Short Form History And Physical: Fill & Download for Free

It stands for United States Medical Licensing Exam. Everyone who wants to tactics medicine, i.e. See patients, treat them, do surgery, in short work as a doctor in US, needs to pass this exam. That means both US Medical graduates and International Medical Graduates.If you are an international medical graduate, you can apply for USMLE during or after your medical school. The exam itself has 3 parts or steps.Step 1 exam can be given in your own country. It tests basic science knowledge, covering the first and second year of your medical education.Step 2 exam is divided into two parts, CK (clinical knowledge) and CS (clinical skills). Step 2 CK can be given in your own country, and it tests your ability to diagnose and treat different conditions. It focuses on 3rd and 4th year of medical education.Step 2 CS is a practical exam. You have to visit US to give it. In this exam, you will meet patients (people acting as patients). They will assess your interaction, behavior and history and physical examination skills.Your scores in these exams as well as your research experience and medical school transcripts help you to get matched to a residency program of your choice. You have to be good at all three to gain a residency of your choice.If you have any questions, let me know and I'll do my best to answer them.

I’ll give you the answer as a STEM student whose true passion is the humanities. It might be long, but you’ll understand the question completely and honestly.I’m a senior computer engineering student. In an ideal world, I’d be studying philosophy. I’d be studying literature. History. Social issues. Political theory. Classics. Psychology. Any humanities, save arts and music, before engineering.Imagine being a normal person of average or slightly above average intelligence. You do well enough in school, work hard, and want to lead a good life.So you go to college. You get a degree in, say business, or psychology, or english, or even biology. Sure, it’s not chemical engineering or physics, but you didn’t just bullshit it either. You cared about the topic.Now imagine you’re talking to Joe or Jane that you knew from back home. Fairly sharp person. They ask what you studied in college and you say ‘insert qualitative degree here,’ and like it’s an instinctual response they always reply “Oh wow! You must be so smart. I was never any good at reading.”You’d look at them like they were a moron. And yet that’s the response anytime a person outside STEM asks what I’m doing. “Oh wow, engineering, you must be so smart! I was never any good at math.” Even otherwise very intelligent people will say that with zero self awareness.Math isn’t magic. Math isn’t arcane. And besides both of those points, engineering or physics isn’t math for the same reason philosophy isn’t reading. Yeah, you need one to have any success in the other, but they aren’t the same thing.I’d rather someone said “oh that sounds worthless,” like an engineer might say to an ethnobotanist than what is basically, “gee whiz, engineering? Equal signs, what are those about, ammirite?”Believe me, I get it. Like I said, I would give a few toes to have been born to wealthy parents so I could blow a few stacks of their money to pursue my passion. I said the words a million times: “I don’t get math.”The thing is, even with dyslexic children that excuse doesn’t really fly when learning to read. With perfectly able adults, it’s nothing more than an admission you were never properly bothered enough to learn and now you’re frightened by weird symbols. I couldn’t read an analog clock before I got to engineering school. I thought I had dyscalculia. I’m still here and doing just fine because I had to learn.Every time someone utters these words, they make the monster stronger. They make scientists and engineers feel more arcane, more intelligent, more like masters of the universe with some magic only they can wield. And the same as if an adult told you “I never got reading,” they think you’re a moron. Worse than that, they devalue humanities and softer sciences.On the subject of devaluing these subjects:The theoretical I painted earlier is a lot more credit than most people deserve.I look down on people who study humanities, and I think most STEM people do too, for the same reason I’m not studying humanities.There’s a privilege gap.I said it, and that statement will trigger exactly zero conservative trolls because they’ve been bitching about gilded academics making up fields to study for years.Who gets to go off and spend 50 grand on a philosophy, history, or literature degree today? Who gets to make a decision with that much money on the line period without it being the most important decision of their life?You know the answer to who those people are. They’re wealthy. They’re privileged. And often, they don’t give two damns about their studies. It’s more to “polish them up” than anything. Or it’s “for the experience.” Or to “find themselves.” Or just plain to go off and have a good time.I’ll tell you that for every person in college getting an engineering degree to be “polished up” or for any reason resembling they thought it’d be a good time, I can find you hundreds or thousands studying humanities.At this point, it’s more detrimental than anything. As long as only wealthier people can gamble on getting a degree useless for most people, only rich people will end up leading the discipline. This isn’t a liberal or conservative problem, either. It’s a systemic poison.They’re watered down with people who don’t care, and even with the ones who actually do, there’s an issue.Conservative minded STEM people gripe about how the humanities are non-rigorous. The studies are unprovable, subject to interpretation.These people are just as illiterate as Mr. “I don’t get math,” but it’s more subtle.Duh. Everything above is true. They’re absolutely right, and absolutely missing the point. The root word in humanities is human.Humanities are humanities because it’s not about a human studying the objective world, it's about a human studying another human or product/idea of a human-made for humans. That’s how it works. It’s not subjective v. objective. It’s subjective v. subjective.It does all come down to interpretation, and that’s the point.And with those subjects, with the minds studying our social issues, the minds interpreting history and classics and philosophy and literature, a homogenous group is being formed. The people creating our objects of study and people analyzing them are different than most people.The irony is is that engineering major who laughs at you and tells you bluntly that your gender studies degree is stupid isn’t always the arrogant asshole in the situation. They’re often the real salt of the earth people, real meritocratic folk with good heads on their shoulders trying to break out of a cycle of poverty with an investment in learning. Maybe they don’t love what they do, the same way a carpenter or plumber might not, but they’re doing it and it’s useful.The person that can afford a $50,000-$100,000 degree in something with a dubious payoff is usually the arrogant one, and they’re the ones interpreting our history and social issues and philosophies. Sounds like a great idea, huh?No, it doesn’t. And that’s my gripe. I’m not Mr. “you’re non-rigorous and therefore worthless.” I’ve been around the block enough in STEM and humanities both to know that engines and physics are cool, but in my humanist perspective, ideas and people are the most complex and interesting, quirky and contradictory, aspects of the known universe.That’s my idea, and it’s obviously not reality. STEM is great because people suck, and if I’m stupid and full of crap, it can be verified exactly how stupid and full of crap I am. With humanities, well… go watch a PragerU video and see how many people slurp up their narratives and revisionist history. A keen enough bullshiter will one day convince people, through the veil of now long-ago history, that Nazi Germany was actually ahead of its time. And no one will be able to verify exactly how stupid he is because it’s impossible.I’m not just shitting on conservatives, either. PragerU is revisionist, but our liberal and idealistic butterflies who flutter up in the field to begin with are the visionists.In short, STEM looks down on humanities for all kinds of simple and stupid reasons. I look down on humanities because most of you flat out fucking disappoint me. Just like an engineer can benefit greatly from basic literacy, human skills, and reading comprehension, holy shit can humanities benefit from graduating from “I don’t get math.”Believe me, I’m thankful every day I was forced from my “right brain” trance where numbers and quantities don’t exist. It’s improved my thinking and writing immensely, and given invaluable tools and grounding to a rational mind that didn’t even realize it needed them.Try it. Challenge yourself. Humanities have STEM beaten in the value they place on critical thinking and thought in general. Put your money where your always moving mouth (or typing fingers) are, and evolve another way of thinking about the world. If you don’t, you’re lazy and just as bad as the math whiz who reads Harry Potter at 23 and thinks it’s brilliant.And on the second point, the whole study of humanities is about perspective. Let’s get more and different ones in there. Just a thought.First edit:I didn’t expect this to get any attention. I don’t usually care about number of upvotes, but I am always curious about who is upvoting. I have to say this answer is drawing some really interesting and unique people. Even if you hate the answer, check out the list and find some cool new people to follow.Second edit:I thought I did a decent job of not devolving into a pissing match about who takes more creativity and critical thinking than who, but apparently I was wrong.So I’ll state it clearly: it doesn’t matter. The whole discussion is worthless. The penultimate paragraph has been honed in on for the line: “Humanities have STEM beaten in the value they place on critical thinking and thought in general.” This is mostly by engineers and such who think I’m saying something I’m not. The irony is clear if we circle back to the reading comprehension point.What I’m saying is that humanities make it more of an explicit goal to focus on critical thinking and thought in general. Explicitly. As a stated goal. Divorced from other concepts. In the abstract.If you actually read what I’m saying, I think it’s clear that I’m using that more of a barb for when those same people just flippantly discard with “math,” and don’t see how that is hypocritical to valuing thought and ways of thinking.Third Edit:Thank you to User-11513915683143800948 for his sharp edits. If anyone needs an editor, he has a great eye.

Yes. Men of any age will be most sexually and physically attracted to women who are youthful. That doesn’t mean older women are ugly and unlovable. But basically, for evolutionary reasons, men continue to be most drawn to women who look youthful, fertile, and healthy, and women are most attracted to men who are wealthy, stable, dominant, protective etc.This isn’t to say there is no nuance. Increasingly, as beauty treatments and cosmetic procedures are normalized, widely available, and more accessible- people are able to maintain their youth and preserve a youthful look for longer. Additionally, sexual attraction doesn’t correlate to love, commitment, fulfilment, connection etc. So just because men of all ages will generally be attracted to younger women, it doesn’t mean they want to pursue a relationship, act on the attraction, or that they’re more compatible with young women.Additionally, there is well document cross cultural evidence that shows men prefer women with more neotenous features. Neoteny is basically the retention of juvenile/youthful features into adulthood. All cultures have a preference for neotenous female features, some cultures more so than others (Asian countries having the strongest preference for neoteny).What this means is that men prefer women who have youthful facial features such as big eyes, clear glowing skin, healthy looking hair, full lips, small nose, and oval shaped faces (face shape is more variant). BUT this doesn’t mean that there is a preference for a neotenous body type! Sexually mature physiques combined with youthful faces are the ideal- both signalling youth and fertility.Interesting, there is a preference AGAINST neotenous features in men. Women don’t tend to like “baby faced” men. And this is because women are most attracted to men who approximate her age. As women age, the general age of the men they’re most attracted to increases as well, but this isn’t the case for men.Check out two of my favourite graphs that illustrate this point. These graphs are taken from the book Dataclysm.Firstly, here is a graph that shows a man’s age compared to the age of the women he is most physically attracted to.Now here is a graph of the age of women, and the age of the men she is most attracted to.Notice how women’s age preference correlates with her age? Well this isn’t the case for men. One explanation for this is that evolutionarily and historically, women were most valued for her fertility, beauty, youth, and nurturing nature. Whereas men were most valued for his capacity to provide and protect for a family. While this conceptualization is outdated in many ways today, we also have to appreciate that our society represents a tiny blip in human history. And for millennial, this was what humans had to think about and prioritize- survival. Meaning that women needed to find a man to provide and protect, and men had to find a healthy and fertile mate to have children with. This is obviously simplified, it’s not sexy, and it’s not a politically correct understanding of the world- but history will rarely satisfy our modern sensibilities.In line with this thinking is the proposition that women’s beauty and fertility “pique” when she’s in her early 20s, and men’s attractiveness piques in his early to mid 30s, because men’s attractiveness has more to do with his resources, skills, and ability to provide- this value set takes longer to accumulate than beauty and fertility- which one is born with and will achieve with time independent of competence of accumulating any sort of skill.Here is a controversial graph from Rollo Tomassi’s book, The Rational Male. Here we see a visual representation of the idea that women’s pique beauty and physical attractiveness piques in her early 20s, and men’s prime attractiveness to women piques in his 30s. While this graph is controversial, it aligns with many other studies on attractiveness.Now to conclude, I’m not claiming that after a certain age men and women become totally irrelevant and unattractive. This data really only refers to physical attraction, and it doesn’t tell us anything about the kind of qualities people want in a partner, the sort of traits that are valued throughout the life-course etc.And my piece of advice for women, is that while you will definitely have sexual power in your younger years- I don’t recommend capitalizing off of one’s beauty and fertility and the attention that comes along with it. Because this is a cheapened and temporary form of power that doesn’t come along with wisdom, status, wellbeing, respect, or long term connection. It’s an immediate sort of power that is fleeting, and that we need to use carefully and understand that this power is short lived and not something to prize or to expect to carry on into your older years. To my women out there, invest in qualities that expand with age- such as intelligence, humour, compassion, resilience etc. The things that build your character will grow with age- whereas beauty and sexual power will diminish (I know this is a controversial claim and if you don’t want to hear it, then don’t listen).And for the men out there, if you choose to pursue wealth, abundance and status as a way to increase your pool of potential partners- go for it. But don’t become a tyrant, don’t exploit your power and use your wealth to manipulate or use others. With this sort of power also comes responsibility. Develop your emotional intelligence, work on connection, maintain friendships, serve others, and make sure you have a diverse set of interests. I say this because similar to the woman who over-identifies with her beauty, the man who over-identifies with his status or wealth is also vulnerable if and when that situation and power high fades. Middle aged and elderly men are the demographic with the highest suicide rates. Part of this is because men can isolate themselves, depend on their partners to maintain relationships and friendships- and when men retire, they can feel powerless and like they’ve lost themselves. Stay connected, stay sensitive, don’t become a tyrant.I say all of this with love, and I’m sorry if anyone feels offended by any of the information that was presented.