A Top Medical School Revamps Requirements To Lure English Majors [NPR]

Get Your Med School Admissions Questions Answered!
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I agree that humanities courses can help people become a better physician (making people more culturally competent) but I also think that it's important to prove that people can handle science courses. The pre reqs should still be there (although I don't think Organic is particularly helpful versus classes such as biochem.) There is a huge difference in the difficulty of a history degree versus a chemistry degree. While I really don't care what someone has their undergrad degree in, it would be a disservice for students to not have an appropriate expectation for the difficulty of their courses.
 
This is a wonderful trend. Pre-med syndrome is real and I think as the article says, it has produce some very smart...yet crappy doctors. I think this will produce a high percentage of competent and compassionate physicians. Good on Mt. Sinai for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Monkitty said:
Good, bad or neutral trend?

A Top Medical School Revamps Requirements To Lure English Majors
Click to expand...

Neutral. I don't see how English majors (or any non-science major) would make more "humane" doctors than your average bio/chem major. In my opinion, the best pre-med is a curriculum is a well-rounded one, but seriously major in anything you want. If you major in bio: take a cool foreign language, learn how to code, and take art history coursework. If you want to major in the liberal arts: learn how to appreciate scientific inquiry through upper-level courses, take a differential equations course, learn an instrument, do whatever your heart tells you!

As for me, I am your average bio major who spent a lot of time learning the liberal arts and a unique foreign language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Changes at the bottom (selection) seem interesting, but doesnt a lot that go on during training (medical school, residency) that profoundly affects students as well...? Saying that a history major will be a better doctor than a biology major seems bizarre; the important point here is that whether you get a 26 on your MCAT or study history, as far as we can tell you can pass the big exams and "be a competent physician."

If physicians don't have good communication skills, are apathetic, etc then it seems more likely (to me) that the 7+ years they are being trained in medicine is or is not doing something; the inputs can be whatever you want, but the machinery will bend them to form regardless.

I'm all for a more inclusive, competency based process rather than rigidly defined requirements, but I can't believe a students choice of major for four years has a more profound effect than the 7+ years of training on producing "good" physicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Let me just plug the English thing real fast. Creative writing and literature is one of the best ways to learn and practice empathy. You have to put yourself in someone elses head and it's a skill that is extremely important to have for physicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
touchpause13 said:
Let me just plug the English thing real fast. Creative writing and literature is one of the best ways to learn and practice empathy. You have to put yourself in someone elses head and it's a skill that is extremely important to have for physicians.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they just want English majors so that the research profs will have someone to write their grants/articles for. Who better to write grants and articles than people well versed in english grammar. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Goro said:
It's a good trend.

5/6 of the required core competencies of being a doctor now have to do with non-science things...i.e. the doing of Medicine, not the knowing.
Click to expand...

At the risk of outting myself as an idiot (pre-med), what are these core competences? I don't think I've ever heard of these.
 
this is a publicity stunt.

edit:
honestly, think about it. Medicine is becoming more and more personalized at the molecular level. I'm talking about genome readouts. Gene therapies. Antibodies. etc etc etc.

IMO, an English major that took the bare minimum requirements to get into medical school might pass their courses and become a competent physician, but they are going to have a hard time really understanding and explaining the treatments of tomorrow. (Eg: the VICE documentary on how viruses are "being used" to treat cancer. I read a journal article about it I found from pubmed and quickly understood. Not b/c i'm in medical school. But b/c I had developed a core understanding of the central dogma/how to manipulate it back in college. I very strongly doubt an english major could do it that easily).

The thing that distinguishes physicians and mid-levels is our ability to actually understand what it is we are seeing at the symptom level and what it is we are prescribing. If I had not been a bio major back in college I would not have my depth of understanding of treatment modalities we are seeing and my ability to explain them.

anyways you all probably hate me by now, so go ahead and disagree with me now
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
But the issue is that physcians need to do just more than explain the nuts and bolts of the newest whiz bang doodle. In fact, they need to be able to explain these things to a populace that, by and large, do not have our background and understanding.

The thing I've noticed with my science major peers, is that the majority of them have trouble thinking outside of their science box. Explaining some new therapeutic viral treatment via central dogma might leave your patient scratching their head. But say you were a journalism major and instead described it a story going from writer, editor and then printer. Or data from a harddrive, to ram, and then executable.

There is nothing here precluding a science major from using an analogy like this, but the benefit of coming from a non-traditional background (for any field) is that it gives you a way of thinking that many of your peers might not have. So a non-traditional might be more likely to offer up such an analogy. It's another tool.

If "pre-med" syndrome is indeed real then with each passing generation of physicians we are going to become worse and worse at those humanistic qualities we need: the pre-med syndrome students will become the teachers and leaders that will guide and shape the next generation. If we over specialize we breed in weakness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
burritowithgreensauce said:
IMO, an English major that took the bare minimum requirements to get into medical school might pass their courses and become a competent physician, but they are going to have a hard time really understanding and explaining the treatments of tomorrow. (Eg: the VICE documentary on how viruses are "being used" to treat cancer. I read a journal article about it I found from pubmed and quickly understood. Not b/c i'm in medical school. But b/c I had developed a core understanding of the central dogma/how to manipulate it back in college. I very strongly doubt an english major could do it that easily).
Click to expand...

Full disclosure: I was an English major in undergrad, but went back and got a second UG degree and a M.S. in Psychology, and worked in the field doing research for several years before I applied to medical school. I also took only the bare minimum science courses needed as a post-bac, with the exception of Micro. I'm also a soon-to-be MS-1, starting in the fall.

I would argue strongly against the point that you're making. One of the things English as a major teaches you to do is to digest and synthesize large amounts of information quickly, and then create logical, yet creative arguments regarding what you've read. It seems to me that after med school, a "traditional" science student and myself would have the same knowledge base, and would be able to "quickly understand" that PubMed article. Could I do it NOW? Probably not. You have that background, while I don't. Yet. But AFTER med school, I would. To be honest, I've spoken to several people, both currently in med school and recently graduated, and they said that English majors usually performed very well. Why? Because they were taught to think critically while in college. N=1, of course. To be honest, you'll maybe start off at a slight advantage at the beginning in terms of absolute scientific knowledge. But to say that we couldn't do things that you could do at the end of med school is simply untrue.

All the understanding of medicine in the world doesn't mean jack if you can't effectively communicate with your patients. I'm not saying English majors or non-trads have a monopoly on that, just pointing out that we have perhaps honed those skills more than someone who followed a traditional pre-med path. Medical school teaches that, too. It's an equalizer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
burritowithgreensauce said:
this is a publicity stunt.

edit:
honestly, think about it. Medicine is becoming more and more personalized at the molecular level. I'm talking about genome readouts. Gene therapies. Antibodies. etc etc etc.

IMO, an English major that took the bare minimum requirements to get into medical school might pass their courses and become a competent physician, but they are going to have a hard time really understanding and explaining the treatments of tomorrow. (Eg: the VICE documentary on how viruses are "being used" to treat cancer. I read a journal article about it I found from pubmed and quickly understood. Not b/c i'm in medical school. But b/c I had developed a core understanding of the central dogma/how to manipulate it back in college. I very strongly doubt an english major could do it that easily).

The thing that distinguishes physicians and mid-levels is our ability to actually understand what it is we are seeing at the symptom level and what it is we are prescribing. If I had not been a bio major back in college I would not have my depth of understanding of treatment modalities we are seeing and my ability to explain them.

anyways you all probably hate me by now, so go ahead and disagree with me now
Click to expand...
I disagree with you not because I hate you, but because you make statements and arguments that don't even try to appeal to any reputable logic. "IMO...english majors...are going to have a hard time understanding and explaining treatments of tomorrow." Really? So in your opinion if they make it through medical school and residency they won't have the competency of a physician to understand how to treat things medically? If so, sounds like a problem with their medical school and residency training, not because they were an English major.

"The thing that distinguishes..." Stop, again you are presupposing that medical school and residency are insufficient to train an English major to be a physician. If that's the case, why do we even have medical school, why residency? I mean, just teach a person Physics/orgo/bio/chem in undergrad and throw them in a hospital. They know the central dogma, how to add resistors in parallel and the peak for carbonyl carbons in IR spectroscopy...what can go wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Ahhh, the smell of ignorance in the morning!

About 8-10% of my own students are non-science majors. They tend to struggle with medical school for about 2/3rds of a semester, and then they get it. After that, they have no trouble with the basic or clinical sciences.

N=1, but one of our valedictorians was a Psych major, and I've had fantastic DO colleagues who were English and Drama majors. English majors seem to do well with our program.

And one of our all-time best faculty members is an MD from Harvard, who was......, wait for it......., a Film Studies major.

Oddly enough, engineering majors have trouble with our curriculum.

So I'd say that any English major that gets into Mt Sinai will do well there, or any other med school.

burritowithgreensauce said:
this is a publicity stunt.

edit:
honestly, think about it. Medicine is becoming more and more personalized at the molecular level. I'm talking about genome readouts. Gene therapies. Antibodies. etc etc etc.

IMO, an English major that took the bare minimum requirements to get into medical school might pass their courses and become a competent physician, but they are going to have a hard time really understanding and explaining the treatments of tomorrow. (Eg: the VICE documentary on how viruses are "being used" to treat cancer. I read a journal article about it I found from pubmed and quickly understood. Not b/c i'm in medical school. But b/c I had developed a core understanding of the central dogma/how to manipulate it back in college. I very strongly doubt an english major could do it that easily).

The thing that distinguishes physicians and mid-levels is our ability to actually understand what it is we are seeing at the symptom level and what it is we are prescribing. If I had not been a bio major back in college I would not have my depth of understanding of treatment modalities we are seeing and my ability to explain them.

anyways you all probably hate me by now, so go ahead and disagree with me now
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
They are not going to reform medical education. In fact, I recently passed by a poster written by med school faculty showing that students who took biochemistry as undergrads were least likely to show unsatisfactory performance in med school biochem or immunology (the poster was dated 2012). And look what we have now: another science course on MCAT.

I'm also increasingly annoyed at the notion that taking coursework is the only way to learn, especially something as intangible as competencies necessary to becoming a compassionate physician. I have a wide range of interests in social sciences and humanities which I regularly read up on, but no amount of classes can substitute for this natural curiosity. In other words, I question that it was the classes in humanities which sparked the humanitarian interests of those students; and not the other way around. The purpose of any major should be teaching students how to think critically for themselves, which can be accomplished equally well by an analytical chemistry course or by an interpretation of Middle Ages English class. Moreover, far too often have I been disappointed by the social and humanities classes that I did decide to take to "broaden" my horizons: it's become common for instructors to either teach students what to think (I could swear the right answer choice on my sociology exams was always the most liberal one, as in politically liberal. Mind you, I almost always agreed with it, but I don't appreciate indoctrination of any sorts: conservative or liberal). Or the other alternative is just give them a bunch of random facts to memorize; since that is the only type of knowledge you can assess by a multiple choice exam, which in turn is the only viable mean of testing a class of 100+ students.

So here's a dilemma for you: should a med school judge applicants' based on the humanities classes that they took where the content of the class is most related to the instructor than anything else, or should we continue to use basic science courses that are relatively consistent in terms of material that they cover and the way it is evaluated across all institutions: from large state schools to small liberal arts colleges?
 
Last edited:
I definitely understand the need for empathetic physicians that can communicate well with their patients, I think everyone on this forum can agree with that. I just think it is strange to measure these intangible qualities through coursework. I think activities outside of the classroom would better reflect an applicant's personality for the practice of medicine.

My English courses taught me about the work of great writers like James Joyce and Ernest Hemingway, not how to act compassionate. My psychology courses taught me about Pavlov and social effects on human development, and nothing about clinical implications.

Any major should in theory teach its students how to think critically. It is just up to the student to follow their interests in picking a major. I truly believe that extracurriculars should reflect qualities such as compassion through volunteering, intellectual curiosity through research, etc.
 
Goro said:
It's a good trend.

5/6 of the required core competencies of being a doctor now have to do with non-science things...i.e. the doing of Medicine, not the knowing.
Click to expand...

Service Orientation: Demonstrates a desire to help others and sensitivity to others’ needs and feelings; demonstrates a desire to alleviate others’ distress; recognizes and acts on his/her responsibilities to society; locally, nationally, and globally.
I don't believe that a non-science major would have a benefit in this regard. You don't learn altruism in undergrad. Push.

Social Skills: Demonstrates an awareness of others’ needs, goals, feelings, and the ways that social and behavioral cues affect peoples’ interactions and behaviors; adjusts behaviors appropriately in response to these cues; treats others with respect.

I believe that a non-science major could have a benefit in this regard.

Cultural Competence: Demonstrates knowledge of socio-cultural factors that affect interactions and behaviors; shows an appreciation and respect for multiple dimensions of diversity; recognizes and acts on the obligation to inform one’s own judgment; engages diverse and competing perspectives as a resource for learning, citizenship, and work; recognizes and appropriately addresses bias in themselves and others; interacts effectively with people from diverse backgrounds.

Non-science major have the advantage.

Teamwork: Works collaboratively with others to achieve shared goals; shares information and knowledge with others and provides feedback; puts team goals ahead of individual goals.

I believe that science majors have the advantage here. Labs require teamwork, and the science majors course load is significantly harder, often requiring team work.

Oral Communication: Effectively conveys information to others using spoken words and sentences; listens effectively; recognizes potential communication barriers and adjusts approach or clarifies information as needed.

Non-science majors could have the advantage.

Ethical Responsibility to Self and Others: Behaves in an honest and ethical manner; cultivates personal and academic integrity; adheres to ethical principles and follows rules and procedures; resists peer pressure to engage in unethical behavior and encourages others to behave in honest and ethical ways; develops and demonstrates ethical and moral reasoning.

Something that I don't believe can be learned in undergrad. Push.

Reliability and Dependability: Consistently fulfills obligations in a timely and satisfactory manner; takes responsibility for personal actions and performance.

Something that I don't believe can be learned in undergrad. Push

Resilience and Adaptability: Demonstrates tolerance of stressful or changing environments or situations and adapts effectively to them; is persistent, even under difficult situations; recovers from setbacks.

No question...science majors have advantage here.

Capacity for Improvement: Sets goals for continuous improvement and for learning new concepts and skills; engages in reflective practice for improvement; solicits and responds appropriately to feedback.

I would say that science majors have the slight edge, only because the work is more challenging and they have a better opportunity to demonstrate improvement.

Critical Thinking: Uses logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions, or approaches to problems.

I would call this one a push...it really could go either way depending on the strength of the programs.

Quantitative Reasoning: Applies quantitative reasoning and appropriate mathematics to describe or explain phenomena in the natural world.

No question...science majors have the advantage here.

Scientific Inquiry: Applies knowledge of the scientific process to integrate and synthesize information, solve problems and formulate research questions and hypotheses; is facile in the language of the sciences and uses it to participate in the discourse of science and explain how scientific knowledge is discovered and validated.

No question...science majors have the advantage.

Written Communication: Effectively conveys information to others using written words and sentences.
Non-science majors have the advantage.

Living Systems: Applies knowledge and skill in the natural sciences to solve problems related to molecular and macro systems including biomolecules, molecules, cells, and organs.

Science majors have the advantage.

Human Behavior: Applies knowledge of the self, others, and social systems to solve problems related to the psychological, socio-cultural, and biological factors that influence health and well-being.

I'm going to call this one a push. Humanities majors may have the advantage in regards to sociology and anthropology...however, science majors will have a better understanding of disease processes.


Final tally:
Non-science majors- 4
Science majors- 6
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
j4pac said:
Service Orientation: Demonstrates a desire to help others and sensitivity to others’ needs and feelings; demonstrates a desire to alleviate others’ distress; recognizes and acts on his/her responsibilities to society; locally, nationally, and globally.
I don't believe that a non-science major would have a benefit in this regard. You don't learn altruism in undergrad. Push.

Social Skills: Demonstrates an awareness of others’ needs, goals, feelings, and the ways that social and behavioral cues affect peoples’ interactions and behaviors; adjusts behaviors appropriately in response to these cues; treats others with respect.

I believe that a non-science major could have a benefit in this regard.

Cultural Competence: Demonstrates knowledge of socio-cultural factors that affect interactions and behaviors; shows an appreciation and respect for multiple dimensions of diversity; recognizes and acts on the obligation to inform one’s own judgment; engages diverse and competing perspectives as a resource for learning, citizenship, and work; recognizes and appropriately addresses bias in themselves and others; interacts effectively with people from diverse backgrounds.

Non-science major have the advantage.

Teamwork: Works collaboratively with others to achieve shared goals; shares information and knowledge with others and provides feedback; puts team goals ahead of individual goals.

I believe that science majors have the advantage here. Labs require teamwork, and the science majors course load is significantly harder, often requiring team work.

Oral Communication: Effectively conveys information to others using spoken words and sentences; listens effectively; recognizes potential communication barriers and adjusts approach or clarifies information as needed.

Non-science majors could have the advantage.

Ethical Responsibility to Self and Others: Behaves in an honest and ethical manner; cultivates personal and academic integrity; adheres to ethical principles and follows rules and procedures; resists peer pressure to engage in unethical behavior and encourages others to behave in honest and ethical ways; develops and demonstrates ethical and moral reasoning.

Something that I don't believe can be learned in undergrad. Push.

Reliability and Dependability: Consistently fulfills obligations in a timely and satisfactory manner; takes responsibility for personal actions and performance.

Something that I don't believe can be learned in undergrad. Push

Resilience and Adaptability: Demonstrates tolerance of stressful or changing environments or situations and adapts effectively to them; is persistent, even under difficult situations; recovers from setbacks.

No question...science majors have advantage here.

Capacity for Improvement: Sets goals for continuous improvement and for learning new concepts and skills; engages in reflective practice for improvement; solicits and responds appropriately to feedback.

I would say that science majors have the slight edge, only because the work is more challenging and they have a better opportunity to demonstrate improvement.

Critical Thinking: Uses logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions, or approaches to problems.

I would call this one a push...it really could go either way depending on the strength of the programs.

Quantitative Reasoning: Applies quantitative reasoning and appropriate mathematics to describe or explain phenomena in the natural world.

No question...science majors have the advantage here.

Scientific Inquiry: Applies knowledge of the scientific process to integrate and synthesize information, solve problems and formulate research questions and hypotheses; is facile in the language of the sciences and uses it to participate in the discourse of science and explain how scientific knowledge is discovered and validated.

No question...science majors have the advantage.

Written Communication: Effectively conveys information to others using written words and sentences.
Non-science majors have the advantage.

Living Systems: Applies knowledge and skill in the natural sciences to solve problems related to molecular and macro systems including biomolecules, molecules, cells, and organs.

Science majors have the advantage.

Human Behavior: Applies knowledge of the self, others, and social systems to solve problems related to the psychological, socio-cultural, and biological factors that influence health and well-being.

I'm going to call this one a push. Humanities majors may have the advantage in regards to sociology and anthropology...however, science majors will have a better understanding of disease processes.


Final tally:
Non-science majors- 4
Science majors- 6
Click to expand...

People with the best advantage: Science majors who studied the liberal arts extensively. Also non-science majors who took advanced scientific coursework!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I was a political science and economics major in college. Graduated with a 3.3 gpa. After college, I realized I had an interest in medicine and returned as a postbac to take the pre reqs. Finished with a 3.92 sgpa, tutored o chem, physics, anatomy. And then did student instruction for a bio course and some research in organic chem.

I strongly believe that my liberal arts education taught me the skills to go after whatever I want. I'm starting medical school in July and can't be more excited.
 
PatrickStarMDPHD said:
People with the best advantage: Science majors who studied the liberal arts extensively. Also non-science majors who took advanced scientific coursework!
Click to expand...

If I was advising a friend on which route to take...no question that I would take a non-science major. It's easier. You have more potential for a higher GPA and have more time to study for the MCAT. If med schools aren't going to weight science majors higher than non-science majors (though I think that they should)...then there is very little incentive to have a science major as a premed.
 
j4pac said:
If I was advising a friend on which route to take...no question that I would take a non-science major. It's easier. You have more potential for a higher GPA and have more time to study for the MCAT. If med schools aren't going to weight science majors higher than non-science majors (though I think that they should)...then there is very little incentive to have a science major as a premed.
Click to expand...

It's a shame, I majored in biology because I actually love the material and not because I think "I need to" for medical school. I also heard of advisers telling students considering medicine who are also science-oriented to consider physics and engineering majors to stand out. Where I took biology was no joke, I worked incredibly hard to get just around a 3.7. However, there is no way I could have gotten >3.2 in physics/engineering at my undergrad.
 
PatrickStarMDPHD said:
It's a shame, I majored in biology because I actually love the material and not because I think "I need to" for medical school. I also heard of advisers telling students considering medicine who are also science-oriented to consider physics and engineering majors to stand out. Where I took biology was no joke, I worked incredibly hard to get just around a 3.7. However, there is no way I could have gotten >3.2 in physics/engineering at my undergrad.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I'm very open in saying that my undergrad experience was more difficult than my med school experience. The key ingredient that the "core competencies" leave out is..."survival". Your ability to survive is the most important determinate of a good physician. When you are sick...you go to work. When you are sleep deprived...you go to work. When your life is crashing down around you...you go to work. I learned how to survive as an undergrad.

I think that it is a joke that science major's GPA is not weighted in comparison to non-science majors. But that is the way that the game is played...so you have to play it.
 
You know what I see here? A century of preparation for the Flexner style medical curriculum crumbling.

Any non-science major taking just the pre-rqes will have (using the hrs my old Biology program used):
1 year Bio= 8 hrs
2yrs Chem = 16 hrs
1 yr physics = 8 hr
= 32 hrs (all the above include labs)

That's definitely more than a minor at my old UG school, and from what I remember, the hrs for any major!

So, considering that > 90% of successful medical school matriculants all do research, I'd say that the English or Accounting major will be decently grounded in Science.

j4pac said:
If I was advising a friend on which route to take...no question that I would take a non-science major. It's easier. You have more potential for a higher GPA and have more time to study for the MCAT. If med schools aren't going to weight science majors higher than non-science majors (though I think that they should)...then there is very little incentive to have a science major as a premed.
Click to expand...
 
Terrible idea. There is already an LCME accredited medical school in canada that picks its candidates solely based on mcat vr section, gpa, ec's and interview. The school has a much higher ratio of students from soft sciences, nursing, etc.

Outcome: No residency program in the country wants to touch their students with a 10 ft pole.

Mcmaster degroote SOM, ask around about their rep and you'll see.
 
WhendoIstartfirstaid? said:
Terrible idea. There is already an LCME accredited medical school in canada that picks its candidates solely based on mcat vr section, gpa, ec's and interview. The school has a much higher ratio of students from soft sciences, nursing, etc.

Outcome: No residency program in the country wants to touch their students with a 10 ft pole.

Mcmaster degroote SOM, ask around about their rep and you'll see.
Click to expand...

Only MCAT VR? As in a 25 MCAT (5 PS, 15 VR, 5 BS) would do better than a 40 MCAT (15 on sciences, 10 verbal)?
 
WhendoIstartfirstaid? said:
Terrible idea. There is already an LCME accredited medical school in canada that picks its candidates solely based on mcat vr section, gpa, ec's and interview. The school has a much higher ratio of students from soft sciences, nursing, etc.

Outcome: No residency program in the country wants to touch their students with a 10 ft pole.

Mcmaster degroote SOM, ask around about their rep and you'll see.
Click to expand...

Don't spread misinformation around, what you are saying is absolutely false.

McMaster has a residency match rate that year on year is the same as any other medical school in Canada, well above 90%.

44 health sciences, 95 science, 18 medical sciences, 9 arts and science, 5 public health. Well over 60% of the class has a science background, many of the professional students who get in from pharm, physio etc all have a science background.

6 were from nursing.

http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/mdprog/documents/Classof2017.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMaster_University_Medical_School

They really only do look at VR, so yes a 1/15/1 would do better than lets say a 14/11/14. They also were the developers of the MMI, PBL and CASPer which is a test that everyone applying to Mac needs to write which is considered essentially a MMI in online format.
 
Medstart108 said:
Don't spread misinformation around, what you are saying is absolutely false.

McMaster has a residency match rate that year on year is the same as any other medical school in Canada, well above 90%.

44 health sciences, 95 science, 18 medical sciences, 9 arts and science, 5 public health. Well over 60% of the class has a science background, many of the professional students who get in from pharm, physio etc all have a science background.

6 were from nursing.

http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/mdprog/documents/Classof2017.pdf
Click to expand...

I liked the plethora of math/engineering/physics majors in that list. If you compare you class profile to others, it is extremely heavy on social and soft sciences.

And the bottom DO school in america has 90%+ match rate too. Mac is still the leper child no specialty/subspecialty programs accept, besides Mac GME itself.
 
Your biology/physics/chemistry knowledge does not need to be very high to practice medicine or do well on boards. You just need to memorize a bunch of stuff.
 
WhendoIstartfirstaid? said:
I liked the plethora of math/engineering/physics majors in that list. If you compare you class profile to others, it is extremely heavy on social and soft sciences.

And the bottom DO school in america has 90%+ match rate too, Mac is still the leper child no specialty/subspecialty programs accept besides Mac GME itself.
Click to expand...

What is your background, are you Canadian? You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Yeah because physics chem etc are all bundled into "sciences" just like all the arts disciplines were bundled into "arts".

I have a science background, but what makes you think a physics grad is going to do better in medical school than an arts grad? Everyone is going to be learning medicine from scratch, you should know that since you are in medical school yourself.

I've actually read the stats, which shows none of that to be true.

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uplo...h_Results_by_School_of_Graduation_English.pdf

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uplo...uation_and_Discipline_Choice_Rank_English.pdf
 
WhendoIstartfirstaid? said:
Yes, in fact they have an 11 verbal cut off so the second applicant you listed would not be considered at all.
Click to expand...

So people with 10 in VR are not accepted in Mac? Look at the admissions statistics again buddy.

I think this just proves you have no clue what you are saying.

Your classmates with a background in arts are going to love you when you tell them that those with arts backgrounds don't make as good of doctors and don't match as well.
 
I believe I may have rustled some jimmies. To be fair I was dramatizing xP
skeletor06 said:
All the understanding of medicine in the world doesn't mean jack if you can't effectively communicate with your patients. I'm not saying English majors or non-trads have a monopoly on that, just pointing out that we have perhaps honed those skills more than someone who followed a traditional pre-med path. Medical school teaches that, too. It's an equalizer.
Click to expand...

lez b real doe. humanism is just a buzzword we use in med school. real medicine is nothing more than a 10 minute ordeal where you put on a fake smile. go thru whatever algorithm uptodate tells you to do. Then give whatever treatment will maximize hospital profits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Medstart108 said:
What is your background, are you Canadian? You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Yeah because physics chem etc are all bundled into "sciences" just like all the arts disciplines were bundled into "arts".

I have a science background, but what makes you think a physics grad is going to do better in medical school than an arts grad? Everyone is going to be learning medicine from scratch, you should know that since you are in medical school yourself.

I've actually read the stats, which shows none of that to be true.

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uplo...h_Results_by_School_of_Graduation_English.pdf

http://www.carms.ca/wp-content/uplo...uation_and_Discipline_Choice_Rank_English.pdf
Click to expand...

Math was separated, engineering is seperate which you guys have zero off, and I'll give a point on the physics part. Your class profile still has the most extreme ratio of social sciences/arts/other to traditional pre-med. If you want to make a point dont just link mac's profile. find queens, uwo, or uoft's.

And first choice means nothing, self selection..

And I said SPECIALTY matches to other schools. For real analysis, how many total residency spots does mac offer? Where is mac's match list. My brother went to UofT and is a resident at Ubc. Mac had a bad rep at both of the places he attended, and the same sentiment was expressed at Mt Sinai by my attending when I was volunteering.

Honestly: Just post mac's match list and if what you said is true, it'll be reflected on it.
 
Last edited:
and another point - tbh feels like i'm just arguing with myself lolz - why the heck do we act like bio majors are inept at effectively communicating with patients? Since when does having an English major automatically put you at the upper echelon of communication skills?

i've met plenty of socially awkward english and bio majors alike.

Being an english major in medicine doesn't mean squat. Imo, all it really shows is the person realized they weren't going to write the next great american novel and wanted to go into one of the few remaining professions where they are all but guaranteed a 6-figure salary.

edit: I would question the motives of an english major wanting to go into medicine a hell of alot more than I would question the motives of a traditional bio major.
final edit: can someone please explain to me how an English major's ability to deconstruct the meaning of Great Gatsby or some lame-a$$ poem that has no relevance to modern society correlates to becoming a great physician? News flash: it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
WhendoIstartfirstaid? said:
Math was separated, engineering is seperate which you guys have zero off, and I'll give a point on the physics part. Your class profile still has the most extreme ratio of social sciences/arts/other to traditional pre-med. If you want to make a point dont just link mac's profile. find queens, uwo, or uoft's.

And first choice means nothing, self selection..

And I said SPECIALTY matches to other schools. For real analysis, how many total residency spots does mac offer? Where is mac's match list. My brother went to UofT and is a resident at Ubc. Mac had a bad rep at both of the places he attended, and the same sentiment was expressed at Mt Sinai by my attending when I was volunteering.

Honestly: Just post mac's match list and if what you said is true, it'll be reflected on it.
Click to expand...

A better question to ask is how many Math and Engineering students really want to do medicine and have the GPA for it? Everyone knows Engineering is tough on the GPA, this would naturally hurt students who want to apply to a school like Mac.

I agree that the way Mac selects its students is going to be more friendly to Arts students, but if you consider the fact that almost all the other medical schools are more friendly to Science students it makes total sense that there are schools that give everyone an opportunity not just those who were on pre-med track since day 1.

I bet you you can find several medical schools in the US who have a higher percentage of arts students as well, its not as if Mac is 80% arts students.

Canadian schools don't post match lists as you know. The stats are what you see in CaRMS or if you take the time to ask individual students who can tell you some cursory information.

What you were saying was a massive hyperbole. Your information is anecdotal, and i've met more Mac med residents when I was shadowing at a Toronto hospital than than uoft residents funnily enough. Your point about Mac students being unable to match is a bit of a joke as shown by CaRMS stats, and no they don't all match to McMaster which incidentally has amazing residency programs especially in IM.

Like I said, if you go into medical school with an opinion like that, expect to be in for a surprise.
 
burritowithgreensauce said:
and another point - tbh feels like i'm just arguing with myself lolz - why the heck do we act like bio majors are inept at effectively communicating with patients? Since when does having an English major automatically put you at the upper echelon of communication skills?

i've met plenty of socially awkward english and bio majors alike.

Being an english major in medicine doesn't mean squat. Imo, all it really shows is the person realized they weren't going to write the next great american novel and wanted to go into one of the few remaining professions where they are all but guaranteed a 6-figure salary.
Click to expand...

I know as a bio major, the only conversations I am capable of having with anyone are about how PCR is the greatest thing since sliced bread and what I did on Xbox Live the other day ;).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Veritas27
English Requirement Dilemma
Replies
4
Views
656
Splenda88
S
C
English AP Credit
Replies
3
Views
372
chacothefish
C
M
Is the Sinovac Covid Vaccine acceptable for Medical School's Vaccine Requirements?
Replies
3
Views
664
Mr.Fixit
M
L
Top 3 DO schools in your opinion? Let's hear it
Replies
24
Views
3K
fxryker
fxryker
lialalala
Which do schools require students to stay in-state for residency?
Replies
6
Views
2K
medincle
M
Top