Benefits of a physics degree in med school

[Patassa]

I don't even get this debate. Biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[487806]

I don't even get this debate. Biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics.

 

[fuzzytoad]

The last gap is purely philosophical, however.

 

[Patassa]

The last gap is purely philosophical, however.

Except *Newton's* calculus was invented for the sole purpose of being whored out to physics problems. Nothing pure about that.

*edit for the Wikipedia guru*

 

[XmedBarney]

Except modern calculus was invented for the sole purpose of being whored out to physics problems. Nothing pure about that.

Misconception.

Newton invented calculus for physics.

Leibnitz independently discovered it on the continent, no relation to the sciences there.

And the modern form of the calculus more closely follow's Liebnitz's notation rather than Newton's. That we have found mathematics to be a useful language to communicate about reality has nothing to do with mathematics rather it has to do with the fact that the universe obeys logic when you find the axioms of that logic. Mathematics is the study of axioms and logic, so physicists, chemists, ... find it indispensable. To be sure, there are entire branches of of math that are just plain useless to scientists.

 

[Patassa]

Misconception.

Newton invented calculus for physics.

Leibnitz independently discovered it on the continent, no relation to the sciences there.

And the modern form of the calculus more closely follow's Liebnitz's notation rather than Newton's. That we have found mathematics to be a useful language to communicate about reality has nothing to do with mathematics rather it has to do with the fact that the universe obeys logic when you find the axioms of that logic. Mathematics is the study of axioms and logic, so physicists, chemists, ... find it indispensable. To be sure, there are entire branches of of math that are just plain useless to scientists.

I'm not talking about whose notation won out, I'm talking about the motives and outcome. Which you confirmed, calc is a ***** for physics.

 

[chillaxbro]

Disagree with you on both points. While I can't speak in general about your school, chemistry courses tend to be less mathematically rigorous, and it's difficult to compare chemistry to physics, the courses really have nothing to do with each other and applications tend to run in different directions. On the second point, I would say that it's better to be a competent chemist than a physicist. Relatively speaking, industry requires more chemists than physicists.

go back to /sci/

 

[XmedBarney]

Did you read what I said?

It was invented twice, once for physics, the other time for it's own sake. I don't even understand your whoring out concept.

I'm not talking about whose notation won out, I'm talking about the motives and outcome. Which you confirmed, calc is a ***** for physics.

 

[Patassa]

Did you read what I said?

It was invented twice, once for physics, the other time for it's own sake. I don't even understand your whoring out concept.

Just take a break, your quibblings are ruining the flow here.

 

[fuzzytoad]

I'm not talking about whose notation won out, I'm talking about the motives and outcome. Which you confirmed, calc is a ***** for physics.

I'm really trying but I just can't take you seriously.

 

[Aerus]

Yup. An important example: people who claim they learned E&M by algebea-based physics are liars or frankly they learned nothing at all! Yet E&M is a required prereq and tested on the MCAT.

I disagree partially on this. I took my school's algebra-based Physics for E&M and was still able to tutor my friend in his calculus-based physics class. It really depends on the person who takes the class and how far they are willing to learn.

Although, this is granted that my school's algebra-based physics classes still require completion of Calc 1, 2, and 3 (up to multivariable) as pre-requisites. Maybe that's why I never found Calculus based physics to be anymore difficult or different than algebra-based physics.

 

[fuzzytoad]

I disagree partially on this. I took my school's algebra-based Physics for E&M and was still able to tutor my friend in his calculus-based physics class. It really depends on the person who takes the class and how far they are willing to learn.

Although, this is granted that my school's algebra-based physics classes still require completion of Calc 1, 2, and 3 (up to multivariable) as pre-requisites. Maybe that's why I never found Calculus based physics to be anymore difficult or different than algebra-based physics.

Wait, how do you do EM without using Maxwell's Equations (serious question)?

 

[487806]

I disagree partially on this. I took my school's algebra-based Physics for E&M and was still able to tutor my friend in his calculus-based physics class. It really depends on the person who takes the class and how far they are willing to learn.

Although, this is granted that my school's algebra-based physics classes still require completion of Calc 1, 2, and 3 (up to multivariable) as pre-requisites. Maybe that's why I never found Calculus based physics to be anymore difficult or different than algebra-based physics.

You probably understood Maxwell's equations well thanks to your calculus knowledge. Believe me, expressing those things in summations rather than integrals is awful.

 

[Aerus]

Wait, how do you do EM without using Maxwell's Equations (serious question)?

Our class did cover Maxwell's Equations. When I say this was "Algebra-Based Physics", I meant it was the one with less Calculus in it, not completely void of it. If "Algebra-Based Physics" means a Physics class without any derivatives or integrals to be in sight, then I misunderstood, since no class like that exists at my school. All physics classes here use some degree of calculus. Again, our "alebgra based physics" classes still require completion of multivariable calculus in order to take.

You probably understood Maxwell's equations well thanks to your calculus knowledge. Believe me, expressing those things in summations rather than integrals is awful.

I can only imagine LOL.

 

[487806]

Our class did cover Maxwell's Equations. When I say this was "Algebra-Based Physics", I meant it was the one with less Calculus in it, not completely void of it. If "Algebra-Based Physics" means a Physics class without any derivatives or integrals to be in sight, then I misunderstood, since no class like that exists at my school. All physics classes here use some degree of calculus. Again, our "alebgra based physics" still require completion of multivariable calc in order to take.

That doesn't count. It's just a run-down version of calc-based physics.

 

[itsthat1guy]

go back to /sci/

what a crappy board

 

[Aerus]

That doesn't count. It's just a run-down version of calc-based physics.

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with what classifies as algebra based or calculus based. I'll explain with a bit more detail.

Our "algebra based" class basically teaches everyone the derivations in calculus. The professor walks everyone through them. Then, when we do problems, it's just plug and chug using the algebraic equations. The latter part is why I still consider this algebra based, since we don't actually apply derivatives or integrals on the actual test. We just learn about them.

Our "calculus based" class teaches the derivations but also expects some application. Of course the class still uses the algebraic equations, but it's a lot more calculus based in E&M problems. "Calculus based" Mechanics still uses only algebra, though.

The "algebra based" class has prereqs of Calc 1, 2, and 3 (Derivatives, Integrals, and Multivariable). The "calculus based" class has prereqs of Calc 1, 2, and 3 as well as differential equations. This is why every single biology major at our school must take at least up to multivariable calculus, so no bio major premed here can use "statistics" as an easy math route escape unless they major in something outside of biology.

 

[Patassa]

I'm really trying but I just can't take you seriously.

That's the right course of action. Purity and ****** are what we are talking. Or calc and physics.

 

[487806]

Perhaps. I'm not familiar with what classifies as algebra based or calculus based. I'll explain with a bit more detail.

Our "algebra based" class basically teaches everyone the derivations in calculus. The professor walks everyone through them. Then, when we do problems, it's just plug and chug using the algebraic equations. The latter part is why I still consider this algebra based, since we don't actually apply derivatives or integrals on the actual test. We just learn about them.

Our "calculus based" class teaches the derivations but also expects some application. Of course the class still uses the algebraic equations, but it's a lot more calculus based in E&M problems. "Calculus based" Mechanics still uses only algebra, though.

The "algebra based" class has prereqs of Calc 1, 2, and 3 (Derivatives, Integrals, and Multivariable). The "calculus based" class has prereqs of Calc 1, 2, and 3 as well as differential equations.

Ok so it's actually algebra-based physics but your prof got tired of side-tracking into crappy summation symbols so he just cheated using integrals/derivatives. Interesting. Frankly, you may be the rare exception to the rule or you learned it purely out of interest. Whatever it is, in the strictest sense, you don't learn E&M just by plug and chug. Equation hunting is a poor tactic in solving physics problems and you're missing out the concepts in E&M. I figure you also used the right-hand rule without learning about the cross product.

It doesn't matter though. You probably understand if you're tutoring someone in calc-based physics the concepts anyways, so you're more of a pro-calc-based physics guy

 

[Aerus]

Ok so it's actually algebra-based physics but your prof got tired of side-tracking into crappy summation symbols so he just cheated using integrals/derivatives. Interesting. Frankly, you may be the rare exception to the rule or you learned it purely out of interest. Whatever it is, in the strictest sense, you don't learn E&M just by plug and chug. Equation hunting is a poor tactic in solving physics problems and you're missing out the concepts in E&M. I figure you also used the right-hand rule without learning about the cross product.

The algebra based physics professors here do not explain the "cross product" for the right hand rule at all, but seeing as everyone in the class went through multivariable in order to even be in the class, I'm sure everyone knows what a cross product is. But yes, I do agree. Plug and chug is a very poor way to go through Physics.

 

[Patassa]

Where's the love for dynamics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer, why is E&M being put on this calculus based pedestal?

 

[487806]

The algebra based physics professors here do not explain the "cross product" for the right hand rule at all, but seeing as everyone in the class went through multivariable in order to even be in the class, I'm sure everyone knows what a cross product is. But yes, I do agree. Plug and chug is a very poor way to go through Physics.

I'll be honest. I have zero idea why your UG has algebra-based physics in the first place.

 

[487806]

Where's the love for dynamics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer, why is E&M being put on this calculus based pedestal?

Maxwell's equations. RLC circuits. Yup.

The real juice of fluid mechanics and heat transfer isn't covered in intro level physics (calc-based or not). Dynamics is mostly algebra-based in the introductory level.

 

[knv2u]

Sure. I guess it varies based on personal taste (or experience). But making more bio courses required just shows favor towards actual bio majors compared to those majoring in other subjects and exploring their world in UG. I'd prefer to simplify the requirements and make only the most essential courses required (just bio and biochem is fine). Leave all the rest to med school

I think that is what he was doing.

 

[Patassa]

Maxwell's equations. RLC circuits. Yup.

The real juice of fluid mechanics and heat transfer isn't covered in intro level physics (calc-based or not). Dynamics is mostly algebra-based in the introductory level.

But the real juice of circuits and electronics is???? Come on....

I thought that you've been arguing this whole time that you can't really understand E&M without calculus. I'm just saying let's spread some love to physics 1 topics to be fair.

 

[Aerus]

Where's the love for dynamics, fluid mechanics, and heat transfer, why is E&M being put on this calculus based pedestal?

E&M was my favorite part of Physics. It was very abstract and you could not do well with only intuition and had to actually understand the concepts.

I'll be honest. I have zero idea why your UG has algebra-based physics in the first place.

I honestly don't know. When you force students to take calculus to take the class, you might as well make it Calc-based. Students who aren't good at math wouldn't survive the calc prereqs to take the class anyways.

 

[487806]

But the real juice of circuits and electronics is???? Come on....

I thought that you've been arguing this whole time that you can't really understand E&M without calculus. I'm just saying let's spread some love to physics 1 topics to be fair.

I don't think Navier-Stokes equations or the heat equation are covered in an intro level class

To be fair, in an introductory level, everything is heavily simplified. In a more advanced level, things get really really complicated (naturally).

The point of an introductory physics course is to move from the classical viewpoint to modern physics. So basically mechanics --> some fluids and thermo (applied mechanics) --> E&M --> special relativity (tie everything together)

 

[Patassa]

I don't think Navier-Stokes equations or the heat equation are covered in an intro level class

To be fair, in an introductory level, everything is heavily simplified. In a more advanced level, things get really really complicated (naturally).

The point of an introductory physics course is to move from the classical viewpoint to modern physics. So basically mechanics --> some fluids and thermo (applied mechanics) --> E&M --> special relativity (tie everything together)

Stokes was a hack, modified Bernoulli gets me through my work day. Where did he get those great wigs?

 

[jvquarterback]

Libertarian ideas remind me of the scrolling storyline from Star Wars, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" these things happened.
I'm not sure that the incorporation of even a modest dose of liberal arts into general education was the worst thing. Treating every profession as if it's a trade? I'm even less sure of that.

First of all, medicine is a trade. The interventions of the state boards in limiting competition is confirmation of that. No amount of fancy talk by med school administrators can change that.

So how's this for the only current pseudo-free market in medical education: The interwebs. Back when I started medical school patients were forced to choose between taking medical advice from grandma or a doctor but not much in between because state physician boards have severely restricted those who can dispense medical advice/education. Along come the interwebs and studentdoctor.net. Many patients can effectively self diagnose and treat and need minimal professional medical advice for their care (and if there were a free market in medical devices and medications it would be even easier). This is a market correction of the crony capitalism of the public/private debacle that is medical education. By no means is it a free market, but it is a lesser form of what we could expect.

Think about it this way, your medical school professors are among the smartest, most able people in the country, yet rather than sell what they have on the free market, they rape the whole populace of the country (and the medical students they teach), increasing the cost of attending their schools (and their paychecks) by limiting their competition (through state medical boards) and federal student loans (without which the cost of medical education would have continued to decrease since the 1960s rather than rise to historic levels).

You asked me what a free market in education would look like. I have no idea. Nor can anyone. But it will deliver better a better product to more people than the ridiculous mess we have now just as free markets have done in every other service, finished good, and commodity in the history of the world.

 

[Patassa]

First of all, medicine is a trade. The interventions of the state boards in limiting competition is confirmation of that. No amount of fancy talk by med school administrators can change that.

So how's this for the only current free market in medical education: The interwebs. Back when I started medical school patients were forced to choose between taking medical advice from grandma or a doctor but not much in between because state physician boards have severely restricted those who can dispense medical advice/education. Along come the interwebs and studentdoctor.net. Many patients can effectively self diagnose and treat and need minimal professional medical advice for their care (and if there were a free market in medical devices and medications it would be even easier). This is a market correction of the crony capitalism of the public/private debacle that is medical education. By no means is it a free market, but it is a lesser form of what we could expect

The market doesn't account for the unbelievable irrationality (or ignorance/lack of education) of the general population. If you want natural selection to take care of this, then sure, open season on the general population as they try to wing their own medical care. If you want a glimpse of what that looks like, join a "natural living moms" forum and read about these woman who refuse to vaccinate their children and ask questions like "has anyone else noticed blood in the stool of their 3 month old after giving them iron supplements and rubbing their backs with magnesium"? True story. Regulations are a lot of things, but one of those things is protection for people against themselves.

 

[jvquarterback]

The market doesn't account for the unbelievable irrationality (or ignorance/lack of education) of the general population. If you want natural selection to take care of this, then sure, open season on the general population as they try to wing their own medical care. If you want a glimpse of what that looks like, join a "natural living moms" forum and read about these woman who refuse to vaccinate their children and ask questions like "has anyone else noticed blood in the stool of their 3 month old after giving them iron supplements and rubbing their backs with magnesium"? True story. Regulations are a lot of things, but one of those things is protection for people against themselves.

Talk about a straw man. Some people are idiots with or without access to good, inexpensive medical education which a free market would provide. The regulations of medical education have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with your reference. In fact, the vast majority of patients have an improved understanding of their disease processes and potential treatment options thanks to one of the few remnants of a free market in medical education that exists on the internet.

No. Contrary to what your liberal arts education (gotta love the Orwellian genius who changed the meaning of that one) has lead you to believe, the purpose of medical education regulation is to keep salaries of current physicians artificially inflated at the expense of patients, future physicians, and lesser educated, but perfectly adequate physician replacements.

Oh and another example of the free market in medical education: I made it through medical school without purchasing a single text book thanks to those same interwebs. Everywhere a free market exists you get better, cheaper products.

 

[Patassa]

Talk about a straw man. Some people are idiots with or without access to good, inexpensive medical education which a free market would provide. The regulations of medical education have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with your reference. In fact, the vast majority of patients have an improved understanding of their disease processes and potential treatment options thanks to one of the few remnants of a free market in medical education that exists on the internet.

No. Contrary to what your liberal arts education (gotta love the Orwellian genius who changed the meaning of that one) has lead you to believe, the purpose of medical education regulation is to keep salaries of current physicians artificially inflated at the expense of patients, future physicians, and lesser educated, but perfectly adequate physician replacements.

Oh and another example of the free market in medical education: I made it through medical school without purchasing a single text book thanks to those same interwebs. Everywhere a free market exists you get better, cheaper products.

I don't know why you can't see the connection between my example and your proposed solution. The internet has plenty of people convinced that they can be pediatricians, nutritionist, and pharmacists all wrapped into one. It's not going to end well for their "patients".

I studied engineering, "Talk about a straw man". You're taking a very one dimensional approach to regulations, which you know is intellectually dishonest.


You free market people think that people are inherently good. You'll probably point out that history proves concentrated power corrupts, I'll point out that history proves people without rule results in anarchy. And we'd both be right. I'm not the enemy here, but pretending that just because people have access to information that they'll interpret and apply it correctly it is a libertarian's utopian dream.

 

[XmedBarney]

Talk about a straw man. Some people are idiots with or without access to good, inexpensive medical education which a free market would provide. The regulations of medical education have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with your reference. In fact, the vast majority of patients have an improved understanding of their disease processes and potential treatment options thanks to one of the few remnants of a free market in medical education that exists on the internet.

No. Contrary to what your liberal arts education (gotta love the Orwellian genius who changed the meaning of that one) has lead you to believe, the purpose of medical education regulation is to keep salaries of current physicians artificially inflated at the expense of patients, future physicians, and lesser educated, but perfectly adequate physician replacements.

Oh and another example of the free market in medical education: I made it through medical school without purchasing a single text book thanks to those same interwebs. Everywhere a free market exists you get better, cheaper products.

But the interwebs isn't free market, it was created by goverment scientists, who were educated by government money, using government money(taxes).
In fact all most all the significant scientific developments in the past 70 years around the world have been funded by the state, the fact that private corporations build off of a state substructure is lost on most people including you.

 

[Leoz M Jiliums]

Why is learning physics/math useful? So we don't go around publishing stuff like this:
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/17/2/152.abstract

 

[jvquarterback]

I don't know why you can't see the connection between my example and your proposed solution. The internet has plenty of people convinced that they can be pediatricians, nutritionist, and pharmacists all wrapped into one. It's not going to end well for their "patients".

I studied engineering, "Talk about a straw man". You're taking a very one dimensional approach to regulations, which you know is intellectually dishonest.

You free market people think that people are inherently good. You'll probably point out that history proves concentrated power corrupts, I'll point out that history proves people without rule results in anarchy. And we'd both be right. I'm not the enemy here, but pretending that just because people have access to information that they'll interpret and apply it correctly it is a libertarian's utopian dream.

First, saying, "people without rule results in anarchy" needs no history for proof as that is merely a definition.

On the other hand, I make no judgement as to the goodness or adequacy of the people making use of the product when I speak of the free market. I only argue that the free market provides a better, less expensive product.

I'd like to backtrack and say the more I think about your example above about the stupid people withholding vaccines from their children the more I realize it is actually an excellent argument in favor of a free market in medical education. Because, you see, the question we should be asking is not, are these people making use of the remnants of a free market in medical education complete *****s? but are these complete *****s in better shape with the free market than they would be with the way things were before there was the free market? And the answer to the second question is a resounding yes. Before they would have had fewer people to ask "has anyone else noticed blood in the stool of their 3 month old after giving them iron supplements and rubbing their backs with magnesium."

No. Again I'll say the reason for restrictions on medical education serve one purpose, to give artificially high salaries to current physicians at the expense of every customer and every potential competitor.

 

[Patassa]

First, saying, "people without rule results in anarchy" needs no history for proof as that is merely a definition.

anarchy: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws

It's not the definition, it's assumed in the definition.
The question behind this definition is, why does lack of rule result in confusion, wild behavior and logically the need to be controlled? This is why we have rules and regulations. Free markets never last because a few people always figure out how to use it for the destruction of others. They consolidate, monopolize, and then control.

I'd like to backtrack and say the more I think about your example above about the stupid people withholding vaccines from their children the more I realize it is actually an excellent argument in favor of a free market in medical education. Because, you see, the question we should be asking is not, are these people making use of the remnants of a free market in medical education complete *****s? but are these complete *****s in better shape with the free market than they would be with the way things were before there was the free market? And the answer to the second question is a resounding yes. Before they would have had fewer people to ask "has anyone else noticed blood in the stool of their 3 month old after giving them iron supplements and rubbing their backs with magnesium."

You seem to conveniently left out the part where I was insinuating that the only reason people are playing pediatrician at home in my example and potentially poisoning or otherwise harming their children is because they've done enough "research" on the internet to know that vaccines are harmful, doctors can't be trusted, and western medicine is rubbish.
I'm telling you, if you want to see your medical education free market ideas played out on the personal level, go read some "natural mommy" blogs. If you're really a physician and you're not appalled, I'd be shocked.

 

[jvquarterback]

But the interwebs isn't free market, it was created by goverment scientists, who were educated by government money, using government money(taxes).
In fact all most all the significant scientific developments in the past 70 years around the world have been funded by the state, the fact that private corporations build off of a state substructure is lost on most people including you.

Please. Just because the government creates an inferior infrastructure, doesn't mean the people on the ends of that infrastructure shouldn't make the best use of it they can. What exists on the ends of the internet is a close approximation to a free market. Think about your government mandated schooling. Maybe not for you as the government seems to have done their job in getting you to believe their hogwash, but for everyone else it was a gigantic waste of time. It doesn't mean I shouldn't use the 1% of it that actually had some benefit. I guess the government can claim they have created everything I have done because they forced me to waste 25 years of my life in their schools.

 

[jvquarterback]

anarchy: a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws

It's not the definition, it's assumed in the definition.

Rubbish. Guess even that dose of liberal arts in your education didn't work.

Free markets never last because a few people always figure out how to use it for the destruction of others. They consolidate, monopolize, and then control.

Yes and they consolidate, monopolize and control via government interventions like limits on the number of MD students and the delivery of care

You seem to conveniently left out the part where I was insinuating that the only reason people are playing pediatrician at home in my example and potentially poisoning or otherwise harming their children is because they've done enough "research" on the internet to know that vaccines are harmful, doctors can't be trusted, and western medicine is rubbish.
I'm telling you, if you want to see your medical education free market ideas played out on the personal level, go read some "natural mommy" blogs. If you're really a physician and you're not appalled, I'd be shocked.

I guess you aren't old enough to realize these *****s existed before the internet. The way to combat ignorance is to make the information readily available. Something that doesn't happen because the AMA lobbies state and federal governments for a monopoly in medical education by limiting the number of new medical students and preventing NPs and PAs from delivering that education to more people. You can say all you want they are doing to save people from themselves, but you'd be lying through your teeth when you said it.

 

[Patassa]

Rubbish. Guess even that dose of liberal arts in your education didn't work.

Now you're just being ugly. No need for that. The first definition of anarchy and the meaning when most people use it is about the behavior of the people under no law.
People lose their **** without laws, whether or not they actually do isn't even a question, that's why we have a definition for it.

Yes and they consolidate, monopolize and control via government interventions like limits on the number of MD students and the delivery of care

Or they buy up all the railroads, all the oil pipelines, or all the water mains in a young country's infrastructure.

I guess you aren't old enough to realize these *****s existed before the internet. The way to combat ignorance is to make the information readily available.

How much more information has to be available before you stop believing this over simplified non-sense?
Do you really think that lack of information is a problem in 2014?
I guess you aren't young enough to know how to use the internet properly.

 

[XmedBarney]

Please. Just because the government creates an inferior infrastructure, doesn't mean the people on the ends of that infrastructure shouldn't make the best use of it they can. What exists on the ends of the internet is a close approximation to a free market. Think about your government mandated schooling. Maybe not for you as the government seems to have done their job in getting you to believe their hogwash, but for everyone else it was a gigantic waste of time. It doesn't mean I shouldn't use the 1% of it that actually had some benefit. I guess the government can claim they have created everything I have done because they forced me to waste 25 years of my life in their schools.

You're being intentionally dense, my point wasn't about the quality of infrastructure, the idea that private institutions would spend trillions of dollars to develop infrastructure that has a profit cycle of decades is hogwash. Clearly the Koch' brother's money was well spent on you. People need to realize there is no system that is inherently superior or better, ruthless people will figure out how to consolidate and hold onto power, weather it communism, capitalism or some other ism.

 

[487806]

Only on SDN when a physics thread collapses into a political debate

 

[Dynam0]

As someone else said, there's a lot of impractical theory learned in a physics degree that isn't applicable to even engineering (which is applied physics), let alone medicine. Physics allows you to look at the world in a much different way, and this new mindset is truly a desirable asset for any job that requires lots of problem-solving.

Other than that, the utility of a physics degree for medicine is rather limited. It can be really useful in research and academia, but not so much when it comes to the practice of medicine.

 

[jvquarterback]

OK. I'm going to end this debate because I have to get back to a bunch of government mandated paperwork without which it is impossible for my patients to get proper care.

But before I go I'd like you to remember one thing.

When you guys are done with residency and actually trying to care for your patients I'm sure you'll do your best. Just remember that when your med school friends with the AMA or whatever other medical society come asking for money so they can lobby (aka bribe) the politicians in your state to prevent others (NPs and PAs) from doing the same thing you do with a little less knowledge than you have, you are doing the patients you can't see infinitely more harm than you provide the limited number you do see.

That's all and sorry for getting snarky a couple times there, ptassa and barney.

 

[QuantumJ]

A physics major is in the unique position to say they have a degree in problem solving. We are expected to use our toolset of mathematics and a few physical principles to derive wide reaching physical consequences. It's been said (on these forums too) that it doesn't matter what your degree is in as everyone is on a level playing field in medical school (except for the first weeks when bio majors may have an edge). If this is true then it doesn't matter that I won't be using fourier transforms in medicine. What does matter is that a physician is at heart a solver of problems and physics degree gives students a chance to become excellent at problem solving and abstract thinking. Knowing that I ended up going into medicine I still wouldn't change my degree even though it might seem like it has less use than some others. Anyway there are fields of medicine that require a certain amount of physics to understand and I would imagine most physics majors are attracted to these fields.

 

[CCrown]

I've personally only taken two semesters of physics, but I can definitely say it improved my critical thinking skills. You probably don't need to major in physics to get that. One thing to consider is that physics is extremely valuable for understanding everyday life, like how electricity works to power your house, how a plane can fly, how you can drive your car, etc. In my mind that's reason enough for studying physics