"Dale Atkin" > wrote in
>> wolunteer activity,that's a good measure, but it should not be
>> limited to volunteering at vet clinics. Can't speak for Canada (my
>> inclination is that it is a world above the USA), but interviews
>> should include those in the animal protection, shelter and rights
>> movements, and other laymen, not just veterinarians.
> Oh I suppose I should add I also had about 8 months volunteering twice
> a week for one animal shelter, and 6 months once a week for a
> different shelter. Almost forgot about those. Don't know how much of
> an impact they had on my being accepted, but I'm glad I did them. Also
> had a few days at a couple of equine practices in there too.
>> Veterinarians have a jaundiced interest
>> in who gets in; it may not coincide with the interests of pets and
>> their owners,nor the community at large.
> And why would this be different from the interests of shelter workers,
> animal rights movements, laymen etc? Vets are people too, and as such
> there is a variety of different inclinations among them. I've heard
> some freaky things from some animal rights activists, to downright
> lies, and don't feel inclined to get involved with them (more in line
> with animal welfare myself). There are unethical people *everywhere*,
> just because someone volunteers their time for a shelter doesn't make
> them ethical. A good portion of my Calgary interview (which I can't
> discuss in any detail due to a confidentiality agreement I signed)
> focused around ethics and motivations. Basically they presented you
> with a situation, and asked to you to discuss it, and provide insight,
> generally in a 'what would you do if?' kind of light.
Talk is cheap and that is the coin of realm in the interview.
Actions speak volumes, interview rhetoric is often just that.
>> the interview process is often very tricky and can be highly
>> misleading because interviews are so easy to fake. other objective
>> measures are needed such as the volunteer hours you mentioned.
> I don't know how objective number of hours is... One person could
> spend 1000 hours in a place, but contribute nothing, and learn
> nothing, whereas another could spend 50 hours, and make a major
> contribution and just 'get' what they are all about.
This is not the point. The point is there are ways of determining who is
a person of character and who is not. Number of hours is probably
correlated, but to what degree, it is hard to say.
>> something that
>> discriminates the selfish and undedicated from the selfless and
>> dedicated. also the dishonest from the honest. even references often
>> do not do this.
> I should mention here that all of the references are confidential. I
> never get to see what any of my referees say about me, and there is
> definite guidelines as far as who makes an acceptable referee
> (generally someone governed by a professional organization who has a
> stake in providing an honest reference, as opposed to a potentially
> biased one)
One other point, is that you can be highly impressive to someone who is
referencing you, but that could be for qualities that have little to do
with becoming a good clinician and being of real benefit to consumers
and their pets. Also, I think there should be some lay people with an
interest in consumer protection on these admission and licensing bodies.
Some Ralph Nader types, imo.
>>>>Test scores and grades are important, but not nearly as important as
>>> Don't know exactly how I'd weight the two. Pretty sure with
>>> Saskatoon it was a 50/50 split. Don't know how U of C did it.
>> too much emphasis is placed on GPA, test scores, etc. A minimum
>> facility in these areas is needed,but they certainly do not give good
>> correlation between the good, dedicated, ethical, honest,
>> compassionate person from many of the jackasses that get to practice
>> vet medicine. they tend to show how good in school you are and how
>> good you take tests.
> Unfortunately a 'minimum facility' in these areas is not enough
> (assuming you mean minimum the way I assume you mean minimum). There
> is a heck of a lot of information that they need to cram in to your
> skull in the space of 4 years. You need to be far above average on the
> academic side of things in order to have a hope of squeezing it all
> in. In case you think I'm exaggerating, in my first term, I have 9
> full courses. A typical full course load in an undergraduate science
> degree is 4-5 courses. (First term I have "Clinical Presentations I",
> "Clinical Skills I", "Professional Skills I", "Anatomy and Histology",
> "Physiology", "Behavior", "Animals, Health and Society", "Genetics and
> Molecular Biology", "Introduction to Veterinary Medicine")
By "minimum" I meant enough intellectual ability to pass the classes and
absorb the material, not the nitpicking GPA tenths of a point and other
such measures that often determine who gets in and who is passed by.
>> the place to get rid of bad veterinarians is before they even get in
>> and graduate and are licensed. much easier than dealing with them
>> after they are out and causing damage.
> I agree fully.
>> I think that vet schools need to get input
>> from other professions in how they admit and graduate their students,
> Don't you think they do? I know for a fact they do, and that they
> provide insight for other professions.
I think you are overlooking the effect of lobbyists and the profit
motive currently driving many veterinarian interests today. The same is
true in human medicine, it's cover our asses FIRST and worry about the
>> here in the USA, they are quite obviously not doing their job in
>> graduating good people. least in my city/state they are not.
> I'd suggest you back that up with some facts or statistics,
> potentially statistically comparing veterinarians to other
> professions, otherwise people are likely to think that you're the
> problem, rather than your state licensing board. (if its so obvious
> you should be able to supply some *facts* to back it up).
> It is very easy to 'blame the money grabbing unethical veterinarian'
> when they suggest something you don't like. When you find several
> behaving in the same fashion, its easy to turn around and say "all
> these people shouldn't have been graduated in the first place". While
> I'm not discounting the possibility that you've seen a string of
> incompetent vets, I certainly not just willing to take your word for
> it. Please don't tell me to 'just go google it'. I have no doubt I can
> find people complaining about their vet online, heck this thread is an
> example of exactly that. This thread is not however an example of an
> unethical/incompetent veterinarian (IMO).
At the risk of repetition ad nauseum, YES, RESEARCH IT and YES, I will
in the future give SPECIFIC examples of what I have witnessed, when the
time is right (in the planning stages now). If you had "googled it" and
you knew how to do a good search, you'd know I was right, because the
evidence is SO plentiful from SO MANY sources, you would have to be
blind not to see there is a SERIOUS problem with veterinary
practitioners, that they are not being properly screened prior to
admissions, graduation and licensing.
> Its an example of exactly what I was talking about. Vet prescribes a
> treatment which they believe is in the best interest of the animal,
> owner goes home, gets on google and finds someone who disagrees with
> the vet, and then pronounces the vet as just trying to get their money
> off them by over vaccinating (ignoring any statements to the contrary
> as just being 'part of the machine').
Well this might be the case with some owners. On the other hand I know
owners that know much more about the condition of their animals, and
their diseases than 95% of the vets they have visited, who are often
ignorant of research findings and too insecure to learn from an owner
who knows more than they do. Same is true among MD surgeons. They are so
insecure, many of them, that some are using techniques abandoned 20
years ago, but dare not tell them anything new, as their pathetic egos
cannot handle it. And yes, I could give you specific examples, but I