The secret of success is sincerity.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.
George Burns I have interviewed high school students for my alma mater, Yale, for 25 years.
I can state unequivocally that today's candidates are no smarter than they were a quarter century ago, but some certainly look better on paper.
The kids coming through today are tutored, groomed and prepped to perfection.
Not just "tiger moms" but an entire industry of professionals have sprung up to advise students how to work for the right charity, beat the SAT, and perfect their curve ball.
College admissions have become similar to an arms race, with students and their coaches working to defeat the admissions process, and "snow" me as an interviewer.
I like to think I can see the real person, and judge their sincerity, but I never really know.
Something similar is happening with medical school, and how we choose our future physicians.
The medical school admission industry is in full force.
College grade inflation, and an increasing number of women applicants, has put more emphasis on ancillary admission criteria, such as the medical school admission test(MCAT), outside activities, essays, and the interview.
Unfortunately, all of these additional measures can can be "gamed" by professionals attempting to manipulate the process, which is now very common.
I am therefore not optimistic the new admission criteria discussed in the referenced article will be of much use.
The concept is to use a more structured and involved interview process to determine which applicants are able to better communicate with patients, work as a team, and understand ethical situations.
Advocates and reformers claim choosing medical students with these attributes will make better doctors, and by extension, improve our healthcare system.
These goals seem laudable at first consideration, but do not hold up under deeper inspection, or in all circumstances.
Personality, kindness and compassion are great attributes for a surgeon respecting your lung cancer, but they are of secondary concern compared to her skill level.
Being able to understand the emotional needs of a rebellious adolescent may be required for a family practice doctor, but would not be of particular importance for a pathologist.
Ethical judgment is certainly useful, but can be learned in medical school.
Requiring everyone to be a "team player" assumes the end of the solo practitioner, which presupposes the success of Obamacare.
Most importantly, these new "interviews" can be prepped for, and the correct answers can be taught.
Soon a large cadre of coaches will quickly spring up to meet the need.
Medical school admissions are not perfect, but teaching medical school applicants to fake sincerity will help neither our healthcare system nor the candidates themselves, unless they decide to run for Congress.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.
George Burns I have interviewed high school students for my alma mater, Yale, for 25 years.
I can state unequivocally that today's candidates are no smarter than they were a quarter century ago, but some certainly look better on paper.
The kids coming through today are tutored, groomed and prepped to perfection.
Not just "tiger moms" but an entire industry of professionals have sprung up to advise students how to work for the right charity, beat the SAT, and perfect their curve ball.
College admissions have become similar to an arms race, with students and their coaches working to defeat the admissions process, and "snow" me as an interviewer.
I like to think I can see the real person, and judge their sincerity, but I never really know.
Something similar is happening with medical school, and how we choose our future physicians.
The medical school admission industry is in full force.
College grade inflation, and an increasing number of women applicants, has put more emphasis on ancillary admission criteria, such as the medical school admission test(MCAT), outside activities, essays, and the interview.
Unfortunately, all of these additional measures can can be "gamed" by professionals attempting to manipulate the process, which is now very common.
I am therefore not optimistic the new admission criteria discussed in the referenced article will be of much use.
The concept is to use a more structured and involved interview process to determine which applicants are able to better communicate with patients, work as a team, and understand ethical situations.
Advocates and reformers claim choosing medical students with these attributes will make better doctors, and by extension, improve our healthcare system.
These goals seem laudable at first consideration, but do not hold up under deeper inspection, or in all circumstances.
Personality, kindness and compassion are great attributes for a surgeon respecting your lung cancer, but they are of secondary concern compared to her skill level.
Being able to understand the emotional needs of a rebellious adolescent may be required for a family practice doctor, but would not be of particular importance for a pathologist.
Ethical judgment is certainly useful, but can be learned in medical school.
Requiring everyone to be a "team player" assumes the end of the solo practitioner, which presupposes the success of Obamacare.
Most importantly, these new "interviews" can be prepped for, and the correct answers can be taught.
Soon a large cadre of coaches will quickly spring up to meet the need.
Medical school admissions are not perfect, but teaching medical school applicants to fake sincerity will help neither our healthcare system nor the candidates themselves, unless they decide to run for Congress.