How do you feel now knowing all sorts of people with 24 MCATS got into med school and will be or are doctors? And obviously your aptitude is more suited for finance. Just talking comparative percentages here. Sorry you didn’t get in, but I would stake you to get through if admitted.
At first I felt cheated cause i spent 4 years and lots of money, very bitter. Blamed others. But realized, probably later than most that it’s easier to change yourself than to change the world. I kept trying new things until something worked. I think if I got in, I would have been killed by the real deal people. I mentioned my brother in law in a previous thread. BSD of medicine who got mid to high 30s on mcat and a near 4.0 with minimal study. I would have been a hacksaw Doctor. Not getting in med school gave me a chance to find a field that I am good at, enjoy and have a very good chance of doing very well (someday I may make more than the highest paid doctors). So it was all a blessing in disguise and I’m okay with how things worked out.
^ Atta boy!
double
A table of statistics? Yawn is right. I’m not sure how this answers my question about the difficulty of the exams.
I also think it would be interesting to hear your “non CFA fanboy” point of view regarding my other post where there’s a clear point regarding the volume of information each is expected to know (and the fact that each level of the CFA exam is limited to the curriculum for each level-- very different than the cumulative knowledge requirement for medical students). You also need to account for the fact that you can take unlimited attempts at the exams in the CFA program-- most medical schools don’t allow that. In many cases, if someone fails a year, they can repeat the year, but after the second time, they’re usually out. If you pass the CFA exam by one point, no one will ever know, and it won’t change your career. If you pass some of the medical licensing exams by one point, you’re in serious danger of not practicing medicine in the US without significant help. If you fail a CFA exam, no one cares, just retake it. If you fail one of the medical licensing exams that’s viewed in a negative light without a really good reason (not to mention the need to kill it on the retake).
Whenever you have the data and the background information, I’d love to hear it (but unsupported comments are also entertaining, so it’s your call).
couldn’t post outside the quote…
Here are some more statistics- Medical school graduation rate: 97% USMLE success rate: 97% Maybe somebody else can help you use these stats, combined with the previously linked information, to come up with an idea of what kind of clay is required to get a medical license. How and where you will practice is norm based, but getting a license is criteria based. Review my original statement. What somebody will be able to do with that license or charter has nothing to do with my original argument. My guess is that you have neither the charter or a medical license? My basis is that you bore me.
Tell me, do you make the same argument that because the passing rates on the CFA exams are so low that these stats are evidence of a difficult exam? If we had a bunch of people who don’t speak english take the verbal portion of the GMAT would you use their scores as evidence that the verbal section is really difficult? I’m not saying all MDs are geniuses, but I am saying you appear misguided in your argument.
My point with that statement is more to do with the fact that just passing isn’t enough for an MD, but it’s a badge of honor for a charterholder. My point is that you don’t get unlimited redos to call yourself a physician, but you get unlimited attempts to call yourself a charterholder. Unlimited redos is certainly easier than a small number of attempts.
Oh, is this where you tell is that you’re Ghibli, CFA, M.D.? It does seem a little odd that you’re arguing for superiority of the CFA group, so my guess is you’re sporting one of those titles but not both. Do you have more experience with the process aside from just finding information on the internet?
I’m sorry I couldn’t be more entertaining for you. By the way, have you thought of a way to address the discrepancy regarding the volume of information, the time frame, and the cumulative nature of an MD/DO program in comparison to the nicely partitioned, minorly cumulative CFA program? As I said before, when you can actually handle that part of the equation, then you might have ground to stand on…Are you also a believer that the CFA program is more rigorous than a Ph.D. in Finance at a respectable school?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not bashing the CFA program at all. My participation was because I enjoyed it and I wanted to challenge myself.
^You’re just not getting it. For some odd reason, my apologies if you’re a little slow, definitely not cool to pick on the handicap, you are having a hard time sticking to what I said. I’ll narrow it down to the charter and a medical license for you. One more time, my suggestion is that a greater percentage of charterholders would successfully obtain a medical license than vice versa. Definitely will take longer to go through medical school and take the USMLEs. No doubt more effort and commitment will be required. Certainly would not be a land slide. But I think the charterholders would squeak it out. You obviously don’t have doctors as clients. You would be shocked how many struggle with numbers. I’ve had a couple admit that they were maybe average in high school when it came to mathematics. Average! Do you have any idea how weak the average high school student is in math? Not suggesting you have to be great in math by the way, but numbers shouldn’t intimidate you. You may get all starry eyed when looking at a white coat, but I suggest you take a look underneath. Hell, ask a financial sales guy, STL maybe, about selling to MDs, and lawyers for that matter. While medicine has some extremely brilliant people, some of the World’s smartest, that kind of horsepower is not even close to required to get the license. My only point. And the data I provided, overwhelmingly suggests I am probably right. While the clay entering med school is far better than the clay entering the CFA program, one as a high filter, one has virtually none, the success rate in one of them is extraordinary. Far more than 7% of the people entering med school are mediocre at best. And far more than 75% of the people entering the CFA program are probably mediocre or worse. But the success rate is less than 1 in 4. 1 in 10 without a retake.
Your true colors are showing. It’s always interesting to see how people react when they’re challenged or someone disagrees with them.
I understand what your claim is, and my previous replies are aimed at showing why your claim is likely inaccurate. For one, if it takes more effort and more committment, and someone proves themselves on that path, they could likely pass a path that requires less effort and less committment. I wouldn’t be so quick to make the opposite conclusion (that you’ve made and taken a step further by saying more charterholders would be successful in comparison with MDs).
Debatable on the landslide comment. A majority of those aiming to obtain the licensing give up their 20’s, on average, in addition to foregoing income in favor of taking out loans. A majority of people attempting the charter are employed. It seems a lot easier to be committed to one of those versus the other, but thats my opinion.
You’re right; I don’t have doctors as clients. I’m willing to bet I know many more doctors than you have as clients. I wouldn’t be surprised how many struggle with numbers. I’ve seen it first hand, and I think it should change (by the way, feeling uncomfortable with a subject doesn’t mean someone is incompetent in it). Medical education isn’t focused on mathematics for a reason (although some specialized fields do increase the emphasis). You don’t need an ounce of “high-level” mathematics to successfully complete the CFA program. And, if you look at the mathematics required for the MCAT, it’s not really beyond high school math, similar to the CFA program. You aren’t allowed a calculator, and the math goes up to scientific notation and mental approximation of logs/anti-logs/roots (not saying this is difficult, but it’s at least on par with the calculator-aided math seen in the CFA program).
I see, and this proves what, exactly? I’ve met at least a handful of charterholders who are absimal at the kind of mathematics required to get the charter, but I’m not using that as some sort of evidence. It’s anecdotal, which is pretty low quality (someone might think they are excellent or below average with a given skill and might be the exact opposite, but this isn’t the point we are trying to make).
Let me ask you this. How many charterholders would admit they’re intimidated by even high school chemistry, physics, biology…? How many charterholders would look silly if you asked them to explain the basics of embryogenesis? It’s something a licensed physician would consider pretty basic (and quite frequently covered in high school), but I’m willing to bet many charterholders would feel below average with “that science stuff”. It’s more of a function of what you study and for how long.
Trust me, I don’t get starry eyed for white coats. You’re really missing the point that someone who works in finance has a leg up on someone who probably hasn’t studied much, if any finance. Your arguments can all be flipped for charterholders. Undoubtedly, some are very brilliant. We can still make some of those people look very silly if we take them out of their element. You can get very far in the CFA program with brute force memorization. Look for buzz words, plug and chug a formula. Here’s a key phrase-- recall general relationship, find answer that fits. It works in both fields, and both require some conceptual thinking. And, of course, the top horsepower isn’t required for licensure, just as the top horsepower isn’t required for the charter. It’s kind of a moot point you made with that statement.
I thought your only point was that more charterholders would complete medical licensure (which includes schooling and some training), than would the MDs. Are you now changing your point to say that less than the most brilliant people can pass licensing? I would agree with you there. I would even agree that, with the correct background, many charterholders could successfully complete medical licensing (not necessarily more successfully, as you once argued). I also think that many MDs, with the proper background, could complete the charter.
Again, in what way? Are you showing that a higher success rate indicates an easier exam or process?
If we’re talking about US medical licensing (which we have been), I agree that many people are average (from an already filtered pool). You could swap these candidates for a similarly educated person. You like to rely on the numbers at face value. Let’s contrast the two paths again (maybe we can see beyond those numbers a little bit). One is a full time path of learning and studying a standardized education. The other is a part time study path with a standardized curriculum with probably more variation due to 3rd party study materials, but we can say these two paths differ in the frequency, duration, and intensity of study. This is one reason why we might see a higher success rate in medical school completion and medical licensing. If people studied in the same manner for the CFA exams, I guarantee that the pass rates would be much higher. The other aspect is the artifical barrier to the charter created by work experience. This can deter people from completion, or it may prevent someone from ever obtaining it solely because they weren’t working in the right place. The pass rates of the CFA exams are undoubtedly reduced by candidates who signed up and can’t get their money back but sit for the exam anyway (whether the employer or candidate paid). Many people change career paths or decide they don’t need the charter. I could be mistaken, but this is probably included in the “overall success rate” for obtaining the charter, which is another way that the pass rate is artificially low. I’ve hear too many people just wing the exam for the “already paid” reason or because they already have a finance degree…These things don’t happen in medical licensing exams. Far fewer people switch course in the middle of medical school. Even few people take a licensing exam just to “see what happens”. You don’t have the repeat luxury as I mentioned before.
There’s a plethora of variables here that are unaccounted for in your statement. If you’ve got data regarding all of this, share it. You’ve got to look at the entire process behind those numbers. As it stands, you can’t compare them like you’re doing.
I don’t think you should take this as a comment against your ability. It just seems like you put too much stock in your charter when you try to show that you’re above average.
I’m going to neglect a proof read on this post…
I’ll also say that it doesn’t seem to be a fruitful discussion at this point; we’ve both said our piece. We’ve got different views, and that’s okay with me.
Nope, never said charterholders would have a higher medical licensure rate than what is normal for medical students. In fact, i would bet it would be lower. It is already insanely high. You’ve created your own argument. Nice work. Maybe somebody that scored well on the GMAT verbal can help you out.
Don’t hurt him ghibli
I’ll admit that I somewhere derailed to a different argument early on and that I’ve been arguing mostly for a different point (and I probably got a little side tracked with other talking points). Oh well.
Understood, and I agree you didn’t say that.
It interests me that you did engage me in this off-point argument, though, but it’s not a big deal.
However, I’d make the same arguments to your original point. It’s a baseless conclusion to say that more charterholders could successfully complete med school than MDs could complete the charter merely because you looked at the aggregate numbers. Many of the points I made still apply to that claim. The simple fact is you have a more intense and a longer course of study in one path. (Correct me if I don’t have it this time.) Your (still unsubstantiated) point is that a larger proportion of those from the less intense and shorter course of study could be successful in the longer and more intense path than the other way around. What do you think is easier, going from running marathons to 5Ks or from a 5K to a marathon? I may have made a mistake with what I was arguing, but some points are still applicable, and you still haven’t supported your point with anything solid aside from your extrapolations from aggregate numbers (and that you had some doctors admit to you they’re not comfortable with math…). Keep in mind that much of what I am arguing is that you don’t seem to have the support needed to make your claim.
Even though ‘Mediocre’ in the literal sense means ‘in the middle’, which is by definition as far from the extremes as you can possibly get, in British English it often carries a condescending meaning…then ‘extremely mediocre’ would be an understatement of saying 'very very bad. Perhaps we’re just an overly sarcastic bunch, but in my mind ‘very/extremely mediocre’ words rather well in certain situations…