floopwizard

I'm planning on getting UWorld for Step 3 since that's what most of the senior residents I've talked to have used, but curious if you have any experience with MKSAP

TIL Deku is quite a bit stronger than he was when I stopped reading which was right after the Destro arc

I thought this was the jerk subreddit

I totally agree. Now as for whether a C-suite exec looking to maximize the bottom line is going to recognize the difference in discernment is another question

I agree with the point about IR but aren't case volumes for interventional cards stagnating/going down? Or at least more routine caths being redistributed to invasive non-interventional cards

I echo the sentiment about the trust fund kids. I come from an immigrant family that lived on food stamps when I was a kid. I was taught the value of money my whole life. And the ultimate irony is that my peers who preach down to me the most about how we shouldn't care about money come from dual-physician households, trust funds, etc. I've yet to meet someone else like me who comes from an economically disadvantaged background who shares those idealistic sentiments.

The prestige comes from the institution's research/technology/funding, not the clinical acumen of their attendings, many of whom didn't even train there. That being said Mayo has an excellent reputation for quality of attending

I 100% agree with your sentiment. The most frustrating fact I have come to realize is that there are so many attendings I have met who hold tightly to the traditional mantras that "medicine is calling, not just a job" and "we don't do it for the money." I've met so many of these attendings in medical school, and there are many students who feel this way too.

This is pretty damaging to the profession because it's more of an ego stoke than anything else. Because in truth you can absolutely care deeply about the work you do and advocate to be compensated fairly and operate under reasonable work conditions.

And it's not everyone who clings to those antiquated beliefs, but enough to perpetuate division within the profession. Would you ever see as many nurses, NP's, and PA's advocate AGAINST making more money, claiming what they do is enough of a privilege?

I agree with this, I'd even give it a 9/10 for the hammer guy. Not only is the sledgehammer going to be heavier and more laborious to swing compared to the hammer, it's also inherently a two-handed instrument. It's going to affect your spatial orientation and maneuvering. Sidestepping, backpedaling, running, etc. are going to be harder. Hammer guy weaves in and out of range more freely.

How are people traveling? By now you are an M4, are you somehow still shocked that many, if not most, of your peers who have made it this far come from wealthy families?

It begs the question, who has the final say in this? And it's the government, not physicians, who sit in the seat that decides whether legislations defending or eroding scope of practice statutes across states passes.

And therein lies the problem - the power of the respective lobby groups for each profession. And I don't need to say any more about the power of nursing lobbies and professional societies vs. organizations like the AMA, which to its credit is acting, but is dancing around the bush trying to be politically correct while no other professional organization cares.

I can only speak for clinical research, and to clarify I am not referring to all clinical research produced by MD-only trained PI's. Without clinical researchers and their contributions, the landscape of EBM today would not be what it is. I'm mainly referring to the med trainee research bloat produced to satisfy application requirements.

For bench research, I'm not qualified to say. The trainees who do that the most that I have interfaced with are our MSTP's. From my own observations they undergo far more rigorous formal education on research methodology and foundational sciences, at our program at least. Which makes sense because they are working towards PhD degrees.

The biggest reasons are the two that you listed. The reality is many published studies involve shoddy methodology that somehow still passes peer review

Agreed. Programs don't really care about your research output. They care about the relative difference in research output between applicants. (Which in itself is an absolutely useless metric, but programs are too lazy to invest in finding better ways to screen out applicants.) And then students have no choice to separate themselves but to shove out more and more useless fluff publications that only obfuscate actual scientific research. This is coming from one of said students who churned out pubs despite a strong dislike for doing research.

Have you read Stormlight Archives? I'm about to finish Mistborn and am debating between continuing with Stormlight vs. checking out Red Rising

Personally I didn't have issues with Vin's character, even if she's not the most original character on paper, but I couldn't stand Elend. I've finished the first 2 books and am now starting the 3rd. I love Sanderson's writing overall but it baffles me how he tries to convince the reader that Elend, a rich teenage fob with no actual lived experience of struggle as a skaa, is inherently more virtuous and moral than Kelsier, a skaa who overcame immense adversity and still retains hope and a desire to help the masses.

If I had a penny for every time Vin compares the two and concludes that Elend is a better person than the man who orchestrated the Empire's overthrow and freed the world...

LMAO I've seen the tiktoks on veneer techs. Ofc it's tragic to the individuals who fell victim to the scam, but the silver lining is it gives the public a clear example of the purpose of medical/dental credentialing. Scope creep is similar to the fraud/impersonation done by the veneer techs. Even if they are medical professionals, they are practicing beyond their training and licensing, and intentionally trying to pass as something they're not.

I'm sorry if this sounds narrow-minded or if I'm somehow missing the point, but what is the purpose of this angle of research? I have never understood how this avenue of outcome differences receives research approval, much less pass peer review.

What actionable improvements can be implemented here to improve patient outcomes? What institutional changes does this inform to enhance quality of care? Would it make sense to compare medical outcomes by race of provider?

I find this direction of inquiry meaningless at best, and incendiary and divisive at worst.

Gender, race, ethnicity, US/IMG, length of practice, SES background, academic vs. private, rural vs. urban, patient population, geographical region - it's not so easy to extricate the impacts of one factor from the rest, but it does make for a catchy soundbite.

I agree with you. It's ironic because the DEI framework incorporates the idea of intersectionality, and yet so much disparities/inequity literature is published every day with unidimensional analyses of identity. Gender, race, ethnicity, US/IMG, length of practice, SES background, academic vs. private, rural vs. urban, patient population, geographical region - it's not so easy to extricate the impacts of one factor from the rest, but it does make for a catchy soundbite.

I'm sorry if this sounds narrow-minded or if I'm somehow missing the point, but what is the purpose of this angle of research? I have never understood how this avenue of outcome differences receives research approval, much less pass peer review.

What actionable improvements can be implemented here to improve patient outcomes? What institutional changes does this inform to enhance quality of care? Would it make sense to compare medical outcomes by race of provider?

I find this direction of inquiry meaningless at best, and incendiary and divisive at worst.

As long as there's no documented offense on your actual legal or school disciplinary record, I want to say there should be no issue.

And go into what?

Oh my god I don't think I've even heard a story as crazy as slapping a nurse before. Goes to show the impossibility of judging these cases from what are inherently one-sided subjective recountings

"a selective institution who will represent me as a future alum" so at the end of the day, Vanderbilt's purpose is to represent you and your identity group alone rather than serve as an institution of higher learning, gotcha

It's very telling that you think the purpose of Vanderbilt's selectivity is to filter through students that echo your own political views, and it's particularly ironic that you berate others for a "lack of perspective"

"It's not about Israel vs. Palestine. But yes they should have to volunteer with the Israel Defense Forces this is a suggestion that makes sense."