Cowtown - Sunday (Day 2)

I woke up on Sunday feeling refreshed. Despite my trouble falling asleep, I seemed to have evaded my typical morning grogginess. I ordered up some breakfast, for some reason I thought I was really hungry. After waiting twice as long as I was told to wait, my massive stack of pancakes arrived. I learned a valuable lesson that day: anxiety suppresses my appetite. It wasn't like I was freaking out, not at all. It was more of a mixture of excitement and not knowing what to expect. Whatever it was, I think I managed to eat a single pancake (out of 3) and some fruit. I plan to switch up my traveling breakfast. From now on, I'll get a bagel and tea. Nothing too heavy.

I checked out of the hotel around 11AM and headed over to the Health Sciences Centre where the interviews were held. I got there way too early - my Vancouver-based distance/traveltime calculations are way off. These cities have no traffic (especially on Sunday!), and the distances are within eyesight. In any case, instead of looking like a complete tard, I decided to walk around the Health Sciences Centre in my own little one-man informal tour. It's an impressive building. It seems new and sleek, and I assume somewhat functional.

Just inside the entrance of the Health Sciences Centre.

I guess that means me!


Hippocrates. I like his toga.

Soon enough, my interview day started. This 4.5 hour trek lasted me from noon till near 5pm. The medical school interview at U of Calgary is pretty intense. It comes in two parts:

Part 1 is the Multiple Mini Interview. In this segment, we do a round robin interview with 9 individual judges spending 10 minutes at each station. As with all medical schools, I've signed a confidentiality agreement of some sort, so I can't give much in the way of details. Basicaly, think of it as 9 first impressions.

Following Part 1 was, you guessed it, Part 2 - the On Site Essay. We were given 50 minutes to type two essays. Again, no details. But trust me in this, it wasn't very fun or enlightening. At least we got to type it up in the computer lab.

Finally, we were done! We got the canned speech about how great the medical school program is at U of C. The faculty/doctor who spoke to us, and generally followed us around all day, was a great guy. Calgary Flames jersey aside, he seemed like a really nice guy.

With the interview day over, I waited another aeon for my taxi. First, picked up my stuff from the hotel, then off to the airport. It must be a Calgary thing - I had a great time chatting with the cab drivers in Calgary. I got to the airport way too early, but I had nothing else to do. Did you know that WestJet doesn't let you check in earlier than 5 hours before your flight? Well now you know.

That was a very, very long 5 hours. In that span of time, I ate 12 inches of sandwich and read half a book. Thank god I found some nice individual sofas right beside my gate. I bet my ass-print is permanently pressed into that sofa. I'll be sure to check on my way back from Winnipeg (as I'm stopping in Calgary).

Trying reading this book for 4 hours. I dare you.

As we were finally settling into the plane, the captain came on with some not-so-great news. Maintenance had found a large dent in the tail of the airplane, rendering it unfit to fly. Great, another hour of sitting around. Although, I suppose that's better than disintegrating mid-flight.

Almost home.

So, what did I learn through this experience?

• Vancouver is an amazing city. Hands down, the scenery, the city, the shops and entertainment. I don't think there's much competition - in Canada at least. I've been to lots of places, but only now that moving away has become a very real possibility have I realized how amazing this city is.
• Interviews for medical school aren't as big and bad as I thought. Just relax, be yourself, and don't worry. I don't know how well I did, but what's done is done - no need to second guess myself.

Last, but not least, my summary of studying medicine at the University of Calgary:

Pros:

• Calgary isn't Vancouver, but it's still not that bad of a city. It's urban, modern, and growing fast. At least Calgary has Vancouver style condo highrise buildings going up. Also, downtown Calgary is pretty clean and safe.
• Calgary has covered walkways EVERYWHERE...you could probably make it through a whole winter day without going outdoors. And trust me, for a spoiled Vancouverite, that sounds very tempting.
• The medical school is nice, it looks new and modern. It's also attached to a major hospital.
• Travel between Calgary and Vancouver is fast (~1 hr flight), convenient, and cheap. Thank you WestJet.

Cons:

• I didn't get a very good vibe from the student body. I don't know what it is. As a point of comparison, the med students at U of Manitoba were much friendlier. Then again, Calgary goes through a lot of interviews compared to, say, Manitoba, so that might be a factor.

Unsure:

• Calgary is an innovative school. Their medical curriculum is taught according to the 100 or so different ways a patient can present to physicians. Traditional anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, and pathophysiology are integrated throughout. However, I'm not totally sure if this is a good thing. Traditional medical education has worked well for a very long time--it has a well tested track record.
• The undergraduate MD program is only 3 years long, instead of the typical 4 years. On the plus side, that means I finish school and get into residency a whole year sooner. However, that also means I only get 4 weeks of vacation a year, instead of 3 months. This limits my possibility to do a research project, or to gain extra clinical experience outside of my formal training.

That's it for Calgary, check back soon for the next installment of my "national tour".

Cowtown - Saturday (Day 1)

As some of you know, I have been invited for a number of interviews at out-of-province medical schools. My first stop along my 'national tour' took me to Calgary (don't worry, I don't plan to run for politics).



I left Vancouver soon after sunrise on Saturday morning. I was somewhat paranoid about how strict pre-boarding security would be with my 'Gels, Liquids, and Aerosols'. They weren't. I was within all the legal limits - everything was travel sized and in a clear, resealable, bag. I thought they would have at least looked at it. But I went through security without a single question. It makes me wonder what the hell the strict rules are for - do they even check?

My hotel in Calgary was the Sandman in downtown. It was decent for the price: nothing spectacular, nor any glaring faults. I decided to spend my afternoon walking around downtown. It's no Vancouver, that's for sure. The whole trip took 3 hours...including 1 hour sitting in a chair eating lunch. But, there are some highlights.



Calgary Tower was probably the best part. For those that don't know, Calgary Tower is, well, a tower. You pay a disproportionately large sum of money and get whisked to the top by windowless elevator. The observation deck at the top has a great view of the city. Although, I suppose that isn't much to say considering it is right in the middle of the city, and the city is completely flat. Nonetheless, it was nice! I liked the 3 or 4 glass panels you could stand on and look down from. The first time I stepped on to them was rather unnerving, but I got used to it quickly. I only wish that they would have had a glass floor all the way around the observation deck, not just in a single, 2 meter wide patch.







I went as far as the Olympic park before deciding to call it a trip and head back to my hotel. Conveniently, Calgary has a tram system that runs through downtown and stops right in front of my hotel! Oh, did I say, the tram is free in the downtown core. Sweet deal. So I hopped on for the 3 minute ride back home. Total time spent: 3 hours.





I spent the rest of the afternoon cuddled in my (uncomfortable) bed. You know, those beds where you can feel the springs whenever you dare migrate towards the center of the mattress. Lack of sleep, combined with lack of entertainment, led to a wonderfully long snooze. I ate dinner at the restaurant in the hotel lobby, and retired to my room for the rest of Saturday.





My attempt to fall asleep at 11 failed. I was too anxious looking forward to the next day - and my medical school interview. But, thank god, I eventually fell asleep - sometime after 12.

To be continued...

Diastole, systole...wait, not that heart!

Happy Valentine's day, my love!

Happy New Yea..Uh..Happy February

It's been a while, hasn't it. I haven't posted since-oh my-last year.

Hum, where to begin...

Christmas break was a great time to relax. Quite low key: some family, some friends. Nothing spectacular. I must say, I enjoyed my new computer.

After some initial juggling about, I've ended up with four courses for my last semester at UBC! Wow, this feels good. I haven't had a courseload this nice for a while. On top of that, I work 10 hours a week, volunteer for 2, and dance for another 2. Nonetheless, life is much better than last semester.



How about medical school applications? Well, I'm going to remain purposely vague for the next few months, until my fate is decided. All I will say for now: some disappointments mixed in with nice surprises. Oh, and I'll be doing a bit of flying/busing/taxiing/hoteling over the next couple month. I'm off to Calgary in a couple weeks; in March, I'll be dropping into Winnipeg and Toronto/Kingston. Thank God for WestJet!

As for this coming summer, I have applied for an NSERC grant to do research with one of my professors. NSERC grants are federal grants available to undergraduate science and engineering students to allow them to gain summer research experience. My professor's research field is spinal cord injury. With my GPA, I feel 75% confident that I'll be approved. Not to mention my prof has had an NSERC funded student several years in a row now. More details if I actually get approved.

I also have a few ideas for posts circulating in between my ears. I hope to get back to semi-regular blogging. So cross your fingers and check back in a few days!

Just Have Faith

"Just have faith that it's true."

I've heard this quite a bit lately. People often try to meet my skepticism about the truth of the Bible or the truth of Christian doctrine with the response "just have faith". When I have difficulty accepting something in the Bible or in Christian doctrine, or if I find that I have insufficient reason to accept something, people say I should "just have faith".

I translate this as them telling me to believe a certain doctrine or statement to be true even though the rest of my mind is against it (or agnostic). As if we don't actually need to use our minds anymore, as if we should just blindly accept everything our tradition and culture teaches us.

It's funny, I'm told to "just have faith that the Bible is completely true" even though every ounce of my reason says otherwise. I'm being told to believe in Biblical inerrancy even when I can't stand it!

Somehow, I think my comforters are missing the point of "faith". The word "faith" has numerous meanings in modern English. It can mean something along the lines of assent. In this usage, to have faith is to assent that the object of faith is true or correct. What kind of objects fit this usage of "faith"? Statements. "True" applies to statements.

But there is another usage of the word "faith". Faith can also mean trust. What type of objects fit this usage of "faith"? When I use "faith" like this, I normally use it in reference to a person. I have faith--trust--in people. I have faith in my parents, of their love for me. This is a very strong faith - unlikely to ever break. I have faith in my girlfriend, that she will be there for me and be faithful towards me. Faith is personal, it's relational. Faith is trust in someone; faith is also faithful - a reciprocal trustworthiness.

Those who tell me to "just have faith" are mistaking assent for trust. They went me to assent to a statement, rather than trust in God. This is why I think they are mislead. I can't see how assenting to a statement as true has anything to do with my spirit. I don't think our beliefs are first and foremost in God's mind. I'm no prophet, but that's something I believe: that beliefs aren't primary for God's purposes.

But trust. Trust is a different animal all together. Faith which trusts in God even in the face of doubt and uncertainty - now that is real faith. A faith that stays faithful even when staring into the unknown. That's real faith. That is the kind of faith that I sorely lack - and earnestly long for.

"Just have faith."

It's not what you believe, but who.

*The writings of Marcus Borg have helped me during my struggles over the word "faith". His book The Heart of Christianity, which I previewed here, was especially useful.

Yesterday

Tomorrow turned out good. So did the day after that.

So did the year after that.

Let's hope for many more.

Bible Says, Church Says, I Say

The Bible says many things. It is, after all, a collection of books and letters compiled over hundreds of years. The authors, yes plural, were a varied bunch: temporally, culturally, linguistically, and theologically. So each book of the Bible, each author, says its own thing. And it's not an easy task to pick this apart. Much of the Bible has gone through redaction - modification and editing. We don't even know if we have the words of the original author! In some cases, we can be certain that we don't. So we're left with a rather complex collection of texts whose unity is a debated issue. Does it even make sense to say that 'the Bible' says such-and-such. Honest historical-critical study of the biblical texts would convince one to the contrary. There is tension in the Bible. Some books say things that make us uncomfortable. Some books ignore a theme we think is important - a theme we think should have been given more prominence! It is not an easy task to try and harmonize everything together into one, single, united viewpoint.

But on another level, each passage of each book in the Bible says something. By this I mean that Paul is saying one thing and not another in Chapter 1 of Romans. The range of meaning which one can attribute to that passage is limited. I understand the complexity of literary theory, and the thorny issue of who decides the meaning of a text. But reading a text in its historical and literary context circumscribes the range of possible meanings. Sometimes, we can be quite certain what the argument or logic of a passage is; other times, we may only try and guess. At this level, we can have a pretty good idea what 'the Bible' says when the book or passage is read in its context - when it's read on its turf.

The Church has its own doctrines and dogmas. The evangelical, "bible-believing" branch of Christians always wants to claim their beliefs to rest on the Bible. Actually, several things are going on here. Individuals have beliefs. The institution they are part of--their particular Bible-believing Church--has its own set of beliefs. Organizational beliefs, you could call them. In many branches of the evangelical Church, the beliefs of the individual members of the organization are for the most part in line with the organization itself. Moreover, both the individual and the organization think that their beliefs rest on the Bible. We can differentiate three layers of belief: (1) the Bible (what a passage says), (2) the Church (what the Church officially teaches), and (3) the individual (what the individual believes). Unfortunately, many in the Church fail to realize that those three layers are distinct. Often, the layers are blurred together as if they were the same.

Remember how I mentioned the tension present in the Bible? Well, why do you think so many Churches say so many different things about the Bible. The Bible itself is a diverse book! Different Churches have different interpretations, that is because they emphasize certain themes at the expense of other themes. But Churches are only recapitulating what is already present in the Bible.

Though it won't admit it readily, the Church has many beliefs that have no direct link to the Bible. Or perhaps they have one, very weak, link. Or perhaps they have taken a vague idea, and built a whole skyscraper of doctrine on top of it. Divinity of Christ? The Trinity? Infallibility of Scripture? The End Times? Abortion ethics? All of these doctrines are the construct of the Church. They may draw upon the Bible - they may argue to death their continuity with what 'the Bible says' - but in the end, these doctrinal constructs are what the Church says, not what 'the Bible' says.

See, I can separate my beliefs from what the Bible authors wrote and from official Church doctrine. I am aware of the distinction between what the different parts of the Bible say, what the Church says, and what I believe. They are different things. My readers are aware of my rejection of biblical inerrancy; biblical authority is also a big question mark to me. It is not one of my working assumptions. My training in Religious Studies has given me the tools to try and grasp what the different parts of the Bible say. Having gripped the meaning or message of a passage, there are many instances where I stand to disagree with the biblical text. I have no problem with that. My involvement in a Christian Church has taught me what my particular Church has to say; but I've also been exposed to other types of Christians and what they have to say. Many times, I don't agree with Church doctrine. I have no problem with that.

So when do I get bothered?

I get bothered when individuals think that 'the Bible' says one and only one thing without realizing that it is a collection of ancient texts.
I get bothered when individuals or Churches try to make the scriptures say something they aren't saying.

Bible says, Church says, I say.

Three different things.