Is it just me or are some Carribean medical students plain delusional?

[VA Hopeful Dr]

an older age.

I personally think it's ridiculous to start such a difficult path that late in life, but that's just for me personally.

I think this is the key and folks are just trying to justify this through other means when its really not needed.

I think starting a residency, any residency, at age 58 is asking for trouble but as long that person pulls their own weight during training then I couldn't care less.

We had a late 40s/early 50s resident in my class - was working as a GP for years then her long-time job changed to require board certification. She was fantastic, probably a better resident than I was in truth.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ACSurgeon]

As some one in school now and not bitter about a spot, it is sort of annoying to have tax dollars paying for training of someone who has a guaranteed shelf life.

$50k+ a year from Medicare for two IM residents. Resident A is 26 and has a max of around 40 years of practice. Resident B is 50 and has a max of around 15 years.

And yes, stuff happens and someone may "get hit by a bus" but assuming the both retire at a normal time, Resident A cost $3750 a year, and Resident B cost $10,000 a year.

Oh and also, even if it costs 10k/year to train resident B, he will pay MUCH more than that in taxes during his career (even assuming only 15 years as an attending) for our government to waste.

 

[jordansnfootbal]

What this proves is just that nepotism is alive and well --

False.

 

[Stagg737]

I think the only people making the age argument (or woman--> mommy track part time argument) are mostly pre-meds who are bitter about not getting a spot. In real life, we all understand the physicians are people. Life happens to them just like it does anyone else. They have personal and professional reasons to not practice full time. Not to mention the number of academic physicians who are 50% or even 10-20% clinical and spend the rest of their time doing admin work or research that has a high probability of never making a difference in clinical medicine.

The adcoms/PDs commenting on age probably care more about practical implications of educating or training an older person. People in their 20's or 30's are less set in their ways than someone in their 50's-60's. Also, younger people probably have more stamina, able to handle the work and the hierarchy better. Those are some of the obvious reasons I can think of, I'm sure adcoms and PDs have more reasons. Worrying about the professional lifespan of the trainee is probably low on the list.

I agree with you on most of that, including the idea that professional lifespan is low on PD's list if it's even on there at all. However, I brought it up because unlike your bolded statement I've seen/heard med students, residents, and even some attendings bring up the point that it would be unethical to accept much older applicants because of their shelf life (have seen this almost exclusively on this site). To be clear, I'm not saying I agree with that argument or even that it holds much validity, only that the argument has been made on several occasions by people significantly farther along the path than pre-meds.

My point was simply that valid arguments have been levied against this, not that the world was a perfect place, lol. People still believe in race superiority and draw lines in the sand about hiring people; that doesn't make them right. Goro often notes one of his best students was a 40+ non trad and the halls of SDN don't seem to be loitered with non trads that are unable to procure residencies. Also, I'm willing to be no adcom member would publicly admit to an age cutoff anymore than one would admit to racial profiling of candidates because they know it's an unacceptable bias.

Fair enough. As said above, I wasn't making an argument on the matter either way. I was merely pointing out that the viewpoint does exist and people do argue against accepting older residents/students based on ethical implications of them having shorter careers as physicians, even if it is ridiculous and technically illegal.

 

[W19]

I would not give anyone that is > 40 the if I was part of an adcom...

 

[DrWhozits]

I would bet most non-trads starting residency in their 40's or later don't plan to retire at 65. The younger folks starting their career at 30 may very well stop at a young age, especially if they use their money well and don't "need" to work until an older age.

I personally think it's ridiculous to start such a difficult path that late in life, but that's just for me personally.

Finally, are you really bothered about the "waste" in training an older doctor with a limited return? In this era of government waste, politicians who seem to have no purpose other than to block the governing party from accomplishing anything substantial (or trying to undo what the previous party did, etc). I'm much more upset at the hundreds of thousands of dollars that our congressmen and president earn as income, get as fringe benefits (presidents security is running us hundreds of millions of dollars), and poor decisions that costs the country jobs, economic growth, and lives (poor military adventures). Abused entilitment programs and many others come to mind as well.

So yes, havig a dozen or so medical students over the age of 45 who are "costing us tax dollars" doesn't bother me one bit.

I hear ya. It doesn't keep up at night or anything. I'm more just playing devil's advocate.

And in a perfect world we wouldn't have the waste that we did, med education or otherwise

 

[delayed]

Bruh every cousin I know that has gone to a Carribbean school is now doing residency in the U.S. Its either my family full of go-getters or something ain't adding up lol.

 

[Goro]

As a data point, or even several, I offer this thread as evidence. One of the posters stalked me in a PM, and earned a smack from the Banhammer.

SGU vs SABA & Cost

 

[pre med 2014]

There's also the question of is it ethical to give a training position to someone who may only practice for 10 years instead of someone who may practice for 40+ years. Imo, that's really not that big of a deal, but the people who seem to fear a physician shortage and see a large portion of physicians retiring in the near future may find it to be a point worth addressing (especially if it's a field with less available positions to begin with).

Pathologist and psychiatrist can work until they die. So graduating at age 50 you could still get 30 years in, maybe 40..

Sent from my SM-G955U using SDN mobile

 

[Stagg737]

Pathologist and psychiatrist can work until they die. So graduating at age 50 you could still get 30 years in, maybe 40..

Sent from my SM-G955U using SDN mobile

Plenty of fields can do this, but there's a very significant difference between what they "can" do and what they will actually do.

 

[pre med 2014]

Plenty of fields can do this, but there's a very significant difference between what they "can" do and what they will actually do.

yea lot's of fields can do this, but pathologists and psychiatrists actually do.

 

[Stagg737]

yea lot's of fields can do this, but pathologists and psychiatrists actually do.

So do many other fields (FM, peds, IM outpatients, radiologists, immunologists/rheumatologists, etc, etc). Other than the fields that are actually physically demanding like surgery, it's not that uncommon at all. The vast majority of physicians I've met don't every actually plan on retiring, just moving to a less stressful working schedule. The exception, like I mentioned, being surgery (and EM to a lesser extent) where you have to be able to maintain a certain level of physical endurance and capability. In the past year of rotations, every one of my attendings said they never planned to actually retire except my surgery attendings, and even one of them said he'd keep doing surgery until he was physically incapable.

Obviously, things can change and nothing is predictable. When the ACA passed and mandated people switch to EMRs, many older physicians quit because they didn't want to switch over from paper charts (I know a few people in private practice who still use exclusively paper). However, I think medicine is somewhat unique in that it's a field where a relatively large portion of professionals never truly retire until they actually die or are forced to retire.

 

[dpmd]

So do many other fields (FM, peds, IM outpatients, radiologists, immunologists/rheumatologists, etc, etc). Other than the fields that are actually physically demanding like surgery, it's not that uncommon at all. The vast majority of physicians I've met don't every actually plan on retiring, just moving to a less stressful working schedule. The exception, like I mentioned, being surgery (and EM to a lesser extent) where you have to be able to maintain a certain level of physical endurance and capability. In the past year of rotations, every one of my attendings said they never planned to actually retire except my surgery attendings, and even one of them said he'd keep doing surgery until he was physically incapable.

Obviously, things can change and nothing is predictable. When the ACA passed and mandated people switch to EMRs, many older physicians quit because they didn't want to switch over from paper charts (I know a few people in private practice who still use exclusively paper). However, I think medicine is somewhat unique in that it's a field where a relatively large portion of professionals never truly retire until they actually die or are forced to retire.

There is an octagenarian in town that is a surgical first assist. Also know other surgeons who move to a teaching role when their skills decline. But we have several surgeons in their 70s still operating (can only vouch for the skills of the couple I have scrubbed with before) so that is still at least a 20yr career if they graduated at 50.