To the "older" applicants

[Guest Beaver]

Question: Are most "older" applicants married or in a serious relationship?

 

I'm getting kind of worried (thanks to my mom who is discouraging the whole medicine idea) because I figure I'm 28 now I'll be 32-33 when I finish my MD add to that 4 years residency and we are talking 37-38 Yikes :eek . Now at that point I'll probably be screwed for finding someone and getting on with other aspects of life..... as Mr. Rader says "noone wants the bald guy in the sports car"

 

Have some of the more "seasoned" people in med school or headed there found this to be an issue/concern or was everyone already hooked up with a wife/husband or serious girlfriend/boyfriend etc.

 

Thanks

the beav

[Guest PeterHill0501]

Beaver,

 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> I'm getting kind of worried (thanks to my mom who is discouraging the whole medicine idea)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

 

I'm amazed that your mother would discourage your choice of career...funny...my mother had the same amazing reaction, at first. She strongly discouraged me from pursuing this. My advice is to listen to yourself and keep yourself focussed on your reasons for wanting to do medicine. You'll meet many people and obstacles along the way which will potentially discourage you...you have to keep your guiding principles in mind. Sure...there's a huge sacrifice...but once done you will have a skill that many other people will not have either the intelligence, endurance or opportunity to have.

 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> because I figure I'm 28 now I'll be 32-33 when I finish my MD add to that 4 years residency and we are talking 37-38 Yikes . <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

 

Hey...what's wrong with 38/39? Just think...if I get an acceptance...I'll be 43 when I graduate med school...tack on 2-5 years of residency and I'll be 45 if I do family...46 if I do another year for emergency meds...and...really yikes...48 if I go on to do ophthalmology!

 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Now at that point I'll probably be screwed for finding someone and getting on with other aspects of life..... as Mr. Rader says "noone wants the bald guy in the sports car"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

 

If Mr. Radar said that...shame on him! Besides...I'm not bald...and, if I might say, there is no shortage of women who enjoy mature men...by the time most of us are 38/39 we are almost as mature as the women were when they were 18

 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Have some of the more "seasoned" people in med school or headed there found this to be an issue/concern or was everyone already hooked up with a wife/husband or serious girlfriend/boyfriend etc.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

 

Beaver...I like "seasoned" much better...it adds a little je ne sais quoi! Once you graduate from University I would say it does get more difficult to meet people...and if you're in a hard-working profession even more so...but you can achieve the balance if you want it. My wife and I met when she was in her first year of residency...don't sweat it...you'll meet someone that's right for you...

 

Personally, I think your hairy back is going to be more of an impediment than your age! :eek

 

Peter

[Guest Kirsteen]

Hey there Beaver,

 

Fathers joyfully make such stabs too! I hear infertility stats, etc., frequently and much to his chagrin, I'm unwed and reveling in my early thirties.

 

No worries: along the lines of what one of my UBC interviewers (a doctor) mentioned... "You'll meet lots of fine people once you're in the medical milieu". (Cheeky bum!)

 

Cheers,

Kirsteen

[Guest Champ]

I am 29 years old with the prospect of doing medicine. Is that too old...maybe...maybe not...but it may be getting close.

 

While individuals have grand dreams of mid-life career switch, and a "new-found" medical vocation, I am not sure that this deep desire and motivation warrants a position in medical school. And while I am in no way an "age-ist", you do have to look at it from the public service point of view.

 

As the majority of medical education is fronted by taxpayers is their a minimum time that one should be obliged to serve? And while the argument could be made that in the end, an older person with a short speciality may be the same age as a younger person with a longer speciality...the fact of the matter remains that the younger person had the choice to do so. In many cases an older person will not choose an excessively long speciality.

 

 

There are many reasons for doing medicine, but at the end of the day....doctors are public servants and I am pretty sure that the public would want doctors who are experienced and able to serve for as long as possible.

 

And while age based discrimination is not what I am advocating, I do think reality checks with respect to public service should be considered to temper the unbridled enthusiasm of US older applicants.

 

 

In no way am I trying to belittle, dissuade or argue against older people applying to medicine, as I am on the older side of the appicant pool.....but I am simply pointing out somethings that people have brought to my attention.

 

 

champ.

[Guest mn]

I do tend to agree that an older applicant must think long and hard about whether this "grand midlife career change" will be worth it in the long run for all concerned - self, family and yes, the taxpayers.

For me at 36, a lengthy residency would be out of the question when I consider the needs of everyone involved (myself included)

But....I am here because of the encouragement of my community. I came from a northern BC town where doctors are in short supply and many who are there have been lured in some way (eg. starting point to practice in Canada). It is often blatantly obvious that they would rather be elsewhere. After medical school, I have every intention of heading right back to some little place that would be more than happy to have ANY doctor and thrilled to have one that is there because they want to be.

That is just how I see it for ME. Certainly many of the older applicants can be great at specialties that will require a more lengthy training period. Contrary to popular belief, medical school is not the absolute genesis of our learning process - it could very well be that the more "seasoned" applicant has already acquired some knowledge and experience elsewhere that will be of tremendous value.

The duration of practicing time is also an issue that has a huge number of variables. We are talking averages here. Do we really know that a stressed out, junk-food eating 25 year old will outlast a laid-back, cleanlivin' 40 year old? I don't. I think the odds of slipping in the bathtub, getting hit by a bus or suffering a tragic golf accident are the same for each age - Peter, can you check the stats on that? I also can't help but wonder if medical science will be able to prevent us from becoming doddering old fools promptly at whatever age we currently must stop practicing (if there is one).

There is likely a niche out there for all of us.

[Guest PeterHill0501]

I believe champs arguments certainly provoke some interesting issues, however, one critical flaw in thinking may be to assume that younger graduates will work for more years than an older graduate.

 

I've heard, albeit not confirmed by hard data, that the mean "tenure before burnout" of a doctor is about 20 years...I heard this from one of the CMAs primary lecturers who is, himself, a doctor. If this is true, then as long as the individual starts practicing by the time he/she is 45 then the "community/public debt" would have been fully paid back.

 

Putting "payback" aside for a moment...mn brings up some other really good points. Here is some more food for thought...I personally believe that older doctors can potentially serve some patient populations/problems better than younger doctors (and this isn't to say old or younger doctors are better/worse...just that they are different...likely with very different skills in some areas). I believe their are patients who would have trouble talking or relating to a younger doctor when talking about experiences or conditions that, by the very fact that the doctor is so young couldn't possibly have had personal experience with. I know, for example, I'm quite comfortable with a young or old doctor with respect to diagnosing physical/medical problems and finding appropriate solutions. I'm much less confident, however, that a very young doctor who has never been married could provide me with decent advice and empathy on subjects of marriage or divorce and how to cope with it. Similarly, how can a doctor without children truly provide complete advice with respect to many parenting issues without having gone through it themselves...the best they could possibly do is provide an academic hypothesis...don't you think? It's kind of like the researcher in the movie "Titanic" who was explaining what must have happened to the ship...after he was finished his computer-animated synopsis...the old lady said something like "Thank-you for your magnificent forensic analysis...however...the experience was somewhat different."

 

All this to say...I think the subject of age and fitness for medical school/ability to provide valued service for the public at large who have largely funded your education is a much more complex issue than has been presented.

 

Peter "the really old fart"

[Guest Champ]

I am not sure it is really flawed...Why can't we assume that younger graduates on-balance work for a longer period than older ones. If that was not the case, why wouldn't ad Coms specifically request more seasoned-older applicants (with the exception of Mac). I think that their is good reason why the majority of applicants are in a rather narrow age range (22-26).

 

Perhaps an Ad Com Paradigm shift is on order.

 

 

Champ

[Guest ItsmeMelissa]

Well, if I catch the drift of what Peter is saying then I guess Beaver should hurry up and find a mate and have kids etc. If he doesn't then who knows how he is going to be able to relate to patients by the time he graduates !

Kidding! Kidding!

But honestly, I have had a couple of experiences relating exactly to what Peter is saying. For example, try relating to a population of middle aged gay males with HIV/AIDS when you are a non-positive, 21 year old, straight female!!! Let me tell you that they didn't welcome my advice as a social worker one bit! It took time to establish trust and rapport with these men, but it happened.

I think that this is true in any case. If it were not, then we would have an even bigger problem on our hands. Perhaps only men doctors should treat men and women should treat women? Afterall a man will NEVER be able to experience the pain of childbirth!

My point is that a combination of concrete skills and training as well as communication and rapport building skills will get you much further when relating to patients than some may think!

 

Melissa

[Guest PeterHill0501]

ItsmeMelissa,

 

Point well taken...however, I do believe women are better able to relate to women about some things...and men to men about others...parents to parents...etc.

 

Should beaver go out and have kids? Heck no, then there's one more person that I'll be competing with...tease.

 

I think experience your combination of time, rapport establishment, etc., etc., will allow you to communicate with your patients...that was actually not my point...my point was only that older doctors may be able to carve a niche for themselves that is equally as valuable but somehow unique from other, younger doctors...somewhat like a specialty.

 

Peter

[Guest U of O med]

Champ,

 

Your logic seems a little weak to me. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to start anything here, but it sounds a little shallow. Because older applicants would represent less productivity within the system in terms of years worked, would you be in favor of screening applicants for genetic diseases that might shorten their life expectancy and ultimately their "contribution" to society? I know it sounds a little far fetched, but it's the principle and it makes perfect sense based on your logic.

 

I'm not sure if you are considering applying to med school, but this is a perfect example of an ethical situation that could be asked at an interview...

 

It is my personal opinion that applicants who have had a little more time to prepare and develop themselves outside of school and medicine are somewhat better prepared for the realities of medicine... this is a generality, there are always exceptions.

[Guest PeterHill0501]

I can't assume that younger graduates on-balance work for a longer period than older ones because I haven't seen the data that support that hypothesis...in fact, the only data I have on this issue is that young and old, within some reason, are likely on par.

 

I believe the reason why the majority of applicants are in a rather narrow age range is because the "natural path" towards medicine is to do it after completing an undergraduate degree. My first choice was a good one for the time as I was not ready for medicine by my estimation. Having a second opportunity after a lengthy and successful career is what makes me an older candidate. I believe I bring skills, experiences and perspectives that will uniquely complement any classroom, practice, hospital or patient/doctor interaction.

 

Ad-coms actually do, in some ways, want older applicants...well, at least the people who apply are expected to have broader interests, skills and experience than most in their age cohort. I believe the reason you don't see more older candidates is likely because people tend to get stuck in a particular career path and not vary from it...the notion of starting over again is scary and not financially feasible for most with family, home, etc.

 

I think, once again, we have to challenge constantly what is "traditional" and embrace individual differences...in this way, the field of medicine will continue expand and evolve in different and interesting ways. I believe, in darwinian theory, it would be very untoward to have the same genetic material constrained in a closed pool for lengthy periods of time...diversity ensures survival of the species...just as diversity in medicine will ensure the evolution and ultimate survival of the discipline.

 

Cheers...

 

Peter

[Guest ItsmeMelissa]

I really do understand what you are saying Peter, but I just want to question you a little further.

 

How do you plan to establish your niche? Is it by offering the ability to *relate* to them better because you are older and have perhaps had some similar life experiences to them?

 

I agree that often people can relate to doctors who have had similar experiences to theirs (ie. women doctors and women patients). However, this is not the prinicple on which the medical profession operates. A doctor's training and knowledge is what makes him or her qualified to treat a patient, not the fact that he/she may have experienced the same ailment/issue in his or her life.

 

I applaud you for exploring ways in which you can better provide for your patients. I strongly believe that society does not have the luxury of being that selective when seeking medical treatment.

 

Fear not, with the present situation in Ontario, I don't think that there is any doctor out there who will have a shortage of patients.

All the best,

Melissa

[Guest PeterHill0501]

ItsmeMelissa,

 

First of all...you're right...there's certainly no shortage of patients...that's for sure...

 

With respect to how one could establish a niche...I think it happens quite naturally without any effort. I personally belive that patients eventually migrate to doctors they can relate to...who they are most comfortable with etc., I think, again, different strokes for different folks...some will like younger doctors...some will prefer women...some men...some older doctors...again, all I'm saying is that we are no better nor worse...just different in some way.

 

Peter

[Guest UWOMED2005]

First off Beaver, I was a little worried when I made that "noone wants the bald guy in the sports car" comment that it might be interpreted that way. . . I have nothing against male pattern baldness! I probably should have chosen my words more carefully. I meant the focus to be on the "guy in the sports car" bit. I did not mean to denigrate men with hairloss. . . for all I know, that could be me for a few years (I'm still hoping that I inherited my maternal grandmother's X and not my maternal grandfather's. . .) In making that comment, I was just referring to the stereotype of the middle-aged man who goes out an buys a sports car, hoping to "pick-up the ladies" or something ridiculous. If your reason for going in medicine is to be able to afford a big sports car as that is the only way you think you can attract women. . . then you'll probably find your self sorely disappointed (and I would argue that many of the women who would be interested in a guy for his sports car usually aren't the kind that are sympathetic to male pattern baldness.)

 

It's interesting how this has become a discussion of age and medicine again. . . when Beaver's question was about relationships and medicine. That's actually an excellent topic of discussion (and it seems that age and medicine, while an interesting topic, has been discussed in many threads - most of us seem to see nothing wrong with applying to medicine later in life!) Beaver - I'm going to start a new thread to answer your question so as not to disturb the current discussion.

[Guest ThugJaan]

hey you can pick up some nice chicks with a good car...I have been saving up and want to get an M3 before I am too old to lead the high life

[Guest BC guy]

According to my parents who are 44 and 50 (both professionals) memory starts to decline a bit around 50. So maybe the Brits have the right idea to start their med training at an earlier age. Wonder how they got around the maturity, suitability etc. issues that seemed to be so important to our med application process. Or maybe the Brits thought that people-skill can be acquire during those long med learning years or that it can be taught. Their doctors are no better or worst in comparison with dealing with patients are they?

[Guest Champ]

Dear U of O Mod and others

 

Not quite sure of the shallowness you refer to. With respect to the genetic testing, that is one of privacy and control over ones genetic information. I am in now way advocating the use of genetic testing to evaluate an individuals predisposition for disease. However, if this was to become law, then it would also have to be considered for all med school applicants. Or does it?

 

In terms of the age/experience angle, again their is no argument. Life experience definitely makes for a more affable physician who can perhaps relate to the patient, however, at what point do you say someone is to old?

Life experience/Maturity is a very etherial term and therefore is not always related to age (Eg the the 35 yr old momma's boys living at home who can't even boil an egg.) Developing oneself is vital for a well balanced physician, but that does not take 20 years from the onset of university.

 

In my apparently flawed argument, I am simply suggesting that a cut-off exists (or should exist) to prevent my Gran from applying. There is an onus to provide some degree of service back to the society.

 

Note: I did apply to Meds, and like all others I am waiting till 31 May 2002.

 

champ

[Guest U of O med]

Champ,

 

"There is an onus to provide some degree of service back to the society." Does this mean that a female applicant should be given less priority than a male applicant on the chance (and pretty good at that based on a recent survey) that she might only work half days once she is certified. The male applicant would be working twice as much as she is... does that make her any less valuable to the system. Does quantity offset quality in healthcare, if so then perhaps that's the problem!?

 

Also, when it comes down to "paying back the system" I believe that clerckship and residency brings one pretty close to paying back the "debt to society" for having put them through med school.

 

That's it for me on this topic, have fun all!!!

[Guest PeterHill0501]

U of O Med,

 

 

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Also, when it comes down to "paying back the system" I believe that clerckship and residency brings one pretty close to paying back the "debt to society" for having put them through med school<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

 

Haaaa...I'd say the "system" might owe us a bit after clerkship and residency...perhaps in the form of paying back our tremendous financial debt?

 

Peter

[Guest Beaver]

I remember discussing the whole issue of "years" of service in a health economics class during undergrad. The basic error that everyone including Champ fall into is the fact that you are paid for the years of service. ie if you start at 45 and work till 60 you only bill while you see patients during that time (known as per diem). So if someone starts earlier he gets paid for making more billings (IF he makes more billings). You are only paid for the work you do.

 

Secondly, residency salary is considered a cost that society has to bear well if you ask any chief of staff anywhere, you will be hard pressed to find one that says their department could function without the residents. In actuality residents provide an excellent health care resource at bargain basement prices. If the public had to pay physicians to take on those duties and shifts it would cost at least 8 times as much depending on the specialty.

 

Thirdly, the education is subsidized. So is every program in Ontario, does that mean the person who wants to do a BA at 40 should not be allowed to because the tax payers bear part of the cost? Now to further degrade the education subsidy argument is the fact that most professional programs are becoming privatized (ie user pays most if not all the cost) hense the $15,000-17,000 tuition fees.

 

Some points to think about Champ and others, people must remember docs get paid only for the work they do, residency may be training but its also cheap slave labour for the hospitals and the cost of education is being transferred to the student.

[Guest medicboy]

haven't you seen patch adams??