application letter

[toby jones]

A similar question to the one I'm about to ask comes up fairly frequently. My question is a little different, however, and I'd be really very interested to know what people think.

Firstly, in good conscience I can say 'I don't know of anything that is likely to undermine my ability to be a caring and professional doctor'. The issue is now: Can I use the following to SUPPORT that rather than to UNDERMINE it?


(Making it clear that I don't think that it is appropriate to typically share this sort of information)
1) Most of my childhood was spent in poverty with my solo mother who was on welfare (ability to empathize / develop rapport with the socio-economically disadvantaged).
2) I was removed from my mothers care and placed in a foster home with carers who strongly identified with being members of a significant cultural / racial minority group (ability to empathize / develop rapport with a cultural group that is highly prized in the country I'm applying to).
3) My childhood was traumatic (obviously) and I went on to have issues (and treatment for) drug and alchohol issues and trauma related mental health issues (ability to empathize with / develop rapport with people who have drug / alchol issues, have experience with the department of corrections (have been in jail), people suffering from severe mental disorder (since I've interacted with them a lot both in hospital in rehab and in supported accommodation).

BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE:

4) Throughout all of that I saw my own way through high school, an undergraduate degree, a masters degree, and a PhD.
5) My mental health / drug and alchohol issues didn't negatively impact on my grades my completion of work or my ability to teach. And of course, they were a while ago now (about 6 years)
6) My studies have taught me to be able to stand back and look at things more objectively (e.g., what people believe is most helpful for them can be different from what scientific studies show is most likely to help them; sometimes you just need to be able to step back to be competent e.g., during surgery once the patient is anesthetized, basically the dangers of over-involvement).
7) I'm better now. Don't meet criteria for anything. Am able to use alchohol socially with no problems don't use drugs anymore. More importantly (don't just take my word for it): My current therapist (a psychiatrist who works in training p-docs and community and private practice) thinks that I'd make a good doctor and (might well if I ask him) agree to be a contactable reference for them.

So basically... I'm wanting to use my own personal experience of mental illness (and a lot else besides, I guess) to SUPPORT my being a good doctor rather than presenting it as something that would make my application QUESTIONABLE.

I guess my question is: If I am able to cast this focusing on the strengths that it has given me (to support my being capable of empathy / rapport / understanding AND being objective - and more importantly of appropriately applying one or the other AT THE RIGHT TIME)... AND I can provide some 'independent' or 'objective' confirmation of this (in terms of the professional opinion of my psychiatrist) then... Does this sound like a good strategy to take (aka one that will support my case) or... Am I better off avoiding 1-3 altogether???

I'm anticipating that opinions will vary... How would you feel about an applicant who wrote a letter like this (making it clear how each contributed towards a strength)??

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

As a guy with his own sob story (parsonage-turner syndrome/CRPS at age 14 following vaccination, with residual weakness, leading to multiple symptomatic discs, spinal stenosis, cervicothoracic facet syndrome, rib dysfunction syndrome, and SI joint dysfunction), I'm fairly convinced that I overemphasized my struggle in my medical school personal statement.

Funny thing is, I intentionally undermphasized its severity as I do with almost everyone. I still think that people thought I was being histrionic about it.

It doesn't help my case that at 5'10 195lbs (looking about 220), I don't look the part of a guy with atrophy and moderate-severe spinal disease.

Anyway, I think that on the one hand its easy to admire people who triumph in the face of adversity (like the Good Will Hunting story or Lance Armstrong) it's a bit harder to stomach at a closer interpersonal level. When someone sitting in front of you tells a story like yours or mine (which is not anything as difficult as what you went through), all it does is expose the excuses they've made in their own lives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNJTDt9d6Kk

It may make them feel inferior to you, and project their own feelings onto you, as isf you look down on them. After all, people piss and moan about how hard it is to lose weight. How much harder is it to build up enough muscular strength in your back to replace the role those damaged discs and vertebrae are supposed to do?

It also may lead to their denial that your story is really possible. I couldn't have gone through that and end up as well adjusted as he claims. SO he really couldn't have gone through it.

It's a compelling story and probably needs to be told if they're to understand your strengths, but I wouldn't go into too much detail. And I'd soften the words and tone.

Sorry for the ramble. Hope it helps.

 

[billypilgrim37]

While I agree with all of your wonderful insights there, Toby, you're opening up a can of worms. You have very little to gain by giving your medical school reviewers any of this information, and much more to lose. I could write.

Part of med school application reviewers jobs are to minimize risk. You're telling them that there is a very good chance you'll be an amazing doctor, and a small chance that you will fall apart. That's unacceptable from an actuarial standpoint. They'd much rather have a mediocre doctor with a near-zero chance of falling apart. It's not fair. But if you're comfortable that you can gain acceptance with the more tradtional aspects of your application, your best chances are to minimize your story.

There will always be exceptions, of course, and I'm sure if you applied to ten schools, two or three would probably love you BECAUSE you disclosed all of these things. But the other seven or eight would wad your application up and throw it away.

Your better approach would be to write an awesome book and pay off any medical school loans here in a few years.

 

[toby jones]

> Funny thing is, I intentionally undermphasized its severity as I do with almost everyone. I still think that people thought I was being histrionic about it.

Yeah. And the absolute last thing I want them to think is that I'm histrionic / attention seeking / that I'm trying to get them to look up to me as special or different in any way.

> It also may lead to their denial that your story is really possible. I couldn't have gone through that and end up as well adjusted as he claims. SO he really couldn't have gone through it.

OR I can't really be as recovered as I say I am and I guess they might well be able to obtain my psychiatric history notes which I'd really rather they didn't (lots of judgement and assumption of intent in there).

> It's a compelling story and probably needs to be told if they're to understand your strengths, but I wouldn't go into too much detail. And I'd soften the words and tone.

Yeah. I would have to be extremely careful in how I phrased it, I appreciate that. I guess what I'm really wondering about is the appropriateness of this strategy at all. I'm starting to think... That it might best be avoided. Maybe something that could come up if I wanted to specialize in psychiatry down the track. At this point, I guess it is unlikely that there will be more than one psychiatrist on the interview panel and I might be best to have a more 'standard' application emphasizing the things that are important to them:

Emotional maturity, friendliness, good english communication, ability to academically achieve.

I guess I was going for the 'bonus' things that are important to them:

Desire to be a psychiatrist, ability to have good empathy/rapport with the socioeconomically disadvantaged and with the significant cultural minority.

But really... What it might do is have them question whether or not the kind of empathy/rapport I'm capable of developing is the theraputic kind at any rate...

Thanks for taking the time.

 

[toby jones]

Yeah, I guess I agree with the 'can of worms' and 'minimization of risks' remarks.

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm still looking into this) the most financially feasible option (the only financially feasible option) is for me to return to the country where I'm a citizen and take advantage of their student loans and living allowance scheme. There are two universities in the country that are similarly regarded with respect to reputation and the cost of living in one location is significantly lower than the other. It is also the location that I don't have a history with and I'd much rather encounter clinicians on the other side (so to speak) down the track once my reputation is established rather than on the intake panel and / or on day one of ward rounds.

So... Quite a lot hangs on my getting accepted into this one particular place. If my graduate entry 'Other' criterion application is unsuccessful I would take the alternative route of doing a pre-med year and applying under 'Standard' entry. If that application was unsuccessful I would study bio-medical sciences and apply as a 'Competitive Graduate'. Only have three chances (as can only apply once under each criteria). Getting in first shot is important, however, as it gives me entry into Second Year instead of having to start back at first (with all the dental, optometry, physio, and biomed sci people).

My history... Is basically history as far as I'm concerned. Nobody in academia knows of it and I have no desire to inform them of it. I don't want to be treated differently / given exception / hailed for overcoming misfortune. I feel the same about med school. I just want to get in dammit and I'm not terribly sure what will help distinguish my application from all the other 'I just want to help people' peoples...

But maybe it is just about doing that. My grades are terrific and I'm confident of that and I have 6 years of about 2 or 3 seminars per year on the topic of philosophy of psychiatry including a masters and doctoral dissertation. My father also... Well... Three months to live (cancer) and that has been a really important factor in my realizing that this is in fact what I want to do.

But even the father thing... It is hard to know how to unpack 'I just want to help people' in a truthful, compelling, and likely to get me a place kind of way...

 

[notdeadyet]

I guess I was going for the 'bonus' things that are important to them:

Desire to be a psychiatrist, ability to have good empathy/rapport with the socioeconomically disadvantaged and with the significant cultural minority.

I think a good general approach in an interview of any stripe is the "Show, Don't Tell" strategy.

Telling them how much you want to be a psychiatrist and how great you are with the poor and minorities doesn't hold any water with anybody. Talk is cheap. Drawing their attention to things you've done that demonstrates this is gold.

Whether you are great with folks from disadvantaged backgrounds because you have a disadvantaged background yourself or just because you have a knack for it is pretty irrelevant at the end of the day. And frankly, folks who've pulled themselves out of poverty can be some of the biggest snobs you'll ever meet, so it doesn't mean a whole lot in and of itself. The proof is really in the pudding.

You don't have to draw attention to why you have these abilities, only to proven demonstrations that you do. It's handy for you because this also avoids potential landmines in the eyes of some interviewers.

 

[nancysinatra]

You are not applying in the US? That may change things a bit...

I agree with being discreet about what you reveal about past struggles. However some of what you've said here might be quite useful in the essay, such as the fact that you've experienced poverty and a foster home. Those adversities aren't likely to raise red flags, and in fact they could help put your successes in an even stronger light. However they do qualify AS adversities, and I think in medicine people often don't know what to do with someone who has overcome a serious struggle. (Medicine, I'm sorry to say it, is full of fake struggles like "I'm only average in my class when I was used to being at the top before" and "I didn't match at my top choice program.") So I can't say one way or another how the poverty you experienced growing up would sound to them, but get other people's views. You'd probably find that some readers will find it moving and others won't be sure what to think. You could compromise by reducing it to a line or two of the total essay. I would stay away from psych troubles.

Honestly, I think that the most quintessential essay in this genre usually describes how the writer witnessed someone ELSE'S struggles, felt moved to want to help them, acted on that in some way, and realized that through medicine, they could do more.

MOM, I'm not sure how someone could call a factually accurate reporting of a medical illness histrionic. (Unless the illness someone oozed beyond the essay and was the whole focus of your application, interview, and personal deportment.) You were asked to write an essay, and you did so. If it is histrionic to be a patient, then everyone in the MICU is histrionic right now. I do think there are reasons to be discreet about medical illnesses. But once the cat's out of the bag--is histrionic the right word?

 

[BobA]

First, remember that these people are seeking to hire an employee. The number one red flag that someone will struggle in residency is a history of being treated for addiction or alcoholism. Even if you think your history would increase your ability to empathsize, and be a better candidate than someone else, remember that an employer wants reliability first, and excellence second.

I'm not saying this to be mean, but just try to think about it from your future employers perspective.

Second, why the need to break your anonymity? Are they going to know about your h/o addiction/abuse from gaps in your record or anything like that? Might you have alterior motives of calling attention to yourself? Maybe you think it will help you get ahead of another candidate? Those might not be the most spiritual motives.

I think your PhD itself will make you a desirable candidate. Moreoever, I think you could talk about your history of growing up in poverty and foster homes as that shows grit, character and determinination to over come those things. All highly desirable qualities.

I think you can do a great sales job without mentioning your personal story of addiction and abuse.

 

[masterofmonkeys]

MOM, I'm not sure how someone could call a factually accurate reporting of a medical illness histrionic. (Unless the illness someone oozed beyond the essay and was the whole focus of your application, interview, and personal deportment.)

I listed all my ailments off in my first post in this thread. My application (for med school) also mentioned the fact that I rowed crew and was on the boxing club team. And I showed up for interviews stretching the seams of a size 48 suit coat (not fat).

When the person in front of you tells you they have atrophic nerve damage and struggles with every day tasks, yet his affected limb is larger than 95% of the population's (even if it's 1.5-2" smaller than the good limb...and 25-50% weaker..and orders of magnitude more fatiguable), i think it's only natural to have some skepticism about it.

 

[nancysinatra]

I listed all my ailments off in my first post in this thread. My application (for med school) also mentioned the fact that I rowed crew and was on the boxing club team. And I showed up for interviews stretching the seams of a size 48 suit coat (not fat).

When the person in front of you tells you they have atrophic nerve damage and struggles with every day tasks, yet his affected limb is larger than 95% of the population's (even if it's 1.5-2" smaller than the good limb...and 25-50% weaker..and orders of magnitude more fatiguable), i think it's only natural to have some skepticism about it.

But you said you intentionally underemphasized its severity. So what if you didn't look the part? If they didn't believe you even though you were telling the truth, that's a shortcoming on their part. Going around calling people histrionic when they're being truthful is not very nice, if you ask me. (It seems like not listening to a patient when they complain of a symptom...) Maybe as an application strategy it didn't work well, but that isn't histrionic either. That's just a bad strategy.

I don't doubt that they thought that about you, but it doesn't seem like it was fair. Med school admissions essays must be full of people's personal struggles with medical illnesses; why should you have to downplay yours just because you don't look like you have the disease?

 

[masterofmonkeys]

I don't doubt that they thought that about you, but it doesn't seem like it was fair. Med school admissions essays must be full of people's personal struggles with medical illnesses; why should you have to downplay yours just because you don't look like you have the disease?

It wasn't and isn't fair. There are maybe 5 or 10 people that know the full extent of what I've gone through and what I go through. Everyone else gets a very lightweight version (if they even ask). And yet, an ugly proportion of them believe I'm making it up or blowing it out of proportion.

And all I want to say to them is that I'm sorry I put the blood sweat and tears in the gym to be able to fake it as well as I do.

That said, fair or not, that's the situation we're in. To go back to Toby, I don't doubt for a second that he has become stronger from what he's been through, and that far from being a liability his experience with substance abuse has also made him both stronger as a person, and better equipped to understand the mindset of many of his future patients. Since as we all know, SES, family situation, and Substance abuse are some of the most important comorbidites and etiologic factors in psych. But teh truth is that's not how doctors will see it. Rightly or wrongly.

For years I wouldn't even tell people anythign was wrong with me because I knew they wouldn't believe it. I don't need people's pity or empathy because quite frankly it doesn't mean jack. But an ex (bless her) made the point that I've got a story to tell that can change the way people look at me, but more importantly how they look at themselves and their patients with similar ailments.

I think especially in medicine, we (largely healthy and well-adjusted individuals) have a tendency to see the limitations of disease and forget how strong the power we have over our own bodies is.

I've had doctors tell me I'd never play sports again (I did), that I couldn't escape surgery (I have so far..even shown improvement on serial MRI), and later on that I couldn't possibly be htat messed up until they saw the MRIs and did the EMG/NCVs. Which is why I felt the need to tell my story. How many of their patients have they dismissed, how limited do they think their patients' recoveries can be? How many people are living today who haven't maximized the capacities of their disabled bodies because their doctors and physical therapists didn't think they'd be capable of it, or because they didn't know how to direct them?

I think it's a condemnation of our profession that I had to develop my own rehab/PT protocols from first principles by reading the muscoloskeletal and neurophysiology textbooks myself. That's why it's important to the story of how I chose to become a doctor and how I ended up in psych.

Anyway /endrant.

 

[notdeadyet]

First, I think people might possibly be overestimating how much a great story brought up in a personal statement or even during the interview will really positively factor into the decision process.

Maybe it's done radically different in psychiatry, but most backstory is just that: it's backstory. It makes a nice conversational gambit, but as a potential employer, I would never base a hiring decision based on, "Well, this one says he's from the streets vs. this one that focused on running marathons.... Let's go with the kid from the streets."

BobA had it pretty right on:

First, remember that these people are seeking to hire an employee. The number one red flag that someone will struggle in residency is a history of being treated for addiction or alcoholism. Even if you think your history would increase your ability to empathsize, and be a better candidate than someone else, remember that an employer wants reliability first, and excellence second.

There are things from your history that have the potential to make you a great psychiatrist because it gives you cred or empathy. That might tickle the fancy of someone on their psych bone.

But things like a history of alcoholism, substance abuse, anger issues, etc. also tickle the risk management bone. It might help make you a better psychiatrist, or it might make you a potential disaster. For most employers, when it's a sellers market like it is at good psych programs, it would be hard to make a case to take the applicant that could be coming with some demonstrable risk when you're comparing him/her against someone without. Chances are the next guy might not be as good as you, but chances are he's 95% or more, and that's enough of a hit to take to avoid the risk factor.

Especially, I'd imagine, when the risk factor is something like substance abuse, which has a nasty habit of returning in environments a lot less stressful than a residency program.

Just my $0.02. To each their own. I think the best approach is to treat the residency application process like a job interview. Which it is. And I would never dream of willingly disclosing a past history of substance abuse (let alone dependence) to a potential employer. Bad idea. I can't imagine that helping you more than hurting you.

 

[toby jones]

> You are not applying in the US? That may change things a bit...

Yes, it might. My impression is that they are particularly interested in recruiting people for primary care, particularly in rural communities. There is a problem of the majority of junior doctors heading off overseas and coming across as very competitive and career oriented is likely to have them think I'm going to do a runner (as I probably am, truth be told).

As such, I thought they might be more focused on rural, the socio-culturally disadvantaged, ethnic minorities, and so on than your average US medical school. I could be wrong about this, though, I simply don't know.

> I agree with being discreet about what you reveal about past struggles. However some of what you've said here might be quite useful in the essay, such as the fact that you've experienced poverty and a foster home.

Yeah. Perhaps.

> I think in medicine people often don't know what to do with someone who has overcome a serious struggle.

I think that is probably right, too.

> So I can't say one way or another how the poverty you experienced growing up would sound to them

Yeah.

> Honestly, I think that the most quintessential essay in this genre usually describes how the writer witnessed someone ELSE'S struggles, felt moved to want to help them, acted on that in some way, and realized that through medicine, they could do more.

That is a nice suggestion. Thanks for getting me reflecting on that.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[toby jones]

> The number one red flag that someone will struggle in residency is a history of being treated for addiction or alcoholism.

I didn't mention either addiction or alchoholism (and I wouldn't). I felt I was using more than was optimal for me, I sought help, I now have ceased using drugs and feel (and others concurr) that my alcohol use is appropriate in the social context in which I engage in it.

> Even if you think your history would increase your ability to empathsize, and be a better candidate than someone else...

I suppose that is what is dubious really. I know from my own personal experience of seeing clinicians that some are able to use their experiences to help whereas the same experiences in others can get in the way of their helping. Sometimes when people overly identify with the client they project too much of their own personal stuff onto the client (assuming that the client has the same motivations that they did and the like) and perhaps generally becomming overinvolved and ultimately being at risk of burnout. Others are able to use their personal experiences to good effect, however. Conversely, some of the people who I have felt have helped me the most haven't been through anything remotely like I have (to the best of my knowledge) and yet their general sense of safety and security and ability to empathize with suffering more generally was enormously helpful.

So... I don't suppose that my experiences say anything one way or the other. So... Maybe it is best not to mention them. Because of potential red flags and... Well... I guess worst case for me would be their really delving into my past files rather than taking me on my merits and particularly what I've gone on to do in the last few years out of the service altogether.

> I'm not saying this to be mean, but just try to think about it from your future employers perspective.

I understand that and appreciate your honest opinion.

> Second, why the need to break your anonymity? Are they going to know about your h/o addiction/abuse from gaps in your record or anything like that?

I do have a three semesters of compassionate withdrawals on my transcript. They are listed as WD (withdrawn) but for one year prior to that and for every year after that (one part time year and then full time ever since) there haven't been any anomolies. It does make my early transcript look a little 'messy' and they might well ask about that. That was mostly time I spent in hospital (depression related / circumstances triggering trauma that I had never received any help with). Then I got back on track and have stayed on track. But they might well ask me what happened with those withdrawals and I need to say something.

Once they know I spent some time in hospital / receiving medical attention from the public service they might well be able to access my medical files. That will include such things as a listing of my prior drug and alchohol use history, yes.

> Might you have alterior motives of calling attention to yourself? Maybe you think it will help you get ahead of another candidate? Those might not be the most spiritual motives.

Just trying to get a place, yup. Same as everybody else in that respect, I guess. I'm also trying to reflect honestly on why it is that I'm drawn to medicine and the things that I think will assist me in being a doctor (though I'm aware that those very same things could serve as barriers to others).

Thanks for your response.

 

[toby jones]

I guess the thing I was grappling with is that everybody is going to say 'I want to do medicine because I want to help people'. So... Tell me more... What more can I say about that?

Reflecting honestly... What sprung to mind for me was how much of a difference caring people made in my life. For a time... The only caring people in my life were health professionals and it was something that helped me immesurably. Something that they will probably never know. I have experienced immense isolation and pain and I really want to do something concrete to assist others who are experiencing isolation and pain. While there are many health professions I want to do medicine because I think it would also be putting my academic skills to good use and it would continually provide a challenge for me. It is just figuring out how to convey this exactly... Only have one page for the statement and I'm not sure how much they will focus on aspects of the statement to set the agenda for the interview. But just here I said what was true in a way that wasn't as explicit as before, so maybe it is just about figuring out the appropriate level of abstraction vs concreteness. Part of what I was doing with my time off university was figuring out what I wanted to do (ended up with my dropping existentialist literature and education and picking up experimental psychology and social psychology, for instance).

> I would never base a hiring decision based on, "Well, this one says he's from the streets vs. this one that focused on running marathons.... Let's go with the kid from the streets."

Its not about that... Its just about WHY I want to be a doctor. I think... My intentions are good. It is just about figuring out how to convey that.

> But things like a history of alcoholism, substance abuse, anger issues...

I didn't mention any of those as problems. But I see how people might well jump to those kinds of conclusions. That is what I want to avoid, thats for sure.

> Especially, I'd imagine, when the risk factor is something like substance abuse, which has a nasty habit of returning in environments a lot less stressful than a residency program.

If I listened to the stats I wouldn't have bothered trying to finish high school.
If I listened to the stats I wouldn't have gone to university.
If I listened to the stats I wouldn't have bothered working hard at university even if I had gone.
If I listened to the stats I wouldn't have done a Masters Thesis.
If I listened to the stats I wouldn't have done a PhD.

I'm sick of the stats. The stats say that the stats haven't been so useful for predicting the future course of my life. There are a number of people who use drugs who don't seek help. Just because I did seek help should not lump me in with people who are living immersed in a drug using environment with little prospects for their future and the absence of caring healthy individuals to interact with.

No fair.

 

[toby jones]

So I guess that even though you did succeed in getting a place you wish you had approached things differently in hindsight. That is useful to me. I guess what I'm getting from this thread is that I do want to be careful about how much I disclose about personal details of my life. I'm applying to become a health professional (a peer ultimately) and it isn't appropriate for me to self disclose too much in the interview situation (or thereafter).

I started out doing a secondary education program (before I discovered a love of philosophy). Came across well in the interview, apparently, so guess I need to think of this as being more like that where one needs to be careful about the nature of the self disclosure while at the same time being honest about ones degree of committment and motivation.

I don't know of anything that is likely to impact on my ability to be a professional and competent clinician (anymore than I know of anything that is likely to impact on my ability to be a professional and competent academic - which isn't 'likely' in a statistical sense, perhaps, but one that is heartfelt at any rate). My performance will be assessed on a yearly basis so I can be confident that they won't allow me to practice if my professional abilities are variable or questionable. It isn't my job to assess that - it is theirs.

Push the academic line... Think about what to say about that time off (it was indeed partly about my questioning my choice of interests and becoming more interested in something more concretely oriented towards helping others). Now... The career change just seems to be another jump towards precisely the same thing.

Thanks people.

 

[notdeadyet]

> But things like a history of alcoholism, substance abuse, anger issues...

I didn't mention any of those as problems. But I see how people might well jump to those kinds of conclusions. That is what I want to avoid, thats for sure.

If you present a transcript that has several sets of withdrawals on it, and mention that you've been incarcerated and treated for substance use/abuse, I don't think the reader is going to make some of the fine distinctions you're hoping.

The stats say that the stats haven't been so useful for predicting the future course of my life.

No, but since the readers or your application do not know you, stats is a big part of what they have to go on.

If you come in as a career changer with a transcript with a lot of holes on, and tell stories of substance treatment, incarceration, and mental health issues, it's going to scare off many readers. This background might give you an excellent perspective for patients, but there are too many other qualified applicants. Taking a risk on you is not going to be in the best interest of many places.

Again, I'm rooting for you, I just think airing some of the stuff you are talking about airing will be shooting yourself in the foot. Just treat this like a job interview and you'll be fine. Don't treat it as anything more esoteric, because the folks on the other side of the desk won't be.

 

[toby jones]

I have never been in involved with or had trouble with the police, appeared before the courts, or been incarcirated. I don't see anything in what I've said that would lead you to believe that that had been the case.

My presence in a substance treatment program was entirely volountary and, I've not used drugs since around 1999. Not even at times of stress such as finding out my Father had three months to live or finding out my application to a place I really wanted to get in to was unsuccessful or times of great joy such as the successful completion of my Masters dissertation.

I guess it is important for me to see that people do jump to conclusions sometimes, and that I should indeed be very careful about what I say.

My transcript has never been questioned by academics (including with respect to gaining a place in what is objectively considered one of the top research programs programs in philosophy (considered equivalent of ivy league institutions in the US). They don't much care about a series of 'WD' (code - withdrawn from course) when it is surrounded by A+'s for the significant majority of courses with A- as the worst grade on the transcript. My break from courses was around 1998-2000 and that is a while ago now (and there have been no anomalies since). I've gone on to teach, research, and complete my own work to a high standard with no problems. I've shown an ability to do well in a variety of highly regarded institutions in three different countries around the world (including the US).

I guess it is about focusing on my academic strengths and focusing on my history of research as demonstrating my genuine interest. I suppose I need to face that some people will jump to conclusions about me on the basis of minimal information that triggers assumptions in their minds.

> Don't treat it as anything more esoteric, because the folks on the other side of the desk won't be.

I don't know... I think the culture might be different. They are particularly interested in finding friendly and caring health professionals. If I treat the whole thing as esoteric (too academic) that might well count against me.

 

[toby jones]

For better or worse multiple sources confirm that the national line on medical school recruitment is that:

>... Those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are also under-represented. There is a need for strategies to increase recruitment into medical schools from these groups.

Sweeeeeeeeeeeet. I've also realized that I have an academic contact in the school I'm looking into and that it is probably appropriate for me to let him know I'm going to apply and see what advice he might think to give me.

Thanks people.

 

[notdeadyet]

I have never been in involved with or had trouble with the police, appeared before the courts, or been incarcirated. I don't see anything in what I've said that would lead you to believe that that had been the case....
My presence in a substance treatment program was entirely volountary and, I've not used drugs since around 1999.

I went on to have issues (and treatment for) drug and alchohol issues and trauma related mental health issues (ability to empathize with / develop rapport with people who have drug / alchol issues, have experience with the department of corrections (have been in jail), ....

The incarcerated part comes from the "(have been in jail comment)". I took that to mean you, but I see that you meant your ability to empathize with people who have been. The parethesis inside the parenthesis made things confusing. At least to me. I've never been accused of being the sharpest blade in the pack.

The fact that the substance treatment was voluntary is fine, but I'd expect the reader to latch on to "substance treatment" and not put as much weight on the nuances as you might.

I guess it is important for me to see that people do jump to conclusions sometimes, and that I should indeed be very careful about what I say.

I don't think it's so much a "jumping to conclusions" as doing a fast read. And I'd expect folks to do a very fast read of your application as well. Which is why some of the things you drop can be damaging. They might seem like great assets when they're contextualized and put in perspective and reflected upon, but your reader is not going to have time to do much of these things.

 

[notdeadyet]

My transcript has never been questioned by academics (including with respect to gaining a place in what is objectively considered one of the top research programs programs in philosophy (considered equivalent of ivy league institutions in the US).

I don't know how it's done in academic graduate programs, but medical schools will definitely question a series of withdrawals. I can't stress that enough. That is definitely a red flag. It can certainly be explained and justified, but it will come up. I had two withdrawals in one semester on my transcript from when I changed majors and it was asked about at interviews.

They don't much care about a series of 'WD' (code - withdrawn from course) when it is surrounded by A+'s for the significant majority of courses with A- as the worst grade on the transcript.

Again, they will care at American medical schools. A+'s are wonderful (I've read about them) but when they are liberally sprinkled with semesters in which there are a bunch of W's, it brings up a question of consistency.

Some hold the logic that past performance is the best indication of future performance (which god knows isn't always true), and withdrawals in medical school are a nightmare for the school. There are only so many seats and the curriculum is so structured that it's not the loss of a semester or quarter, it's the loss of one year. One student seat is lost from a particular class and one student seat is lost from the next year's class by the returning student. I think that this is why they pay so much attention to it.

Again, not saying it's something that would keep anyone out of medical school, but thinking they will not pay attention to it would not be wise.

My break from courses was around 1998-2000 and that is a while ago now (and there have been no anomalies since).

Has you been a full-time student since 2000? If you have, and you had consistently high marks, this goes a long way towards reassuring the reader that what happened in 98-00 was an anomaly.

I guess it is about focusing on my academic strengths and focusing on my history of research as demonstrating my genuine interest.

Good strategy. And your application sounds a lot more developed and interesting than your average applicant, by far.

I suppose I need to face that some people will jump to conclusions about me on the basis of minimal information that triggers assumptions in their minds.

You keep repeating the "jump to conclusions" phrase. You seem irritated by people making assumptions based on a history of withdrawals or other black marks on your application. But you don't seem irritated by people making assumptions based on a history of A's (which you've mentioned).

Why is one"jumping to conclusions" and not the other? Making guesses about what a bad grade represents is just as valid/invalid as making guesses about what a good grade represents.

You're an application packet for much of the application process. Reviewers will need to take a look at that packet and judge if you'd be a good addition to their school. Making judgments based on what is in that packet may be "jumping to conclusions" but no more so than you'll find in any educational or professional process where the number of applicants greatly exceeds the number of slots.

I don't know... I think the culture might be different. They are particularly interested in finding friendly and caring health professionals. If I treat the whole thing as esoteric (too academic) that might well count against me.

Could be. My experience is only with the American system. That said, every international student I've met is how much they say that in the U.S. they really seem to focus on the "whole applicant" and how in their country it was much more about going to the right school, with the right major, with the right marks, etc. If there's a system that is more politically correct and goes more based on soft things than the U.S., I'd be curious to learn more about it.

 

[notdeadyet]

Anyway, best of luck in the process. Let us know how things turn out...

 

[toby jones]

Ah. I do see the ambiguity (in how I met people who have been in jail). Understandable. The thing with 'jumping to conclusions' is a matter of confirmation bias / self fulfilling prophecy. If you 'jump to conclusions' that someone is likely to do well then that makes it more likely that you will interact with them in a way and that they will internalize a conception of themself such that they will go on to do well. Conversely if you 'jump to conclusions that someone isn't likely to do well then that makes it more likely that you will interact with them in a way and that they will internalize a conception of themself such that they won't go on to do so well. So, yes, there is an asymmetry between the helpfulness and unhelpfulness of jumping to conclusions depending on the helpfulness or harmfulness of the conclusion that is jumped to. But, as I've said, I do see the ambiguity in what I said with respect to that comment at least.

Yeah, my WD's were in a cluster (three semesters in a row alongside TR for transfer from a Bachelor of Arts to a Bachelor of Social Science and then back again) after my first year and since my return (one year part time then full time ever since) my transcript is impecable. I've even done extra things such as summer school research etc etc and everything has gone just fine. I agree that they are likely to ask me about those withdrawals, though, and I do need to have something appropriate to say about them.

> If there's a system that is more politically correct and goes more based on soft things than the U.S., I'd be curious to learn more about it.

I'm talking about the New Zealand / Australian system.
They seem to think it is a virtue if the medical student population is a reflection of the population as a whole along certain dimensions:

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/116-1183/626/

 

[toby jones]

The basic issue is that there is currently a shortage of doctors who are willing to work in primary care (and mental health) in rural communities. Working in a rural community often means that you are dealing with higher rates of economically disadvantaged members of a significant minority cultural group (Maaori - where NZ considers it has a particular duty to assist the Maaori population under the Treaty of Waitangi). This population has higher rates of drug and alchohol abuse and mental health disorders in particular. There is a concern that foreign doctors are not well qualified (culturally or experientially) to work with such a population.

As such: They seem to be prioritizing applicants (who meet basic standards) who are Maaori, are economically disadvantaged, and / or who are from rural communities. The thought seems to be that while it is unlikely that even these applicants will go on to want to work in primary or mental health in a rural community such applicants are MORE LIKELY to want to than applicants who are from the cultural majority, have wealthy backgrounds, and are used to living in an urban centre. The thought is that their personal experience will make them better suited to such a role than applicants who lack such experience and that seeing what a difference you can make might pull you around.

I'm open to being pulled around... But I do think it is most likely that I'll join the majority of junior doctors in NZ in moving to Australia (qualification directly transferable) for better pay (even better with the exchange rate) and the lovely urban centres. Still, mentioning my socioeconomic background, experience of Maaori carers and experience interacting with people who have experienced mental illness, drug and alchohol abuse issues, and trouble with the authorities might be likely to count in my favor.

Very different from the US...

I guess I'm seeing that now.

But still... Appropriateness (and the absence of red flags) is indeed the key. Thanks for the input, guys. I'll be sure to follow this up with someone I trust who has experience of the NZ system.

 

[notdeadyet]

The basic issue is that there is currently a shortage of doctors who are willing to work in primary care (and mental health) in rural communities.

Yes, it's a big issue here in the U.S. as well.

As such: They seem to be prioritizing applicants (who meet basic standards) who are Maaori, are economically disadvantaged, and / or who are from rural communities. The thought seems to be that while it is unlikely that even these applicants will go on to want to work in primary or mental health in a rural community such applicants are MORE LIKELY to want to than applicants who are from the cultural majority, have wealthy backgrounds, and are used to living in an urban centre.

Many med schools in the states have this same strategy. Some schools have specific requirements for applicants who are willing to participate in programs gearing them towards providing services to rural areas; at my school, for instance, participants are required to do a fair number of their clinical clerkships in rural communities. And during the admissions process, the idea is that folks from these backgrounds are more likely to serve in these areas.

This is also true of schools that have programs with urban focus programs. They like to recruit students of the background of their urban underserved population.

Still, mentioning my socioeconomic background, experience of Maaori carers and experience interacting with people who have experienced mental illness, drug and alchohol abuse issues, and trouble with the authorities might be likely to count in my favor.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. It will make you a stronger candidate here in the States as well.

But saying that you have experience working with a population and sympathizing with their plight because you've live amongst them is one thing. It's an asset. Saying that you have suffered from the pathologies that plague these communities experience (substance abuse, mental illness) is a different thing altogether and one that would have the potential to blow up in your face. I can't imagine that in Aus/NZ it wouldn't also be loaded with risk. The nature of substance abuse and mental illness recurring is not culture-specific, so it will be a concern for adcoms anywhere. Not saying that it's a huge risk in your case, it may all be completely and well behind you, but the people looking at your application don't know you.

No one is objecting to your mentioning your background or cultural experience, it's the personal experience with some of the pathologies that you share that would be dicey.

Very different from the US...

I guess I'm seeing that now.

No, to be honest it looks like it's almost exactly the same here. A lot of applicants push their desire to serve the medically underserved communities in a primary care context. They think it sets them apart and is what med schools are looking for.

The latter is true, the former not so much. I interview applicants for my school, and I would guess that a full 1/2 of the applicants push their desire to serve the underserved as a PCP, yet I know that realistically a good portion of them will fight as hard they can to avoid doing so once it comes time to apply for residencies. Such is the nature of the game.

I think your application, if you have some real-world experience, preferrably clinical, with this population, you'll have a great hook to your application. I just wouldn't share issues of drug use and mental illness. Not much to gain and very much to lose.

 

[toby jones]

> But saying that you have experience working with a population and sympathizing with their plight because you've live amongst them is one thing. It's an asset. Saying that you have suffered from the pathologies that plague these communities experience (substance abuse, mental illness) is a different thing altogether and one that would have the potential to blow up in your face.

Yes. I can hear the difference. Emphasis on the former and de-emphasis on the latter so red flags are less likely to be raised (once again, I don't think my history is going to prove problematic; those issues haven't caused me functional impairment for a number of years; my current clinician (self development) is supportive of my decision; I'm confident that they will be assessing my performance every step of the way). I'm applying for a chance and need to de-emphasize their taking a chance on me. Thanks very much. Appreciate your time.

 

[notdeadyet]

No worries. Best of luck and do let us all know how it turns out in the end...

 

[nancysinatra]

Toby, can you get advising from someone at home who's familiar with the situation in NZ?

notdeadyet -- my school loves nothing more than to give students short term leave for just about any reason at all, at least in the clinical years.

"I'd expect the reader to latch on to "substance treatment" and not put as much weight on the nuances as you might."

I got more comments about the nuances of my PS for med school and residency than I can remember, and I mentioned some rough things in them. Readers at quality programs are certainly paying attention. If they have doubts, they can re-read. In psych, some people actually like to read.

A "quick read" is no excuse for misunderstanding facts in an application. Toby has explained his situation well; he is applying to medical school which is different from residency and yet people are advising him like a residency or job applicant (who was once in jail--which I did not think! He was being succinct was all!) Toby--that's why I'm saying to talk to someone in NZ. ARE you applying straight into med school and psychiatry at the same time?

Because if not, you can relax a bit. This anti-disclosure of everything attitude is largely a residency and especially a psychiatry thing. I'm not saying you shouldn't be discreet (I still maintain: no mention of psych problems), but worrying about WDs heralding a future of drug abuse or whatever--come on, people may have some trepidation, but with your excellent record since, it's less likely.

Also, when applying to med school you need to sound like you have enthusiasm and idealism, and are not merely a robotic drone who has learned what to say and how to say it to everyone so as to whitewash whatever makes you unique and appear maximally "employable." The PS--even the backstory--it can matter. Especially if your country is recruiting people with your background!

I have the impression medicine in Australia/NZ is a bit more humanistic? That could be grossly wrong it's just my impression from some people I know. I applied for med school in Sydney and kind of wish I'd gone!

Well, good luck!

 

[nancysinatra]

Actually, there was a recent NY Times article about how in Sweden, a convicted murderer is among the medical students at Upsala University. This is actually considered controversial in that country. There are students who are hugely embarrassed, and others who are DEFENDING his enrollment, saying, well, he has paid for his crime and deserves to pursue his education.

I bring this up because attitudes about who is qualified to pursue medicine vary greatly from country to country. If people want I will look for the link. But we should not advice Toby so heavily with US-centered views when we do not know that much about the place he is applying to. We could give him wrong advice.

 

[notdeadyet]

notdeadyet -- my school loves nothing more than to give students short term leave for just about any reason at all, at least in the clinical years.

Taking time off because you want to do an MPH or somesuch is one thing. Dropping out in the middle of third year due to relapsing of a private issue is another.

If a school anticipates that you will have a problem getting through your first two years of academics because you can not handle the load for outside reasons (such as for reasons of mental health and substance use), that will be a black mark. This is not a controversial point. It's just how things work.

The only issue really up for debate is whether or not folks in med school admissions would see a student with a past history of mental health issues and substance abuse issues as something positive or negative. From my personal experience, it won't help nearly as much as it will hurt.

I got more comments about the nuances of my PS for med school and residency than I can remember, and I mentioned some rough things in them.

If your nuances are "I had a tough time growing up" or "I had trouble fitting in with my colleagues" or "I was a victim of ____", that is one thing. If your nuances are along the lines of, "I had to withdraw from college several times due to reasons of substance use and/or mental health issues", that's another.

Again, to each their own. Maybe there are a couple of medical schools that would like say, "Wow, this person is laying it all out there! I respect that!" But to pretend that it would be more of an asset than a liability, I think, is just plain wrong. It would sink many more applications than it would save. Tossing out all sorts of personal details is fine, but tossing out any that might give the impression that you might struggle with medical school is just bad strategy.

Toby has explained his situation well; he is applying to medical school which is different from residency and yet people are advising him like a residency or job applicant.

And that's why so many people have problems with medical school admissions: they treat it like an extension of undergrad. It's not.

Medical schools want very much to attract professional people who are not going to do terrible things in a clinical environment. They are looking for people in whom they can literally entrust lives. Anyone who approaches the process expecting different and softer treatment than when they apply for a job is in for heartache and a very quick reality check when they arrive. You always get a handful of students expecting to be treated with kid gloves and the coddling they received in undergrad and then get a dose of cold water when they come to learn that they are expected to be at least as professional as anyone earning a paycheck at the hospital.

But not interested in getting into a debate. Toby was looking for advice on how much to disclose on applying. My view (and that of many people) is that just about anything is fine, not to include drug use and mental health issues. The rest of his approach looks very solid; bringing personal history of drugs and mental health into it would be a shame for the doors it might close.

 

[VMSmith]

Honestly, if you can express yourself and convey your ideas in your application essays and in your interviews as you do on SDN, I think you will be in excellent shape to get into med school. A lot of people don't have the slightest clue why they want to go to med school (I certainly didn't when I applied) but you definitely do.

 

[nancysinatra]

Taking time off because you want to do an MPH or somesuch is one thing. Dropping out in the middle of third year due to relapsing of a private issue is another.
...

But not interested in getting into a debate. Toby was looking for advice on how much to disclose on applying. My view (and that of many people) is that just about anything is fine, not to include drug use and mental health issues. The rest of his approach looks very solid; bringing personal history of drugs and mental health into it would be a shame for the doors it might close.

Don't worry, I had no interest in debating you either. And I too agreed about not mentioning drugs and mental health issues. But you are going on an on about this point, as if Toby was ignoring your advice, when in fact he has shown a very reasonable response, and has asked valid questions. You are just one person. Your advice seems excellent; I'm sure anyone would appreciate it. But surely there are other good viewpoints as well. In New Zealand the views may also differ. How exactly can your one viewpoint, with its apparent great interest in "red flags" be the only viewpoint a person should consider? I pointed out that in Sweden a murderer is in medical school (which is horrible, no doubt)--apparently in that country someone did not consult you in the admissions process.

And by the way, "relapses" of medical problems are an ok reason to "drop out" at my school. Drugs and alcohol, fine, that would raise alarm bells. But blanket statements about withdrawing because of any "private issues" huh? What if your whole family died?

 

[notdeadyet]

And I too agreed about not mentioning drugs and mental health issues.

Then to be honest, nancy, I don't know what you're going on about? You seem to have an awful lot of objections when you're in agreement.

But you are going on an on about this point, as if Toby was ignoring your advice

No, we were just discussing it. Toby didn't seem to be getting irate (if I read our discussion wrong, Toby, my apologies). I think we were just talking. No big whoop, all grown-ups, and no one seemed to be getting upset.

I pointed out that in Sweden a murderer is in medical school (which is horrible, no doubt)--apparently in that country someone did not consult you in the admissions process.

And if they had, I'd've also recommended that they not make the murder the subject of their personal statement. If this makes me overly concerned with "red flags", so be it, but you'd have to be foolish to not understand that it would be risky. Not to say it can't be done. You can make your love of torturing small animals and the titillating smell of death the subject of your personal statement and possibly succeed, but there's an undeniable element of risk. You have to weigh that against the potential benefit.

And by the way, "relapses" of medical problems are an ok reason to "drop out" at my school. Drugs and alcohol, fine, that would raise alarm bells. But blanket statements about withdrawing because of any "private issues" huh? What if your whole family died?

Anything in your application that gives reason for schools to think you won't be able to finish medical school is negative. That's all I mean. No judgment here. Going through a list of "what if your family was murdered" and "what if there's a plane crash" is kind of off-point. I'm a little surprised with your thinking of students not finishing on timeline; last week you made a pretty firm statement that residencies will "wash their hands of an application with a GAP in it."

You have a lot of great ideas, nancysinatra, but you seem to sometimes be kinda spoiling for an argument. I was just trying to give Toby some advice (which he solicited) on how med schools might react to what he was talking about mentioning on his personal statement. I read applications for my med school and was just giving my $0.02. Which you seem to agree with but still want to argue about?

Not interested in the debate thing. It's time consuming and non-productive. I'll drop off the thread.

Toby- if you have any questions or want to bounce any more ideas, please feel free to PM me. If you're interested in seeing if the perspective of med school admissions is significantly different in Australia or New Zealand, you might check out this SDN forum (if you haven't already). It's not particularly high traffic, but you might stumble upon something. Do keep in mind that a lot of these forums are made up primarily of fellow applicants and med school hopefuls seem over-represented by type-A personalities, so make sure whoever is giving you advice has some experience and is not just tossing out theories. And again, best of luck with your application. You're going to stand out from the crowd in a good way.

 

[nancysinatra]

You have a lot of great ideas, nancysinatra, but you seem to sometimes be kinda spoiling for an argument. I was just trying to give Toby some advice (which he solicited) on how med schools might react to what he was talking about mentioning on his personal statement. I read applications for my med school and was just giving my $0.02. Which you seem to agree with but still want to argue about?

That's not true at all. We've had some disagreements, which led to good debate, but that does not mean I'm spoiling for an argument. I probably did make that last post overly hostile, because I was offended, and I'm sorry. To clarify, in the other thread, I was making an inflated argument (about residencies, a different matter) somewhat in jest. In this thread, I would like to help Toby, and I think the more viewpoints he hears from the better, but the closer they are to the NZ reality, the better. You know? The truth is in America we have certain stigmas. Let's not pretend they're anything other than that. Not every person who has a WD or a SA history in their distant past is a TRUE risk of relapsing or not finishing med school. But a US med school will flag that AS a risk. Ok, but I don't know what a NZ med school will do. And that's why it irks me to generalize about "red flags." The fact is, some countries believe in the ability of people to be completely rehabilitated. And some do not. The US is one that seems to not. Red flagging of applications is kind of a sign of that. I say this sincerely. It is a TRUE cultural difference. I'm not trying to start an argument, just warn against advising someone from a different country using too much of our own experiences.

And again, best of luck with your application. You're going to stand out from the crowd in a good way.

On those things we are in agreement. Toby, I didn't mean to take over your thread, and I do wish you the best of luck, and I hope this is well, if not helpful, interesting enough to lead TO some other post that IS helpful... Notdeadyet has experience that is useful and I would (despite the above ;-) ) take it to heart! We'll follow your very positive progress of course!

 

[nancysinatra]

Anything in your application that gives reason for schools to think you won't be able to finish medical school is negative. That's all I mean. No judgment here.

This is not only judgmental despite your choice of words, but may be illegal. You are not allowed to discriminate just because you feel like it. I don't know all the laws as they apply to, say, people applying to medical school who happen to have physical disabilities, but I definitely know that you can't discriminate just because someone's religious tradition, oh, say, prevents them from taking tests on a certain day of the week when it might inconvenience the medical school. At a stodgy enough school, yes, this COULD be used as grounds to say, "you aren't going to 'finish' med school." And uhhh, it's illegal. I'm pretty sure.

I am not saying this to argue, but because it is appalling and horrible to think that certain groups of people should be kept out of medicine because of the views of people on adcoms (even students) who aren't in the mood to make accommodations that have been written into law.

And now in all decency I really will go away from this thread ;-)

 

[nancysinatra]

...

 

[notdeadyet]

This is not only judgmental despite your choice of words, but may be illegal. You are not allowed to discriminate just because you feel like it.

Don't mean to continue this, but just so folks don't walk away with the impression that I or my med school illegally discriminate...

There is very specific laws about what constitutes illegal discrimination and what doesn't. Anyone who conducts interviews at a public medical school goes through training for this (and probably for the privates, too).

Anytime people interview for an opportunity with more applicants than slots, discrimination occurs by definition. You discriminate against the applicants you think are less qualified. This is both legal and ethical. You also discriminate when you choose which sandwich to buy at Togo's.

But there is illegal discrimination, when you discriminate based on race, religion, etc.

For disability, you can not discriminate against an applicant based on their handicap if they could fulfill the duties of the job with "reasonable accommodation". In other words, you couldn't not offer a seat to a paraplegic in medical school based on their handicap, because they could still do the job with reasonable accommodations. Of course, what gets tricky (because it's intentionally vague) is what constitutes "reasonable accommodation".

I don't know all the laws as they apply to, say, people applying to medical school who happen to have physical disabilities, but I definitely know that you can't discriminate just because someone's religious tradition, oh, say, prevents them from taking tests on a certain day of the week when it might inconvenience the medical school. At a stodgy enough school, yes, this COULD be used as grounds to say, "you aren't going to 'finish' med school." And uhhh, it's illegal. I'm pretty sure.

Yes, it would be illegal. That person's religious beliefs could be easily accommodated. I think most schools, for instance, intentionally schedule tests around Jewish holy days and those that don't make accommodations for it.

The core competencies for most schools are laid out. They list a lot of academic requirements ("Demonstrates knowledge of genetics and how it impacts prenatal counseling") as well as a lot of softer skills ("Demonstrates strong work ethic in the classroom and on rotations").

So it is decidedly not illegal to not choose an applicant because you feel they have aspects of their personality that would not allow them to finish medical school or complete it successfully. If this applicant is "disabled" and can still fulfill these requirements with reasonable accommodations, that can't factor in the decision.

But if the interviewer feels an applicant won't succeed in med school (unless the reasons are covered under a protected category such as race, religion, disability, age, etc.), it is considered legal and ethical to not choose this applicant.

So I just wanted to clear this up: choosing against an applicant because you don't think they have what it takes to succeed in medical school may be judgmental (as is also the Togo's dilema), but is definitely not illegal. It is not discriminating "just because you feel like it". It is choosing who you think is the best applicant for the job.

(Incidentally, none of this is particularly relevant to Toby's situation, which is why I didn't want to get in to this. I thought not choosing an applicant because you didn't think they would succeed in med school would be fairly non-controversial. Since the idea was called judgmental and illegal, I wanted to clear this up. Though this is exactly the kind of debate I wanted to avoid. Lesson learned....)

 

[nancysinatra]

I didn't accuse anyone of discriminating, just to clarify THAT, now that this thread has completely deteriorated. It is not MY fault that the sentence:

"Anything in your application that gives reason for schools to think you won't be able to finish medical school is negative"

appeared in this thread, in the context of withdrawals and time frames for finishing first and second year. It is a provocative sentence that certainly raises eyebrows, especially, now that I think about it, among women of childbearing age. Interestingly, the poster who WROTE that sentence was drawing attention to the OP's every written word, including chiding the OP for ambiguity over a possible past stint in jail.

I will now be true to my word and never post again in this thread, as unbelievable as that may sound. I am only suggesting that the person who posted the sentence above should take a dose of their own medicine--if applicants should take care with their written demeanor and avoid unflattering or concerning ambiguities, so should student adcom members, as it would behoove them to appear professional and in compliance.

And at this time I hope this thread will return to its original purpose.

 

[notdeadyet]

I didn't accuse anyone of discriminating

This is not only judgmental despite your choice of words, but may be illegal. You are not allowed to discriminate just because you feel like it.

That read exactly like your saying it was discriminatory. If there is ambiguity, I didn't see it. My apologies if it's there and I missed it (wouldn't be the first time). If you re-read the thread, you might see how I became confused.

It is not MY fault that the sentence:

"Anything in your application that gives reason for schools to think you won't be able to finish medical school is negative"

appeared in this thread, in the context of withdrawals and time frames for finishing first and second year.

No, please re-read the thread. This sentence was not in the context of withdrawals and timelines. The above sentence meant exactly what it said: about not being able to finish med school. I had been posting about dropping out of med school and not finishing. I even specifically mentioned it was diffferent from taking time off (for an MPH, was an example I used). The comment about following timeline was mentioned in a later sentence.

It is a provocative sentence that certainly raises eyebrows, especially, now that I think about it, among women of childbearing age.

No, pregnancy is a protected category also included in discrimination laws. And like an MPH (and personally, I think having kids probably does more for your abilities as a physician than an MPH would), it is related to time off, not dropping out.

Interestingly, the poster who WROTE that sentence was drawing attention to the OP's every written word, including chiding the OP for ambiguity over a possible past stint in jail.

I mentioned I was confused due to parenthesis. He'd have to have pretty thin skin to feel chided by that.

I'm not picking apart any of your comments, opinions or philosophies. And I do promise not to get into debates. All I'm doing here now is trying to stop inaccurate paraphrasing and misrepresentations of what I've said. Help a guy out here.

And at this time I hope this thread will return to its original purpose.

We agree!

 

[nancysinatra]

That read exactly like your saying it was discriminatory. If there is ambiguity, I didn't see it. My apologies if it's there and I missed it (wouldn't be the first time). If you re-read the thread, you might see how I became confused.

No. Since we do not have the subjunctive tense in English, I could not say it in quite the way I wanted, but the "may be" is critical to MY sentence. And "you are not allowed to" is not the same as "you are doing." If you want you can pick apart my sentence like I have done with yours, but please do it at the grammatical level, and prove how I have "accused" you of discriminating. I have only said that your sentence makes it sound like you MAY NOT PROPERLY CONDEMN discrimination as would behoove a member of an adcom. In other words, your sentence implies you are condoning it. That's really bad.

No, please re-read the thread. This sentence was not in the context of withdrawals and timelines. The above sentence meant exactly what it said: about not being able to finish med school. I had been posting about dropping out of med school and not finishing.

The larger context, where you definitely talk about withdrawals and returning students. Also you seemed to be expanding that context with your now notorious sentence.

Help a guy out here.

Ok. We can be friends again. Especially now that I have proven myself incapable of not posting in this thread ever again...we'll HAVE to get along.

MODERATORS: Can the argument part of this thread maybe be moved away from the original part of the thread?

 

[notdeadyet]

And "you are not allowed to" is not the same as "you are doing." If you want you can pick apart my sentence like I have done with yours, but please do it at the grammatical level, and prove how I have "accused" you of discriminating.

Sigh... "John shouldn't be such an *****hole" doesn't grammatically mean that you think John is such an *****hole, but that is the meaning most of us take away.

I have only said that your sentence makes it sound like you MAY NOT PROPERLY CONDEMN discrimination as would behoove a member of an adcom. In other words, your sentence implies you are condoning it. That's really bad.

Gotta be honest, nancysinatra, I think you may be the only person who could read what I wrote and feel that I'm somehow guilty of not condemning discrimination. I went so far as to help define what discrimination is and outline what rights are protected by law. I support that. But med schools who respect those rights while looking for applicants will succeed in med school does not meet the definition of discrimination. By law and ethics.

And incidentally, I'm not an adcom member. I read applications/interview applicants. Not on an adcom.

The larger context, where you definitely talk about withdrawals and returning students.

No, you're confused. When I was speaking about withdrawals to Toby, I indicated that he'd be wise to have an explanation. You need to be able to let adcoms see that it's something isolated and will not impact your ability to be a successful medical student and not drop out.

Also you seemed to be expanding that context with your now notorious sentence.

Notorious? Jeeze...

I'm trying hard to think how you might be reading it, to hear something I'm not:

"Anything in your application that gives reason for schools to think you won't be able to finish medical school is negative."

I'm trying to read it with emphasis on different words I'm saying it in an angry voice while thumping a table top. I'm doing it with a really bad Kiwi accent (out of respect to Toby, I suppose). And I'm just not coming up with an interpretation that sounds discriminatory, insulting, unfair, or (least of all) notorious.

Residency programs will look for folks who will be successful residents. Employers will look for people who will be successful employees. It's a life thing. In all cases, people who drop out and don't finish are not successful. I'm sorry if this doesn't gel with your philosophy or even your personal experience.

 

[notdeadyet]

MODERATORS: Can the argument part of this thread maybe be moved away from the original part of the thread?

This is the second time you've made this request in two weeks in threads I've been on. I'll make a point to not disagree with any of your points, as frankly it opens this Pandora's box where I feel I have to keep coming to back to make corrections when I cringe at misinterpretations you've made over something I've said.

It doesn't matter if I write in an unclear, confused way and you make therefore understandably inappropriate interpretations or if I write clearly and you just make confused interpretations. The back and forth as I try to correct things you've said about me or my posts is a bad time suck for me (and presumably you) and doesn't contribute anything to the forum.

So how about it? I won't comment on your ideas, suggestions or posts (which I've avoided doing since the last debate on the other thread). I would never ask you to do the same, but since the people I'm making posts to don't seem to take any offense, please make sure you have a strong handle on what I've said to someone else before you go off about my quick-readin', murderer-non-acceptin', Toby-tearin', timeline-fearin', discrimination-lovin', maybe-illegal, subjunctive-lackin' ways...

Sound good? And just to be clear, since I apparently have problems with that, the last part of the last sentence was a joke (not "Sounds good?", the one before it). It also does not reflect the opinions of any med school or admissions committee...

 

[toby jones]

It is becoming clearer to me that these kinds of issues (depending on how they are cast) have the potential to polarize or divide a comittee. As such I really do need to put some thought into both how I'm going to present them and also how much I'm going to present.

It is interesting to me that there is accomodation for religious (ie Jewish) holidays in the US system. The university I'm applying to (at least) is very upfront in stating that no provision will be made for this in the medical program. I guess the thought is that people don't stop being sick on holy days and that as such doctors need to and are required to work through them.

There are a few people I know who have trained in the Australasian system who I can talk to about my application. One is an academic contact and I suppose it is possible that he could be on the interview committee. As such, I'd be reluctant to talk to him or ask him about these issues though I do think it would be worth me informing him that I am going to apply and asking for any advice he might care to give me. Another is someone who trained at that institution who is now professor of general practice at a university I'm not applying to. He knows a little about my history so I suppose I'd feel happier talking to him about how to cast things. I have some reservations about how supportive he would be about this. I've mentioned to him before that I was thinking of applying and he tried to dissuade me. I do think that he might change if I tell him that I've thought hard about it and really decided that this is what I want to do, however. I think his reservations are more about his thinking of me as an academic and thinking that I wouldn't enjoy the patient or practical aspect. While I know him more personally (and academically) than professionally he might (possibly) write me a reference - which, I'm sure, would go a long way since he is involved in the selection of applicants at a university that I'm not applying to. The third is my current therapist who works (part time at least) training p-docs. He is supportive, but doesn't have experience of the NZ system in particular. Part of this was about my thinking he might be a good reference (if he didn't think it was crossing a patient-clinician boundary) and that his opinion of my being well suited to medicine would go a long way (since I've been in therapy with him for a few years now and he has certainly seen me at my worst over the last few years - which admittedly is nothing compared to my worst before I started working with him).

Anyway, I've got a lot out of this thread. Thanks for playing (so to speak). I guess I was expecting more people to try and dissuade me from even applying. Maybe the people who thought that my history made me unsuitable simply didn't respond (thinking that attempting to dissuade me wouldn't really come to any good). But I do see that these issues have the potential to divide and I really don't want that to be something that is an issue. Thanks.

 

[nancysinatra]

This is the second time you've made this request in two weeks in threads I've been on. I'll make a point to not disagree with any of your points, as frankly it opens this Pandora's box where I feel I have to keep coming to back to make corrections when I cringe at misinterpretations you've made over something I've said.

It doesn't matter if I write in an unclear, confused way and you make therefore understandably inappropriate interpretations or if I write clearly and you just make confused interpretations. The back and forth as I try to correct things you've said about me or my posts is a bad time suck for me (and presumably you) and doesn't contribute anything to the forum.

So how about it? I won't comment on your ideas, suggestions or posts (which I've avoided doing since the last debate on the other thread). I would never ask you to do the same, but since the people I'm making posts to don't seem to take any offense, please make sure you have a strong handle on what I've said to someone else before you go off about my quick-readin', murderer-non-acceptin', Toby-tearin', timeline-fearin', discrimination-lovin', maybe-illegal, subjunctive-lackin' ways...

Sound good? And just to be clear, since I apparently have problems with that, the last part of the last sentence was a joke (not "Sounds good?", the one before it). It also does not reflect the opinions of any med school or admissions committee...

Huh? What is wrong with you? I asked to change this out of this thread for totally different reasons, in this case because it is taking over poor Toby's thread and in the other thread because it wasn't related to psychiatry. For the record, in the other thread, you never bothered to READ the early part of the thread and therefore you misunderstood my reason for posting IN the thread which started our debate in the first place.

I am really starting to question your reasoning abilities. I wondered about them in the last debate as well. You repeat yourself ad nauseum, never budging an inch from whatever poorly articulated claim you lay out in paragraph 1 of your pompous screed, never presenting new ideas.

Maybe people misinterpret you because you bungle your use of English, and maybe I am the only one bold enough to call you on it. If this results in less posting from you, all the better.

Oh, and BTW, I would gladly have let this drop and chalked it up to a simple misunderstanding since I know you didn't mean for anyone to read your sentence the way I did. But your personal attacks on me are unfounded. You come across as smug, you write like a windbag, and you never did provide a critique of my sentence. I bet you don't even know what the subjunctive tense is.

Oh, AND, you misunderstood Toby's earlier claim about jail. It was YOU. It wasn't about "parantheses." It was clear all along and you just didn't get it.

 

[toby jones]

I think this thread has run its course. Thanks for the advice people, it has given me much to think about.

 

[2tall]

I think this thread has run its course. Thanks for the advice people, it has given me much to think about.

 

[notdeadyet]

Thanks for the advice people, it has given me much to think about.

You'll do great. Schools really do seem to celebrate diversity. Don't know about Australia/NZ, but they really do like folks who do not fit the mold of the typical A-type, 21 year old science major. I think you'll hear great things.

nancysinatra- do not send me any more PMs, please. Thank you.

 

[nancysinatra]

Toby--talking to each of those people, in the ways you mentioned, sounds like a great place to start. Definitely keep your history private when speaking to the people who are involved in the program. I'm not sure having your therapist write a letter of recommendation is a good idea--for anyone, it might be a bad idea. Could you get letters from your academic supervisors?

A good idea is to write up a few different versions of your essay, and then have trusted people read them. Also, the three people you just mentioned--perhaps they can recommend others you could meet with? Keep your enthusiasm up as you meet with each of them so they'll be as convinced as you are that you're making the right decision!

Don't worry about people being "polarized." That's just a personal spat we are having, unfortunately. I am personally very sorry for getting into that on your thread.

notdeadyet--don't send me any more PMs either. I haven't read the last 2.

 

[notdeadyet]

You come across as smug, you write like a windbag, and you never did provide a critique of my sentence. I bet you don't even know what the subjunctive tense is.

God help me, I can't resist. I was keeping my mouth shut out of courtesy, because, hey, who wants to be a grammar cop? But though I bit my tongue before, since you're mentioning it again, the English teacher in me has to say that your claim that English doesn't have a subjunctive form is incorrect.

English DOES have a subjunctive form. It's easy. It's always the root infinitive and isn't conjugated (except for "be", also has a past subjunctive). It's used to indicate events that may not happen. For instance, in the sentence bellow, the bolded word is the subjunctive tense.

"It's necessary that every applicant apply early"

notdeadyet--don't send me any more PMs either. I haven't read the last 2.

Those were replies to your three unsolicited PMs, nancysinatra. Don't go misleading folks now....

I'm off...

 

[nancysinatra]

God help me, I can't resist. I was keeping my mouth shut out of courtesy, because, hey, who wants to be a grammar cop? But your claim that English doesn't have a subjunctive form is incorrect.

English DOES have a subjunctive form. It's easy. It's always the root infinitive and isn't conjugated (except for "be", also has a past subjunctive). It's used to indicate events that may not happen. For instance, in the sentence bellow, the bolded word is the subjunctive tense.

"It's necessary that every applicant apply early"

Those were replies to your three unsolicited PMs, nancysinatra. Don't go misleading folks now....

I'm off...

Were I to respond to your 2 unsolicited PMs, using the subjunctive, which, yes, I do know exists somewhat in English, I would explain that you are misleading folks because I only sent you 2 unsolicited diplomatic PMs, the same number you sent me. It's necessary that I clear up this little point of confusion you have sown.

Why don't we stop this now. It's quite unpleasant and I'm sure that were I to meet you in person I would prefer not to fight with you.