Look in the mirror pal wrote:
MS4 wrote:Stache- I would have included peer reviewed data if any existed but noone would ever waste time on such a study. I like your style tho.
I really don't think Noone would have done something like that. He has so much to do already.
I also heard Noone could beat Bolt!!! Noone constantly impresses me.
med school professor wrote:
I've not known many English majors in med school, but the ones I have known were indeed solid scientifically and could actually relate to people. Most of the liberal arts majors I've seen applications for and interviewed don't get into top medical schools because they don't have the scientific background, as mentioned above.
Plenty of STEM majors from solid schools with great GPAs and solid MCATs show enough through their activities and personality to show they actually understand and like people. The flip side of the coin is that there are plenty of STEM majors who have great GPAs and MCATs and really don't like dealing with people. Why'd they want to get into medicine? They shouldn't be in medicine.
We are looking for people with high MCATs and strong GPAs in solid majors from good schools, who also show evidence of actually liking working with people in some capacity.
I think this one is my pet peeve about medical school admissions. Tons of premeds game the system by doing some stupid activity that makes them look super altruistic for one reason: because they know it makes them look good to ADCOMs. If it were up to me and I really wanted to know what kind of human being someone was, I would weight the personal recommendations more heavily. I'd take a kid who worked at a paid job for a few years and got along with all of his colleges over someone who worked at a soup kitchen purely because he knew it would get him into medical school. I'm sure if you ask anyone in admissions, they'll say they aren't fooled--but the statistics about who gets in tell a different story.
I got a Math degree but did not use it and went back to pick up accounting credits and have had good steady wok.
and the top mcat scores.
M2 wrote:
We are looking for people with high MCATs and strong GPAs in solid majors from good schools, who also show evidence of actually liking working with people in some capacity.
I think this one is my pet peeve about medical school admissions. Tons of premeds game the system by doing some stupid activity that makes them look super altruistic for one reason: because they know it makes them look good to ADCOMs. If it were up to me and I really wanted to know what kind of human being someone was, I would weight the personal recommendations more heavily. I'd take a kid who worked at a paid job for a few years and got along with all of his colleges over someone who worked at a soup kitchen purely because he knew it would get him into medical school. I'm sure if you ask anyone in admissions, they'll say they aren't fooled--but the statistics about who gets in tell a different story.[/quote]
Exactly this^^. Stats don't lie.
M2 wrote:
I think this one is my pet peeve about medical school admissions. Tons of premeds game the system by doing some stupid activity that makes them look super altruistic for one reason: because they know it makes them look good to ADCOMs. If it were up to me and I really wanted to know what kind of human being someone was, I would weight the personal recommendations more heavily. I'd take a kid who worked at a paid job for a few years and got along with all of his colleges over someone who worked at a soup kitchen purely because he knew it would get him into medical school. I'm sure if you ask anyone in admissions, they'll say they aren't fooled--but the statistics about who gets in tell a different story.
Well I'd like to see the statistics you mention, because what I underlined in your post is exactly what we look for. It is plain as day who is attempting to game the system. We look for people who don't jump from one activity to another because someone told them those activities were good for admissions. We'd rather have someone who stuck with something for 4 years because they loved it and, as you mention, the references we get from those actually mean something. We also make sure we ask in-depth questions about extracurricular stuff - whether it's lab research or volunteering in a hospital. It's so easy to tell when someone was just showing up and going through the motions or if they were invested in the activity, if they actually KNOW something about what they were doing. When you read and hear enough BS in applications and interviews, it starts to stink even more. My tolerance has gone down.
I'll give you an example of something that didn't pass muster this past interview season: We had a young man interview who had volunteered for two years with a program at his university that had students go into local inner city schools to help tutor and teach other "life lessons." The admissions screeners thought it looked great. I asked him how he learned about the program and also why he joined the program. His answer: some friends of mine who were also premed told me about it. Sigh. He wrote about it a good bit in his letter, and he had the pre-health advisor write a line about it in his committee letter. He did not have a letter of recommendation from the program, despite two years of volunteering with them and despite it being a "humbling, transformative experience" or some such nonsense? Um, no. Sorry, that doesn't work. If it meant so damn much to you, and you were so good at it and moved by it, you would have a glowing reference letter and would actually be able to tell me about what you did in those classrooms, tell me about some of the kids you encountered.
References are obviously important. References have to be very carefully screened though. A lot of pre-health advisors will fluff up every letter that comes across their desk. Some are harsh and truthful. Those are nice. Personal reference letters are the same. Some are just full of the same-ole-same-ole empty platitudes and generalities. Then there are those which really reveal something about the applicant that the letter writer saw directly, personally, that may not come through in an application, but can come through in person in an interview. Those are nice. Those are what we're looking for.
I wish you screened where I applied.
Bad Wigins wrote:
You don't have to take real analysis to get a math degree. My graduate-preparatory degree required only complex analysis and abstract algebra.
Wasn't true at my school. You needed real analysis to graduate:
http://www.umd.edu/catalog/index.cfm/show/content.section/c/1/s/130(With that said, abstract algebra is like twenty times more interesting than real analysis)
med school professor wrote:
Being directly involved with med school admissions, I am qualified to point out how absolutely wrong you are. There may be schools which perform admissions like you write here, but I assure you the vast majority do not. Major matters. A transcript matters. Not just the science GPA, but what the science GPA consists of does matter to all of us.
Having said that, I can also say that I have known some engineering majors with very high GPAs and high MCATs who have made TERRIBLE doctors. They know the material, they pass the tests, often with flying colors. I say they pass the tests with flying colors, but let me clarify that. They pass the writtens and practicals with flying colors. But their patient interactions are usually terrible - including being clueless in social interactions, lacking empathy for others' suffering, completely lacking any understanding of the world out there and the conditions in which many people have to live, and even being downright pedantic with and judgmental of patients. I have seen a medical student nearly ace every written and practical test given and flat our fail the OSCEs based on their complete and utter inability to relate to other human beings.
Yes, we want intelligent physicians. But we want caring physicians also.
Having been directly involved with the med school process being recently graduated, I can say that the over emphasis on the patient communication/cultural sensitivities classes put a bad taste in just about everyone's mouth. The BS they try to cram down your throat is hardly relavent to actual medical practice which is blatantly obviousy even from the eyes of a third or fourth year medical student. "You have testicular torsion, please tell me how that makes you feel?" Any reasonably socially adequate individual knows how to interact with patients, we don't need 4 hours a week for a year of "tell me more."
I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to write this. I wish I would have read something like this when I decided to apply to medical school, it would have changed how many schools I decided to apply to. Pre-health advisors give us statistics and numbers. GPA, MCAT. You see the percentage chance of getting in with those numbers and it is daunting. This is the only objective data we can hang our hats on. Sad thing is, if you score >25 and have >3.0 GPA you can still excel in medical school but will have no chance of getting a spot. I had a 29 MCAT and a 3.5 and got little love from ADCOMS. Almost four years later I have a high 250's Step 1 and 2 and LORs like you talk about. I'm matching a very competitive specialty. My patients love me. Many of my high scoring MCAT/ high GPA peers cannot say the same.
I'm glad you screen out the BS. Sadly, I also know that BS flies pretty well in many medical school admissions. I personally think MCAT and GPA are poor predictors of clinical skill, I know many agree. There are some peer reviewed publications out there which investigate this question. Many of my classmates still joke about how they gamed the system and got into med school. Many of my classmates in undergrad who had only great MCATs and GPAs without any life experience and no personality got right into their top choices, doing BS volunteering gigs and even exaggerating their hours. Connections also seem to matter. I'm very glad to know some people like you are out there really evaluating students. I just wish it were standard.
General Question: What is the best major to be in right now?
Feel free to base your answer around: job security, pay, competition, difficulty of major
schoolme wrote:
General Question: What is the best major to be in right now?
Feel free to base your answer around: job security, pay, competition, difficulty of major
There is no best answer...depends on a lot of things about you and your interests...blah, blah, blah. Just to throw out a random example, Jay Carney majored in Russian and Eastern European Studies and he's the White House Press Secretary. I don't think anyone can argue he should have majored in engineering--regardless of what you think about his politics, he's a successful guy. Numerous other examples abound.
That said, if you want to collect your bachelor's degree and be secure on that one credential alone, I don't see how you can beat computer science from a good school.
How hard is computer science? I think I am of just average intelligence. I am one year done with college and am in finance but to be realistic I haven't really learned any material the past school year. I think I need to switch, as finance doesn't interest me.
Computers and technology do fascinate me, however I am not even a person who reads tech blogs or understands what languages and coding is. Should I still give CS a shot or am I a bit too behind compared to all the current college kids and high schoolers with vast knowledge of the subject?
Is it fairly easy to get a job in the field or its competitive? And is truly understanding the actual material difficult? The topic intrigues me however I wonder how enjoyable and what the actual profession is like.
schoolme wrote:
General Question: What is the best major to be in right now?
Feel free to base your answer around: job security, pay, competition, difficulty of major
Do what you love. Just as long as it's not Musical Theater.
You're a Terp?
Yeah graduated last year. Only ran with the team for a semester though, and probably only got on because of Title IX (fast enough now for real but too late)
A previous poster said that there is a difference between CS and programming. I graduated with a CS degree 10 years ago. CS is mainly theory you just use programming languages to demonstrate your knowledge of that theory. CS is the kind of thing that either you get or you don't and you will know if you don't get it before the drop of your first course.
As far as being intimidated of what you don't know that you think others do... don't be. Programming languages change so rapidly that language specific experience is leveled out pretty quickly.
As far as the job market goes... it is pretty easy to get "a job" but "good jobs" are pretty competitive. The difference between "a job" and a "good job" is more the caliber of people you work with rather initial compensation.
"engineering and dealing with P.chem and the like, which will devour your GPA but more importantly your time. Med schools then take the "well rounded" students, which is complete crap because they tend to have little scientific knowhow or curiosity and end up practicing anecdotal rather than evidence based medicine"
1) sounds like someone had trouble with P chem
2) sounds like someone didn't get into med school
interested in CS wrote:
How hard is computer science? I think I am of just average intelligence. I am one year done with college and am in finance but to be realistic I haven't really learned any material the past school year. I think I need to switch, as finance doesn't interest me.
Computers and technology do fascinate me, however I am not even a person who reads tech blogs or understands what languages and coding is. Should I still give CS a shot or am I a bit too behind compared to all the current college kids and high schoolers with vast knowledge of the subject?
Is it fairly easy to get a job in the field or its competitive? And is truly understanding the actual material difficult? The topic intrigues me however I wonder how enjoyable and what the actual profession is like.
There's no harm in trying. I didn't take any CS classes in high school and started in college. It was scary at first, but I found out I had a natural affinity for it, and I excelled.
Take an intro level CS course. Worst case scenario you learn a programming language and get some basic knowledge that you can use as a backup if you don't find something in your field. Best case scenario you find a new field to study. CS takes a lot of work, but I think most people are capable of doing it.
I'm not sure how to measure affinity for CS as a whole ahead of time, but as far as programming goes, it's kind of like explaining how to do something to a really, really stupid person who will do exactly what you say (extremely quickly), but nothing more and nothing less. You need to be able to dissect a big problem and come up with an exact solution that can be automated.
Getting a job in the field seems to be relatively easy. I had an internship after my sophomore and junior years of college and got a full-time offer going into my senior year. I'm working as a software engineer now, which is more related to programming than computer science. It's decent. I like what I do, solving problems on a daily basis. I pretty much make my own hours as long as I get my stuff done. It gets stressful sometimes, but it's not really hard so to speak. And everyone around me is really bright. I still plan on going back to school though, since I'd much rather focus on one big problem than a bunch of smaller ones fed to me by some business-people and motivated by money.