And let's say med schools come up with a perfect system that identifies individuals meeting the minimum requirements making them suitable for the pursuit of medicine (adequate intelligence, emotional intelligence, etc.). And by minimum requirements I mean a threshold past which incremental differences don't make much of a difference. The number of eligible applicants would still probably outnumber the available spots.

If we then don't want to select people past this threshold based on minute differences, then just admit people from this pool lottery style. I for one (as someone from a middling income family) am ambivalent on whether I would actually be happy with a lottery in practice.

This is all true and I couldn't have said it better myself. We just happened to focus on one aspect and it's effects pre-interview. With that said, I do truly believe that current med schools are doing the best job they can and to be honest I don't think they are doing a bad one either. 

[LeBronto2019]

What med admissions should be trying to do is pick the most qualified applicants, with a blind eye to anything other than qualifications. That being said, my definition of 'qualified' extends past MCATs and GPAs,# of unpaid volunteer hours, and being varsity athletes in sports of various levels of competitive-rigour

 

We're taught that patients will assume all doctors will have a baseline competence in their medical knowledge but are more concerned about having a physician who has more of the softer skills in medicine (communication, empathy, cultural and social sensitivity, etc.). Seeing that a lot of students in medicine vary in GPA, MCAT, ECs, life experiences but still have equally good health outcomes in their patients, you really need to consider what you mean by "most qualified". Maybe medicine has been too blind in their admissions process that they don't consider what the community really needs in physicians.

 

For example, there is a bit of research into the stigma and lack of respect given to someone that is homeless in the ER. It could be due to past experiences with homeless people who have been aggressive and violent but that doesn't mean they should all be painted with the same brush. Now what if one of the physicians had some history of homelessness in their life and understood that no matter how angry that patient is, there is some reason behind it and they need more support than what is given acutely in the ER. Imagine the relationship and trust that would be built between healthcare and that patient. A lot of faculty members are aware that the way they are selecting applicants isn't always doing wonders for the community because these issues continue to persist and there is only so much they can jam into the curriculum to teach such empathy and understanding with various marginalized groups. And even then, you hear terrible comments by medical students about "well i'll never have to deal with that anyways" or "we can never help Aboriginals with all their drug and alcohol problems". 

 

It's easy to assess this from your perspective but you need to consider that some people just have experiences that enrich their patient care and understanding of the community. I'm not even saying it has to be from low SES, but someone that has faced depression or may have some disability or is Indigenous or rural or have lived in a way that would add true diversity to the class would be a much better asset than a 4.0 who ran a student group and got publications in research. I hope UofA changes their admissions process to identify these people via personal essays or panel interviews or assessing their experiences helping these communities because it's necessary! 

[daftjustice]

We're taught that patients will assume all doctors will have a baseline competence in their medical knowledge but are more concerned about having a physician who has more of the softer skills in medicine (communication, empathy, cultural and social sensitivity, etc.). Seeing that a lot of students in medicine vary in GPA, MCAT, ECs, life experiences but still have equally good health outcomes in their patients, you really need to consider what you mean by "most qualified". Maybe medicine has been too blind in their admissions process that they don't consider what the community really needs in physicians.

 

For example, there is a bit of research into the stigma and lack of respect given to someone that is homeless in the ER. It could be due to past experiences with homeless people who have been aggressive and violent but that doesn't mean they should all be painted with the same brush. Now what if one of the physicians had some history of homelessness in their life and understood that no matter how angry that patient is, there is some reason behind it and they need more support than what is given acutely in the ER. Imagine the relationship and trust that would be built between healthcare and that patient. A lot of faculty members are aware that the way they are selecting applicants isn't always doing wonders for the community because these issues continue to persist and there is only so much they can jam into the curriculum to teach such empathy and understanding with various marginalized groups. And even then, you hear terrible comments by medical students about "well i'll never have to deal with that anyways" or "we can never help Aboriginals with all their drug and alcohol problems". 

 

It's easy to assess this from your perspective but you need to consider that some people just have experiences that enrich their patient care and understanding of the community. I'm not even saying it has to be from low SES, but someone that has faced depression or may have some disability or is Indigenous or rural or have lived in a way that would add true diversity to the class would be a much better asset than a 4.0 who ran a student group and got publications in research. I hope UofA changes their admissions process to identify these people via personal essays or panel interviews or assessing their experiences helping these communities because it's necessary! 

This. This is exactly my point. This is what I couldn't put into words with the part of my post that you quoted.

 

Edit: sentence.

[older]

Well said.

We want doctors who have at least baseline competence in medical knowledge, and then a lot of soft skills on the top of it.

 

Extending this reasoning, we'd  probably want to admit applicants who have the baseline (high) academic competence,  but also meet other extened criteria. This is  not exactly happening. No admission system is pefect, but the one we have misses a lot of  people who would make excellent doctors in favor of 'academics'.  

[NLengr]

We already admit people who have high academic competence PLUS excellent soft skills. Look at the resumes of almost everyone who applies to med school. They are littered with volunteering (meaningful volunteering too, not just resume padding), high level athletic achievement, high level achievement in the arts community, experience in other fields (nursing, law, engineering, social work, business etc.) and research. 

 

The reason we "miss" a lot of people who would make good doctors isn't because there is a favouring of academics. It's because the competition is so high that med schools can easily pick people who are high academic achievers AND have excellent non academic profiles. They aren't picking one over the other. They are picking people who have excellent levels of both.

[daftjustice]

We already admit people who have high academic competence PLUS excellent soft skills. Look at the resumes of almost everyone who applies to med school. They are littered with volunteering (meaningful volunteering too, not just resume padding), high level athletic achievement, high level achievement in the arts community, experience in other fields (nursing, law, engineering, social work, business etc.) and research. 

 

The reason we "miss" a lot of people who would make good doctors isn't because there is a favouring of academics. It's because the competition is so high that med schools can easily pick people who are high academic achievers AND have excellent non academic profiles. They aren't picking one over the other. They are picking people who have excellent levels of both.

I would've agreed with this until I saw some of the stats for GPA for interview invites this year at U of C, U of A, and Mac and UBC to a lesser extent.