> Think about it: Would you want a surgeon doing your appendectomy who had admissions standards lowered and poor test performance disregarded to diversify his o

> Think about it: Would you want a surgeon doing your appendectomy who had admissions standards lowered and poor test performance disregarded to diversify his or her medical school class? Ok, I'm thinking about it. The first thing I think is: do admissions standards and test performance correlate to shitty appendectomies? And if so, why? The class in question was organic chemistry. I'm not a doctor, but I don't think doctors use organic chemistry very much in regards to surgery. So if the admissions standards were lowered around the organic chemistry requirement, I don't think it would affect appendectomies. So I would not mind the change in that instance. I also know that medical school is tough, and that many branches of medicine often deviate so far from the bulk of the knowledge they learn, that much of it may become irrelevant. I also know that much of medicine is a guessing game. The outcomes are already often not very good, while the costs are very high. So I would not discount the possibility that changing the curriculum might lead to spending less time and money, and specializing more, and getting perhaps the same or even better outcomes. It might even turn out that having shittier doctors isn't a bad thing if we just had more of them. If access to a doctor was cheaper, and we got more of their attention, perhaps we would not be given antibiotics and aspirin every time we go in for a checkup.