Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's understandable. No doctor wants a bureaucrat telling them what tests, etc are needed or determining how much they might be paid for their service. Who would want to be a doctor under those circiumstances?
Yeah .... they prefer that its an insurance company that tells them
Yes. Medical enrollment is controlled. Certainly part of the reasoning is to control the quantity of doctors to keep wages high. Same goes for dentistry. The argument is to control the quality (not quantity) but I'm not buying that argument. It's one of the reasons why I liked my daughter choice to go into dentistry (wages). If I am paying for over $200K in education, I wanted to know a lot more information than a passive observer.
Saying that. I talked with the admissions office at the U of MN. I am merely repeating what one of the department head stated. So I'm not trying to "prove" anything. It was an opinion from someone who sees all of the applicants and I assume he might know a little more about it than you or I.
The conversation came up because I was concerned on how competitive it was for dentistry (and wanted her to explore an MD if she didn't get into dentistry). Dentistry is considered more competitive (less slots). He said "the majority had no business to apply for an MD" and that my daughters GPA and ACT scores were promising.
For all I know the majority could mean 51% of 75%. All I know is according to him, there were a lot of less than ideal candidates.
It wasn't medicine so the analogy is a little distant, but I worked on a project in graduate school on admissions. Our assessment was that 10x as many student had the ability to complete the program as the school had slots to accept. That wasn't an opinion based study, that was an analytical study.
Quality is a smoke screen. Limited supply = more money for the grads = more tuition for the school.
It wasn't medicine so the analogy is a little distant, but I worked on a project in graduate school on admissions. Our assessment was that 10x as many student had the ability to complete the program as the school had slots to accept. That wasn't an opinion based study, that was an analytical study.
Quality is a smoke screen. Limited supply = more money for the grads = more tuition for the school.
How "analytical" can that study be considering they won't know if a student can complete the program with any certainty until they do it. They are just ASSuming that a student can complete the study based on criteria they set forth. It's just another assumption. You can call it "analytical" to make it sound more valid. The fact is you don't know if they can or can't complete it until they actually complete the program.
"NEW YORK, Sept. 15 (UPI) -- Sixty-three percent of U.S.physicians support health reform that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance, a survey indicates."
It's a matter of learning basic facts, is all.
Did you read that link?
1. The number of doctors surveyed was 2,130 physicians. There are over a million doctors practicing in the United States. So we are to extrapolate the opinion of less than 1% of all physicians in the United States? Interesting
2. The physicians were not RANDOMLY and BLINDLY chosen which means bias is included. The physician were selected by the experimenters
3. The AMA only includes 17% of all physicians in the United States so they don't represent the majority of the physicians in the United States
Yes. Medical enrollment is controlled. Certainly part of the reasoning is to control the quantity of doctors to keep wages high. Same goes for dentistry. The argument is to control the quality (not quantity) but I'm not buying that argument. It's one of the reasons why I liked my daughter choice to go into dentistry (wages). If I am paying for over $200K in education, I wanted to know a lot more information than a passive observer.
Saying that. I talked with the admissions office at the U of MN. I am merely repeating what one of the department head stated. So I'm not trying to "prove" anything. It was an opinion from someone who sees all of the applicants and I assume he might know a little more about it than you or I.
The conversation came up because I was concerned on how competitive it was for dentistry (and wanted her to explore an MD if she didn't get into dentistry). Dentistry is considered more competitive (less slots). He said "the majority had no business to apply for an MD" and that my daughters GPA and ACT scores were promising.
For all I know the majority could mean 51% of 75%. All I know is according to him, there were a lot of less than ideal candidates.
My second daughter was in a pre-med club at the U of Colorado when she was considering medicine. From what she told me, and from what I know from my own college days (Neanderthal era), most students who want to go to med school decide early on and arrange their coursework to meet med school requirements. In my day, most "pre-meds" were biology and chemistry majors. Nowadays, it is true one can major in anything as long as one takes the pre-reqs. It's pretty hard to be a music major, b/c that takes up a lot of time (just ask those music majors at St. Olaf), but one could major in history if one took the required courses. One of the docs in the practice where I work has an engineering undergrad degree. She did go an extra semester to get in her pre-reqs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I saw this too, on Cavuto yesterday, when he interviewed a doctor. She said she didn't want to quit, but she would if Obama Care passes.
It's understandable. No doctor wants a bureaucrat telling them what tests, etc are needed or determining how much they might be paid for their service. Who would want to be a doctor under those circiumstances?
This was totally predictable.
She's nuts. What's she going to do instead, work at Wal Mart? As has been pointed out, the insurance lackeys stand between them and their practices now. Every system is going to have rules.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-17-2009 at 07:44 PM..
Reason: clarify which daughter
The talent that is going into medicine now is astonishing. It's getting more competitive each year to get into medical school. The avg GPA's at some programs are approaching 3.9 and that too these applicants are required to take 8 semesters of basic science with lab. The avg MCAT is also increased. Competition to get in is brutal. I learned that my school had 3500 applications for 120 spots.
Good to hear from you azriverfan.
It depends on the Med school. Go to the Mayo's program in Rochester MN and they get 10,000 applicants and have 38 openings!! (Source; Mayo doctor customer).
At the U of MN. The average GPA is 3.6. As you know, most people apply to several schools. Putting it another way, if they said yes to all of your 3500 applicants at your school they might only get 1/2 of them to commit because they might have chosen another school. Not everyone wants to get into U of MN. But I'd assume everyone wants to get into Mayo.
If you have a Art History degree, you go back to take the Chem, biology and semester of calc and you can apply. The math and science isn't brutal. An EE degree has a lot more technical classes that are required.
If the AVERAGE is 3.6. That means there are a lot of GPA's that are less than ideal. But as you know, essays, volunteering, politics etc all play into who gets in.
It wasn't medicine so the analogy is a little distant, but I worked on a project in graduate school on admissions. Our assessment was that 10x as many student had the ability to complete the program as the school had slots to accept. That wasn't an opinion based study, that was an analytical study.
Quality is a smoke screen. Limited supply = more money for the grads = more tuition for the school.
If it was about quality, then you set the bar at the quality level that is required and let everyone in the program that passes.
But I don't buy one reason for the allocation is more tuition for the schools. More students ==more tuition. The reason why it is so expensive is because the expenses are amortized over a small amount of students. The supply is so low that the schools are heavily subsidized. Hence, there are a limited amount of schools willing to sink that kind of money into these MD programs. That was how it was explained to me anyways...
It depends on the Med school. Go to the Mayo's program in Rochester MN and they get 10,000 applicants and have 38 openings!! (Source; Mayo doctor customer).
At the U of MN. The average GPA is 3.6. As you know, most people apply to several schools. Putting it another way, if they said yes to all of your 3500 applicants at your school they might only get 1/2 of them to commit because they might have chosen another school. Not everyone wants to get into U of MN. But I'd assume everyone wants to get into Mayo.
If you have a Art History degree, you go back to take the Chem, biology and semester of calc and you can apply. The math and science isn't brutal. An EE degree has a lot more technical classes that are required.
If the AVERAGE is 3.6. That means there are a lot of GPA's that are less than ideal. But as you know, essays, volunteering, politics etc all play into who gets in.
I would be astonished if the University of MN school of medicine's avg GPA is only a 3.6. I think it's higher. The science requirements are not much. You don't have to go back and devote extra time. I had many sociology, history and English majors in our class. They were brilliant students that had A's in their basic science classes. You are right EE classes involve more technical classes. The difference however is the pre-med classes like General Organic Chemistry are known as weed out classes and they can have as many as 500 students in a class and the competition for A's in those classes are much tougher and thus the grading is often skewed and exams are made much tougher than they need to be. It's not like what you think; it's not just general chemistry...it's premed general chemistry which is a whole different game even though your analytical or p-chem class has more complex material, you don't have that environment to deal with. I went through it all. I remember those days. I think I studied harder in undergrad than medical school and medical school had plenty of 14 hour study days.
A 3.6 GPA sounds like my day...these days, it's higher
It depends on the Med school. Go to the Mayo's program in Rochester MN and they get 10,000 applicants and have 38 openings!! (Source; Mayo doctor customer).
At the U of MN. The average GPA is 3.6. As you know, most people apply to several schools. Putting it another way, if they said yes to all of your 3500 applicants at your school they might only get 1/2 of them to commit because they might have chosen another school. Not everyone wants to get into U of MN. But I'd assume everyone wants to get into Mayo.
If you have a Art History degree, you go back to take the Chem, biology and semester of calc and you can apply. The math and science isn't brutal. An EE degree has a lot more technical classes that are required.
If the AVERAGE is 3.6. That means there are a lot of GPA's that are less than ideal. But as you know, essays, volunteering, politics etc all play into who gets in.
My feeling was confirmed. The avg GPA for the medical school is 3.71 and a 32 MCAT
There is a myth that with national health insurance the government will make the medical decisions. But in a publicly financed, universal health care system, medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the U.K. and Spain (or in U.S. systems like the VA) that have socialized medicine.
In a public system, the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by elected and appointed agencies that represent the public. This agency decides on the benefit package and negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology. Thus, the total budget for health care is set through a public, democratic process. But clinical decisions remain a private matter between doctor and patient.
So...what we learned is that medical decisions will be made by DOCTORS and not a government bureaucrat. Have a nice night everyone. Hope you learned something and tell your friends!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
