Guest aneliz Posted June 23, 2003 Report Share Posted June 23, 2003 I will respond for Timmy...if you have the census forms on disc send them on over...I would be very interested to see if we could run a similar census at UWO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lcloh Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 maybe out of personal interest, aneliz? inter-class relationship on your mind? yeah, our class (2006) is pretty damn incestous... heh.... but it comes from the fact that we spend every waking hour of every single bloody day together... and you know, i mean, i have to confess that i find a number of the gals in class pretty damn attractive... and i know i'm not the only guy with that view... they're hot, cute, pretty, they're smart, they're talented, they're nice, they're independent women, they're friendly/outgoing/not so outgoing/Asian/White/Indian etc. etc. etc. the list goes ON.... and regardless of gender or sexual orientation (!) there's bound to be at least a FEW people in class you'd stop and say "wow, s/he's awesome" to.... but you have to tread carefully... people get rejected (speaking from personal experience)... things also don't work out.. and then it's just uncomfortable, because you STILL have to spend every waking hour of every single bloody day with a person that you feel uncomfortable around. it's hard to escape and it really does take a toll... and what are you talking about Dr. Silcox's advice, Tmax? Didn't Dr. Silcox meet his wife over their shared cadaver in first-year (I think that's what he said?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TimmyMax Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Hey, Beats me about Dr. Silcox, but he did warn us to exercise caution especially wrt classcest at White Coat and also again during 1st week or two for the exact reasons you outlined above. On a completely unrelated side note, I was very fortunate in being blessed with no less than 7 members of the fairer gender in my cadaver group this past year... Timmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest McMastergirl Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Ah yes, I am quite familiar with that syndrome! My bf also worries about me meeting young, attractive, rich doctors and running away with one of them. I've had to deal with a fair bit of "medical jealousy" from him. He also seems to think that doctors always marry doctors, which of course is baloney. Oh well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lcloh Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 TimmyMax: my friend was looking at our class composite and she was like, "Oh my gosh, the girls in your class are SOOO gorgeous! but I can't say the same for the guys..." and I was like... "Yea, do you think I care? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OU812 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Doesn't it cross your mind though. I could see how boyfriends could get jealous when their gf's head into med school. Why would she stay with some loser who has some lame job and who isn't smart enough to get into med school even if he wanted to. Plus everyone knows Doctors make more than anyone else, why on earth would a girl not "trade up" once in med school? It seems so obvious that they would unless they were crazy. I also notice that the females in many med classes are hot, its probably a function of a largely male dominating interview panel. Who would you rather stare at and hang around for the first two years of med school, a hot face with a rad body or some "Lisa Simpson" smarty type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dakar Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 in a somewhat dubious thread, this last post really takes the cake. let's lock this one up and move on. I knew it was only a matter of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hmsdread Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Haha, I guess its that funny "love" thing I keep hearing about. As for girls in medschool classes being disproportionately hot, all I can say is that everyone meets the cutoffs, whether they are amazing looking or not. So there are some brains there too, don't forget. As for the interview panel being comprised of mostly men...well, you just made that fact up on the spot, huh? Seriously, I'm not too sure where you are getting your numbers, and why you think that there would be so much of a prevailing attitude to pick the best looking girls that it skews the representation within the class. I worked both UWO interview weekends and it looked pretty even gender wise to me in terms of interviewers. My interview panel two years ago had a female majority. Thank God they weren't choosing by looks. 0] hmsdread *Edited for clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest faqir9 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 um, let's not lock it thank you very much. I'm all growed up and can decide for myself what I read and post to. If you don't like it change the channel. As for interviewers (male or for that matter female) being biased towards attractive candidates, I don't think there's any shortage of studies suggesting that this might be a problem. Its a very, very compelling against the interview process generally imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hmsdread Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 I totally agree that there is probably some level of bias displayed for attractive people vs. unattractive people when it comes to admissions - it happens everywhere else, why would a committee be any different? However, I don't think it is quite the conscious process that OU812 suggests, ie. "she's pretty hot, and I'd rather look at her for the next two years than that other, less hot, girl." The selection of interviewers is done so that there are three (hopefully) objective people sitting on the other side of the table, making decisions on who and what you are, not your looks. In a perfect world, we'd all wear bags over our heads when we were interviewed. And those big sumo wrestling suits that carnivals sometimes have to disguise your body. Wouldn't that be a great way to get rid of pre-interview stress? Strap on the suit and bang around the hallway until you're called in. hmsdread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest faqir9 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 why not do away with the bloody things altogether. We can figure out something about you in a 1 hour meeting? (Except of course for those two murderers we let into mac). The premise itself is flawed. For every alleged benefit (and I doubt you'd find much evidence supporting those alleged benefits....but medicine as a disciple shouldn't worry about being evidence based, right?) I can allege a detriment. Law schools seem to get by fine without em. In the end the problem with interviews are they are so utterly pretentious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest faqir9 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 sorry for the digression, I was actually more interested in the *other* direction this thread was taking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest McMastergirl Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 It's really too bad this thread has gone the way it has. Relationships in med school is a very important and relevant topic. There are unique challenges faced by couples in this situation, and many med students I know support each other and discuss relationship issues. Maybe another thread should be started to deal with those issues specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TimmyMax Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Hey, I'm with hmsdread- good thing that they admit on the basis of personal merit and not on looks, otherwise I would never have gotten in, let alone recieved an interview invite! Anyway, if anyone has any further RELEVANT comments, please feel free to post them here. It's funny how threads such as this have a tendency to degenerate. Best of luck! Timmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lcloh Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Apologies for letting the thread slip away on us there, people. With regards to interview selection proportional to attractiveness, isn't it a bit of psychology (I know, I know, I don't believe it half the time myself) as well? Everyone gets in by merit, sure - but it's merit that gets you to the INTERVIEW stage.... and once you're there, it becomes totally subjective based on what you say - and perhaps how you look... Because in a study by psychologists, people were shown pictures of "good-looking" people of the opposite-sex and "not-so-good looking" people. It was found that with a list of characteristics (e.g. "successful," "intelligent", "dedicated", "compassionate"), both male and female respondents were apt to choose the "better looking" person as opposed to the "not-so-good looking person." This is only a brief synopsis of the study and I'm not sure what they did to get rid of the obvious inherent issues in it, but it sent a chilling tone down my spine. I mean let's face it. EVERYONE gets an INTERVIEW by merit. What gets people beyond the interview is no longer academics, but rather how they interact with people. Could this psychological study also indicate that people are more predisposed to selecting "better-looking" people? I think so. I've noticed that myself, that unwillingly I'll say "okay, that person is really beautiful, so they must be smart, etc." The actual truth is that it's spread evenly. There are beautiful people who are both smart, and then there's the dumb good-looking ones, just as the flipside exists for people who aren't as "beautiful". And beauty ISN'T always in the eye of the beholder... psychological studies again showed that there are certain characteristics in people that people consider "beautiful".. i can't remember off hand... but you can find them in common amongst many people who society as a whole would deem "beautiful." So couple that with our societal and cultural obsession with looking good, and... I suspect there's a reason why the selection committee has a bias towards selecting well-cut, good looking people (note: this applies to guys too, not just girls, guys who look decent, handsome, etc.) for their medical school class. I'm not saying I am. They must have missed one here. But that's what the studies show... Thoughts? I appreciate feedback, but please nothing personal - I didn't come up with these theories - I'm just the messenger. Edited to remove my name, unwittingly added to the bottom of the post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest faqir9 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 That's precisely one of the reasons why interviews are ridiculous and should just be done away with. At least that's my opinion at the interviewee stage. At the med student stage, of course, I am prepared to admit screening by interview has its merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Wong Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 We can figure out something about you in a 1 hour meeting? (Except of course for those two murderers we let into mac).Happen to know of any murderers there lately? If not, then you're way out of line. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest faqir9 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 um, yeah, as I matter of fact I do (not personally). According to a dean (this was at the ontario medical education gawd I wish I could remember the name of the conference but they hold em every month -- I do remember it was during the discussion of whether osce's were a good idea for admission) they've accepted not one but two murderers (med students who ultimately matriculated to murder, not the other way around). It was a self-critical analysis of the inadequacies of the interview process -- even when we look for ethics we apparently don't screen very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UWOMED2005 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Umm, I think you'd find that MOST med schools have a few grads that went on to become black sheep. Call them 'Dr. Kurz's if you will. And not just med schools have to deal with this - law schools, police academies, teacher colleges all occasionally produce people who go on to commit unspeakable acts. This is not a great example as it is more tragic than malicious, but even UWO has graduated a 'murderer.' Do you remember that mother who jumped off the TTC platform a few years ago with her child, killing them both? It was horribly tragic and not malicious in intent (I believe) but technically, it qualifies as a murder-suicide. . . and she was a UWO meds grad. I'm sure UofT, Queen's, U of O, Dal and every other school in the country has a grad that hhas done something nefarious and could be linked to a murder or domestic assault or sexual assault or something. Unless you can show that the two 'murderers' in question demonstrated chraracter traits before their admission, claiming Mac lets in "murderers" is a rather misleading and inflammatory statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peachy Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 It sure would be nice if there were ways to reliably screen out twenty-something murderers and others who are likely to commit violent crimes later in their lives. It would also have a great deal of utility beyond the small world of medical school admissions... :\ Which is to say that I doubt that it's possible, no matter how good a process you describe. Also, regardless of whether interviews are actually useful in the medical school process, every medical school in North America (as far as I'm aware) uses it as part of the admissions requirements. If one school went out there and said "We're not going to use interviews because they aren't useful" you can bet they're going to get branded as a school that doesn't have an admissions process that cares about the "whole applicant" or whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest faqir9 Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Um, sorry, it was not misleading at all and I stand by the statement 100%. More than 100%. Its actually you guys that are trying to take it out of context. Go reread what I wrote. I was not commenting on mac. And anybody smart enough to get into medical school and not looking to pick a dispute can see that. I was commenting on the pretentiousness, and inherent unsuitability, of the interview process itself. And ironically that is the very point that the dean at mac was making. And the statement about letting in two murderers, was his quote (which I paraphrased, but actually probably closer to quoted). So no, I am not disowning the statement at all. I reiterate it. And if anything think its you guys who are guilty of misleading comments. In any event, law schools get by fine without interviews. So do b schools. Mac gets by fine as the only med school that's 3 years (alberta does not exist in my universe since pocklington made the trade). Taint nothing wrong with being alone and right. Taint nothing wrong with folks in the medical disciplines basing their conduct on evidence instead of going with the crowd/convention. Taint nothing wrong with folks in medical schools giving up them leeches and moving on to something better. When did everyone in the medical field become such woosies. Also taint nothing wrong with getting this discussion back to topics of more interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Wong Posted June 26, 2003 Report Share Posted June 26, 2003 Go reread what I wrote. I was not commenting on mac. And anybody smart enough to get into medical school and not looking to pick a dispute can see that.Actually, before you posted your clarification that you heard about this, it was simply a very bizarre statement without any context to it, particularly since you aimed it towards Mac and no other med school.In any event, law schools get by fine without interviews. So do b schools.Who really knows if this is true? That's a pretty bold statement to just toss out there as a fact. Perhaps their selection process could similarly be optimized through an interview requirement. If you think about it, med schools devote an inordinate amount of their admissions resources towards the interview. It costs peanuts to program a computer to sort applicants via GPA and MCAT cutoffs. The interview however requires a disproportionately large pool of the manpower and time needed to coordinate the attendance of several hundred applicants, and a very large pool of interviewers and hosts in order to facilitate these proceedings. And yet, every med school still takes the time and effort to make these interviews happen. Clearly they believe that they are getting a good return on investment of all that energy expended into interviewing candidates. I do not think that GPA scores and MCAT's, or other such numerical guidelines should be the sole determinants of acceptance, which is basically what happens if you throw out interviews. Letters of reference don't help to discriminate against applicants because 95% of them are positive recommendations, and most of them are written by individuals totally unknown to each admissions committee. If you do admit based on numbers, you completely eliminate those applicants who had a poor academic start for any number of reasons (first time away from home, personal illness, sickness in the family, choice of an inappropriate major, devotion of time to caring for dependants/holding down a job, etc.) After all, think about the basic premise of medical school admissions. It isn't to see who scored the 3.99 GPA, or the guy who took the $40,000 full scholarship ride through university, nor who managed to publish a paper in Nature. Instead, med schools are looking for people who have the academic skills to survive medical school (this is pretty easy), and the emotional maturity and depth of previous experience to relate well to their patients, and to be a productive team member of the class (this is the difficult one). Possessing that Nature publication, or that 3.99 GPA shows that you've had the opportunity to really succeed in one part of your endeavours; the interview is to see if those experiences have helped you develop in other areas, such as maturity. The same goes for things like travelling. The admissions committee doesn't care that you went to Africa vs Europe vs Asia. They want to see that you've had a chance to experience new culture, meet new people, get a broader perspective on life, and to be able to talk about it during your interview. It isn't the scholarship, or publication, or destination that defines your achievement, but rather all the steps of learning that took place along the way. At interviews, you are going to see people who are extremely nervous, agitated, and can't seem to compose themselves. Are these the individuals you want telling your grandmother just two short years later in clerkship that a suspicious nodule was found on her chest x-ray? Or telling worried parents that the CT scan of their infant's head shows visible bleeding? Or discussing frankly with patients the pros and cons of a Do Not Resucitate decision? Nope. That doesn't mean that these individuals won't make excellent doctors, but maybe they went too hard, too fast into academics and needed some time to grow and develop in other ways. ie. take a year off, travel, work, gain some further perspective on life. Sure, interviews have a lot of subjectivity in them. It's inherent in the process of having people talking and meeting with other people. But as a doctor, you are going to be dealing with patients in situations far more intimate than a med school interview, who display personalities and attitudes far broader than anything you'll experience in your med school interview (stress interviews included), and being able to "click" well with your interviewers demonstrates your adaptability to other people. There's no reason that such a life skill, or other life skills like being articulate, personable, being aware of other people's point of view, shouldn't also qualitatively figure into your decision. Some people are "people-persons", and we definitely need doctors with those affable characteristics. And sure, if we are not talking about a hypothetical uber-jittery applicant, then many applicants will probably have successful interviews where they felt they were able to communicate well with the interviewers, and give the interviewers a good sense of who they really were. Those are the exact individuals the admissions committee is looking for! Well-spoken individuals who are able to communicate effectively in a one-on-one or small group setting (which is exactly the type of skills you need when learning in med school, or in relating to your patients). In that case, the final decision may come down to a subtle balance of interview scores, GPA, extra-curriculars (travelling, volunteering, working), research, and other such intangibles. The fact that good people have good interviews and yet still get rejected is not so much a criticism of a bad admissions process, but rather a pitifully limited ratio of med school seats available per applicant. You can blame the government for that. There's no rational reason why the last person to get into a med school off the waitlist on August 26 is going to be any better of a doctor than the unfortunate applicant who was next on that waitlist. It just means that one individual got lucky and beat the odds, and the next individual didn't. If there were more seats, you'd capture many more of these well-qualified individuals. That doesn't mean the interview process should be scrapped. Far from it. Med school, and medicine, is way too subjective and based too much on Doctor/Patient, Doctor/Doctor, and other such relationships to survive without even the most basic test of having an applicant talk to an admissions committee member via an interview. Those communication skills are probably the hardest skills of all to develop in med school. Any monkey can tell you the side effects of haloperidol includes tardive dyskinesia. Only an articulate and confident doctor can tell a patient what this really means, and how best to cope with this complication. Of course, the best way to assess each applicant's character would be to surreptitiously follow them around for a week. And see how he/she reacts to the panhandler on the street asking for change. Or how he/she reacts to getting cut off while driving. Or see how some applicants had to juggle university, along with raising a child, or working full-time. But obviously, that's logistically impossible. So until such a thing happens, we have interviews, and will continue to have and use them as an important part of the assessment of each applicant to medical school. Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest faqir9 Posted June 26, 2003 Report Share Posted June 26, 2003 I don't think its unreasonable to say law schools and b-schools get by fine. Certainly not in the context in which it was presented (in response to the claim that interviews are necessary because otherwise folks will think we are a school that doesn't care about the whole individual). Interestingly law schools moved AWAY from (historical) interviews. The fundamental disagreement we have is that you think that an interview answers (or even helps to answer) the qualities you think are important. Whereas I think the assertion by another poster that interviews produce med school classes with hotties, while not universally true, is actually a far more accurate assessment of what is really going on. I really honestly believe interviews add nothing, nadda, zilch, not one shred of an iota of evidence on the so-called "skills" you list and which you evidently think they help select for. Sorry, I don't think they even help determine who can communicate in a one on one setting. They don't help determine ANYTHING. The irony is that the evidence, what evidence there is, actually supports MY view and that's the fundamental flaw of your premise. Not that you are wrong, but that you just assume you are right (as do medical schools) without any EVIDENCE. You just assume that interviews help make these determination because it makes sense that if you have a one on one conversation with somebody that would help determine whether or not they can communicate one on one. Ignoring all else (like all those studies showing that people tend to rate attractive folks higher on these scales, to get back briefly to the topic of this thread), that view certainly sounds rational. Sounds almost like a tautology to me. But that rationality doesn't make it so. Just like beta blockers or that whole time/space thing, lots of stuff that makes sense just ain't true. That's why you need evidence. That's the whole premise of EBM. And the lack of a sensible evidence based admission process is exactly the problem. Did you know that in the US legal system an interview based hiring system is actually prima facie evidence an employer discriminates? Literally. If you have an interview as part of the hiring process legally one presumes you discriminate and the burden shifts to you to prove that you don't. Why is this? Because creative civil rights lawyers actually introduced DATA, real research, and showed what results job interviews were producing. And guess what.... My favorite interview story is an investment banker who asked a candidate, if you could have dinner with albert einstein or michael jordan who would you pick. Candidate (obviously) picks einstein. I-banker dings him. Why? Because he determined from the answer the candidate was "too abstract." That's what's going on in interviews. And med school interviews are no different. Just as arbitrary. Just as silly. Just as pretentious. BTW, I don't think one should select based on mcats or grades. I've said what I personally think before. ALL candidates should be required to work (or do something) for a few years after undergrad but before med school. Maybe make it volunteer related to self select for selfless people. Beyond that and some cutoffs I would rather pick students by lottery. Literally. We would at least stop pretending that we are selecting for qualities that we are not capable of selecting for. Less pretentious and you would do every bit as good a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kellyl20 Posted June 26, 2003 Report Share Posted June 26, 2003 Icloh: I agree with you. I also think that physical appearance plays a large part in the Carms Match, especially. No evidence though, just a feeling about it. Wonder if some senior med students can run this through their mind and say if this is true or not. Must be true at least for the more competitive specialties eg: plastics, opthomology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest IRNBRUD Posted June 26, 2003 Report Share Posted June 26, 2003 This is an extremely fascinating debate and everyone has brought forth thought provoking ideas about the interview process and how it does/does not produce classes full of "hotties" and/or murderers :eek . Thank goodness that you have to throw in the token homely people in order to appear non-discriminatory, as I have CERTAINLY never been rewarded for my looks . While this may be disappointing to the cruising ladies/gentlemen in my class, my partner is completely satisfied so I really don't care. What I am concerned about surprisingly relates directly to the topic of this thread!!8o I really believe that this is an important topic so here it goes again!! How has medical school impacted your relationships? IB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.