hp18 Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 How can one evaluate unless there is common entrance exam so that there is apple to apple comparison. EC, interview etc. are all subjective.....some one may like certain EC & qualities while others may not....some schools can be easier hence high GPA while others hard (low GPA)....Some schools look at MCAT others don't.......Its really strange.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slypimpdip Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Each medical school has their own philosophies, values and beliefs that they feel warrant a strong applicant for their particular curriculum. Each school is different, and so a generic entrance exam would not distinguish applicants based on certain qualities, such as ECs, interview skills, life experience, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuantum Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 Also, medical applications in not an exact science, and because a lot of non-quantifiable factors are thrown into the mix, trying to quantify what the best applicant is becomes difficult. Like slypimpdip said (nice name btw) each medical school does have its own philosophy about the type of applicant they feel would be best suitable for their school. So having an all-encompassing common entrance exam to evaluate the best applicant doesn't really work unless that particular philosophy is the same across all schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CutieYellow Posted August 27, 2006 Report Share Posted August 27, 2006 I find it's just like a lottery system. Depends on the interviewers, what they had for breakfast that morning, if they had traffic on their way there... . Entrance to medical school is definitely something that you can't really break down - like everyone said, each school has their own values, and thus that makes each school unique. As Summervirus would say, Laval chooses based on beauty (hahaha! only SV should understand this). No no, ok, i will stop kidding. Seriously though - you would never be able to put the same criterias to every school, because even if you did, it would only bring you so far before subjectiveness comes into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 I've already gone through that with US college admissions - besides just the transcript, you also need ECs, SATs (standardized entrance exam much like the MCAT), reference letters, essay, etc. I also agree that the variation is not necessarily bad - and I think a holistic approach is much better than rigid cut-offs. Like, I probably wouldn't have gotten into UCLA even though their SAT average and average GPA of admitted students is in the same range as at the school I ended up attending. However, my school, unlike many others in that selectivity range, placed a huge emphasis on internationalism, which I had (4 foreign languages by the time I was done with HS and lots of experience living abroad). So, the fact that they found that important definitely made a huge influence on the admission decision and also on the financial aid package I had received. But it doesn't only benefit you in a way that you may gain admission at one school easier than at another because they emphasize different qualities; it also allows you to enroll at a school that fits you best. Say, I liked foreign languages and I wanted to study abroad, and since my school was so focused on internationalism, I ended up having lots of opportunities to learn languages, interact with people from other cultures, and also study abroad. In the meantime, had I gone to, say, UCLA, my experience would've been dramatically different and maybe not as rewarding. So, if you are not particularly interested in research, you probably wouldn't have the best possible experience at a school that's all about spending time in the lab as opposed to interacting with patients. So really, you do benefit from the holistic process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hp18 Posted August 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Its all so subjective....I think away from reality... medical schools in north america lives in fantacy ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosmo14 Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 I beg to differ. I have been on both sides of the admission process having been an applicant and on the interviewing side. I think the system works, and works very well. Of my graduating class I can think of only one possible mistake. The rest of my class was incredibly brilliant, very caring, and for the most part a very responsible group. I am sure most of the current students can state pretty much the same. I have certainly seen some people that have tried incredibly hard to get into med school. They were very smart people, book smarts that is unmatched. They would easily crush a standardized exam. Thier ability to practice medicine effectively would stop there. Booksmarts certainly aren't the most important part of becoming a physician. There are other aspects, and that is where the subjectiveness comes into play. As it is commonly stated medicine is both an art and a science. Therefore in my opinion the system seems to work. That is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muchdutch Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 I think the holistic way is the bast way because then as kosmos tated you rule out the people who are incredibly booksmart but have no bedside manner or people skills. The problem is when the subjectivity weighs in too heavily (which at times I'm sure it does). While I'd like to think that all of the interviewers are subjective on all fronts, what if one of those controversial issues comes up where the interviewer/interviewee have vastly different opinions. Again, I'd like to think that the interviewer respects the interviewee's opinion (assuming they have justified reasons for thinking so) and will evaluate them fairly, but I'm quite certain that there may be a negative bias toward that individual. The problem isn't the subjectivity of the selection process, it's how subjective it becomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansunday Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Its all so subjective....I think away from reality... medical schools in north america lives in fantacy ............. I'm curious to know your reasons for thinking this. A common entrance exam without ECs and interviews, IMHO, would be the worst possible way of choosing med school candidates. I have met quite a few brilliant, smart, competitive-in-every-academic-way people who sorely lack communication skills and pleasant social behaviour. While they may ace a common entrance exam and graduate from medical school at the top of their class, I certainly wouldn't want them to be my physicians. ECs and interviews are subjective - but so is life, is it not? In fact I think not having subjectivity in choosing our future healthcare providers is a fantasy (a very bad one ) and goes against reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 I'm curious to know your reasons for thinking this. A common entrance exam without ECs and interviews, IMHO, would be the worst possible way of choosing med school candidates. I have met quite a few brilliant, smart, competitive-in-every-academic-way people who sorely lack communication skills and pleasant social behaviour. While they may ace a common entrance exam and graduate from medical school at the top of their class, I certainly wouldn't want them to be my physicians. Yeah, and then there's also the people who had not-so-great grades because they, say, worked 30 hours a week on top of school, or had a child to raise - does not mean they are any less intelligent than the guy with the stellar grades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyMax Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Hey, I agree with kosmo14. I think that the system is fine just the way it is. In my medical class of 133, there were 2 mistakes. Other than that, everyone else was fine. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jochi1543 Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Just out of curiousity, so far 2 people have mentioned "mistakes" in their class...how do you define who's a "mistake"? Was it people who got in and then couldn't handle the academics? Someone who turned out to have majorly "embellished" their application? Or did you just find their personalities, interests, morals, behaviour to be unsuitable for a medical doctor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarzi Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 think about this - there are 3000 applicants for 200 seats. Not everyone who is qualified and who have potential to became great physicians get into medical school - there is some luck involved, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosmo14 Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 I would define a mistake as someone I wouldn't trust my worst enemy with. Due to various reasons: unprofessional (late, not showing up for teaching sessions/clinic, inappropriate comments/humour/interactions with collegues and patients), severely academically challenged (when you are on rotation with this individual they know nothing and are downright dangerous ie/ lets give nitro to someone who is on viagra and has a pressure of 80/35). Thats my definition of a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmyMax Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hey, I would say that kosmo's description fits both bills, but in the one case, the latter part of Jochi's post is also accurate- serious personality issues going on there. Regardless, I think that the system still works pretty well, although I would agree that due to the numbers game, lots of people who would otherwise make great physicians are overlooked each and every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.