"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

Good. I don't know how much congruence there is between Australian
medicine and the USA, but having doctors who are primarily interested
in curing the sick and preventing sickness strikes me as much better
selection criteria than people who are interested in money & prestige.
I don't have any problem with them having all of the above, just the
order of importance.

In order from most common to least, the reasons given by pre-med students
during selection process interviews with US medical schools is: 1) a
desire to practice medicine, 2) a desire to help people, 3) a need to be
involved in something significant and important, 4) the money, and 5) the
prestige. But when first year medical students were interviewed, the order
was somewhat different, with money and prestige leading the list. So, are
we to believe your Ozzy medical students are any different than our own?
Have you actually talked to any med students there, or are you just shooting
from the patriotic hip?

Here, at least 1 med school screens candidates on a range of social
factors as well as straight exam performance. Can't see that the
results are noticeably worse.

They do precisely the same here. Often the straight-A students are passed
over in favor of those who perhaps had slightly worse GPAs (3.7 to 3.9 on a
4.0 scale) but were involved in extracurricular activities such as
charitable organizations, self-improvement projects, and athletics.
Well-rounded individuals, it seems, make better physicians than bookworms.
Imagine that.

With the exception of cutting edge research, it doesn't really take
that many brains to be a doctor, and the really bright ones get super
bored anyway if they can't do new interesting things all the time.

The really bright ones generally find themselves in academia or pure and
applied research. You are correct in that it doesn't take an Einstein to
practice family medicine.

Do I know anything of what I'm talking about? Maybe not, but my wife is
a PhD from UNSW Medical school (ie, not a MD) and a department head at
one of Australia's biggest teaching hospitals. I have, unfortunately,
had 30+ years of moderately close social association with doctors and
fellow medical researcher types. They were/are no brighter overall,
than my colleagues in other R&D fields, but God, most *think* they are.

Often the MD suffix is synonymous with runaway ego. Rational individuals
generally place those with PhDs above MDs in the cosmic brilliance pecking
order.


BTW, it's harder to get into vet school than medicine here in Oz.

Same here. Numerically medical schools take a higher percentage of their
qualified applicants than do veterinary schools.

Less
places. Exam score (TER - equiv to your SAT most likely) is as high or
higher for vet as medicine. It's just a rationing mechanism, not a
determinant of needed ability.

The primary reason for more applicants for fewer positions in vet schools is
that many people envision helping animals as nobler than helping humans.
Not sure why, but studies have shown that veterinary medicine is the most
desirable health care profession in the US. It's not for the money, albeit
vets have increased their fees and subsequently their incomes dramatically
over the past twenty years, relative to most other non-medical professions.

Max