Anatomy lectures

[gerrardsgirl]

Do you find them a waste of time? I mean, a good hour of Netter's would do you a lot of good than going to the lectures and trying to listen to your lecturer's monotone voice.

Anatomy can be self-taught right? As long as you have a good textbook like Netter or Moore.

So can someone tell me WHY I should be going to anatomy lectures? Cos I don't see the point really.

I also find that I have more time when I don't go to lectures (40 minute drive to my university) and hence more time to study!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kdburton]

,

 

[mikedc813]

I never went to anatomy for the same reasons you listed. I self-taught it to myself because it's basically all memorization with little comprehension.

 

[muzi]

in our university, going lectures are not obligated. just practises are important. so if u come to our university you don't have such a problem. but i agree with u anatomy lectures are unnecessary.

 

[osli]

Anatomy lectures are pointless if all they do is point and name. A good anatomy lecture on the other hand should explain functions and movements of groups of muscles in a way that helps you remember, tie in to embryological or evolutionary reasons why some things are the way they are anatomically (such as legs and arms rotating opposite directions during fetal development - that explains a lot). Or point out important innervations or exceptions to general schemes. Or point out normal anatomic variations that Netter won't tell you about, and could easily throw you off during a practical. Or give useful nmeumonics that help with the rote memorization. Or lots of other things that might be worth sitting through a lecture for.

If you get a tag on a practical that says "if the nerve to the tagged muscle was compromised, what would be the observed gait change in the patient?" I don't think Netter's is going to help you that much.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

Anatomy lectures are pointless if all they do is point and name. A good anatomy lecture on the other hand should explain functions and movements of groups of muscles in a way that helps you remember, tie in to embryological or evolutionary reasons why some things are the way they are anatomically (such as legs and arms rotating opposite directions during fetal development - that explains a lot). Or point out important innervations or exceptions to general schemes. Or point out normal anatomic variations that Netter won't tell you about, and could easily throw you off during a practical. Or give useful nmeumonics that help with the rote memorization. Or lots of other things that might be worth sitting through a lecture for.

If you get a tag on a practical that says "if the nerve to the tagged muscle was compromised, what would be the observed gait change in the patient?" I don't think Netter's is going to help you that much.

Agree 100%.

The professor who did a few body regions did exactly that. "So this muscle originates from the blah blah blah and inserts from the blah blah blah. It is innervated by the blah blah blah and its function is to blah blah blah. Lateral to that we have the blah blah blah. This muscle originates from the blah blah blah and inserts on the blah blah blah. It is also innervated by the blah blah blah, and its function is..."

Started ignoring those lectures. The other guys were great and integrated relevant clinical correlates, embryology, neurology. Excellent lectures and half their exam questions were straight out of lecture discussions.

 

[soonereng]

Do you find them a waste of time? I mean, a good hour of Netter's would do you a lot of good than going to the lectures and trying to listen to your lecturer's monotone voice.

Anatomy can be self-taught right? As long as you have a good textbook like Netter or Moore.

I agree that anatomy lectures are nonproductive for the most part, but unfortunately at my school they are mandatory with little quiz questions at the end that count towards the final class grade.

 

[MadameLULU]

Part of first year is figuring out which study habits work for YOU. From what I hear, it's difficult to come across a anatomy professor who is good at pointing out patterns and relationships. If you're more productive studying anatomy at home with Netter's or some other resource than attending class, then I wouldn't bother coming to that class. I didnt get much from anatomy class, and most of my learning came from spending time in lab.

 

[osli]

Just to clarify, our anatomy lecturers were about half and half. Half of them were terrific, and I (and others) wanted and needed to be in class. Those sections were much easier, especially when it came time for practicals. Half were "point and name" style, and soon enough attendance dropped to perhaps half the class for that hour or two of lecture. Fortunately their sections were small and short lived, and we got more time from the more engaging lecturers.

 

[deleted29780]

Agree 100%.

The professor who did a few body regions did exactly that. "So this muscle originates from the blah blah blah and inserts from the blah blah blah. It is innervated by the blah blah blah and its function is to blah blah blah. Lateral to that we have the blah blah blah. This muscle originates from the blah blah blah and inserts on the blah blah blah. It is also innervated by the blah blah blah, and its function is..."

LOL, OH MY. this is so funny. this is one of the reasons why i have not stopped coming back to sdn - since 2003. Hey i agree with you hundred percent. there is no logic in anatomy n indeed most of the basic sciences courses pure waste of time if you go for the lectures. Hey but it does not apply at the clinical level...cos if you do not learn your clinical skills by the bedside, you will be found wanting.
the iliotibial tract inserts on the tubercle of Gerdy. LOL

 

[osli]

indeed most of the basic sciences courses pure waste of time if you go for the lectures.

Only if you have very poor basic sciences lecturers.

 

[deleted29780]

Only if you have very poor basic sciences lecturers.

have you gone through basic sciences at all. cos you seem to be the only ALIEN in here. You have so much to learn in so little time, thats the problem for most med students in the basic sciences....a typical example is anatomy and thats where i was building my argument from. Most students in the basic sciences go to lectures tired from reading all night anyway...or is your school in the fourth tier? one of those med schools which make up the numbers.

 

[Erina]

our anatomy lectures are great and one of the main reasons i go to them is because i enjoy our professor so much. for me, lecture helps--i like to HEAR things as well as read them.

however, i know people that think they're a waste of time and would rather study it themselves. i just don't think i'd have the motivation to wake up and be productive if i didn't go to class haha

 

[osli]

have you gone through basic sciences at all. cos you seem to be the only ALIEN in here. You have so much to learn in so little time, thats the problem for most med students in the basic sciences....a typical example is anatomy and thats where i was building my argument from. Most students in the basic sciences go to lectures tired from reading all night anyway...or is your school in the fourth tier? one of those med schools which make up the numbers.

Our school uses an integrated systems-based curriculum. I think that helps a lot, in that we might have a couple of days heavy in basic science lectures to begin a section, and then maybe two a day for a week or two, and then perhaps one a day for most of the rest of the section. The mental stamina it takes to sit through one biochem lecture, an anatomy lecture, and a histology lecture is surely different than what it takes to sit through several straight hours of biochem or physiology (or a combination of the two) day after day.

Also, I think that approach makes it "easier" for professors to be "good" lecturers. Their lecture might be sandwiched between a pathology lecture and a clinical lecture, so it is easier to tie in, say, anatomical structures or metabolic pathways with topics that are relevant to the other lectures. That's the point of an integrated curriculum after all.

And anatomy spread out over a year and a half probably allows for more clinical correlates and such. Also, with a balance of subject areas, you have the time to focus more on the heavy hitters (which might be anatomy and pathology for one person, biochem and physiology for another) and less on subjects that come naturally to you or that you have a stronger background in. Thus, I think that alleviates much of the mad rush to "learn all this anatomy in this short amount of time." When you only have to learn anatomy for one section in six weeks, there seems to be plenty of time to both go to lecture to get the correlates, and self study to memorize names and locations of structures.

Maybe this curriculum hurts performance on boards in areas like biochem or immunology though? I guess I'll find out soon enough.

As for fourth tier... yeah, you might consider it that since I'm in the "wrong" forum. It's one of the (IMO) top DO schools, if not the top when it comes to basic sciences training. But maybe that's still below fourth tier? As for "making up the numbers" I'm not quite sure I follow what you mean.