Lying

[lareinesoleil]

I honestly like the sound of the 33/33/33 split. I can't for the life of me remember why I didn't look at UMN (I probably didn't meet all of the pre-reqs).

My GRE score wasn't very great, so maybe I'm just jaded....but it always felt a little wrong that (at least at some schools) four+ years of countless hours, countless homework assignments, countless tests, countless projects were given the same weight as a single test.

Yeah, a single test that doesn't have any science on it. I mean, I was glad because it was easier than the MCAT, so way way less time spent studying, but still...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bunnity]

Without a standardized test how would you deal with what sumstorm is talking about? A 4.0 at one undergrad is not the same as a 4.0 at another. But there are 28k undergrads in the US alone so it's unlikely that an adcom could keep track of each school's grading tendencies.

 

[lareinesoleil]

That does make sense, that they need some kind of standardized test, my point was more that it's just a Math/English test. I mean, wouldn't it have made more sense to stick with the VCAT that had some bio and chem on it? While I appreciated that I didn't have to study as much for the GRE as I would have for something that included Organic Chemistry, at the same time that doesn't really help compare my A in O-Chem against somebody else's...

 

[No Imagination]

We've had numerous debates about why Vet schools use the GRE and not the MCAT (VCAT really isn't very feasible IMO, as it would either be A) too animal science based (many pre-vets doing go the animal science route) or B) too much like the MCAT.

I'd prefer the MCAT, and personally believe that it would be a better indicator of someones scientific background and understanding then the GRE (but others differ in that opinion). I also personally think that what is stopping vet schools from adopting the MCAT is a lack consensus between the schools.

If 2-3 schools start using the MCAT, then those schools can count on a drop in applicants. Cornell used to (still does?) accept either the MCAT or GRE, I heard very few students submitted an MCAT score - But Cornell really doesn't have to worry about quality applicants.

EDIT: When I was applying, I asked 6 schools how they weigh the GRE (I took it without studying at all for graduate school admission, and didnt want to retake it). 1 school wouldn't say, the others all said it would not make or break me as long as I had an average score between X - Y (It was a HUGE range, like 1000 - 1300)

 

[nyanko]

I'd prefer the MCAT, and personally believe that it would be a better indicator of someones scientific background and understanding then the GRE (but others differ in that opinion). I also personally think that what is stopping vet schools from adopting the MCAT is a lack consensus between the schools. Cornell really doesn't have to worry about quality applicants.

I don't think that anybody actually believes that the MCAT wouldn't be a better test for vet school admissions - I just think most of us were glad we got to take the GRE instead.

EDIT: When I was applying, I asked 6 schools how they weigh the GRE (I took it without studying at all for graduate school admission, and didnt want to retake it). 1 school wouldn't say, the others all said it would not make or break me as long as I had an average score between X - Y (It was a HUGE range, like 1000 - 1300)

UC Davis weights it from 25-30%, equally to GPA. I counted on this.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

I don't think that anybody actually believes that the MCAT wouldn't be a better test for vet school admissions - I just think most of us were glad we got to take the GRE instead.

Yes. This.

While I didn't exactly enjoy the quant portion of the test, and suspect that the GRE is pretty much useless as a predictor of success in veterinary school, I am definitely not going to complain about the lack of physics and orgo on the GRE.

 

[l2vet]

Gonna probably get yelled at for this one but:

I thought the GRE was a great test. Very few veterinarians have to call up knowledge of physics, pchem, obscure biochemical pathways, or many of the other things tested on the MCAT. But all veterinarians have to know how to think.

The GRE is not a test of your mathematical, verbal, and writing skills. It is a test of your ability to think. Especially the verbal section--they all tell you to memorize zillions of words. That's not the goal of the GRE at all IMHO. The goal of the GRE verbal is to have you look at an unfamiliar word, think about how it's constructed, and figure out what it means, not hope you memorized the word and if you didn't, guess and move on. It's a similar goal (however more obvious) in the math section. Nearly all those questions can be solved with little or no actual math. This is least true for AW, which actually does score you somewhat on your ability to write coherently. Mostly, though, the GRE forces people to think outside their "box" or "comfort zone" and it makes most people very uncomfortable (I know it did for me).

Is it a perfect test? Not at all, probably not even close. Is it a more appropriate test? In my opinion, yes.

Now that I've sufficiently hijacked the thread, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of lying. xP

 

[twelvetigers]

What about the biology GRE? Based on the material that is included, do you guys think it would be a good standardized test to use?

http://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/biology

 

[Alhazred]

I have to agree with l2vet, I think the GRE is better than the MCAT, partly because studying for it doesn't help beyond a certain point. I learned about 350 obscure-but-common GRE words and relearned a handful of algebra/geometry tricks. I saw maybe two or three of those words I learned and used basic math I knew at age 16. I felt like the GRE was 80% my problem solving abilities and 20% whether I was willing to put forth minimal effort preparing for it.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

What about the biology GRE? Based on the material that is included, do you guys think it would be a good standardized test to use?http://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/biology

I took a similar test (ETS Biology MFT), and do think that it should probably be included... although, at least on the MFT, there were a lot of questions based on courses that would be elective for most pre-vet students. (Namely developmental and eco... as well as a lot of lame plant-based questions I'd long since forgotten the answers to. ) To me, though, something similar would be a better predictor of success than whether or not we remember a bunch of geometry most of us haven't used in five (or, in my case, ten) years.

It's a similar goal (however more obvious) in the math section. Nearly all those questions can be solved with little or no actual math.

Yeah, but you have to remember the formulas, which can be hard for those of us that haven't taken geometry or algebra in years (and may not have been stellar math students to begin with). That's what killed me. It had been over a decade since I'd done any of those sorts of problems.

 

[SocialStigma]

Having taken the MCAT (but not the GRE), just my 2 cents..

MCAT is definitely also a test of critical thinking and logic. You get 70 mins for 52 MC questions (for the biological and physical sciences sections), that's not even 2 mins/question, not to mention that there are passages to read. There were very few questions where I actually calculated anything, even for physics/chemistry. Plus you don't get a formula sheet, so you're more likely to be relying on logic and unit conversions to arrive at the answer. A lot of the material that they present in the passages is completely new and they're testing to see if you can pick out the relevant information and apply it.

I actually did better in the physical sciences than the biological sciences section, which is very strange since I hate physics and bio has always been my strongest science. I definitely was overthinking some of the bio passage questions whereas for physics, where I had less of a foundation, I just went with the logical answer rather than second-guessing myself. I think that contributes to the reason why non-science students tend to do well on the MCAT.

 

[nyanko]

l2vet: Those topics (biochemical pathways, physics, etc...) are most definitely going to come up in vet school, regardless of your perception of their relevance for being a veterinarian, so I think they should really be fair game for inclusion on a standardized test for vet school admissions.

And the MCAT does test your ability to think, too, as previously stated. In fact, I'd argue it tests your ability to think and apply relevant topics which IMO is far more telling.

As far the Bio GRE goes, personally I think the MCAT would be better than that as all the topics contained in it are generally prerequisites for veterinary school so it doesn't really disadvantage those who come from a non-traditional background. The Bio GRE has ecology and botany stuff that somebody coming from another major quite literally may have never even seen, and will never likely see again after the exam.

 

[sumstorm]

B) too much like the MCAT.

VCAT was very similar to the MCAT. it worked well for quite a while, and the scores (for us non-trads that have them) are still considered by schools (when I called up 6 schools and asked if I should send my old VCAT scores I was universally told yes.)

I personally don't feel the GRE is a critical thinking test in any form. I think it was more so a decade ago when they had a logic section. I think the GRE is very much about memorization and preperation, and with the CAT system very easy to stumble early on and skew an entire test. When I say this stuff, folks assume I had a poor score, but I scored mid to high 700's in both sections and did very well on the written section. I do not attribute that to any critical thinking, but rather to decent preperation (especially on the written portion.)

 

[l2vet]

Yeah, but you have to remember the formulas, which can be hard for those of us that haven't taken geometry or algebra in years (and may not have been stellar math students to begin with). That's what killed me. It had been over a decade since I'd done any of those sorts of problems.

It has nothing to do with the formulas. 2-3 of the answer choices can, on about 90% of the questions, be totally eliminated through logic alone. I wasn't very good at that, lol.

l2vet: Those topics (biochemical pathways, physics, etc...) are most definitely going to come up in vet school, regardless of your perception of their relevance for being a veterinarian, so I think they should really be fair game for inclusion on a standardized test for vet school admissions.

And the MCAT does test your ability to think, too, as previously stated. In fact, I'd argue it tests your ability to think and apply relevant topics which IMO is far more telling.

As far the Bio GRE goes, personally I think the MCAT would be better than that as all the topics contained in it are generally prerequisites for veterinary school so it doesn't really disadvantage those who come from a non-traditional background. The Bio GRE has ecology and botany stuff that somebody coming from another major quite literally may have never even seen, and will never likely see again after the exam.

I was very specific to say veterinarians, not vet students. Of -course- it will come up in vet school, but that's not what, in my opinion, the test is looking at. I also said the test isn't perfect--should it include some assessment of your scientific knowledge? Surely. Is the MCAT the best way to assess the necessary scientific knowledge? Hardly.

Veterinarians spend a lot of time diagnosing empirically. Not in school, of course, you have all the tests you need and an animal in the VTH will get them all. But I've shadowed in LA practices, equine practices, and SA practices both GP and hospitals, and you spend a lot of time empirically diagnosing cases. That's where it becomes problem solving skills, and where your *understanding* of the pathways of glycolysis, the urea cycle, etc. becomes important, but your ability to regurgitate the pathways, structures, and enzymes involved is of very little use.

Most of the logic portion of the GRE is truly contained within the verbal section. I was also irritated that I had to go back and refresh on high school math topics, and I think that the time spent in that section could be better spent somewhere else, but there are lots of little logic paths that you can use to get around doing any math at all.

I wasn't expecting many people to agree with me, lol. Most people don't.

 

[nyanko]

I think the disconnect is in your assessment of the content and format of the MCAT. There are sites where you can look at sample MCAT questions; all the ones I've seen pretty much test your understanding, not regurgitation.

 

[TomTheK9Fixr]

Took the GRE and MCAT. Got an 1170 5.0 AW and a 29 composite on MCAT. IMO, there is NO question the MCAT needs to be implemented. Who cares if it's tougher. I mean, we are all nerds anyways so we will study and do what we gotta do... The GRE verbal is just too random and not indicative of potential in this field IMO. The quant ranges from very basic to somewhat complex. Nonetheless, the MCAT had questions from just about everyone of my UG bio/physics/chem/Ochem classes. So, if you did well in these classes (assuming we all have), you'll do fine on the MCAT.

If someone scores >31-33 on MCAT that is very,very impressive, if someone scores >1300 on GRE that is impressive statistically speaking, but I give wayyyy more respect to MCAT.

My vote is for MCAT, that is, if anybody is counting lol... Ok, I am done with my 2 cents, carry on....

 

[sumstorm]

Veterinarians spend a lot of time diagnosing empirically. Not in school, of course, you have all the tests you need and an animal in the VTH will get them all. But I've shadowed in LA practices, equine practices, and SA practices both GP and hospitals, and you spend a lot of time empirically diagnosing cases. That's where it becomes problem solving skills, and where your *understanding* of the pathways of glycolysis, the urea cycle, etc. becomes important, but your ability to regurgitate the pathways, structures, and enzymes involved is of very little use.

And I would disagree. Understanding the basics of physiology are what allow you to understand the processes that are being used to diagnose patients.

Yes, theoretically you could memorize an algorithm of diagnosis, but it saves a lot of time if you understand how the kidneys affect blood calcium levels and impact angiotensin II (and why) and how that plays out in renal issues, or if you understand acid-base balances it is easier to know what conditions will cause acidosis or alkalosis.

Now, I am not saying you need to remember every single mechanism of the glycolysis cycle, but having a core grasp of it makes interpreting diagnostics easier and will help in understanding pathogenesis and pharmacological therapy.

This year, alot of my class has said 'I wish I had solidified that concept last year, because it comes in handy this year' and I have heard that from third years, fourth years, and practicing vets. I even know vets that go back and take courses to refresh their fundamentals.

the concept of empiracal is that you are using observation, experience, and experimentation. why short change yourself by relying on observation only? personally, I think that is where we get vets that use dex for everything that walks through the door.

 

[l2vet]

Using dex for everything is awful :C We got referred a case of TEN that had dex used on it in its home clinic. Reaction to Clavamox drops, poor thing.

The UNDERSTANDING to me is what's key, not "what does such and such enzyme perform"--you have to understand the whole of the cycle. Of course you're not using observation ONLY to diagnose empirically, but you're often relying on it far more than you'd like.

Like I said, should the GRE test science? Sure it should. Do I think we should take the MCAT instead? Not at all. The GRE is unique in the way that it prevents you from preparing past a certain point, and forces you to walk into an unknown situation and use the tools at your disposal to attempt to achieve the most correct answer possible. On the verbal section, I made large use of my knowledge of French, as well as my large reading vocabulary, and I had to do it on the fly. You just can't study for that, and I think that's pretty important.

Instead of the subject tests, I wish there were 2 different forms of the GRE. One with a verbal, writing, and science section (that would be similar in format and question type to the math section now, but would obviously integrate science knowledge instead of math knowledge), and one in the current format. It would give you an option, and it would allow schools to have their students both tested in logic and problem-solving as well as a generic assessment of how well they'd do in either a science- or math-based program (for instance, a vet school versus an engineering advanced degree, just to give an example).

I've looked at sample MCAT questions. I just don't think their science questions ask for much more than your average UG o-chem test level reasoning. I think the GRE is an entirely different type of test all together, and it's very valuable.

I'm not saying scientific knowledge isn't valuable, I'm saying that the kind of thinking that the GRE forces you to do is also very valuable, and shouldn't be discounted.

 

[nyanko]

I really hate to belabor this point but the MCAT has a writing section and a verbal section too. So it seems like what you're proposing is the same as the MCAT with less detail. Just saying.

edit: the writing section of the GRE is BS, btw.

 

[Vet Med]

.

 

[Dsmoody23]

Pre-meds study for the MCAT by reviewing actual, in-depth, scientific information.

GRE prep is a review of 10th grade math, while you try to shotgun 10,000 random vocabulary words into your brain.

I feel like one of these is a more accurate gauge of future success in a science based curriculum than the other.

 

[TomTheK9Fixr]

ok I know this was posted a long time ago -- but is there any way to tell what percentile your shadowing hours are in? Like what is average accepted SM hours or LA hours? I have never seen it posted on a vet school website.... they just say you need at least 100 hours of shadowing any vet to meet requirements.

Prolly not, but as with GPA and GRE, you should try your best to do as much as you can. It will only benefit you in the future.

 

[Vet Med]

.

 

[TomTheK9Fixr]

Yes of course. I think everyone is going to try and do the best that they can. Which is why I am wondering what the average amount of vet hours is. You have to be very well balanced to get into vet school and I don't think they tell you enough about average shadowing hours on the websites.

Sorry I didn't mean to be captain obvious. If I were you I'd check the successful applicants threads over the past couple of years. It would be a large sample size of people who got in at multiple schools.

 

[Vet Med]

.

 

[No Imagination]

The GRE is not a test of your mathematical, verbal, and writing skills. It is a test of your ability to think. Especially the verbal section--they all tell you to memorize zillions of words. That's not the goal of the GRE at all IMHO. The goal of the GRE verbal is to have you look at an unfamiliar word, think about how it's constructed, and figure out what it means, not hope you memorized the word and if you didn't, guess and move on.

If that was true, they would not fill the exam up with words that LOOK like they stem from one language, yet actually originate from another (obscure) source, and virtually impossible for a non-linguist to recognize or know. Now excuse me while I continue my limerance.

(don't cheat now... utilize your understanding of ancient Greek, recognize the subtle Aramaic undertones, and it's perversion and spelling idiosyncrasies which can only be attributed by an ancient Latin influence (then come to realize that it is probably another James Joyce word))

 

[sumstorm]

ok I know this was posted a long time ago -- but is there any way to tell what percentile your shadowing hours are in? Like what is average accepted SM hours or LA hours? I have never seen it posted on a vet school website.... they just say you need at least 100 hours of shadowing any vet to meet requirements.

I know NCSU puts their previous year's out in a power point that they share with folks that attend the information sessions. I know Purdue provides theirs during file reviews.

At NCSU on the admissions website it specifys 400 hours with a preference for both breadth and depth (ie try to have at last 100 hours in 3 different fields) but that is a drop in the bucket compared to what most folks come in with. Of course, it will change each year, but it will give you an idea of what they found appealing in last year's candidates.

 

[l2vet]

I really hate to belabor this point but the MCAT has a writing section and a verbal section too. So it seems like what you're proposing is the same as the MCAT with less detail. Just saying.

edit: the writing section of the GRE is BS, btw.

Kind of, yes. I think the MCAT includes a lot of unnecessary information to study for and stress out over. I think there can be a happy compromise.

What, you mean I can't have my cake and eat it too?

 

[orchidsforme]

I've been a lurker for a long time but this has been bothering me a lot and since this thread came up... I know of someone who put a vet experience on the application that the person was fired from without mentioning that and it was the persons only vet experience and got in. This really bothers me. I know I should just focus on myself and what I'm doing and honestly I wish I didn't know about it so I wouldn't be so bothered. I know, I know, technically the experience occured though so I'm not sure if this is considered lying.

 

[l2vet]

While it may not reflect positively on the person to be fired, the experience IS experience. Now, if they were asked why the left the position, they would have to say they were fired, or that WOULD be lying. And I doubt admissions would be like, OMG you were fired? That's great! and move on. They'd have some serious explaining to do.

 

[No Imagination]

I've been a lurker for a long time but this has been bothering me a lot and since this thread came up... I know of someone who put a vet experience on the application that the person was fired from without mentioning that and it was the persons only vet experience and got in. This really bothers me. I know I should just focus on myself and what I'm doing and honestly I wish I didn't know about it so I wouldn't be so bothered. I know, I know, technically the experience occured though so I'm not sure if this is considered lying.

I don't know why you would be upset. If I worked at NASA for 20 years designing satellites and rocket propulsion, and then got fired for... well anything (coming in late, not getting along with new boss...) I would still list it as experience!

Just wouldn't use them as a reference!

The only ?? is, if that was the persons ONLY vet experience, what vets (usually need two?) wrote their LOR?

Now, if they were asked why the left the position, they would have to say they were fired, or that WOULD be lying.

I still wouldn't volounteer that I got fired. "The working conditions changed to the point that I could no longer work there" or "My hours got cut too drastically" [to zero lol] or "There were too many personality difference, no longer felt like a positive working environment".

Maybe they are all too far into the grey zone, but ergh. (now if asked, 'where you fired', then yeah, time to fess up).

 

[orchidsforme]

yea, I hear ya. That's why I was saying that when I think about it IS experience so I understand putting it on there in that sense.

 

[Cautionary Tail]

I mean, we are all nerds anyways so we will study and do what we gotta do...

Personally, for all practical purposes, I'd consider myself more of a dork.

edit: the writing section of the GRE is BS, btw.

Agreed. (It kills me that we can't share the prompts, because one of mine was ridiculous. It involved socks. Socks, people.) Heck, I still think the entire test is basically useless as a predictor of success in the profession. I'm just glad it gave me something to offset my scary cumulative.

The only ?? is, if that was the persons ONLY vet experience, what vets (usually need two?) wrote their LOR?

I only used one. Most of the schools I applied to were pretty flexible. Tufts wanted one vet and two academics (I believe), so I just went with that for everyone so I wouldn't have to ask for additional LORs.

 

[LetItSnow]

I still wouldn't volounteer that I got fired. "The working conditions changed to the point that I could no longer work there" or "My hours got cut too drastically" [to zero lol] or "There were too many personality difference, no longer felt like a positive working environment".

Just to give a different perspective... I've been on the hiring side of things many times. I would fess up to having been fired the second they ask "why did you leave." That's your opportunity to admit it, explain the circumstances, and give them every reason to believe it will have no bearing on anything going forward. I've hired two people who were upfront about it; I've not hired a few people who weren't. If I ask you why you left, and you start trying to dance around with some line about how the working conditions changed, and I subsequently find out you got fired when I call your former employer and ask if you are eligible for re-hire ... you're not getting hired.

As an interviewer, I always recognized that there are plenty of reasons for getting fired; some of them not a big deal and some of them more major.

Being fired is like any other mistake in life: you can turn it to your advantage by being frank about it and telling me what you learned.

Of course, a grad school interview is not exactly the same as a job interview. And I presume grad school committees aren't really checking up on your previous jobs, evaluators, etc. So perhaps it's better to go No Imag's route and hide it as long as you can. I don't know. I know it would make me uncomfortable to hide it.

(As an aside, I did get fired once from a summer job. My sister and I shared a car, and she didn't return in time for me to get to work, and I got the axe for it. Bummer of a deal.)

 

[sumstorm]

I still wouldn't volounteer that I got fired. "The working conditions changed to the point that I could no longer work there" or "My hours got cut too drastically" [to zero lol] or "There were too many personality difference, no longer felt like a positive working environment".

Along these lines, unless you are the supervisor, or the 'fired' employee, you don't actually know what happened. I often say I was 'fired' from a job...really, I was laid off as part of a mass budget cut and that is what I put it on applications. Fired is easier vernacular. Actually, I generaly said I was fired so my salary could provide funds for the TSA peep show.....

I have 'fired' employees, but in actuality, I normally asked for their resignation; if they resign, even if forced to by imminent termination of employment if they don't resign, they get to save face and I get to avoid a lot of paperwork and potential legal hassles. I wouldn't write a reference, but if someone called to verify experience, I would fax over the job description, and dates of employment.

 

[l2vet]

I still wouldn't volounteer that I got fired. "The working conditions changed to the point that I could no longer work there" or "My hours got cut too drastically" [to zero lol] or "There were too many personality difference, no longer felt like a positive working environment".

Maybe they are all too far into the grey zone, but ergh. (now if asked, 'where you fired', then yeah, time to fess up).

I'd have to agree with LIS on this one. That's just the same as offering some pity excuse when interviewers ask for a weakness, like saying "I'm detail-oriented" or something. I think it's a lot more frank to just say, I was fired, or I was layed off, or whatever happened, and say how you learned from it, and how it made you a better person. If I were an interviewer, I would commend someone for their honesty, even if the firing were for not-so-good reasons, like being chronically late, or calling off every single weekend, or even for insubordination. I know that while I haven't been fired from a paying job, I've been kicked out of a few positions in my lifetime. 1 was entirely NOT my fault, and 1 was--I learned from both of them, and I think while the experiences weren't terribly pleasant, that they both helped me mature and shaped how I deal with people and jobs on a day-to-day basis.

 

[sumstorm]

, that they both helped me mature and shaped how I deal with people and jobs on a day-to-day basis.

The assumption being made is that the excuses aren't legitimate and/or there is a clear delineation in firing vs resigning. I advise folks that leave a job without a clear termination to call and ask to view thier employment record. Often folks leave positions/are asked to leave, but aren't officially terminated, but all that should be recorded in the employment record. Also, if you are terminated, you should always add a comment to your employment file about your take on the situation. it should be truthful, and factual, but it can impact ability to be rehired.

I told a professor last semester that I would quite a job where X happened, and he scoffed and asked how I could know that; I'd be fired for having that attitude. The answer was simple; I have before, I'd do it again. If I'm fired for standing up for my beliefs, so be it. I haven't been officially fired from anything, but I really don't think it makes much of a difference, and I have said 'we went our seperate ways after a difference of opinion over X' and it was 100% legit (not an excuse for firing.) So I wouldn't assume an explanation is a way of hiding a previous involuntary termination.

 

[l2vet]

Oh, I'm sorry if I wasn't making myself clear I was agreeing on that--I don't think it's a bad thing to explain why you left, fired, resigned, or anything else. I wasn't saying that you couldn't phrase it nicer than just blunt "I was fired" --you can and SHOULD make your own case, and your way of saying "we went our seperate ways after a difference of opinion over X" is totally good. I mean dodging it totally, i.e. "my hours were cut drastically" when really that wasn't the case at all, say you were fired because of reason X or were laid off due to downsizing, or whatever. Just don't try to sugarcoat it, is all. I think ad comms and most people in general can see through that pretty quickly, and it just feels kinda shady to me. I wouldn't be comfortable offering an explanation like that. For instance, I was dismissed from moderation staff of a large message board for refusing to support a protocol I didn't think would benefit anyone (staff, members, or supporting company). I wouldn't say that I "had my hours cut" or "it wasn't a positive environment, so I left"--while it wasn't a positive environment, and I did have my hours cut, so to speak, neither of those are the real reason.