Is College ************? I think it is.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In any case...

Some 14 year olds are different than others.

[drkitten]

Dave didn't say 14 year olds should being 'surgeries'. Like I said...Strawman.

Actually, he did. Two years after one's "clinical rotations," one should be performing surgery (assuming that's one's specialization). If he's advocating 12 year olds in surgical rotations (which is what someone "years younger" than 14 would be), then he's explicitly advocating for surgery at 14.

[Darth Rotor]

Strawman.
"You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." ;) -- Inigo Montoya --

DR

[DreadNiK]

In any case...

Some 14 year olds are different than others.

Thank you for that enlightening post. And?

[Darth Rotor]

Thank you for that enlightening post. And?
Perhaps he thinks he was Dermatology's Doogie Howser, foiled by the pernicious necessity to actually go to med school. Quien sabe?

DR

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Actually, he did. Two years after one's "clinical rotations," one should be performing surgery (assuming that's one's specialization). If he's advocating 12 year olds in surgical rotations (which is what someone "years younger" than 14 would be), then he's explicitly advocating for surgery at 14.



Who said that the normal methods would apply to people under 14?



No one

[DreadNiK]

Who said that the normal methods would apply to people under 14?



No one

For heaven's sake, stop this nitpicking...I could say no one said they didn't explicitly state that normal methods wouldn't apply...especially considering they were the ones proposing it

Whether it was a stretch or not, the basic point is the same, the question of giving responsibility to those who are of an age that is generally considered not to be prepared for that responsibility.

[sat556]

I often spell 'alot' as 'a lot'. Some times I don't.

:rolleyes:

:scared:

[specious_reasons]

Actually, he did. Two years after one's "clinical rotations," one should be performing surgery (assuming that's one's specialization). If he's advocating 12 year olds in surgical rotations (which is what someone "years younger" than 14 would be), then he's explicitly advocating for surgery at 14.

Most medical students are performing procedures as soon as they start rotations. They assist in surgeries on their surgery rotation, but do not perform surgeries. From what I understand about surgical rotations, you're allowed to perform supervised surgeries sometime during your residency. It's unlikely that a 14 year old prodigy would be cutting you open, but they might be sewing you up* or holding clamps.

Clinical rotations start in the 3rd year of medical school. You need a temporary medical license to attend rotations. Part of the approval process is taking (and passing) Step 1 of the medical boards.

Obviously, details may vary from school to school.

* The residents/med students I remember never were allowed to close the top layer of skin - because the likelihood of scarring if an inexperienced hand did it.

[Luke T.]

Couldn't you compromise and convince him to go to, say, a 2-year preprofessional school, or somewhere that's specialized for his career? He couldn't argue that that would be useless.

I haven't given up. There is still time for me to convince him to attend some kind of college.

I told him that I will help pay for college. I will just continue the child support that is going to his mother, except it will go to his college instead. It won't pay all the tuition and books and whatnot, but it will go a long way.

His other option is that the money stops when he turns 18 and he's on his own to pursue his high school graduate dreams.

[Dave1001]

No, It was a strawman.

Nowhere in this thread did I advocate 14 year olds being able to do surgery.

Then I guess I flanked you Dustin. Because rather than considering it a strawman, I see no reason to ipso facto to prevent qualified 14 year olds from doing surgery, including brain surgery. And the most talented among us might be able to significantly advance the art and science of surgery with the benefits of a longer career arc, particularly leading into the often critical years for knowledge expanding breakthroughs of one's late twenties. Thus I consider myself (and the rest of you) to be stakeholders in removing barriers to practice and study for talented young people with great potential. Hopefully self-interest will triumph over prejudice here, as it has in other areas in the past.

[Dave1001]

Most medical students are performing procedures as soon as they start rotations. They assist in surgeries on their surgery rotation, but do not perform surgeries. From what I understand about surgical rotations, you're allowed to perform supervised surgeries sometime during your residency. It's unlikely that a 14 year old prodigy would be cutting you open, but they might be sewing you up* or holding clamps.

Clinical rotations start in the 3rd year of medical school. You need a temporary medical license to attend rotations. Part of the approval process is taking (and passing) Step 1 of the medical boards.

Obviously, details may vary from school to school.

* The residents/med students I remember never were allowed to close the top layer of skin - because the likelihood of scarring if an inexperienced hand did it.

Yup, this is the type of incremental approach of increase in surgical responsibility after demonstration of competence that a 14 year old prodigy would need to go through, like any other med student/resident

But, to push the enevelope, I'm also not against accelerated residencies for those with the talent to demonstrate that they can benefit from them. Still, I do believe in the importance of barriers to practice predicated on ability to practice surgery (and other types of medicine) safely and professionally. But if the typical neurosurgery resident needs 6 years of training, I suspect that at the far end of the curve the top neurosurgery residents can learn the same in something less than 4 years. Same principle applies to the clinical years.

[Dave1001]

Well, that's certainly your opinion. I'd like to see some evidence to back it up.

Because you picked a rather unfortunate example with medical school. Johns Hopkins University has been at the forefront of the accelerated education movement for a number of decades now; they've more or less established themselves as the pre-eminent tertiary education system for younger students, mostly through the SMPY (Society for Mathematically Precocious Youth) and OTID (Office of Talent Identification and Development) programs. These programs make a point of identifying young superstars (I believe the youngest case I read about was 12; 16 is more usual) accepting them without "proper" secondary school credentialing, and then in many cases providing accelerated undergraduate and graduate education as well. I knew one graduate of this program who had her M.S. at the age of 18.

And, of course, Hopkins also has either the best or the second-best medical school in the world, depending upon whether the person you're talking to attended Harvard or not.

So if this sort of accelerated medical education were practical, I'm sure that Hopkins would already be doing it. (They do it, by policy, in most other fields.) That they don't suggests that your ideas aren't practical.

I have a pretty close affiliation to Johns Hopkins, and I know the undergrad and medical program well. I'm also very familiar with premedical and medical education. I can say with a high degree of confidence that it's not just the most brilliant students who could learn everything of value for pre-clinical medical education in one year. And they could probably do that single year years before they arrived to Hopkins as a freshman premed. This wasn't even the population I was talking about earlier -the ones most likely to significantly expand scientific and medical knowledge as an individual. Our system still has a huge amount of waste even for bright, but not super bright people. If I make it to being a member of what is currently the decabillionaire class, I may break off a few percentage points of my resources to fund this type accelerated education in a sovereign jurisdiction that will allow it. In the mean time I'll advocate for it where smart and self-interested people are likely to see.

[Dave1001]

EDITED to avoid snippiness.

[alfaniner]

You could always do four years in the Marines instead. You'll get an education there you can't get anywhere else.

[JamesDillon]

I have a pretty close affiliation to Johns Hopkins, and I know the undergrad and medical program well. I'm also very familiar with premedical and medical education.
Then you should be aware that student loans are readily available for medical students, such that no qualified student ever needs to pass up medical school for financial reasons. Professional degrees as no longer the exclusive province of "children with rich parents," as you suggested earlier.

I can say with a high degree of confidence that it's not just the most brilliant students who could learn everything of value for pre-clinical medical education in one year. And they could probably do that single year years before they arrived to Hopkins as a freshman premed.
Define "of value." Students in most any major could get their core classes out of the way in one or two years, if that's all they had to take. The university system believes, and I agree, that the benefit of requiring students to acquire knowledge outside a narrow field of specialization is a valuable thing in itself. Even science majors benefit from learning how to write, and from studying a bit of history, literature, and art in addition to their areas of concentration. That simply cannot be accomplished in one year.

This wasn't even the population I was talking about earlier -the ones most likely to significantly expand scientific and medical knowledge as an individual.
I find it impossible to believe that forcing students to take a couple of extra years in order to acquire a more rounded education significantly impedes the scientific progress of humankind.

Our system still has a huge amount of waste even for bright, but not super bright people.
Again, that depends on how you define "waste." I think that taking a little longer to confer a well-rounded basic education on a student is more valuable than expediting their entry into the work force by a year or two, even for the next Einstein (who was himself quite the student of music and literature, I believe).

If I make it to being a member of what is currently the decabillionaire class, I may break off a few percentage points of my resources to fund this type accelerated education in a sovereign jurisdiction that will allow it. In the mean time I'll advocate for it where smart and self-interested people are likely to see.
You are of course free to spend your decabillions however you please, but as a smart and self-interested person myself, I remain unpersuaded by your case.

[AmateurScientist]

I was with you until you took that bit out of Sean Hannity's playbook. Otherwise...well said.

What are you talking about? I've never listened to or watched the guy. That's just an uncool remark to make, Snide. Thanks for the back-handed compliment anyway.

The poster I was responding to made an issue of class by referring to "children of wealthy parents." In the context of his post, his implication was that there was some sort of rich snob network trying to keep the little man down and out of professional schools and out of professions. That sort of attitude is little more than engaging in class warfare, but you can choose any other term that suits you and means the same thing (I'm no right wing talk radio listener -- it just happens to be a fitting phrase. Sorry if it's a coincidence that some egomaniac Rush wannabe uses the same phrase, but you're out of line trying to align me with him). It's just as ugly to portray all wealthy persons as heartless pricks as it is to portray all underprivileged persons as lazy, do nothing deadbeats. Both are examples of unwarranted stereotyping and bringing class into a discussion in which it doesn't belong.

You should know as well as I do that plenty of persons like James Dillon work and pay their own way through professional or graduate school.

AS

[Patricio Elicer]

You're an idiot.JamesDillon, attacking the argument is OK, attacking the person is not.

[JamesDillon]

JamesDillon, attacking the argument is OK, attacking the person is not.

I realize that, and as I've already said I probably should have shown greater restraint in that response, but there are arguments so startlingly inane as to defy all rational responses. Comparing the exclusion of fourteen year olds from the practice of surgery to Jim Crow laws is such an argument. It's intellectually and rhetorically lazy, since literally any kind of discriminatory practice intended to maintain the quality and standards of a profession could be attacked on the same grounds (Dave might as well have argued that requiring aspiring physicians to pass a competency test before cutting into their first patient was morally equivalent to "forcing the differently competent to the back of the bus just because they're not as smart as other kids,"), and it demonstrates a stunning lack of historical perspective and cheapens the experience of African Americans and women who actually did suffer for lifetimes under the oppressive regimes of the past. There is simply no reasonable way to respond to such an argument, because anyone who would make it has simply passed beyond the pale of reasoned discussion.

That said, your point is well taken and I will refrain from making such characterizations, however accurate, in the future.

[drkitten]

I have a pretty close affiliation to Johns Hopkins, and I know the undergrad and medical program well. I'm also very familiar with premedical and medical education. I can say with a high degree of confidence that it's not just the most brilliant students who could learn everything of value for pre-clinical medical education in one year.

Well, certainly, you can say that.

But your statement has no credibility whatsoever, since if it were possible, Hopkins would mostl likely already be doing it. They've got programs in place for as many forms of accelerated education as they can justify, and it's one of their "competitive advantages" in the higher education market.

This sounds suspiciously like one of those "oil companies suppressing an engine that runs off cornflakes" ideas.

[Snide]

What are you talking about? I've never listened to or watched the guy. That's just an uncool remark to make, Snide. Thanks for the back-handed compliment anyway.

The poster I was responding to made an issue of class by referring to "children of wealthy parents." In the context of his post, his implication was that there was some sort of rich snob network trying to keep the little man down and out of professional schools and out of professions. That sort of attitude is little more than engaging in class warfare, but you can choose any other term that suits you and means the same thing (I'm no right wing talk radio listener -- it just happens to be a fitting phrase. Sorry if it's a coincidence that some egomaniac Rush wannabe uses the same phrase, but you're out of line trying to align me with him). It's just as ugly to portray all wealthy persons as heartless pricks as it is to portray all underprivileged persons as lazy, do nothing deadbeats. Both are examples of unwarranted stereotyping and bringing class into a discussion in which it doesn't belong.

You should know as well as I do that plenty of persons like James Dillon work and pay their own way through professional or graduate school.

ASNo, it wasn't backhanded, I merely had two points to make when I said it.

1) Nice post, with one exception.
2) That exception, regardless of whether it was your original thought, is a disingenuous and misleading trick of exaggerating what was said by calling it "class warfare." It's a pet peeve of mine. I will re-read the post to which you were responding to make sure I didn't misunderstand.

I'll be honest that I am not sorry for bringing up Hannity's name, because I like that it is a reminder of where that kind of talk comes from (even though it is of course a fallacy to do so). But I am sorry if it sounded like I was comparing you to Hannity.

[daenku32]

All I know is that I've pretty much reached the pinnacle of my career unless I enter college and get a degree. Or start my own business...which would essentially require a miracle (in order for it to exceed my current job).

[Dustin Kesselberg]

All I know is that I've pretty much reached the pinnacle of my career unless I enter college and get a degree. Or start my own business...which would essentially require a miracle (in order for it to exceed my current job).



Do you have the skill to go higher without a degree but are prevented due to laws or prejudice?

[Dave1001]

Well, certainly, you can say that.

But your statement has no credibility whatsoever, since if it were possible, Hopkins would mostl likely already be doing it. They've got programs in place for as many forms of accelerated education as they can justify, and it's one of their "competitive advantages" in the higher education market.

This sounds suspiciously like one of those "oil companies suppressing an engine that runs off cornflakes" ideas.


Does it also sound suspiciously like someone saying in 1842 (well after enlightenment principles of the scientific method had been understood and applied to medical practice), "If washing one's hands after an autopsy and before helping a pregnant woman give birth helped prevent infant and mother mortality, then physicians would already be doing it"?

My understanding is that you're a scientist. If so, I'd think my points would already be obvious to you -just from what you see professionally. Speaking just of folks I knew that went to Hopkins undergrad, a good portion of the premed kids that went to TAMS, or IMSA, or the various equivalents could have finished from those high schools with a broad liberal arts education that also includes all premedical training up until the clinical years. Instead, these kids, who were my peers in university and who probably work for you or your colleagues, waste a good amount of time just waiting for chronological barriers to their professional advancement to pass.

At least the TAMS kids only have to do 2 years of university and 2 years of preclinical medical school after high school. But that's still at least 4 years wasted time for many of them (and hence for us, the beneficiaries of their scientific breakthroughs), in my opinion.

[Jocko]

Do you have the skill to go higher without a degree but are prevented due to laws or prejudice?


I have the skill to fly, but am prevented by gravity or prejudice.

[AmateurScientist]

No, it wasn't backhanded, I merely had two points to make when I said it.

1) Nice post, with one exception.


OK, then, I express an unqualified thanks for that.


2) That exception, regardless of whether it was your original thought, is a disingenuous and misleading trick of exaggerating what was said by calling it "class warfare." It's a pet peeve of mine. I will re-read the post to which you were responding to make sure I didn't misunderstand.

I'll be honest that I am not sorry for bringing up Hannity's name, because I like that it is a reminder of where that kind of talk comes from (even though it is of course a fallacy to do so). But I am sorry if it sounded like I was comparing you to Hannity.

I think you misunderstand, and are perhaps biased in your apparent strong dislike of blustering right wing nuts like Hannity.

First, Hannity most certainly didn't originate the term or concept of "class warfare." I first heard it about 15 years ago, well before Hannity had made it out of local radio (which by pure coincidence happens to be about 30 minutes from me, and he married a girl I knew very casually, as she was a local newspaper reporter covering the courts). I heard it from debates on the House and Senate floor from mostly Republicans, but it didn't mean what I think you think it means. They used it to criticize mostly Democrats who used cheap rhetoric during political campaigns to demonize persons at the upper ends of the middle class and above, in terms of earnings. This always came up in the context of income taxes, and was couched in terms of "making the rich pay their fair share," or words to that effect.

The implication of course was that "the rich" (which in their parlance included a huge swath of persons in the vast middle class, but who were at the upper range of it) pulled political strings and greased the skids to cheat their way out of paying taxes at all, or at least to reduce them with unfair deductions, etc. that are unavailable to all us common, decent, law-abiding Americans.

If you want to mention being disingenuous, that's disingenuous of the Democrats using that sort of rhetoric. Thus, to criticize that sort of demonizing of the professional class, the successful entrepreneurs, the middle and upper level management, and many others, is indeed warranted. The phrase someone chose and which stuck to criticize that demonizing is "class warfare." Sorry you don't like it, but it's fitting in my opinion, and I'm going to use it whether you like it or not.

You're reading into it more than I intend is your problem, not mine. I wish you had simply not commented, rather than imply I'm a right wing nut, or that I subscribe to the same ideology, and turn me off from wanting to engage you further in discussion.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Do you have the skill to go higher without a degree but are prevented due to laws or prejudice?

If so, call 1-800-SHEISTER. I'll sue to get you what's coming to you. Ask for Dustin.

AS

[Snide]

double

[Snide]

double

[Snide]

OK, then, I express an unqualified thanks for that.



I think you misunderstand, and are perhaps biased in your apparent strong dislike of blustering right wing nuts like Hannity.

First, Hannity most certainly didn't originate the term or concept of "class warfare." I first heard it about 15 years ago, well before Hannity had made it out of local radio (which by pure coincidence happens to be about 30 minutes from me, and he married a girl I knew very casually, as she was a local newspaper reporter covering the courts). I heard it from debates on the House and Senate floor from mostly Republicans, but it didn't mean what I think you think it means. They used it to criticize mostly Democrats who used cheap rhetoric during political campaigns to demonize persons at the upper ends of the middle class and above, in terms of earnings. This always came up in the context of income taxes, and was couched in terms of "making the rich pay their fair share," or words to that effect.

The implication of course was that "the rich" (which in their parlance included a huge swath of persons in the vast middle class, but who were at the upper range of it) pulled political strings and greased the skids to cheat their way out of paying taxes at all, or at least to reduce them with unfair deductions, etc. that are unavailable to all us common, decent, law-abiding Americans.

If you want to mention being disingenuous, that's disingenuous of the Democrats using that sort of rhetoric. Thus, to criticize that sort of demonizing of the professional class, the successful entrepreneurs, the middle and upper level management, and many others, is indeed warranted. The phrase someone chose and which stuck to criticize that demonizing is "class warfare." Sorry you don't like it, but it's fitting in my opinion, and I'm going to use it whether you like it or not.

You're reading into it more than I intend is your problem, not mine. I wish you had simply not commented, rather than imply I'm a right wing nut, or that I subscribe to the same ideology, and turn me off from wanting to engage you further in discussion.

ASI know about all that, but with what the term has become thanks to the SHs of the , I go with what seems to be the likely case. In the context in which you wrote it, it seemed closer to the "Hannity" type of meaning. Perhaps I should have just made a comment about that and removed you from the mix (e.g., "I know you didn't mean it this way, but I have a problem with....").


Not sure why you felt the need to say, "...your problem not mine." Feel free to continue to use the term. If I see it misused (IMO) again, I'm sure you accept that I may reply again.

eta: Respectfully, by the apparent tone of your response, I seem to have hit a nerve. Am I reading too much into it again? And regarding the "demonizing," most people I know of who say the rich should pay their "fair share" do not mean it in the way you present.

[drkitten]

Does it also sound suspiciously like someone saying in 1842 (well after enlightenment principles of the scientific method had been understood and applied to medical practice), "If washing one's hands after an autopsy and before helping a pregnant woman give birth helped prevent infant and mother mortality, then physicians would already be doing it"?

Not unless you're aware of a major medical research institute that had a Centre for Reduction of Infant Mortality through Better Hygiene.

In 1842.

The point isn't simply that Hopkins -- or any other medical school -- would necessarily automatically know the best way of doing medical education. Obviously institutions have blinders.

But Hopkins, in particular, has specialized in accelerated premedical education for a number of decades now. Institutions have a lot fewer blinders in their specialty areas of active research.


At least the TAMS kids only have to do 2 years of university and 2 years of preclinical medical school after high school. But that's still at least 4 years wasted time for many of them (and hence for us, the beneficiaries of their scientific breakthroughs), in my opinion.

I'm still waiting to see any evidence whatsoever that their preclincial medical school is time "wasted."

[Snide]

What is going on here? Dang tripleposts..

[Dave1001]

I'm still waiting to see any evidence whatsoever that their preclincial medical school is time "wasted."

I'll retreat to my "this is a leisure activity for me and I don't feel like it" excuse for why I haven't presented you with evidence that 2 years of post-college preclinical medical school is wasted time for many bright students. Besides, I would have thought that you'd already know this. I don't have a link in front of me to back this up, but for anyone who does a biology bachelors at a JHU equivalent school, the 1st year is completely review. My peers in these programs, most of whom were not going to go on to win nobel prizes in medicine, wasted huge amounts of time, and only the least talented premed and med students pushed themselves to anywhere near their potential studying. And for a lot of these bright kids, this is a problem at least back until junior high school.

Even myself, far from the brightest science/engineering undergrad, felt a bit hamstrung by institutional barriers, but I could percieve that they slowed down the bright and brightest kids (or allowed them to be lazy about stretching their abilities) the most.

I know I don't have any links to studies/authorities in this post either. Lack of time and motivation. But I do think the point is obvious for those who have been in these educational settings, which seems to be more than a few members of the JREF message board, including you.

[drkitten]

But I do think the point is obvious for those who have been in these educational settings, which seems to be more than a few members of the JREF message board, including you.

It's precisely because I have spent extensive time in these educations settings that the point is not obvious. I've met too many Hoppies who don't know their ass from their elbow, and I assure you that that makes proctology clinicals a very trying experience....

One of the main problems with education in general is that of interfacing. I don't know what you (generally) have been taught. Even if I can see your pre-admission transcript (and most of the time, I can't), I don't know what was actually covered in your Mammalian Biology class. Did you get to the endocrine system? Even if you passed the final, you might still not understand the endocrine system well enough. This is true even if you took the class right here at my school, because I don't know the details of material that Prof. Plum teaches.

So the first year may be completely review. But that's deliberate -- and important -- because the breadth of material is crucial. It's hardly a waste of time to make sure that you understand the fundamentals beyond the quirks of any individual instructor.

[Dave1001]

It's precisely because I have spent extensive time in these educations settings that the point is not obvious. I've met too many Hoppies who don't know their ass from their elbow, and I assure you that that makes proctology clinicals a very trying experience....

One of the main problems with education in general is that of interfacing. I don't know what you (generally) have been taught. Even if I can see your pre-admission transcript (and most of the time, I can't), I don't know what was actually covered in your Mammalian Biology class. Did you get to the endocrine system? Even if you passed the final, you might still not understand the endocrine system well enough. This is true even if you took the class right here at my school, because I don't know the details of material that Prof. Plum teaches.

So the first year may be completely review. But that's deliberate -- and important -- because the breadth of material is crucial. It's hardly a waste of time to make sure that you understand the fundamentals beyond the quirks of any individual instructor.

Do you think there's any waste in preclinical medical school for any students? Because it seems you can backwards rationalize any redundancy. What's the harm in allowing students to test out of that first year, with a test that captures the breadth of material. I don't see why passing a series of tests, taken over the course of a week, that includes all of the final exams for the 1st two years of medical school and passing the parallel USMLE stages shouldn't be sufficient to be exempted from most of preclinical medical education.

[drkitten]

Do you think there's any waste in preclinical medical school for any students?

Not in any substantive way.

Yes, there is always waste in any multi-person educational process. If I have to repeat material that you already know because the student next to you does not know it, that's technically "waste."

If I have to repeat material that you were exposed to last term because I don't know the individual contents of last term's lectures, that's technically "waste."

But the alternative -- single instructor and single student for the entire duration of your education -- would be even more wasteful. As would writing, setting, and grading tests to permit "accelerated" education of the sort you suggest.

What's the harm in allowing students to test out of that first year, with a test that captures the breadth of material.

There's no direct harm. But no one would pass that test. More accurately, I doubt that Hopkins Med would see a single student pass that class in twenty years. So the entire test development would be wasted effort.

I believe medical schools do permit "credit by examination" on a course-by-course basis, just as most undergraduate or graduate schools do.

[Dave1001]

I believe medical schools do permit "credit by examination" on a course-by-course basis, just as most undergraduate or graduate schools do.


Really? I was under the impression that they do not- plus there's not much incentive to test out of individual courses if it doesn't allow one to finish one's degree any faster. And I think a lot of people would be able to test out of preclinical medical school in the way I described -you acknowledge that the 1st year of medical school alone is review of what one learns as a bioscience undergraduate major. There's also huge motivation incentives, given the time barriers to medical practice and the eagerness of most premeds and med students to get to the clinical stuff.

[Jocko]

Do you think there's any waste in preclinical medical school for any students?


Is there any satisfactorily reliable way to identify those students for whom the time is "wasted"... BEFORE they waste it there?

Talk about post-hoc rationalization... if the only purpose of that stage of education is to call attention to the best and brightest, then I'd say that's a cost of doing buisness... not a reason to dump the criteria altogether. But of course that's NOT the only reason, so it's even less a concern, from where I'm sitting.

[Dave1001]

Is there any satisfactorily reliable way to identify those students for whom the time is "wasted"... BEFORE they waste it there?


Yes, and I suggested one such way: allow students to test out preclinical medical education at any stage of their educational path.


Talk about post-hoc rationalization... if the only purpose of that stage of education is to call attention to the best and brightest, then I'd say that's a cost of doing buisness... not a reason to dump the criteria altogether. But of course that's NOT the only reason, so it's even less a concern, from where I'm sitting.

I don't see how I'm engaging in a post-hoc rationalization. Also where did I say "dump the criteria altogether" (whatever you mean by that)? Instead, I think students should have the institutional ability to satisfy the criteria without sitting around for 2+years.

[Meffy]

Woo hoo, an example of a compassionate man who dropped out of school in ninth grade, yet went on to become perhaps our era's greatest medical innovator! Dustin, you're vindicated.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63412

[AmateurScientist]

eta: Respectfully, by the apparent tone of your response, I seem to have hit a nerve. Am I reading too much into it again?

No. I was stressed and rushed this morning and took it out on you. I'm sorry; you didn't deserve that. I think you probably read my tone quite insightfully. I shouldn't have been snippy with you. Please accept my apology.

AS

[Snide]

No. I was stressed and rushed this morning and took it out on you. I'm sorry; you didn't deserve that. I think you probably read my tone quite insightfully. I shouldn't have been snippy with you. Please accept my apology.

ASFully accepted. And my apologies for starting it. Next time something reminds me of Hannity, and I decide to act, I'll try to remember the "you probably didn't mean it this way" qualifier. :)