I sat the Mensa test a few weeks ago and got my confirmation letter today stating that I'd passed.
So what does this mean? Well to get into Mensa you need to prove you have an IQ in the top 2% of the population. But IQ tests are flawed, and you would be misguided to think they were a measure of one's true intelligence as they have been proven to be linked to socio-economic status - that is, if you were fortunate enough to grow up in a situation where you had the opportunity to learn, you're more likely to have a higher IQ.
So why did I join? In modern Western society I feel there is too much importance placed on looks and sporting ability. I felt I needed to counter-act the balance in some way and maybe meet some nice people at the social events they have. I also wanted to prove something to myself. Studying at OUM is great, but there's always that lingering, annoying doubt about why wasn't I "good enough" to get into an Australian medical school. Well, I'm not sure if I've talked about this here, but in actual fact I am "good enough" by the basis of my GPA and GAMSAT scores, I just didn't make the cut for the 3 grad-entry programs in my state in the 2 years I applied...
So, yes, getting into med school is more competitive than getting into Mensa. Whereas Mensa purely has a fairly static aptitude requirement, med entry is influenced by the number of applicants versus places in a given year. The places are also influenced by government funding and the number of doctors required (but the later not as much as you'd think, as far as I'm concerned). I'm not sure about numbers in other countries which are considered similar to Australia (US, UK, NZ, Canada), but I would hazard a guess that the number of places vs applicants vs general population would vary. And let's not forget the thousands of doctors that come from overseas training where opportunity may be more influential than intelligence.
Funnily enough, though, I sat the ambulance service entry aptitude test three times before I went to uni to get my paramedic degree. Entry used to be via the ambulance service and in-house training was conducted. I calculated, while sitting on my break in between GAMSAT sections a few years ago, that it was more competitive to get into the ambulance service than into medicine, based purely on numbers alone. And guess what? I failed to meet the cutoff on one of those three attempts. I wasn't smart enough, that year, to be a paramedic. Now I am a paramedic, I see why intelligence is important in this job, but there are so many people that I doubt would have ever made the old cutoff that are now quite competent paramedics. Experience, the right attitude, and willingness to continue learning are what I personally consider to be more important, even in life-or-death situations, than pure intelligence or past performance in school or anything else that is measured on medical entry applicants.
The question then is raised - what does the population expect of it's doctors? Do they expect them to be in the top 0.5% of the population, or will the top 2% do? We can't have all our geniuses in medicine, they need to be solving bigger questions to do with population health, medical science, and the environment to name a few. What do I expect of my doctor? Well, I expect my GP to listen, be genuinely concerned, to be a competent practitioner, and to be up-to-date with the latest research, and then finally I would like them to be experienced. Intelligence is perhaps even after all of these things. However, I conceded that these expectations maybe higher of my specialist, but to become a specialist you go through years of post-graduate medical training (as do GPs) and I would expect them to be quite bright in the world they work in.
There are so many aspects to this.
My point really is - if you fail to get into med school, it by no means means that you wouldn't make a good doctor. And if you really want to do it, don't give up.
So what does this mean? Well to get into Mensa you need to prove you have an IQ in the top 2% of the population. But IQ tests are flawed, and you would be misguided to think they were a measure of one's true intelligence as they have been proven to be linked to socio-economic status - that is, if you were fortunate enough to grow up in a situation where you had the opportunity to learn, you're more likely to have a higher IQ.
So why did I join? In modern Western society I feel there is too much importance placed on looks and sporting ability. I felt I needed to counter-act the balance in some way and maybe meet some nice people at the social events they have. I also wanted to prove something to myself. Studying at OUM is great, but there's always that lingering, annoying doubt about why wasn't I "good enough" to get into an Australian medical school. Well, I'm not sure if I've talked about this here, but in actual fact I am "good enough" by the basis of my GPA and GAMSAT scores, I just didn't make the cut for the 3 grad-entry programs in my state in the 2 years I applied...
So, yes, getting into med school is more competitive than getting into Mensa. Whereas Mensa purely has a fairly static aptitude requirement, med entry is influenced by the number of applicants versus places in a given year. The places are also influenced by government funding and the number of doctors required (but the later not as much as you'd think, as far as I'm concerned). I'm not sure about numbers in other countries which are considered similar to Australia (US, UK, NZ, Canada), but I would hazard a guess that the number of places vs applicants vs general population would vary. And let's not forget the thousands of doctors that come from overseas training where opportunity may be more influential than intelligence.
Funnily enough, though, I sat the ambulance service entry aptitude test three times before I went to uni to get my paramedic degree. Entry used to be via the ambulance service and in-house training was conducted. I calculated, while sitting on my break in between GAMSAT sections a few years ago, that it was more competitive to get into the ambulance service than into medicine, based purely on numbers alone. And guess what? I failed to meet the cutoff on one of those three attempts. I wasn't smart enough, that year, to be a paramedic. Now I am a paramedic, I see why intelligence is important in this job, but there are so many people that I doubt would have ever made the old cutoff that are now quite competent paramedics. Experience, the right attitude, and willingness to continue learning are what I personally consider to be more important, even in life-or-death situations, than pure intelligence or past performance in school or anything else that is measured on medical entry applicants.
The question then is raised - what does the population expect of it's doctors? Do they expect them to be in the top 0.5% of the population, or will the top 2% do? We can't have all our geniuses in medicine, they need to be solving bigger questions to do with population health, medical science, and the environment to name a few. What do I expect of my doctor? Well, I expect my GP to listen, be genuinely concerned, to be a competent practitioner, and to be up-to-date with the latest research, and then finally I would like them to be experienced. Intelligence is perhaps even after all of these things. However, I conceded that these expectations maybe higher of my specialist, but to become a specialist you go through years of post-graduate medical training (as do GPs) and I would expect them to be quite bright in the world they work in.
There are so many aspects to this.
My point really is - if you fail to get into med school, it by no means means that you wouldn't make a good doctor. And if you really want to do it, don't give up.
No comments:
Post a Comment