physician training in the U.S.

re: lawyers without law school

A friend sends the educational requirements for physicians:

Four years of college
then four years of medical school (during those last two years, you do a
bunch of rotations through whatever teaching hospital your medical
school is connected to).
Then residency -- which has varying lengths.
I believe the standard residency is 3 years, but can be much longer
(surgery is much longer -- 5 years).
After residency, you might choose a subspecialty, which would require a
fellowship (of varying length).

My husband’s pre-career training went something like this
4 years at xxxx undergraduate in engineering
4 years xxxx Medical school
3 years residency at xxxx in general pediatrics
3 years fellowship at xxxx in ped cardiology
so about 14 years of training and he was in his early 30s when he got
his first job.

Surgery is much longer. Not only is the residency longer, but if you
chose a subspecialty as well (such as cardio-thoracic) the surgery
fellowship is much longer.

Calculating the value of a class: Unsatisfactory Data Transfer Rate

I am paying a bit more than $1.20/minute for one of my graduate school classes. How do I know this? I divided the tuition cost for the class by the number of minutes the class is nominally in session.

To date, on the $/minute metric, I've spent $864. Personal valuation of information received, to date? $125, max.

Well, I've made some friends and/or future colleagues. That's worth something.

On the other hand, it has really sharpened how I think about the airtime I take up in class. Before I open my mouth (which usually lasts at least a minute), I think, "Is this worth $1.20 of my classmates' money?"

On the gripping hand, there's the Ditz Boredom Index. My urge to talk is directly related to how dissatisfied I am with the rate of [information/data] transfer. I realize I am hogging the airtime....

Grumpity grump. But you know, in every training program there are the slog-through bits.

Hmmn, maybe I should write the syllabus I wish I the class had offered, including a more meaningful reading list.

why SATs predict predict college success

Speaking of SATs, here is John Allen Paulos' explanation for why SATs do predict college success, nothwithstanding ritual assertions to the contrary from university presidents, admissions officers, and a chorus of lookers-on:

School's getting out, but the dreaded Scholastic Assessment Test, better known as the SAT, looms just a summer away for next year's high school seniors.

Given this, many might be inclined to agree with the president of the University of California, who announced several months ago that he would like to abolish the test as a requirement for admission to the school. (He would retain the SAT II, which measures achievement within particular disciplines.)

[snip]

How predictive of success in college are SAT scores? More precisely, what is the correlation between high school SAT scores and first-year college grade point average?

[snip]

Most studies find that the correlation between SAT scores and first-year college grades is not overwhelming, and that only 10 percent to 20 percent of the variation in first-year GPA is explained by SAT scores.

This association appears weaker than it is, however, for an interesting, but seldom noted statistical reason: Colleges usually accept students from a fairly narrow swath of the SAT spectrum.

The SAT scores of students at elite schools, say, are considerably higher, on average, than those of students at community colleges, yet both sets of students probably have similar college grade distributions at their respective institutions.

If both sets of students were admitted to elite schools or both sets attended community colleges, there would be a considerably stronger correlation between SATs and college grades at these schools.

Those schools that attract students with a wide range of SAT scores generally have higher correlations between the scores and first-year grades.

This is a general phenomenon; the degree of correlation between two variables depends on the range of the variables considered.

[snip]

Soccer Assessment Test

Assume there were an SAT (Soccer Assessment Test) that measured the speed, coordination, strength, and soccer experience of students in a certain city. Assume further that the students roughly divided themselves into five leagues depending on their scores on this SAT, players in the top leagues having higher SAT scores on average than those in the lower leagues.

One wouldn't expect that a measure of success in the sport, say number of goals scored, to vary much among the leagues. There would be good scorers and bad scorers in every league and, just as grade point distributions are similar in most colleges, the distribution of goals scored would probably be similar in the five leagues.

In each league the better scorers would probably have only slightly higher SATs on average. In other words, there wouldn't be a high correlation between SAT scores and success in soccer within any league.

There would, however, be a much higher correlation between SAT scores and soccer success were the students randomly assigned to the teams in the five leagues.

[snip]

The analogy between soccer and scholastics is not perfect, of course, but the point remains. Like the soccer "SAT," the scholastic SAT provides incomplete, but useful information to students and colleges. A rough measure of intellectual preparedness, the SAT shouldn't be made into a fetish, but neither should it be ignored.

Without it, colleges would undoubtedly place more emphasis on high school grades and extracurricular activities, measures that also have serious shortcomings grade inflation and meaningless resume-puffing being the main ones.

The SAT is a flawed predictor, but it is also relatively objective and, among other virtues, sometimes provides a way for the bright, yet socially inept student to be recognized.

I was happy to read this.

I always knew the "SAT scores don't predict college success" meme was wrong, but I couldn't work out why.

For what it's worth, Ed says GREs absolutely predict success, and do so in a fashion that's entirely commonsensical.

Applicants with verbal scores in the 700s are a lock. (for newbies: I'm talking about a graduate program in French studies) Professors know these candidates are intellectually equipped to succeed in a masters or doctoral program. The GRE doesn't tell an admissions committee anything about a candidate's emotional stability or potential for suffering Ph.D.-killing life crises, but admissions committees don't expect it to.

Applicants with scores in the 500s likely will not be able to handle the program.

Applicants in the 600s are a mystery. Some will wash out; some will be in the middle along with their scores; and some will be flat-out brilliant, best in show. These are the folks who come bearing surprises.

I like that.


another reason to teach to mastery
why SATs predict college success
more stats from 2007 SAT