I should have started by admitting that I'm a snowflake, having been born in the first year of those considered "Gen y" or "millenials." I speak from some experience, as I was absolutely crushed the first time I discovered that there were things I wasn't capable of accomplishing, and I did not adjust well when things became difficult, as I'd never really been told "no" before.
I guess we come from different families or social strata, then. I never had delusions that anything was possible and I deserved the world on a silver platter. My family qualifies as "working poor," so maybe I had less privileges to persuade me into believing I was a snowflake. Who knows? But I'm just calling it as I see it, and your discussion on this topic reveals some pretty strong prejudices against those coming behind you in medical training.
Anyway, the argument about increased competitiveness is flawed. The mean has gone up dramatically on Step 1, so it's not as hard to get a 230 as it used to be for many reasons, including better resources for studying, more protected time for studying, and a general understanding that these are high stakes tests.
Hmm, seems convenient to dismiss increasing step scores and MCAT admission scores with such hand waving. It is as hard to get a 230 now as it was then, because the test hasn't been graded any differently. I agree that students are working harder now (studying more, realizing stakes are higher, using more resources), but you're proving my point. Many schools have not provided additional protected study time, btw.
Along those same lines, I'm always told by people around me that general surgery is so much more competitive because there's so many more applications now.....but this is artificially increased because a fear of increased competitiveness has led to medical students casting a wider net/applying to many more places than before. If you really want to gauge competitiveness, you should look at # spots filled by US allopathic students, match rate for US allopathic students, and % AOA in a specialty.
But, don't take my word for it. Look at the stats:
Match rate and % AOA are flawed indicators of competitiveness. Match rate fails to take self selection into account. The derm and ortho applicant pools are far more competitive than the PM&R pool, for example, yet they have similar unmatched rates. Students are actively advised away from competitive fields if their numbers are not up to par. Despite increasing self-selection and enrichment of competitive applicant pools, the unmatched rate remains high.
% AOA doesn't change for the national student cohort, ever. There is a set number of AOA students in the applicant pool and there will never be more or less, regardless of quality, unless new medical schools are opened (...which is happening actually, btw). If you can imagine a terrible national cohort of medical students, who averaged 202 on step 1, they will have the same %AOA as an elite national class averaging 270, because it is awarded based on performance relative to peers. Therefore, it would be wrong to predict national %AOA to change as competitiveness changes. Rather, the fixed number of AOA applicants will shift between specialties and the competitive fields will always have the lionshare (derm, ortho, ent, uro). The %AOA in each specialty depends on whats popular at the time, not the quality of the entire student cohort.
Our only objective data is the standardized test scores, which are sky rocketing, along with admissions GPAs, # publications, years experience post-undergrad, and MCAT scores. Occam's razor would dictate that students are getting better, but I suppose we are free to interpret the data however it fits into our prejudices.
My issue with the students who say something to the extent of "you don't understand how hard we have it" is that...we do. It's silly to argue otherwise. We went through the exact same rotations. And we stay in constant contact with med students going through it today. We just also have a bit of a different perspective after watching a few hundred or so med students go through their rotations as well, and seeing the full spectrum of excellent to terrible students.
I also actively participate in my program's residency application and interview process. I see a ton of applications/CVs every year. Many posters here do the same. So telling us we are oblivious to the competitiveness of the process is just wrong. If anything we likely have a better sense of it than the students here, by virtue of the sheer volume of applications we've reviewed.
The shelf exam has always been important. It has always been a struggle to balance studying for your actual rotation and the cases you'd be seeing and studying for the exam. I couldn't get honors on my clerkship unless I got honors on the shelf exam either.
As SLU said, if anything students have more protected time today than they did a few years ago. The students at my school aren't supposed to pre-round (so they come in right around 6) and we are supposed to let them go home at 5 unless they are still scrubbed in. So yes, I find it reasonable that they somehow manage to squeeze in their studying in the evening and actually be present on the wards during the day.
Wait.. aren't you PGY3 or 4? If so, you're in the millenial snowflake group and your experience won't be much different from those applying this year.
Anyway, no one is saying attendings are "oblivious," just that its peculiar that the surgery sub forum on SDN seems to be the only place where people deny that the medical profession is becoming more desirable and more competitive. Again, program directors in many fields acknowledge this in the real world.