Who decides if you'd make a good doctor?

[Guest byjude]

Here's a topic for philosophical discussion, influenced by the thread about repeat applicants.

 

Usually the comment of encouragment to people in the process of applying, or deliberating whether to reapply, is something like "if you really want to be a doctor, and you think you'd make a good doctor, then keep trying".

 

But who decides if a person would make a good doctor? Does it come from within, in the form of self-confidence, or from outside, like interviewers who seek that spark of potential in an applicant?

 

Obviously, there has to be a little of both, since the applicant has to sell him/herself and the med school has to buy it. But is one factor more important than the other? Does one factor play a bigger role in getting accepted or succeeding as a phsyician? Sometimes some of the least self-confident premed students I can think of are the ones that I would feel most comfortable having as my family physician - too much confidence makes one seem self-centred, so no confidence may make a person more attentive to those around them, providing a clinical insight that may be missed by someone with greater self-confidence. Yet, these people are usually the least likely to persist in reapplying - not because they are not committed or don't stand a chance at getting accepted, but because they don't think they will succeed in getting accepted. Meanwhile, some people believe they would make phenomenal doctors, and continue to reapply and reapply, even if those around them strongly disagree with this assessment (this is probably why Ottawa has its 3-interview limit).

 

Does the right combination humility and self-confidence vary by specialty? Is self-confidence more important for specialties like surgery, where confident swift decisions are crucial?

 

I'm not looking for specific answers, I'm just interested in hearing your opinions on this topic.

[Guest 15Sacha]

ok Byjude,

here's my take. I do honestly feel that if somebody is certain that medicine is right for them then they should continue to apply. However, I think that not all people are cut out for medicine althought they may feel that is their "dream" job. Sooo....I would say that 3 strikes your out kind of works for me because the first time, you may have tried and had no success due to lack of experience and perhaps other factors (poor mcat, family probs etc). The second time with all your experience and improved sketch, I feel that the person should at least get one interview. Let's say they got one interview and still didn't get in. Then fine, they just had a bad experience. However, if people have interviewed 3 times and still didn't get in, then something is definitely lacking. This career may not be right for the person or they need to get some more experience. The fact that 3 different groups of interviewers failed to see the doctor potential, then this person may not have it. I feel that it is important for others to assess you because you will be working with other people whether it be nurses, other physicians and most importantly...patients. I feel that the best judge of whether you would make a great physician is other people (not yourself).

 

Although medicine is your "dream" job, after tons of unsuccessful interviews you should probably look for another career. It would be selfish to continue to pursue medicine, because your desire to work in that field is being overpowered by the lack of demand for your presence in that field.

 

However, I haven't heard of too many people who have had 3 consecutive interview cycles with no acceptances, unless they only applied to one school. I dunno...but maybe it happens.

 

Another thing is...I do not think that a doctor that lacks self confidence is desireable. Well, at least I don't want them operating on me. I would rather my physician was confident about himself. This would put me at ease and is definitely a good sign of competence. Most of the medical students that I know have one thing in common (besides their brain power and self confidence)...They are really personable! So, I feel that the ability to commmunicate well, and be yourself in an interview would definitely help one be successful.

 

I feel that self confidence can vary from speciality to speciality. I have noticed surgeons and radiologists have greater confidence than many of the family physicians that I know. It is not extreme, but I kind of noticed it. I am not trying to overgeneralize, however. Please don't take offense.

 

ok..I am finished blabbing. I have nothing else to do except for my homework..:rolleyes

[Guest Teemster]

Heyhey,

 

I think one should consider feedback from all the interactions in one's life. How do those you volunteer for respond to you? Are they comfortable around you? Do they feel as if you're looking out for them, and advocating for them? How do your colleagues regard you? Do they respect you? Do they come to you when they have problems? Are you able to seek help and acknowledge when you need help? Finally, one should consider feedback from those who are closest...those who will be honest, even if the truth precipitates hurt feelings. Medicine is a public service, teamwork oriented profession. The opinions of those whose wellbeing you may be responsible for in the future, those you will be working with, those who know you best, are the best metre for measuring your potential to be a great physician. Of course, learning is a factor as well. But, I don't think you can use your own desire to measure how good of a physician you would be. It's really very easy to fall victim to selective perception that way. You may perceive only the evidence that supports the conclusions you've already made. It's very important to be honest with yourself, and really probe and challenge your motivations.

 

End rant...

 

Teemster

[Guest byjude]

Thanks for your insights, Sacha.

 

What I meant about the self-confidence thing is just that I don't know if self-assessment of how good of a doctor one might make is the most accurate assessor - partly because people with greater self-confidence are likely to see a better fit for their dream job than those with lower self-confidence.

 

I do agree, a good doctor must have confidence in their ability to make the right decisions, etc. However, a good doctor must also be able to entertain self-doubt (eg, is this the best option for this patient? is my recommendation right for the context of this patient?), and excessive confidence is sometimes a barrier to this.

 

I guess I'm just annoyed because a friend of mine has decided not to reapply next year (or ever again, as far as she can attest to right now) if she doesn't get into Queens this year, where she interviewed. She says that if the school doesn't accept her, she will take that as a sign she's not good enough to be a doctor, even though her intentions are great and, from what I can tell, she'd make an excellent doctor. I've battled with my own premed insecurities, and I guess it's just really frustrating to see people give in to them rather than using the experience as a learning experience in self-promotion to gain a better self-appreciation.

 

Do people ever get this? Despite the whole admissions process being a total ego killer, has anyone found they've also gained a stronger appreciation for themself as a result? (eg, reminding yourself of your strengths and experiences while preparing for the interview, appreciating what you could uniquely contribute to a class, communicating with the support network on this website..)

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Simple, you do.

 

You'll find when you get to med school many of the traditional assessments (ie exams, supervisor reviews) are pretty much junk. Medical education really IS what you make of it.

[Guest 15Sacha]

Well, Byjude. You seem like a great person and extremely smart. Are you applying in this next cycle or did you apply already? Whatever the answer is....Good luck with everything and I hope your friend gets into Queens. I am rooting for her.

[Guest chemgirl]

Perhaps its just me, but I sort of take issue with the idea of "three strikes you're out."

 

I can think of several people on this board who may have interviewed more than this and seem the most friendly, helpful and approachable people I've seen online.

 

I don't think that if three different interview panels think you are a mediocre-good candidate (because, let's face it, sometimes it feels like you have to have angelic voices trumpeting your worthiness from the high heavens to be considered a great candidate) that means that medicine is not meant for you. If you are getting positive feedback from other areas of your life, such as volunteering, why not continue applying? Realize that the competition is fierce, and chances are it may take more than one try.

 

I don't think it is a simple case of supply and demand. I agree with UWOMED2005. You know what you want to do, and if you are that motivated, keep trying and improving yourself. I don't think that failure of a 30-60 minute interview is any indication of what sort of physician you have the potential to be. Really, do these people get a good indication of who you are in that time period? Maybe you just had an off day.

[Guest 15Sacha]

i see your point, chemgirl. But three consecutive cycles of interviews and no acceptance is a little bit much. Just my opinion. I understand that people have bad experiences, honestly. Hey, who knows what will happen with me and the ontario schools. The reason why I say this is because....I know a bunch of people that are total $#@holes and really couldn't care less about others. They are interested in medicine for the wrong reasons. In other words, I wouldn't want them going anywhere near somebody that is dear to me. I feel that a person that has been declined sooooo many times year after year (after interviewing), must have characteristics that would work against them in medicine. I'm sure that such characteristics can be easily spotted. Medicine is not meant for everyone, so the fact that medicine is not for some people should not be taken as an insult. But, if somebody wants to keep on trying and trying and trying until they slip by then thats their decision. I personally want to feel that I have what it takes from others.

 

I also totally agree with Teemster about people around us such as colleagues being good at assessing. If this is the case, then shouldn't interviewers be able to spot your postive energy as well (after soooo many attempts).

[Guest Lactic Folly]

Beyond the amount of self-confidence, you'd also want to consider what that self-confidence is based upon. Is it derived from a thorough and realistic appraisal of oneself, or on some sense of entitlement?

[Guest mdhopeful23]

Sacha, i've got to say, some of your comments got under my skin. here's few:

 

'However, I think that not all people are cut out for medicine'

 

-this isn't really up to you to decide.

 

'I would say that 3 strikes your out'

 

-see above.

 

'I feel that the best judge of whether you would make a great physician is other people'

 

-I think its good to an external reference, but the best person to judge you is yourself! what do other people really know about you other than what you show them. how can any external person know you better than you know yourself?

 

'It would be selfish to continue to pursue medicine'

 

-ok, granted some people go into medicine for the wrong reasons. but this doesn't mean that they would be terrible doctors! if a doctor is good at what they do, we shouldn't minimize their contribution because their motives are 'less than worthy'.

 

'you should probably look for another career'

 

-see my first comment.

 

'I know a bunch of people that are total $#@holes and really couldn't care less about others'

 

-sorry, but this statment just made me think that you could easily be grouped with these people...

 

'I personally want to feel that I have what it takes from others.'

 

-why are you relying on external feedback? how can you develop your own self-confidence when relying on external feedback? isn't this the point of PBL learning? to rely on internal evaluation, because in the real world, we won't be 'spoon fed' solutions?

 

really, its not about who you think would make a good physician. if some people are not meant for medicine, they will find out through their own process of self-discovery, not from an external viewpoint by someone who knows nothing about them.

 

i don't mean to chew up your response, but there were just too many statements that bugged me....

 

a note on confidence. i think its extremely important for a physician to posses it. however, confidence and arrogance are two sides of a razor's edge. be careful which side you fall. ive heard of too many doctors who use their own opinion in providing care, rather than that of their patients, medical science, gov't policies. has anyone heard of dr. daya in hamilton and his 'placebo' surgeries? great example....

[Guest 15Sacha]

There was nothing wrong with anything that i have said and I am sorry if anybody took offense. I did not say that I am the judge and I do not feel that anything I said was wrong. However, don't insult me because of what I believe. We are free to have our points of view, but when it comes to insulting thats where i draw the line.

 

sorry, but this statment just made me think that you could easily be grouped with these people...

 

Hey this is my opinion and based on what i have seen take place around me. I still feel that some people are not cut out and this is my opinion. Do not insult me ever again! I will give you the same respect. thanks

[Guest coastal79]

While it really is up to each individual to decide whether he or she wants to be a doctor, I would say "external references" are pretty good indicators of whether one will make a good doctor. Lot's of you won't agree, but hear me out. Whether a two or three people think you will make a good/bad doctor isn't particularly relevant. However, when you take a broader view and look at the sum of all your interactions, all the feedback, both good and bad, that you've received regarding your aspirations, you can get an extremely good idea. If, in general, you are receiving feedback that questions whether you have the resolve, maturity, communication skills, <insert random important quality>, or whatever, on a consistent basis, there's probably a reason. And, vice versa.

 

'However, I think that not all people are cut out for medicine'

 

Why argue with this? it is true. Lots of people would not make good doctors, and some of them are applying to medical school. Such is life.

[Guest sn0w0wl]

I think if you really want something, you should keep trying for it--3, 4, 5 times, whatever. A lot of the discussion has focussed on the role of personality in the admissions process, but I wonder really how much weight that may carry in the overall application (I guess it depends on the school). The adcom can get hints of your personality (confidence, motivation, etc) from reference letters and the interview, but there is a lot of other material in the package, and gpa and mcat certainly can carry a lot of weight. You can have the "right" characteristics for what you want to do, and be dedicated to your goals, but if you took university a little less seriously when you were 17 or 18, your gpa will always drag you down and therefore you may have trouble getting accepted to med school.

 

Also, there are many more qualified applicants than there are spots (why would they interview you if they didn't think you were great?), so just because it takes you a few tries to get in doesn't mean you wouldn't make a good doctor. It's just the nature of the competition.

 

This is only my first time applying, but someone close to me is on his third try for a professional school and planning for #4. I think he would be great at what he wants to do but bringing up the gpa... ain't easy.

[Guest therealcrackers]

In 1st year, our class made a video for Tachycardia (the meds variety show, currently running in London) mocking the admissions process. My application was rolled up into a fattie and smoked; someone else's was used as kindling, and another for toilet paper... but seriously...

 

Many schools do not keep the application files from year to year --- so much extra paper to keep around the office. Thus, the schools themselves have no notion of when you have applied, except for the tick box on the OMSAS form that asks if you have ever been accepted or attended, and that's different.

 

The original question was: who decides if you'd make a good doctor? You make the application because you think you would, and your job in the application is to convince the admissions committee that you should have a chance to demonstrate that. Your job at the interview is to convince the interviewers that you should have a chance.

 

Who decides if you're going to make a good doctor: the ultimate decision rests with the residency training program director of the discipline you've chosen. Medical school is just that, a training school --- where you learn knowledge, practical skills, interaction, social graces, conventions, shorthand, etc. You can't decide who'd make a good doctor until they're fully trained.

 

It's a bit backwards, but it's true. In the House of God, the Fat Man says that you should start with the patients with lab values incompatible with life and a variety of issues, medical and social; and if you can deal with that, then you should be allowed to train.

 

Your job is to demonstrate to admissions committees, interviewers, and residency program directors, that you should be given a chance to work with the general public. They are the ones who ultimately decide.

 

So ask them! Find out from people you trust in your circle of acquaintances. Tell them about your interest, and if they will be honest with you, they'll tell you whether or not you've got the intestinal fortitude, stamina, memory, compassion, and intelligence to deal with a very sick person (which could be them in a few years' time) when you've been up 26 hours in a row. If more than a couple of them say yes, you're probably on the right track.

[Guest byjude]

On the "3 strikes you're out" debate:

 

There is some validity to both opinions, and it really depends on the individual. As a general indicator, I think it is useful to maybe enter the med school cycle with an assumption that you will give it three shots. Thus, just like with baseball, if you don't have success on the first try, you won't be too let down, since you know you've easily got two more chances. Three attempts is a good way of conceding that maybe the admissions committees don't feel you are presently quite what they are looking for.

 

However, I don't think this should be three lifetime shots. If you make significant changes in your life - like starting a new degree program, or a new significant volunteer or employment position - you should give yourself 3 new chances, regardless of how many you've given yourself in the past (within reason). I'm not sure if this still holds, but Ottawa used to state something like they would not grant you any interviews after 4, unless you could specifically convince them of how this time will be different.

 

I guess I agree with both sides - I don't think you should be limited if you know concretely that you have improved in some area - either in the tangible experiences, or somehow improved in your interviewing/communication skills. However, three shots is a rough quota to determine if the adcoms agree with your assessment of your current suitability for medicine.

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there,

 

There can be a big difference between been given only three shots at applying to medical programs and three shots at interviewing at any one, given program. Maybe it's just me, but from reading some of the posts above, these two ideas seem to be, at times, mixed. :rolleyes

 

Regarding the three-interview-only policy, I can see Ottawa's point. If a school uses the interview, not to determine an applicant's brain power, nor their ability to take the MCAT, but their ability to be a decent, expressive and calm-in-a-storm human being (among other interpersonal traits detected by simple conversation), then the performance of an individual over three similar, high-stress interviews may not vary that much. (Perhaps it would vary if the three interviews were conducted over a span of ten years or so, but that's another issue--I highly doubt that most repeat interviews are conducted over that span of time.)

 

Additionally, I would assume that Ottawa has introduced this policy only after seeing some evidence, i.e., perhaps they have had an adequately large number of unsuccessful three-peats over the years to reach the conclusion that the difference between interviews one and three is not substantial enough to warrant a fourth invitation. Furthermore, perhaps they feel that they receive more benefit for their interviewing costs by interviewing someone who has never attended one of their interviews before, rather than a four-peater. After all, time and again, it's said that the applicant pool--filled with individuals of very similar and high quality--far exceeds that of the number of interview spots available. Perhaps Ottawa feel that they should give one of those other highly-qualified individuals a chance.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest byjude]

I think it's similar to the AAMC's policy on rewriting the MCAT. Same deal, if you want to apply after 3 attempts, you have to make a special written request to do so. I guess it's just their gentle way of saying that unless you've made substantial changes in your MCAT studying (or interview style in the case of Ottawa) you should accept that you may not be what they're looking for.

 

It's like they're saying practice doesn't always make perfect, you have to also change your strategy if things aren't working.

[Guest Jazz]

Didn't somebody got into UBC after 5 tries a few yrs back?

I say if you know it's what you want to do, just keep applying while working in your 2nd career choice or getting more education. Some people just slip through the cracks in this competitive and highly subjective process. In the real world, people go through tons of job interviews before being hired, interviewing 3 times is really not entirely representative of the candidate that you are. Having said that...let me in....now...I can't take another year of this.

[Guest coastal79]

1, 2, 3, 4, heck, why not 5. Or, just one try and then give dentistry a whirl.

 

Why debate this? Every situation is different.

[Guest noncestvrai]

That's an interesting question. I actually personnally thought about this at different points of my life. There was a lot of doubters, especially since I did not have stellar grades at the beginning of my university career. I actually had the "You will never get into med school" from an arrogant third-world country physician (who is doing his residency in NY, that I actually helped to move there...). You see the judeo-christian approach of turning the other cheek and helping out can change perspectives of previous "doubters"...

 

Nevertheless, the most important person to convince is yourself,that's for sure. Then the others will follow. A requirement for this is that you are able to evalutate yourself objectively, that's not easy, but this is essential for my premise to hold. Even as a physician, you will need to be able to evalute and judge situations "objectively", or the best you can.

 

I thought of myself a bit as an underdog, indeed I am, since I only had one interview this year out of nine schools. Even, if I think I could make a good physician, there are certainly others who think otherwise, and that's ok, since nobody can please everyone, you just hope you will do the best you can for most people. The fact that my stats are not stellar also didn't help I presume.

 

Anyhow, the more I get deep into the med application process to more it motivates me.

 

All in all, I don't think a rejection should be seen as a failure, but as a sign that you have to get better.

 

Good luck to all.

 

noncestvrai

[Guest Steve U of T]

I think the AAMC's policy relates more to preventing test preparation companies (i.e. Kaplan, PR, etc.) from getting too much information on what the test is like, since the letter they ask for simply needs to prove you are actually applying to a medical school. Still, I agree that there are some personality traits that cannot easily be changed with time or experience. I think there is a point when somebody should realize that they aren't what a particular school is looking for. Three interviews at a particular institution may be arbitrary, although it's probably reasonable. However, different schools seem to have different ideas about who would make a good doctor, so it might be a wise choice to apply to a new set of schools, if medicine is what a person is fixed upon.

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hi there,

 

Didn't somebody got into UBC after 5 tries a few yrs back?

I was told by UBC Admissions that it was his sixth attempt that was the lucky one.

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest fox]

Has anyone thought of the fact that during the three years in which a candidate is applying (or perhaps more) that they would have more life experiences, grow as a person and have time to consider whether they really want to pursue medicine after all that rejection? I don't think it's fair to say three strikes and you're out.... There are some people in my class that can barely speak to other people they are so shy and introverted, but yet they must have gotten through the interview quite well seeing as they got in on their first try. And there are others in my class who I think will make amazing doctors, based on what I have seen with them when they interact with patients, and they didn't all get in the first time, or the second.... When I didn't get in the first year I was crushed, but by the time I had my interviews (which went from 1 the first year to 6 the second- mostly MCAT related) my ideas of why I wanted to go into medicine had changed drastically, as had my knowledge of health care and the field of medicine.

 

I think a few years back my friends at Mac had a guy in their class that had applied 11 times before getting in! Now that's commitment!

[Guest Kara]

>Sometimes some of the least self-confident premed students I can think of are the ones that I would feel most comfortable having as my family physician

 

I feel the same way. Personally I would guess that physicians who have actually gone through an illness would also be far more understanding and make better physicians. This has been my personal experience. In the end I don't think the quality of health care delivered to patients would be affected very much if they skipped the non-academic criteria. I think quality health care has more to do with how the health care is organized (i.e. universality, private vs public, for-profit versus non-profit, etc.) than with personal characteristics of physicians. A number of European countries use admissions strictly based on grades and their quality of health care seems fine. At the same time, however, I don't think it's fair to individual candidates to not consider non-academic criteria.

 

But the whole process by which non-academic criteria is judged is definitely geared to the verbally competent, socially outgoing, confident-type. Whether such characteristics make for a better physician...I don't know. IMHO, I think the profession views such characteristics in a positive light not so much as for concern for patients but for concern over maintaining a certain "professional" image.

[Guest byjude]

Hey fox,

 

In defense of introverts, I disagree with the assumption that introversion would make one a bad doctor. I'm not sure if that's what you meant, but you said some people "are so shy and introverted..and there are others who I think will make amazing doctors". I think you just meant that shy people must have some interpersonal skills if they were able to pass the interview and be accepted.

 

But for those of you who do consider introversion to be a deficiency in a premed student, I have to strongly disagree. Shyness, yes, is something that should be worked on, developing stronger social confidence in one's interpersonal skills. On the other hand, while it may not promote a strong med student community, just because a med student "barely speak to other people" says very little about their potential to be a good doctor. Being introverted says nothing about one's actual communication skills, just their desire to communicate. Maybe those introverts don't talk because they spend their time listening - and this skill is just as crucial to making a good doctor as socializing is.

 

Not to attack you, fox, or anything -- it just bothers me when people misunderstand the virtues of introversion.