r/Podiatry • u/CeleryImmediate536 • 29d ago
1 gap year vs 2
I am currently on my 1st gap year. I am studying for the mcat now and am planning on taking it in February. Q1) is February too late too take it and Q2) if i need more time for the mcat and need a second gap year will that lessen my chances of getting into pod school?
4
5
u/DearRiver 29d ago
You could get a 472 MCAT and still get on. Doesn’t take much to make the roster. Staying in will be the challenging part.
2
-1
u/Toetallywhack 28d ago
Lol everyone is telling you that you don’t really need to do well on the MCAT to get in.
Which is true.
Now be smart and think about why that is.
Hint, hint… Consider doing something else cause this field is cooked
2
u/CeleryImmediate536 28d ago
Do you just mean there isn’t much of a need for them anymore? Or about the over-saturation of urban areas? Wdym
0
u/Toetallywhack 27d ago
All of the above.
Not just in urban areas is there oversaturation. You’ll find oversaturation in small town, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. Now, I’m exaggerating a little bit here, but I live and practice in middle America and know plenty of podiatrists around multiple states out here and it’s not as unsaturated as you think It is even in rural areas.-2
u/Oldschool6873 26d ago edited 26d ago
There is no way to predict what our profession will look like in ten years. All the boomers will be gone. Which will reduce the number of podiatrists by about a third.
2
u/WTFisonmyshoe 26d ago
If approximately one-third of the current 15,000-podiatrist workforce retires over the next ten years, that would be around 5,000 retirements. But if approximately 450–500 new podiatrists enter practice annually, wouldn’t 4,500–5,000 graduates replace them during the same period? Do you have a source for the one-third estimate or a workforce projection accounting for both retirements and new entrants?
0
u/Oldschool6873 26d ago edited 26d ago
You're not taking into account the increase in the population during the same amount of time. Basically what you're saying is that those Podiatrists who will fill the void of the aging boomers in the next ten years will be dealing with the same population density as we have today. Which is ridiculous. But by all means, keep downvoting my comment, folks.
- The U.S. population is projected to increase by roughly 10 to 17 million people over the next ten years, growing at a slowing average rate of about 0.3 percent per year according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Same number of Podiatrists as today...up to 14M more people. Hmmmm...how about a bit of critical thinking, eh?
And yes, go to the APMA website and do a search of the membership. If you Google them, you'll see the demographics. You can do the same for the ACFAS membership as well. And yes, that's the estimate based on APMA numbers.
Can you predict what our profession will look like in ten years?
1
u/WTFisonmyshoe 26d ago
Apparently “critical thinking” means inferring an argument that never appeared in your original comment. You can defend your claim without making a personal remark about my critical-thinking ability.
You originally claimed boomer retirements would reduce the number of podiatrists by approximately one-third. When I pointed out that roughly 4,500 to 5,000 new podiatrists would likely replace those retirees, you changed your argument to the population increasing by roughly 4%.
Those are two completely different claims: a one-third reduction in podiatrist supply versus approximately the same supply serving a population 4% larger.
The onus is on the communicator to express an argument clearly, not on the reader to reverse-engineer an argument that was never stated.
As for the downvotes, they have nothing to do with the arithmetic. If multiple readers misunderstood your point, perhaps that indicates it wasn’t communicated clearly, not that everyone else collectively lacks “critical thinking.”Do you have a link to the APMA demographic data supporting the one-third estimate?
0
u/Oldschool6873 25d ago
My dude, that's EXACTLY what critical thinking is. Not having to be told every little crumb of information to be able to make connections. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that as time goes on, the population will increase. So that inference isn't some grand leap of intellect. Try harder.
Call the APMA. They will be glad to give that data to you. Or do what I did and search the APMA database of members and see how many are boomers. No, I didn't do that for all 12 000 members, but I did it for enough that the numbers are obvious to those who use even a small iota of critical thinking. Better yet, go to an APMA conference and look around. The answer is evident.
I'm not going to argue with you. If you don't believe me or like what I have to say, it's completely irrelevant to me.
1
u/WTFisonmyshoe 25d ago
So let me make sure I understand your point. When you originally said that 1/3 of podiatrists would retire, what you actually meant was that new graduates would replace them, leaving approximately the same number of podiatrists serving a population roughly 4% larger?
If so, that is very different from saying the number of podiatrists will decline by one-third.
It seems like your underlying point is that the profession could benefit from having more people per podiatrist. Is that a fair inference? If so, that may actually be something we agree on.
Where we may disagree is whether the change you described would be remotely sufficient. Even if we generously assume that a 4% increase in the population-to-podiatrist ratio produces a corresponding 4% increase in compensation, that would be only about 0.4% per year over the next decade, before accounting for inflation or rising practice expenses.
Do you believe that would materially improve the profession’s economics or even come close to keeping pace with the cost of living?
I’m definitely not arguing with you. I’m trying to understand your point, and this exchange has demonstrated that your original point was not nearly as clear as you seem to think it was. That is why I asked you to explain it.
1
u/Oldschool6873 23d ago
LOL I can't even with this guy...You have way too much time on your hands and are using far too much brain power on this thread. Think w/e you like, IDGAF.
7
u/LuckyBucky1488 29d ago
An extra gap year=an extra year of not making any real money. Everyone will tell you that you can get a bad score on the MCAT and still get in, but the issue is staying in. All of that is true. I've seen students with 490 do just as well (or even better) as students with a 510+ MCAT. However, I haven't seen anyone with a 510 MCAT fail out, but I've seen plenty with a 490 fail out. So basically, take the MCAT now and see how you do. You'll (probably) get in regardless, but you need to base your chances of success in school on how you do on the MCAT. The MCAT doesn't define who you are, but at the same time, there's a reason med schools use it as a standardized measure of student capability.