am I doomed if I'm not a natural at science?

[Mae16]

hi - I am 27 and have always wanted to be a doctor, and have always been interested in health, medicine, disease, patient care, etc.

The problem is, I've never demonstrated a strong .aptitude. for math and science. In standardized tests, I always do great on the verbal sections, but I'm lucky if I score in the 60th percentile on math/science sections. In high school I was a B/C student in math and science.

My question is - has anyone else come from a similar background and been successful? Anyone else out there who's not a natural science student but made it through the pre-reqs okay?

thanks for any input.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[powerbooki]

You are in luck. My opinion is that MCAT favours test takers with strong reading skills. The physical science section does not really give strong science people any advantage since it really tests on basics. But this is just my opinion, and English is my second language.

 

[Law2Doc]

hi - I am 27 and have always wanted to be a doctor, and have always been interested in health, medicine, disease, patient care, etc.

The problem is, I've never demonstrated a strong .aptitude. for math and science. In standardized tests, I always do great on the verbal sections, but I'm lucky if I score in the 60th percentile on math/science sections. In high school I was a B/C student in math and science.

My question is - has anyone else come from a similar background and been successful? Anyone else out there who's not a natural science student but made it through the pre-reqs okay?

thanks for any input.

There are lots of non-mathy/non-sci types who end up muddling through and becoming doctors. They tend to have to work a LOT harder and do a lot more problems because the tendency is to memorize everything rather than actually understand. Not the best way to learn but lots of people learn to "fake" their way through the sciences in this way.

 

[relentless11]

There are lots of non-mathy/non-sci types who end up muddling through and becoming doctors. They tend to have to work a LOT harder and do a lot more problems because the tendency is to memorize everything rather than actually understand. Not the best way to learn but lots of people learn to "fake" their way through the sciences in this way.

True. However I think in the long run, you end up paying for it somewhere. I dunno, understanding a concept is way better than memorizing. Memorizing seems so undergradish😉.

I agree though, non-science/math people do get into med school, and I'm sure they work a lot harder on the science sections of the MCAT and then some....but THEY DO GET IN. Not having an aptitude or whatever for math and science is not an issue. What is at issue is if medicine is something you truly want, rather than an "interest in health, medicine, disease, patient care, etc.". On a side note, physicians aren't the only ones that deal with health, medicine, disease and patient care. Anyone can say they want to be a physician, however if you truly want it, then trivial things such as how well you did in high school wouldn't matter.

Got a friend who is a Navy Corpsman who has served in Iraq. Had pisspoor grades in high school. Didn't go to college until now. Had an epiphany while in Iraq, so decided to go pre-med. Today, he's on par with other pre-meds in their ability to do well in science....and had a good MCAT score to boot. Good luck!

 

[computerdorkdan]

Are you *sure* you don't have the aptitude? Sometimes it takes a while - and all of a sudden it just makes sense and you wonder what confused you for so long. Try studying differently. Read a book, re-do the basics, draw a picture, whatever. If you're really interested you'll keep trying till something clicks.

 

[poly800rock]

There are lots of non-mathy/non-sci types who end up muddling through and becoming doctors. They tend to have to work a LOT harder and do a lot more problems because the tendency is to memorize everything rather than actually understand. Not the best way to learn but lots of people learn to "fake" their way through the sciences in this way.

i think it's the otherway around. the math types have to start memorizing everything to get through.

 

[MSTPbound]

hi - I am 27 and have always wanted to be a doctor, and have always been interested in health, medicine, disease, patient care, etc.

The problem is, I've never demonstrated a strong .aptitude. for math and science. In standardized tests, I always do great on the verbal sections, but I'm lucky if I score in the 60th percentile on math/science sections. In high school I was a B/C student in math and science.

My question is - has anyone else come from a similar background and been successful? Anyone else out there who's not a natural science student but made it through the pre-reqs okay?

thanks for any input.

Sometimes, being a "natural" is a function of how many hours your willing to invest in mastery of a subject. I am extremely passionate about organic chemistry... but if I were an orgo "natural," I wonder whether I would have had to spend >30 hours per week studying for it 🙄 ?

 

[Nasrudin]

hi - I am 27 and have always wanted to be a doctor, and have always been interested in health, medicine, disease, patient care, etc.

The problem is, I've never demonstrated a strong .aptitude. for math and science. In standardized tests, I always do great on the verbal sections, but I'm lucky if I score in the 60th percentile on math/science sections. In high school I was a B/C student in math and science.

My question is - has anyone else come from a similar background and been successful? Anyone else out there who's not a natural science student but made it through the pre-reqs okay?

thanks for any input.

I agree with the last post about asking "are you sure?" Because it depends on what experience you are basing your assessment of your ability on. If you were a serious, dedicated student and tried some hard "weed out" science courses and got killed...well then OK, you will have to work harder than most.

The reason I say this is because I came to the idea of being a pre-med from a blue collar working background and a lackluster, 10 year old, stint as a literature major. I had no idea how I would perform in science. But I knew I was serious, I was hungry for it, and my ability to take a beating and keep at it was profoundly more developed than the majority of my softer untested young class mates. Make no mistake--that advantage is huge. While a lot of my albeit bright (and I would not hesitate to say brighter than me) classmates were recovering from a night of drinking or of worrying about which of the opposite sex they were impressing at the time or what have you, I was laser-focused on killing it in the classroom.

I have 3.97 science gpa. And I am not a "science person." I would rather think about history or philosophy than science. But all you need is a passing appreciation for its beauty as a method for understanding the world and you'll be fine--given that you are serious and motivated of course.

 

[Scottish Chap]

Given the right training, there's not a lot you can't do. If you are sure, go for it.

I will say, though, that memorization only gets one so far. My experience has been that a lot of people get into medical school by being good memorizers and they continue this in first year, but take a pounding in second year and beyond. Understanding mechanisms is a learned skill, and I would definitely not rule out a potentially wonderful career because of 'fear of the unknown'. If we're all honest, everybody feels the same way.

Medical schools actively enroll and like to breed good test takers. I won't lie to you: medical school and beyond is a constant battery of tests and you are always proving yourself. However, even among medical students there are varying caliber of test takers and while it's more painful for those without this innate skill, hard work can compensate substantially. Don't be put off. Good luck!

 

[Law2Doc]

I will say, though, that memorization only gets one so far. My experience has been that a lot of people get into medical school by being good memorizers and they continue this in first year, but take a pounding in second year and beyond.

I don't know about that -- some of the biggest memorization intensive courses (micro, pharm, path) are second year courses. It's the first year biochem and physio that requires the continued "mathy" issues of the premed stuff. You can get further than you'd think. Obviously understanding is best, and the path I personally endorse, but the OP asked if it's hopeless, and it isn't -- people skate through all the time. And many of the non-science folks have good people skills so they do okay in rotations -- the hurdle for them is just to get past the prereqs and basic science years. Then the playing field becomes at least level between sci and nonsci folks.

 

[Law2Doc]

i think it's the otherway around. the math types have to start memorizing everything to get through.

True for the people who are good at sciences, the opposite for the people who are not. You can go a long way just by seeing every type of eg physics, chem, orgo, problem your prof or the MCAT might ask, and remembering how to tackle it step by step, and then just plug and chug. Means you have to go through tons of problems until you can recognize and do them in your sleep. You may have no clue why it's right or what you really are doing, but can still get an A on an exam without having any science intuition.

In med school the courses are sometimes better geared toward memorization and less about understanding so your approach will seem less shallow then.

 

[Scottish Chap]

I don't know about that -- some of the biggest memorization intensive courses (micro, pharm, path) are second year courses. It's the first year biochem and physio that requires the continued "mathy" issues of the premed stuff. You can get further than you'd think. Obviously understanding is best, and the path I personally endorse, but the OP asked if it's hopeless, and it isn't -- people skate through all the time. And many of the non-science folks have good people skills so they do okay in rotations -- the hurdle for them is just to get past the prereqs and basic science years. Then the playing field becomes at least level between sci and nonsci folks.

Yeah, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think that normal structure and function can be memorized and, even though there are still picky details in MSII classes like pharmacology, if you understand the mechanism, you can figure things out in the test, and you'll most definitely do better. Some of the best memorizers in my school just had the worst year in MSII.

Pharmacology was my background before medical school, so I'm always a little surprised that people think it's a subject of memorization; drug names and side-effects, yes, but understanding the mechanisms takes you farther. For pathology and pathophysiology (most heavily tested on on the boards and arguably most important in medicine), one will get destroyed if one does not understand the mechanism. Compared to graduate level courses in biochemistry and physiology, the medical school versions are very diluted - not mathy at all - and definitely easier than the math in the physics prerequisites. Again, all in my humble opinion.

 

[Law2Doc]

Some of the best memorizers in my school just had the worst year in MSII.

Probably depends on how they test the material -- I saw the reverse happen in second year (once physiology ended in first year, the pure memorizers blossomed).
I agree with you that if you can't master path or pathophys you are SOL on the boards, but from what I saw, these were not the subjects that caused the most trouble for non-science folks.
All I'm saying is there are multiple ways to navigate the prereqs and then med school, and some people do manage it thanks to brute force memorization. Not the ideal or most efficient way, and it will take a heck of a lot more time and effort for some, but there are many ways to skin a cat.

 

[Scottish Chap]

Probably depends on how they test the material -- I saw the reverse happen in second year (once physiology ended in first year, the pure memorizers blossomed).
I agree with you that if you can't master path or pathophys you are SOL on the boards, but from what I saw, these were not the subjects that caused the most trouble for non-science folks.
All I'm saying is there are multiple ways to navigate the prereqs and then med school, and some people do manage it thanks to brute force memorization. Not the ideal or most efficient way, and it will take a heck of a lot more time and effort for some, but there are many ways to skin a cat.

Agreed. Brute force really does compensate sometimes. It sounds like you're in a very intense program, so perhaps the 'experience' is also dependent on the school.

 

[chrisjohn]

Medical school performance is a function of work. I can't put it any other way. If you're dedicated, aptitude matters not so much. So, how much do you want to work?

It's been nearly a year since I've had time to post much, which says volumes about my personal experience in the MSI year. At my institution memorization is absolutely the key. Understanding is obviously a more desirable goal, but when it comes down to getting through classes most info is memorized, at least for me.

 

[ShyRem]

I think it depends on how the school is set up. Most of our intensely memorization courses were first year - second year is systems. While many non-science majors have difficulty with pure memorize and vomit classes, they seem to do well in PBL and systems courses.

Also, remember, there is much more to being a good physician than who can memorize stuff best. There is a reason many say "art of medicine".

 

[QofQuimica]

Yeah, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I still think that normal structure and function can be memorized and, even though there are still picky details in MSII classes like pharmacology, if you understand the mechanism, you can figure things out in the test, and you'll most definitely do better. Some of the best memorizers in my school just had the worst year in MSII.

Pharmacology was my background before medical school, so I'm always a little surprised that people think it's a subject of memorization; drug names and side-effects, yes, but understanding the mechanisms takes you farther. For pathology and pathophysiology (most heavily tested on on the boards and arguably most important in medicine), one will get destroyed if one does not understand the mechanism. Compared to graduate level courses in biochemistry and physiology, the medical school versions are very diluted - not mathy at all - and definitely easier than the math in the physics prerequisites. Again, all in my humble opinion.

I think a lot of it depends on your background also. I haven't found pharm to be that memorization intensive either. But I've already taken grad pharm, and I approach pharm from an organic chem standpoint, which is probably not how most med students do it. You want to talk about a memorization intensive subject: the obvious one is anatomy.

 

[Nasrudin]

[ I approach pharm from an organic chem standpoint, which is probably not how most med students do it. You want to talk about a memorization intensive subject: the obvious one is anatomy.[/QUOTE]

Well let's see...If you're avatar has an organic chemistry joke, then you're probably seeing things through you heavy science skills. 😀

In regards to the op's concerns. I really disagree with the whole idea of compartmentalization of intellect. I think this is a modern phenomenon that reflects the imposition of industrial interests into education. For most of our human history the person who could solve complex problems or overcome great hardship through effort by whatever natural means was more likely to survive and pass on their genes. I don't think that there is such a thing as a "scientific mind" or what have you. I think there are just more or less smart, creative intellects or are more or less motivated to work their tail off. Any combination can work.

 

[Law2Doc]

In regards to the op's concerns. I really disagree with the whole idea of compartmentalization of intellect. I think this is a modern phenomenon that reflects the imposition of industrial interests into education. For most of our human history the person who could solve complex problems or overcome great hardship through effort by whatever natural means was more likely to survive and pass on their genes. I don't think that there is such a thing as a "scientific mind" or what have you. I think there are just more or less smart, creative intellects or are more or less motivated to work their tail off. Any combination can work.

I don't know about that -- I've met enough people who were brilliant in some areas and truly dense in others, giving the same effort to each. Some people are just simply wired up differently. It is not really an issue of effort -- some have to spend much more effort to do well at some things than others. Those for whom science/math come easy have scientific minds and those who can wax eloquent in the writing intensive humanities and social sciences have less scientific minds. Each group can learn the other, often excell in it, but it is simply going to be more of a challenge.

 

[Divine Furor]

I don't know about that -- I've met enough people who were brilliant in some areas and truly dense in others, giving the same effort to each. Some people are just simply wired up differently. It is not really an issue of effort -- some have to spend much more effort to do well at some things than others. Those for whom science/math come easy have scientific minds and those who can wax eloquent in the writing intensive humanities and social sciences have less scientific minds. Each group can learn the other, often excell in it, but it is simply going to be more of a challenge.

I'm sorry, Law, but I don't agree that there is such a thing as a "scientific" mind versus some other, err, "literary" kind of mind. If we draw down to the personal, I find both subjects pleasurable, easily accessible--just "differently" accessible intellectually...and yes that was something that had to be trained. Can someone go through life without training their mind to analyze scientifically? Sure--but just because they lack the experience does not suggest to me a lack of affinity, or comprehension, or ability.

 

[Law2Doc]

I'm sorry, Law, but I don't agree that there is such a thing as a "scientific" mind versus some other, err, "literary" kind of mind. If we draw down to the personal, I find both subjects pleasurable, easily accessible--just "differently" accessible intellectually...and yes that was something that had to be trained. Can someone go through life without training their mind to analyze scientifically? Sure--but just because they lack the experience does not suggest to me a lack of affinity, or comprehension, or ability.

I think your personal experience actually proves my point. You had to "train yourself" to analyze one or the other. To some one or the other comes very naturally but they have to work hard to master the other. And to some they both come easy -- it's a continuum so the fact that you aren't on an extreme doesn't disprove the extreme. I'm also not saying there is a bright line distinction of which subjects are on which side of the fence though and it's not per se science vs nonscience. I have no doubt that someone could be quite good at bio courses but struggle at the more "mathy" things. And struggling doesn't mean you cannot master, it just means you don't have it as easy as some.

And finding things pleasurable/affinity is not part of my analysis -- many people find the more challenging one more pleasurable. Sort of why some of us are changing from nonsci careers to medicine -- it's not that we didn't have better aptitude in what we were doing, or that it didn't come easier, just that we didn't want to keep doing it. For a lot of us, it was a path of least resistance and now we are deciding we prefer the path of extreme resistance.

 

[Nasrudin]

I think your personal experience actually proves my point. You had to "train yourself" to analyze one or the other. To some one or the other comes very naturally but they have to work hard to master the other. And to some they both come easy -- it's a continuum so the fact that you aren't on an extreme doesn't disprove the extreme. I'm also not saying there is a bright line distinction of which subjects are on which side of the fence though and it's not per se science vs nonscience. I have no doubt that someone could be quite good at bio courses but struggle at the more "mathy" things. And struggling doesn't mean you cannot master, it just means you don't have it as easy as some.

And finding things pleasurable/affinity is not part of my analysis -- many people find the more challenging one more pleasurable. Sort of why some of us are changing from nonsci careers to medicine -- it's not that we didn't have better aptitude in what we were doing, or that it didn't come easier, just that we didn't want to keep doing it. For a lot of us, it was a path of least resistance and now we are deciding we prefer the path of extreme resistance.

Ok. That's reasonable. The continuum you suggest would mean that where ever the OP falls on it they would just have to adjust their approach to compensate accordingly. Certainly doable for most people given the motivation as you also indicated.

I would just caution against self-fulfilling prophecies that tell the self that you're not good at something for whatever reason. And that affinity--like you said--can go a long way. For example I thought the evolutionary general biology components of the prereqs were awesome and my buddy could not stand to study plants and whatnot...so he struggled in that area more than I did.

I think if you foster a generalized curiosity or a thirst for knowledge and a vigorous work ethic nothing can stop you from doing well--unless you get convinced that you can't do something by society, by your family, by past failures, etc.

 

[montessori2md]

As a humanities type person, I can relate to the testing issues -what was very difficult for me to get past was the plug and chug aspect of premed prereqs -there really are very few opportunities to describe what you know in most UG science courses, and the exams are quite hit or miss, depending on how well you studied -for example, if you were taking a chem final, you might blow eq constants out of the water, but do poorly with electrochem, simply because you forgot a key formula, or panicked and couldn't remember whether entropy was positive or negative,etc.
This is why those classes have such crazy curves. The class average in my classes is typically around 60% (about 10% below what is usually defined as "average"), and if a 4.0 is a 92%, that means to have a "perfect" gpa, your exams will average 82%. I never had curves like that in humanities classes, but then, the grading was pretty subjective -essays are like that.
In my experience, getting from 60% to 80% takes about the same amount amount of study time as getting from 80% to 90%, and from 90% to 100% takes about double that time. The difference between "verbal" or "humanities" study time vs. "science" study time is that in science, you must do problems, while in my humanities classes, I could often skate by just by reading.

 

[1_Accept_Away]

I always thought I was a math or science natural..that my forte was in the humanities. But I think a lot of that was because maybe I received more positive reinforcement from my teachers/parents in certain areas and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's funny looking back at my early testing in high school - it was clear I was actually really strong in math, but for reason, I had convinced myself that because I prefer history and English, I was better at that. The truth I just checked out when it came to sciences because I believed I wasn't a science person. Then I went back to school and in my post-bacc with a blank slate...and allowed myself to take in the sciences with an open mind and it worked out well. I think a lot of time we do ourselves a great disservice when we label ourselves. Just work hard and everything will fall into place.