D
deleted407021
I'm not sure if one system produces better doctors than another and I'm equally unsure about what metrics one would use to determine such a thing. I was referring exclusively to our system in regards to how it works and made no statements regarding how good a system it is.On the converse, there are plenty of countries that don't require all this hoopla and produce pretty damn good doctors from students that apply while they're in high school. This delayed decision making, lots of hoops, 'experiences' etc., are mostly an American thing.
The english system combines 2 years of undergrad (preclinical) with 3 years of clinicals. Last I checked, England has a history of training damn good doctors.
While I often drink the kool aid and have done a lot of stuff personally related to medicine due to my own interests, you cannot discount the influence and power that undergrad institutions and lobbying groups wield when it comes to post-graduate study. There are a lot of ways that work. I'm not even sure if our system trains better doctors, more empathetic doctors, or what have you. It just trains doctors that are necessarily older when they finish their training.
Even our current system produces some a-hole doctors, sure that doesn't mean it's not valid, but show me how it's better than that in other countries. I haven't seen any data to support this. We just have a crap ton more money here due to our system (salary included) and our students have an insane amount of debt when they finally graduate from school.
I think you are misreading my post. I was referring to what is expected of a competitive applicant while also agreeing that compassion isn't necessarily part of the formula for being a competent physician, which is a point you make. I do, however, think that it is an important faculty within a good physician as someone who's professional life revolves around treating the sick and injured would most definitely benefit from an altruistic nature, as would his or her patients. My overall point was that volunteering and ECs are evidence to adcoms of the altruism they believe - and I think rightly so - to be important in a successful med student as well as evidence of the other skills I mentioned in my post. While volunteering ≠ altruism, non volunteering absolutely ≠ altruism either.I'm having trouble moving past this part. How on earth is this not about being competent physician? If the process is rewarding those who check a bunch of boxes because that's what adcoms are looking for over those who would actually make good physicians (not that these are mutually exclusive) then the process is damnably wrong.