med school

At the risk of being a little mean-spirited, here's a thought experiment at the expense of those applying for med school.

Fact: the MMI system has been shown to be a better predictor than standard interview panel for success on a medical licensing exam.
Fact: everyone I've talked to (or stalked on Facebook) has said that their interview went well.

Hypotheses:
1. Med school candidates are either not honest or unaware of their actual likelihood to do well on the medical licensing exam.
2. If these people actually think their interviews went well, then med school candidates are unaware of their actual likelihood to do well on the medical licensing exam.
3. If the medical licensing exam is a good indicator of how well a doctor will practice, then med school candidates are unaware of how good of a doctor they will actually be.
4. If (1), (2) and (3) are true, then many med school candidates must either not consider how good of a doctor they will be OR overestimate their likely abilities as doctors.


This is of course all incorrect, the main thing being that no one actually gets the opportunity to compare themselves with other people's MMI responses. Which is actually my main point; too few people are objectively able to compare themselves with the competition. But I would also hazard an argument that there should be more people who feel morally compelled not to apply for med school, because they wouldn't be good enough doctors. You can easily argue that there is no problem with someone wanting to be a doctor, but I will argue that money and lives are on the line here. And if Dr. Austin (U of T Pharmacy) is correct when he says that pharmacists who have become doctors say that they could have passed the medical licensing exam with pharmacy traning, this becomes more thought-provoking.