What's the purpose of a Bachelor's Degree?

[DrSroa]

Students,

I was wondering what was the purpose of a bachelor's degree when our ultimate goal is to get an MD/DO? In fact, the medical education in international countries (Great Britain, India, China) does not require a BS for entrance into medical school. They say that those degrees (BS, MS, Ph.D.) are designed for scientists, not physicians. They graduate their students with a MBBS/MD upon graduation. When we look at the quality of the doctors in the hospital setting, international doctors overcompete American doctors as far as their expertise and well-roundedness is concerned. Can anyone clear up this confusion that I have? Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks.

Medical Student

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[superdevil]

why isn't the U.S. an "international country" like india or china?

anyway, enough being a smart ass. the truth is we all get bachelor's degrees because our system more/less mandates it.

i'm glad to know that american doctors are so inferior, though. must be the bachelor's degrees, huh? is part of being taught "well-roundedness" the lesson on how to be unbelievably pretentious?

 

[CoverMe]

After hanging around here long enough, I realized that this forum is the ultimate topic recycling machine.

It actually didn't irritate me until I started freaking out over interviews... realistically I have to admit that there is a part of me which has become a miserable B**ch through this process.

Thread search... it has been discussed.

/rant

 

[superdevil]

After hanging around here long enough, I realized that this forum is the ultimate topic recycling machine.

Thread search... it has been discussed.

/rant

really? this is the first such blatantly arrogant, self-praising condemnation of the american medical education system that i've come across. read this again:

Originally Posted by DrSroa
When we look at the quality of the doctors in the hospital setting, international doctors overcompete American doctors as far as their expertise and well-roundedness is concerned.

look, our expertise is being "overcompeted". that frightens the hell out of me. i've never overcompeted anyone at anything!

troll...

 

[peetie]

You know, I am an undergrad in the states and did a summer studying at Cambridge a year ago. I met students who were studying "medicine" and "chemistry" and "physics." Let me address the biggest differences between the American and English educational systems (at least that I saw).
First and foremost, the students pretty much decide what they are going to do when they are ~14 or 15. At that age they decide if they want to go to a vocational school, a college-track high school, (or drop out, I suppose). Then, when they enter the "university" they don't major in something. I'm a chemistry major, but I also take biology, English, history, music, American Sign Language, and a whole host of other classes; if I were at Cambridge, I wouldn't major in a chemistry, I'd "read" chemistry - meaning, literally, I'd be expected to go to a library and basically read the texts available. The professors would give lectures on what is interesting to them, but not to give an entire overview of the subject, as with Gen Chem or whatever is taught in the states. A year-end exam is all that really matters. Besides all this, they don't really take classes not directly pertaining to their area of study. People in the sciences do not take English or philosophy courses; a chemist might take a biology or math or physics course, but only as needed for chemistry. If no one does not see how this leads to a narrow, un-well-rounded individual, let me know, and I'll try to explain this better.

Also, about medicine. There is no being "pre-med." You decide to study "medicine" and enter a 6 year course of study when you enter the university system. When you graduate, you are a physician. End of story. The application process that we all curse and have nightmares about occurs at the sweet young age of 18 when I barely knew up from down, let alone what I wanted to do for the next fifty (or so) years of my life. But, hey, if that's well rounded, more power to you.

 

[45408]

When we look at the quality of the doctors in the hospital setting, international doctors overcompete American doctors as far as their expertise and well-roundedness is concerned.

No.

 

[CoverMe]

really? this is the first such blatantly arrogant, self-praising condemnation of the american medical education system that i've come across. read this again:

look, our expertise is being "overcompeted". that frightens the hell out of me. i've never overcompeted anyone at anything!

troll...

Admitedly, the bachelor's degree question, and the comparison of US medical degrees compared to international degrees have sometimes been in seperate threads... But all of it has been thrashed on before.

Regarding trollishness... abso-frickin-lutely. Not worth the time it would take to link the thread... which is what I would typically do, if I said it had already been discussed.

OP's is just some idiot with nothing better to do. If they're so unhappy here, go be a doctor in India.

 

[TexPre-Med]

Overcompete us? In what way do you mean? I do find it interesting that royalty/rich from all countries come to M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (Houston) for treatment. I do not know of anyone that chooses China over us? Also, our cardiologists are second to none. St. Lukes is amazing as well as the attending there that made the first "pacemaker." Do you know of a reason why other systems are better? I can't think of a single one that I would prefer.

 

[secretasianman]

You know, I am an undergrad in the states and did a summer studying at Cambridge a year ago. I met students who were studying "medicine" and "chemistry" and "physics." Let me address the biggest differences between the American and English educational systems (at least that I saw).
First and foremost, the students pretty much decide what they are going to do when they are ~14 or 15. At that age they decide if they want to go to a vocational school, a college-track high school, (or drop out, I suppose). Then, when they enter the "university" they don't major in something. I'm a chemistry major, but I also take biology, English, history, music, American Sign Language, and a whole host of other classes; if I were at Cambridge, I wouldn't major in a chemistry, I'd "read" chemistry - meaning, literally, I'd be expected to go to a library and basically read the texts available. The professors would give lectures on what is interesting to them, but not to give an entire overview of the subject, as with Gen Chem or whatever is taught in the states. A year-end exam is all that really matters. Besides all this, they don't really take classes not directly pertaining to their area of study. People in the sciences do not take English or philosophy courses; a chemist might take a biology or math or physics course, but only as needed for chemistry. If no one does not see how this leads to a narrow, un-well-rounded individual, let me know, and I'll try to explain this better.

Also, about medicine. There is no being "pre-med." You decide to study "medicine" and enter a 6 year course of study when you enter the university system. When you graduate, you are a physician. End of story. The application process that we all curse and have nightmares about occurs at the sweet young age of 18 when I barely knew up from down, let alone what I wanted to do for the next fifty (or so) years of my life. But, hey, if that's well rounded, more power to you.

totally unfair representation of the UK-based curriculum. you neglect to state that ppl that decide to do medicine have to take the science based o lvls, which is pretty much the equivalent of taking bio, gchem,ochem, and physics. imagine taking a big test for each subject culminating the 2 years that you study those, and then having to get an A in every single one to get into med school. that's the o lvls. much more stressful than shooting for an A in classes in a quarterly or semester system i bet. the science majors take the same subjects during JC as the premed ppl i think.
the way i can see how the us system fosters more 'well-roundedness' in its medical students is in practically requiring participation in extracurricular activities of individual choice.

 

[kstone13]

If you need close to a decade worth of higher learning before you even get the chance to practice being a physician, lets be honest, that seems a little absurd.

 

[peetie]

totally unfair representation of the UK-based curriculum. you neglect to state that ppl that decide to do medicine have to take the science based o lvls, which is pretty much the equivalent of taking bio, gchem,ochem, and physics. imagine taking a big test for each subject culminating the 2 years that you study those, and then having to get an A in every single one to get into med school. that's the o lvls. much more stressful than for an A in classes in a quarterly or semester system i bet. the science majors take the same subjects during JC as the premed ppl i think.
the way i can see how the us system fosters more 'well-roundedness' in its medical students is in practically requiring participation in extracurricular activities of individual choice.

I should have gone more in depth. What I was trying to say is that there is a lack of diversity in the curriculum. My university has a freaking "Diversity" requirment for every BS grad - women's studies or ethnic studies or some such. No scientist gets out w/o taking history or english, or other "rounding" courses.

As far as the o levels, sure, that's tough, but I've had year end comps, too. But I'm a chemistry major, so I think that's expected. Fetch, man, I have to take "senior comps" later that test every single one of the classes I took as an undergrad, and if i don't pass those, goodbye Mr. Diploma! Sure the o-levels are stressful, but that wasn't my point. My point was that the education is focused in a limited area. I sat down and spoke w/ chemistry grad students at the Cavendish Labs of Cambridge. He only took physics as it applied to chemistry, not science in general, at any point in his education. I talked with an English undergrad who was never going to have to touch a science class, even Bio 1000 or some other simple course. That, my friend, is inherently flawed. Unless course diversity in high school counts - and i'm sure their high school is hard.

 

[ElKapitan]

I think that it is neccessary to change the medical educational system in the united states. I am not saying that it is inadequate, rather that it is fueling some of the problems in healthcare.

As for the well rounded education, I am sure that knowing a lot about Plato, Mill, or Kant, is really going to help you save lives. Perhaps, an A in art history shows that you know how to talk to patients. Medicine in my opinion is a trade, whereas, research is an academic pursuit. You don't need a deep academic background to be a physician, just competence, experience, and a lot of memorized facts. Physicians don't need to know the mechanisms involved with the drugs they prescribe. Some drug sale rep, summarizes all that information into terse little pamphlets.

A problem with healthcare, is that physicians get paid a lot. (don't get me wrong, it is well deserved as the system stands now) If it was treated as a trade perhaps we wouldn't have to go to school for 8 years before becoming an MD. The cost of education could also go down if the time to matriculate was curtailed. Then maybe people wouldn't expect the pay they expect when they are done. (less time and money invested would decrease our expectations) If the standards for accptence were more based on what it means to be a doctor, rather than abstact (and useless) academic standards, I feel there would be more physicians to meet patient demands, as well as, better patient satisfaction.

 

[peetie]

As for the well rounded education, I am sure that knowing a lot about Plato, Mill, or Kant, is really going to help you save lives. Perhaps, an A in art history shows that you know how to talk to patients. Medicine in my opinion is a trade, whereas, research is an academic pursuit. You don't need a deep academic background to be a physician, just competence, experience, and a lot of memorized facts. Physicians don't need to know the mechanisms involved with the drugs they prescribe. Some drug sale rep, summarizes all that information into terse little pamphlets.

You don't think that matters? Ever read a report and come away wishing that person had taken another writing class? Or entered a conversation with someone who only cares about memorized facts? I sure wouldn't go to a physician who only regurgitated things (and I've got a lot of docs, believe me). I remember sitting in my neurosurgeon's office when I was about 17 for my bi-annual checkup on something that happened to me as a kid and he asked me about snowshoeing in the area we live in. I've talked about sports with others. I've discussed a basic philosophical question with another one of my providers. I definitely think this "roundedness" is important.

The best physician I followed around was an FP who took a few minutes extra to tell the patient what the drug did he was prescribing. I had two different patients stop me in the hall (we only saw ~14 that day) and comment on how much they enjoyed WAITING FOR HOURS to see this doc, b/c they understood he would explain anything and help them understand their care. Of course, the ones who didn't appreciate that type of care would have fired this doc and simply gone to another physician.

I have to totally reject your argument that MD's are just fact machines stuffed full or memorized data, who then spit out prescriptions and don't relate with the rest of the world. The basic "university experience" of finding new ideas is an essential part of the education we are hopefully receiving.

 

[45408]

If you need close to a decade worth of higher learning before you even get the chance to practice being a physician, lets be honest, that seems a little absurd.

why?

 

[ElKapitan]

You don't think that matters? Ever read a report and come away wishing that person had taken another writing class? Or entered a conversation with someone who only cares about memorized facts? I sure wouldn't go to a physician who only regurgitated things (and I've got a lot of docs, believe me). I remember sitting in my neurosurgeon's office when I was about 17 for my bi-annual checkup on something that happened to me as a kid and he asked me about snowshoeing in the area we live in. I've talked about sports with others. I've discussed a basic philosophical question with another one of my providers. I definitely think this "roundedness" is important.

The best physician I followed around was an FP who took a few minutes extra to tell the patient what the drug did he was prescribing. I had two different patients stop me in the hall (we only saw ~14 that day) and comment on how much they enjoyed WAITING FOR HOURS to see this doc, b/c they understood he would explain anything and help them understand their care. Of course, the ones who didn't appreciate that type of care would have fired this doc and simply gone to another physician.

I have to totally reject your argument that MD's are just fact machines stuffed full or memorized data, who then spit out prescriptions and don't relate with the rest of the world. The basic "university experience" of finding new ideas is an essential part of the education we are hopefully receiving.

I was not saying a physician is a fact machine. I am saying being a physician is like being an automechanic. You don't need to have a college education to relate well with others, I consider my mechanic a friend. I go to my mechanic because he is reliable and I like him. Did he have a college education, no, could he have had one, sure. Roundedness in education is not an essential component to being a doctor. You either have the ability to be one or you don't. It seems college grades and the MCAT don't seem to be valid indicators of your ability to relate with others. Yet, your social skills seem to be of the utmost importance.

So let's take the average patient with non-hodgkins B-cell lymphoma. Your the doctor and you prescribe zevalin. Zevalin consists of a monoclonal antibody linked to the radioactive isotope yttrium-90. You inject the monoclonal antibody, it targets the CD20 antigen. CD20 is found on the surface of mature B cells and B-cell tumors. The radiation kills the tumor. As a doctor are you really going to explain the entire immune system. Or how they developed therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. How I see it, it is not the content of what you would say but the delivery. Four years at an undergraduate college will not give those skills, experience with patients can. So if you start earlier, you can be a good doctor sooner. This is my point, you become a doctor by being one. It is in essence a trade.

 

[JumpingGenes]

The real purpose of the Bachelor Degree is to ensure competence in "Party Technology." Without this critical training, most would not survive the first two years of med school.

In fact, I earned a PhD in Party Technology in undergrad and feel very well prepared to face future social terrain, even in advanced situations like overdrinking.