Yeah I agree. I think what’s upsetting a lot of people about their comment is that at some level, they are using very arbitrary metrics to evaluate already highly skilled people nearing the end of their training. Do they have any data showing that these hobbies make for better physicians in their field? I highly doubt it. It honestly indicates to me that there may be deeper problems in their program or field (cultural problems or other). It’s just pseudoscience. It’s really just a disappointment if they are holding that much weight on this question as it comes off in this thread (specifically the hobby question, and not necessarily other metrics that indicate dexterity). How about take a responsible step back and actually TRY to think about the metrics that correlate with successful graduates of their program. It would be pretty easy, and actually the responsible thing to do, to contact the graduates of their program, gather some data (including hobbies), and find what are the variables that explain their success.