Long before "Moneyball," John Madden, who coached the National Football League Oakland Raiders caught my attention with a sort of rant as he was filling in some down time during a game. "You know," he said, "People think football players have to be big, intimidating guys, but really you can't win games with that. You need the quick, little guys who run so close to the ground the defensive lineman have trouble finding them; you need the big guys, sure, to protect the passer and to rush the passer, but you also need the gazelles, the wide receivers who if they weren't playing football might try out for ballet and you need a quarterback who can see the whole field and who can throw accurately sixty yards or fifteen. You can't just have one type. You need 'em all."
![]() |
| Gabrielle Munter |
Then came Michael Lewis's "Moneyball," where talent scouts talked about players and rated their likelihood of success not just by what they had done on their high school teams, but by how they looked, whether, as Billy Beane put it, "They look good in jeans." In the movie adaptation, one scout doubts the prospects of a player because his girlfriend is homely. "Not even a five, I'd say. I mean guy with a girl like that has no confidence."
There is no purer form of meritocracy than professional sports because you can actually keep score, on the teams and on the players.
Of course, what Moneyball demonstrated was that the people who were suppose to "know baseball" did not know what scores to look at and they fell back into superstition, superficiality and gossip.
Two phone conversations highlighted the cluelessness of the men who select who gets into medical school stuck with me: I had phoned a dean at Vanderbilt, where my son, who was a premedical student, was struggling with calculus and I remarked that I had never used calculus beyond the final exam in calculus and the only reason I could see it was included in the requirements set down by the American Association of Medical Colleges is that the guys on that committee got good grades in calculus and they were trying to select people who were like them.
"Oh, no," the dean told me. "Math is the language of science. You have to be good at math."
"Excuse me," I asked, "But where did you go to medical school?" He had not gone to medical school. He was a sociologist.
The other conversation was with a dean who guided undergraduate students at Wesleyan University. I had phoned because the son of a good friend had been told to take a year off after graduation before applying to medical school and my friend did not understand than and neither did I. He was not unusual in getting that advice: the college advised kids to take a year off after college, to work somewhere, in a lab or even in the Park Service, before applying to medical school and the dean told me this was a good idea because it helped them mature and to be sure medicine was really what they wanted. Wesleyan wanted only the very top students applying right out of college.
"And," I observed, "This explains why your catalogue can say that 98% of your premeds graduate with an acceptance in medical school. So you don't have to take the heat for those unsuccessful applicants."
At Wesleyan, at least, the calculus course provided the answers to the test questions before the exam, my friend's son told me, so calculus was not a gauntlet tool used to eliminate hopeful premeds.
Many, if not most medical students suffer from the imposter syndrome, when they arrive in medical school. They know they are not doctors and they cannot quite imagine what they need to do to transform into doctors. In the old days, they got this sense of inadequacy reinforced in anatomy labs, in courses in microbiology, where an insane number of bacteria and viruses were served up to memorize. Some, if they were lucky in the first two "preclinical years," discovered something they actually liked and were interested in which gave them hope they might become a good neurologist or surgeon, even if they were not much good at memorizing the side effects of random drugs.
But the point is, those who were guarding the gates, and those who were selecting for talent were simply not very good at their jobs, from college to early medical school.
I had two conversations with deans which drove home this point. In college, I met with the dean who oversaw premedical students because I did not want to take a higher level calculus course. He told me I'd need to have that math to do the reading in my upper level courses. (He was a economist.) I replied that I had already taken those upper level courses and had not noticed any difficulty doing the reading and had done well in those courses. At that point, he swiveled around in his desk chair, pulled out a drawer from his metal file cabinet (before computers), plucked out a chart and start thumbing through it. He was also the director of undergraduate admissions and he had my application file.
"My God!" he gasped. "How did you ever even get in here?"
"I'm not the one to answer that," I replied. "But I've made it to the end of my junior year."
In fact, I refrained from saying, not wanting to antagonize this man who I needed for higher math dispensation, "And I've been on Dean's List every semester."
The next dean conversation was less fraught. It was in fact, friendly. The dean was driving me back to New York City from his Adirondack home, where he had invited five medical students in their final years. The school did not give us grades, although it did track grades for us in the various courses so it could guide us where to apply for internships. "You were in the middle of the class, maybe just below the median your first two years," the dean told me, "But in your clinical years, you got honors in everything but Pediatrics. Hell, Fred Plum gave you honors, and I can tell you I can count on one hand the number of students who got honors in neurology over the past ten years. So, what got into you?"
I knew very well what had got into me, and it wasn't that I worked any harder in the clinical years. It was the difference between multiple choice questions devised by microbiologists who asked if fungi had chitin in their cell walls and hematologists who asked you on rounds to tell them why a particular patient had anemia, what the different possibilities were and how to figure out which pertained to this patient.
The wonder to me, then and now, is how we get so many really talented people flourishing in medicine. It seems to me we get good people despite rather than because of the talent scouts.
The thing about medicine is it is a very broad arena. Like the football team, you need all sorts of different talents: the heart surgeon likely will make a terrible psychiatrist and vice versa.
The other thing is that while you can read law, or you can read history, you cannot just read medicine. You have to do medicine, and for that you need an organization of teachers who know medicine.
The next generation is going to be interesting. Colleges have noticed that the talent is flowing toward money. The "top students" (if we can believe the colleges even know who these are) want to go into finance, Goldman Sacks, not medicine, or even law.
These 18 to 22 year old kids are sophisticate enough to see that doctors in America now, have drifted into the social strata of British doctors: Mostly upper middle class, making $90,000 to $200,000 a year, depending on specialty, which is about what a McDonald's franchise owner or an enterprising plumber can make.
And as this reality has sunk in, medical school classes have shifted toward majority females, who are likely to not be the sole providers for their families, who want to limit their hours at work and maximize time off.
Some doctors in some specialties make much high salaries, some in the millions, but the real money in medicine is, as it is in so much of industry, in administration. The managers take care of themselves first.
The current generation of doctors is not self employed. Ninety percent are working for large corporations--Partners, Beth Israel Deaconess, Mass General. They are employees getting W-2 forms. The entrepreneurial doctor, who employs workers and who manages his practice is gone with the dinosaurs.
This may not be all bad--it's not clear medical care has suffered because it is no longer provided by shop keepers.
But, it is different and the talent has followed the money, however you discern "talent."
NB: All paintings by Gabrielle Munter















