How are Humanity Majors viewed by DO schools?

[JESSFALLING]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I realize that this question has been asked before in the Pre-Allopathic threads, but how do Osteopathic schools view Humanities majors? I am considering majoring in either Religious Studies or Psychology (near equal interest), but I will likely go with RS if it won't negatively affect my application. Thanks for your insights.

 

[JamesLMT]

I realize that this question has been asked before in the Pre-Allopathic threads, but how do Osteopathic schools view Humanities majors? I am considering majoring in either Religious Studies or Psychology (near equal interest), but I will likely go with RS if it won't negatively affect my application. Thanks for your insights.

They have somewhat the same footing as science majors as long as the prereqs are strong and the MCAT is strong. You need to show that you have the sciences down even though you were a humanities major. I know a bunch of different non science majors that were accepted.

 

[Nickelpennykid]

I realize that this question has been asked before in the Pre-Allopathic threads, but how do Osteopathic schools view Humanities majors? I am considering majoring in either Religious Studies or Psychology (near equal interest), but I will likely go with RS if it won't negatively affect my application. Thanks for your insights.

I was an english major...made no difference at all...if anything it gave me something interesting to talk about on interviews. Major in whatever you are most interested in as long as you still do well in science pre-reqs

 

[fiznat]

<-- Double major in philosophy and psychology. I think the adcoms thought it was interesting, a curiosity. A few of them made passing remarks or had light questions about it. It didn't seem to matter at all. I think the above poster is correct though- they will definitely look at your science grades and MCAT scores to make sure you can handle that stuff.

 

[TriagePreMed]

It will not affect. It can only help. The reason the majority of applicants are science majors is because they (a) like science or (b) some pre-med adviser convinced them that they must major in biology to go to med school.

 

[JESSFALLING]

It will not affect. It can only help. The reason the majority of applicants are science majors is because they (a) like science or (b) some pre-med adviser convinced them that they must major in biology to go to med school.

Thanks for the input so far everyone

 

[Velocity]

It will not affect. It can only help. The reason the majority of applicants are science majors is because they (a) like science or (b) some pre-med adviser convinced them that they must major in biology to go to med school.

Medicine is science-based. You wouldn't study programming if you wanted to be an auto mechanic.

It's true that you can major in anything you want. As long as you have the grades, schools won't care. Depending on who you talk to, humanities majors are even desirable. I think it's a fad, and to be honest, I don't like it. It's as if the coursework you do in college doesn't matter as much as the grades you get for it, or as if science (and scientific thinking) is being devalued.

I admit that I'm biased, because I am a science person. I've also encountered a number of physicians who seem to practice medicine as if it's all about intuition and belief, rather than evidence-based. I get the whole "art of medicine" aspect of the field, but medicine is not art, and it is not magic: it is a science.

But I'm just ranting... JESSFALLING, the answer is that you should choose a major that seems interesting to you, that would allow you to make for a nice back-up career in case you decide that you don't want to do medicine, and that you can get good grades in. Something that allows you time to volunteer in hospitals and other community projects would be ideal. Whether it's a science or not, don't worry about it - as long as you take the required pre-requisite classes, you can major in anything you want.

 

[Goro]

I have clinician colleagues who were math, drama and English majors. Just show us you can handle science courses and do well on the MCAT, and we won't care what your major is!

I realize that this question has been asked before in the Pre-Allopathic threads, but how do Osteopathic schools view Humanities majors? I am considering majoring in either Religious Studies or Psychology (near equal interest), but I will likely go with RS if it won't negatively affect my application. Thanks for your insights.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Medicine is science-based. You wouldn't study programming if you wanted to be an auto mechanic.

It's true that you can major in anything you want. As long as you have the grades, schools won't care. Depending on who you talk to, humanities majors are even desirable. I think it's a fad, and to be honest, I don't like it. It's as if the coursework you do in college doesn't matter as much as the grades you get for it, or as if science (and scientific thinking) is being devalued.

I admit that I'm biased, because I am a science person. I've also encountered a number of physicians who seem to practice medicine as if it's all about intuition and belief, rather than evidence-based. I get the whole "art of medicine" aspect of the field, but medicine is not art, and it is not magic: it is a science.

But I'm just ranting... JESSFALLING, the answer is that you should choose a major that seems interesting to you, that would allow you to make for a nice back-up career in case you decide that you don't want to do medicine, and that you can get good grades in. Something that allows you time to volunteer in hospitals and other community projects would be ideal. Whether it's a science or not, don't worry about it - as long as you take the required pre-requisite classes, you can major in anything you want.

Except most of the science you'll learn in a biology major will be completely inapplicable or will be retaught in a different light in medical school and clinical practice. I mean how many science majors are taking immunology or advanced human physiology which will actually be useful for medical school (Implying you don't forget half of the important things by the time summers over since rote memorization rarely sticks long in the head)? Or how much of physical chemistry or integrated genetics will actually be even slightly applicable to clinical medicine? Probably very little honestly...
In fact a humanities or non-hard science major in some light might be significantly more applicable as it's central tenant might be actually application of theory and critical thinking as opposed to rote memorization of applications previously done. However that's just me, I like my humanities courses, I feel as if they take an edge off of me and build well-roundedness which will never be achieved again in medical school.

This is coming from a neuroscience/psychology major btw.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Medicine is science-based. You wouldn't study programming if you wanted to be an auto mechanic.

It's true that you can major in anything you want. As long as you have the grades, schools won't care. Depending on who you talk to, humanities majors are even desirable. I think it's a fad, and to be honest, I don't like it. It's as if the coursework you do in college doesn't matter as much as the grades you get for it, or as if science (and scientific thinking) is being devalued.

I admit that I'm biased, because I am a science person. I've also encountered a number of physicians who seem to practice medicine as if it's all about intuition and belief, rather than evidence-based. I get the whole "art of medicine" aspect of the field, but medicine is not art, and it is not magic: it is a science.

But I'm just ranting... JESSFALLING, the answer is that you should choose a major that seems interesting to you, that would allow you to make for a nice back-up career in case you decide that you don't want to do medicine, and that you can get good grades in. Something that allows you time to volunteer in hospitals and other community projects would be ideal. Whether it's a science or not, don't worry about it - as long as you take the required pre-requisite classes, you can major in anything you want.

Your analogy is completely faulty. Medicine entails more than just the hard science. It entails being able to communicate and work well around people. It entails bringing new ideas to the table. Almost any major can have something to contribute. Your bio major is largely a waste of time too. You're doing overkill on many topics, and if your bio major is like that of almost any school, you also study things that aren't directly related like plants. ADCOMS recognize you'll learn all the medicine you need in medical school. You only need to prove to be able to handle the sciences. The rest is for you to explore and engaging your critical thinking skills.

 

[JamesLMT]

Your analogy is completely faulty. Medicine entails more than just the hard science. It entails being able to communicate and work well around people. It entails bringing new ideas to the table. Almost any major can have something to contribute. Your bio major is largely a waste of time too. You're doing overkill on many topics, and if your bio major is like that of almost any school, you also study things that aren't directly related like plants. ADCOMS recognize you'll learn all the medicine you need in medical school. You only need to prove to be able to handle the sciences. The rest is for you to explore and engaging your critical thinking skills.

I would have to agree. Medicine is not just petri-dishes and reproducible experiments. It's people and you have that human element to add in. So I guess we are all right. Yes, it's science, yes it's people, medicine is medicine and that is why they accept non science majors. The different majors that go into medicine are as varied as the people we will see when we are docs.

 

[Velocity]

Except most of the science you'll learn in a biology major will be completely inapplicable or will be retaught in a different light in medical school and clinical practice. I mean how many science majors are taking immunology or advanced human physiology which will actually be useful for medical school (Implying you don't forget half of the important things by the time summers over since rote memorization rarely sticks long in the head)? Or how much of physical chemistry or integrated genetics will actually be even slightly applicable to clinical medicine? Probably very little honestly...

In your day-to-day dealings on a ward, I would completely agree with you that the raw sciences aren't going to be something you're drawing from very heavily. And it's true that you'll receive the science in some form during medical school classes. However, the medical school material is largely applied science (as it should be) and there's little opportunity to explore the pure science further.

If medicine is only about observing symptoms and matching them to a pre-determined checklist of possible diagnoses and the appropriate treatments, then the science is completely unnecessary. In that case, doctors are also overrated and might as well just be technicians. I like to think that doctors are as highly regarded as they are not because they have a checklist memorized instead of being printed, but because they understand the disease process from top to bottom and have an understanding of how treatments can affect it. That also puts physicians in a position to advance the field of medicine as new technologies and treatments become available.

In fact a humanities or non-hard science major in some light might be significantly more applicable as it's central tenant might be actually application of theory and critical thinking as opposed to rote memorization of applications previously done. However that's just me, I like my humanities courses, I feel as if they take an edge off of me and build well-roundedness which will never be achieved again in medical school.

I liked some of the humanities courses that I took (particularly psychology), and felt that many of my undergraduate science courses were pretty poorly taught. This may reflect a current failure of the education system (or maybe it just didn't do it for me): it wasn't until graduate school that I felt I was really understanding and "living" the science, instead of largely memorizing it in a passive manner.

I can't really comment on the critical thinking that humanities courses develop, because I didn't feel that I developed anything in them. (But to be fair, my undergraduate science courses did a poor job of that, too, and it wasn't until graduate school that I really gained something.) I can't say for sure whether that was unique to me, or whether it was my classes. It's possible that I was approaching my classes too passively at that point. I know that many of my peers did similarly - it's a problem when people view science as something to just memorize your way through, rather than something to learn and link to real-world applications.

Your analogy is completely faulty. Medicine entails more than just the hard science. It entails being able to communicate and work well around people. It entails bringing new ideas to the table. Almost any major can have something to contribute.

It's true that anyone is capable of contributing to the field of medicine, and I don't mean to disparage anyone who didn't study a science before medical school. It's also not as if someone finished with medical school can't or won't gain a deeper understanding of science as they go.

But why, after saying that medicine involves more than hard science, did you mention "communicating and working well around people"? I've heard before that one of the motivations to get non-science majors into medical school is to get people with better communication skills and better people skills. I don't know if that was your intention or if you share that belief, but that viewpoint bugs me. I've run across my fair share of awkward, empathy-lacking people who didn't study science, and I've met plenty of science people who were perfectly sociable. The stereotype that "science nerds" don't know how to work with others in difficult situations is trash.

Your bio major is largely a waste of time too. You're doing overkill on many topics, and if your bio major is like that of almost any school, you also study things that aren't directly related like plants. ADCOMS recognize you'll learn all the medicine you need in medical school. You only need to prove to be able to handle the sciences. The rest is for you to explore and engaging your critical thinking skills.

If a bio major is a waste of time, then any undergraduate major is a waste of time. I'm kind of surprised to hear you say that, when you had previously said that any major can contribute to medicine by "bringing new ideas to the table" (which I agree with). By any chance, did you have a bad experience with a plant biology class?

In all seriousness, it's true that you'll learn most of the basics that you need to treat patients in medical school. But what separates physicians from the other workers in the healthcare field? As I wrote above, I like to think that it has to do with the fact that doctors have a deeper understanding of that which is unseen in the disease and treatment processes. Otherwise, we're just technicians who claim superiority because our program is four years instead of three.

I've seen doctors who were basically technicians, having a superficial understanding of the disease process, and I've seen doctors who encompassed the ideals that I'm describing. They both do valuable work, but the former seemed as if they could be replaced with experienced nurses with little to no consequence. As someone on the physician track, I'm interested in physicians remaining differentiated and valuable as a position not because legislation limits the other positions from doing certain things, but because physicians really do know and understand more.

 

[NurWollen]

In your day-to-day dealings on a ward, I would completely agree with you that the raw sciences aren't going to be something you're drawing from very heavily. And it's true that you'll receive the science in some form during medical school classes. However, the medical school material is largely applied science (as it should be) and there's little opportunity to explore the pure science further.

If medicine is only about observing symptoms and matching them to a pre-determined checklist of possible diagnoses and the appropriate treatments, then the science is completely unnecessary. In that case, doctors are also overrated and might as well just be technicians. I like to think that doctors are as highly regarded as they are not because they have a checklist memorized instead of being printed, but because they understand the disease process from top to bottom and have an understanding of how treatments can affect it. That also puts physicians in a position to advance the field of medicine as new technologies and treatments become available.


I liked some of the humanities courses that I took (particularly psychology), and felt that many of my undergraduate science courses were pretty poorly taught. This may reflect a current failure of the education system (or maybe it just didn't do it for me): it wasn't until graduate school that I felt I was really understanding and "living" the science, instead of largely memorizing it in a passive manner.

I can't really comment on the critical thinking that humanities courses develop, because I didn't feel that I developed anything in them. (But to be fair, my undergraduate science courses did a poor job of that, too, and it wasn't until graduate school that I really gained something.) I can't say for sure whether that was unique to me, or whether it was my classes. It's possible that I was approaching my classes too passively at that point. I know that many of my peers did similarly - it's a problem when people view science as something to just memorize your way through, rather than something to learn and link to real-world applications.


It's true that anyone is capable of contributing to the field of medicine, and I don't mean to disparage anyone who didn't study a science before medical school. It's also not as if someone finished with medical school can't or won't gain a deeper understanding of science as they go.

But why, after saying that medicine involves more than hard science, did you mention "communicating and working well around people"? I've heard before that one of the motivations to get non-science majors into medical school is to get people with better communication skills and better people skills. I don't know if that was your intention or if you share that belief, but that viewpoint bugs me. I've run across my fair share of awkward, empathy-lacking people who didn't study science, and I've met plenty of science people who were perfectly sociable. The stereotype that "science nerds" don't know how to work with others in difficult situations is trash.


If a bio major is a waste of time, then any undergraduate major is a waste of time. I'm kind of surprised to hear you say that, when you had previously said that any major can contribute to medicine by "bringing new ideas to the table" (which I agree with). By any chance, did you have a bad experience with a plant biology class?

In all seriousness, it's true that you'll learn most of the basics that you need to treat patients in medical school. But what separates physicians from the other workers in the healthcare field? As I wrote above, I like to think that it has to do with the fact that doctors have a deeper understanding of that which is unseen in the disease and treatment processes. Otherwise, we're just technicians who claim superiority because our program is four years instead of three.

I've seen doctors who were basically technicians, having a superficial understanding of the disease process, and I've seen doctors who encompassed the ideals that I'm describing. They both do valuable work, but the former seemed as if they could be replaced with experienced nurses with little to no consequence. As someone on the physician track, I'm interested in physicians remaining differentiated and valuable as a position not because legislation limits the other positions from doing certain things, but because physicians really do know and understand more.

Physicians need to have a strong science background, and they need to practice science-based medicine. However your suggestion that humanities majors won't have a strong science background is off the mark. I know a physician who major in a foreign language in undergrad... and yet his knowledge of the science behind medicine is breathtaking. He talks about reading a scientific journal one night, and incorporating it into his practice the next day. He said the vast majority of physicians practice like that.

Have you ever wondered why the verbal section of the MCAT is so heavily stressed? I have friends who are getting straight A's in their science course but can't get beyond of 5 on their verbal practice sections to save their lives. Even the physical science and biological science sections will have you read a passage regarding research that turned out to be false and have you make conclusions on what would happen if that research were true.

Dare I say the worst physicians are those with zero communication skills? Not only do they offend their patients and come across as callous, but they risk their patients lives by not being able to effectively communicate with them about their conditions and symptoms.

Btw, I am a biology major.

I should add, though, that I don't totally disagree with you. Physicians really do need basic science knowledge, so I understand your point. I think, though, that anyone who applies themselves during and after their training will be able to get that without majoring in a science.

 

[Velocity]

Physicians need to have a strong science background, and they need to practice science-based medicine. However your suggestion that humanities majors won't have a strong science background is off the mark.

I didn't suggest that. Re-quoting what I wrote here:

It's true that anyone is capable of contributing to the field of medicine, and I don't mean to disparage anyone who didn't study a science before medical school. It's also not as if someone finished with medical school can't or won't gain a deeper understanding of science as they go.

Bold emphasis has been added to the quotation.

Just as you can't assume that someone who majored in a science really understands the science on a deep level, you can't assume that someone who didn't study the science won't pick it up later on. I agree with that.

Perhaps this fear of mine is unfounded, but I worry that if a person doesn't have a strong exposure to science before medical school, they're less likely to go back and pick it up or try to incorporate it into what they're actively doing. I don't mean to suggest that it doesn't happen at all. To me, it represents an overall trend of anti-science and scientific critical thinking. There are plenty of other areas and institutions in America that seem to be moving in the opposite direction of science and evidence-based approaches; I certainly would not expect medicine to be immune to that, either, and the thought worries me.

Dare I say the worst physicians are those with zero communication skills? Not only do they offend their patients and come across as callous, but they risk their patients lives by not being able to effectively communicate with them about their conditions and symptoms.

The worst physicians are those who actually do harm, displaying both arrogance (harming co-workers) and incompetence (harming patients). Communication skills are an important part of being an effective physician, but again, why is there a need to bring up communication when discussing science? Are we going to continue furthering the stereotype that people who train in science are somehow socially inept?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

@Nurr: The verbal is stressed because it is strongly correlated with USMLE success. A high verbal on average means you'll do better on the USMLE than someone with a low verbal score.
@Velocity, overall the stats show that most majors don't really give their students an extreme advantage in medical school, even in the USMLE the differences between majors are relatively limited. Nor does it really bring about any significant differences in clinical ability.

 

[Velocity]

@Velocity, overall the stats show that most majors don't really give their students an extreme advantage in medical school, even in the USMLE the differences between majors are relatively limited. Nor does it really bring about any significant differences in clinical ability.

I'm not talking about that. If you're a hard worker and aren't incapable of dealing with science, you have a good chance of making it through medical school. If you're observant, empathetic, communicate well, and care about your work, you're probably going to be successful in the clinical setting.

I'm talking about advancing the field of medicine, acting as the bridge between bench research and clinical treatments, or coming up with novel concepts. But this reveals the greatest failing of the education system: people regard science as something to be studied for exams, rather than something that still needs further exploration and that can lead to new and better treatments.

 

[JESSFALLING]

I'm not talking about that. If you're a hard worker and aren't incapable of dealing with science, you have a good chance of making it through medical school. If you're observant, empathetic, communicate well, and care about your work, you're probably going to be successful in the clinical setting.

I'm talking about advancing the field of medicine, acting as the bridge between bench research and clinical treatments, or coming up with novel concepts. But this reveals the greatest failing of the education system: people regard science as something to be studied for exams, rather than something that still needs further exploration and that can lead to new and better treatments.

I completely agree with the importance of fostering the skills needed to advance one's field, especially our (future) one, medicine. Personally, I am planning to take a few select courses (biochem, genetics, cell bio) that should help me develop my knowledge base beyond the basic requirements. Also, my chem department will allow me to begin assisting with research after I complete organic. My hope is that this plan will provide me with the scientific tools needed to thrive as a future clinical investigator, while also leaving time to pursue my other intellectual interests.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I'm not talking about that. If you're a hard worker and aren't incapable of dealing with science, you have a good chance of making it through medical school. If you're observant, empathetic, communicate well, and care about your work, you're probably going to be successful in the clinical setting.

I'm talking about advancing the field of medicine, acting as the bridge between bench research and clinical treatments, or coming up with novel concepts. But this reveals the greatest failing of the education system: people regard science as something to be studied for exams, rather than something that still needs further exploration and that can lead to new and better treatments.

It's a failure of our economy. No one wants to go into science because the job prospects are utter ****. No one treats it as something to be continues or anything because very few people truly have the desire to go be a PhD and work in a lab all day. I know I don't want to be, which is why I'm aiming for a DO or MD and not an PhD.

 

[EmmaNemma]

I realize that this question has been asked before in the Pre-Allopathic threads, but how do Osteopathic schools view Humanities majors? I am considering majoring in either Religious Studies or Psychology (near equal interest), but I will likely go with RS if it won't negatively affect my application. Thanks for your insights.

Majoring in science is definitely better. However, you will be able to get into a decent DO school as long as you do well on the MCAT.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Majoring in science is definitely better. However, you will be able to get into a decent DO school as long as you do well on the MCAT.

Why is it better?
What does it mean to be better?
How do you opperationalize better?
Proof?
......

 

[EmmaNemma]

Why is it better?
What does it mean to be better?
How do you opperationalize better?
Proof?
......

Everything else being equal, a person with a degree in biological science will, on average, have an easier time with the admissions process than a person with an economics degree.

 

[Velocity]

I completely agree with the importance of fostering the skills needed to advance one's field, especially our (future) one, medicine. Personally, I am planning to take a few select courses (biochem, genetics, cell bio) that should help me develop my knowledge base beyond the basic requirements. Also, my chem department will allow me to begin assisting with research after I complete organic. My hope is that this plan will provide me with the scientific tools needed to thrive as a future clinical investigator, while also leaving time to pursue my other intellectual interests.

Bravo and best of luck. Whether you ultimately choose a science major or not, I find your goals admirable.

It's a failure of our economy. No one wants to go into science because the job prospects are utter ****. No one treats it as something to be continues or anything because very few people truly have the desire to go be a PhD and work in a lab all day. I know I don't want to be, which is why I'm aiming for a DO or MD and not an PhD.

That may partly be it, but I think that people are turned off to science long before they're worrying about job prospects. The earliest science that I can remember would probably have turned nearly everyone off to it. Who cares to know about the classification system of plants and animals? Who cares to memorize the names of the bones in the body? Don't ask me why those things stick out in my memory, but the fact is that I can't remember much else from 6th through 8th grade science class. I think it would interest people a bit more if they could be shown how all of this knowledge relates to real life, and what cool things you can build or do with it.

Then there's a cultural problem of science then vs. science now. Almost all science classes include a small bit of history about some key scientist and his discoveries. It's probably meant to be inspirational. Truthfully, I don't know how research was done back in the days - it was probably possible for individuals to make large discoveries on their own, and there was probably a heck of a lot less paperwork to cut through! These days science requires larger teams and collaboration, and it's much more complex than what you'll read about. Science history makes it sound as if these great scientists stepped outside and started making amazing discoveries and theories right on the spot. Whether it's an exaggeration or not, the truth is that you can't do that today. There's little room for individual glory (in most fields), and things are much more complex and communal. That's good, but it can be a turn-off to people who were expecting science to be more like what they learned about.

Or maybe science history has nothing to do with it, and pop-culture is to blame. That seems pretty feasible...

Majoring in science is definitely better. However, you will be able to get into a decent DO school as long as you do well on the MCAT.

Much as it pains me to say it, majoring in good grades is better than majoring in a science if the goal is purely to get into medical school.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Everything else being equal, a person with a degree in biological science will, on average, have an easier time with the admissions process than a person with an economics degree.

[Source]?
AAMC stats actually show otherwise in reality, with non-science majors getting on average with a little bit lower stats. Also there will never be a situation where you have two applicants which are completely equal and as such this comparison while in theory is airtight, in practice it is fatally flawed.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Bravo and best of luck. Whether you ultimately choose a science major or not, I find your goals admirable.


That may partly be it, but I think that people are turned off to science long before they're worrying about job prospects. The earliest science that I can remember would probably have turned nearly everyone off to it. Who cares to know about the classification system of plants and animals? Who cares to memorize the names of the bones in the body? Don't ask me why those things stick out in my memory, but the fact is that I can't remember much else from 6th through 8th grade science class. I think it would interest people a bit more if they could be shown how all of this knowledge relates to real life, and what cool things you can build or do with it.

I also found a lot of science in high school to extremely uninteresting. This disinterest was also amplified by inept teachers who weren't able to teach the material very well. When I got into college I learned to like science and appreciate it. The teachers however remained relatively crappy ( Especially directed towards chemistry teachers). Overall Science & Math classes aren't just badly taught they are overall handled with apathy by their students. I know I personally when taking pre-calc in high school was completely turned off and really couldn't have given a flying crap. But how do we fix this? There is resistance at every point and fundamentally it's a problem with the Skinnerian system.
I personally if given the power would completely reformat the public school system sciences into PBL classes with an concentration on research and application of theory. Fundamentally we also as a culture are weak in the sciences because of our weak logic, thus I would personally also make philosophical inquires a requirement for all students as it truly teaches them how to examine things better.

Then there's a cultural problem of science then vs. science now. Almost all science classes include a small bit of history about some key scientist and his discoveries. It's probably meant to be inspirational. Truthfully, I don't know how research was done back in the days - it was probably possible for individuals to make large discoveries on their own, and there was probably a heck of a lot less paperwork to cut through! These days science requires larger teams and collaboration, and it's much more complex than what you'll read about. Science history makes it sound as if these great scientists stepped outside and started making amazing discoveries and theories right on the spot. Whether it's an exaggeration or not, the truth is that you can't do that today. There's little room for individual glory (in most fields), and things are much more complex and communal. That's good, but it can be a turn-off to people who were expecting science to be more like what they learned about.

Well, it's important to reflect upon achievements of scientists in history as it is a teaching point and can be applicable to the curriculum. I mean you can't teach a microbiology course without talking about Pasteur and his idea's or Phines Gate in a neuroscience course.
But fundamentally you've got a point, but it's not too big of a problem in my mind as the experiments and information taught to high schoolers isn't too complex to begin with and in college, the students aren't dumb and know it's hard.

 

[EmmaNemma]

[Source]?
AAMC stats actually show otherwise in reality, with non-science majors getting on average with a little bit lower stats. Also there will never be a situation where you have two applicants which are completely equal and as such this comparison while in theory is airtight, in practice it is fatally flawed.

I have always heard the opposite. Do you have a link to the stats that you speak of. I don't even want to respond to your other argument.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I have always heard the opposite. Do you have a link to the stats that you speak of. I don't even want to respond to your other argument.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aamc.org%2Fdownload%2F161692%2Fdata%2Ftable18-facts2010mcatgpabymaj1-web.pdf.pdf&rct=j&q=AAMC%20by%20major&ei=I2L5TZr_IoOztwf9pZiVBA&usg=AFQjCNHwhvDPNm7nkSshjknv-za7XesROQ&sig2=UeZnle4YRLhdqgDae8ihhg&cad=rja

Table 18 of AAMC statistics.
Humanities & Social science majors get in with a lower gpa, they did have on average have a higher mcat. However this is relative and due to the fact that they as a population did significantly better than most biology majors as noted in the applicants section.

But fundamentally we are playing around the concept of correlation =/= causation. Simply because biology majors need to get higher stats on average doesn't mean they are disadvantaged per say in this game of ours.

 

[TILalot]

I was an anthro major and got in!

While I was working at a pharmacy, I met an older doctor (in his 60's) who was head of the E.R. at USC/LA-County & had been there for over twenty years (in addition to doing residency at USC) -- he told me he studied music for undergrad.

 

[EmmaNemma]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...za7XesROQ&sig2=UeZnle4YRLhdqgDae8ihhg&cad=rja

Table 18 of AAMC statistics.
Humanities & Social science majors get in with a lower gpa, they did have on average have a higher mcat. However this is relative and due to the fact that they as a population did significantly better than most biology majors as noted in the applicants section.

But fundamentally we are playing around the concept of correlation =/= causation. Simply because biology majors need to get higher stats on average doesn't mean they are disadvantaged per say in this game of ours.

Your table actually proves that science majors and particularly specialized health science majors have an easier time gaining acceptance. Look at the MCAT score differences instead of the GPA. GPA is relative to the school attended but the MCAT is the same for everyone. The average MCAT score of a specialized health major that matriculates is 29.5 compared to a humanities major that matriculates which is 32. This is a substantial difference. This confirms what I have been told by admissions counsellors that they like to see lots of science geared towards health on the application.

 

[JESSFALLING]

Your table actually proves that science majors and particularly specialized health science majors have an easier time gaining acceptance. Look at the MCAT score differences instead of the GPA. GPA is relative to the school attended but the MCAT is the same for everyone. The average MCAT score of a specialized health major that matriculates is 29.5 compared to a humanities major that matriculates which is 32. This is a substantial difference. This confirms what I have been told by admissions counsellors that they like to see lots of science geared towards health on the application.

Here's a few insights that I gleaned from the table: (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...e8ihhg&cad=rja)

Overall MCAT scores from humanities matriculants are 1.2 points higher than biological science matriculants. However, 0.8 of these points are due to higher verbal reasoning scores, which are historically difficult for examinees to improve through practice. Ignoring the differences in verbal reasoning scores, humanities matriculant's MCAT scores are only 0.4 points higher than biological science matriculants. Additionally, humanities matriculants predictably showed higher writing scores than science majors.

Also,
34.4% of health science applicants were admitted
42.8% of biological science applicants were admitted
47.1% & 47.4% of physical science and math applicants, respectively, were admitted. (These applicants posted higher mean MCAT scores than any other major, yet humanities applicants were still accepted in slightly higher percentages.)
50.8% of humanities applicants were admitted (with lower mean GPAs than science and health science majors)

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Your table actually proves that science majors and particularly specialized health science majors have an easier time gaining acceptance. Look at the MCAT score differences instead of the GPA. GPA is relative to the school attended but the MCAT is the same for everyone. The average MCAT score of a specialized health major that matriculates is 29.5 compared to a humanities major that matriculates which is 32. This is a substantial difference. This confirms what I have been told by admissions counsellors that they like to see lots of science geared towards health on the application.

No, you're mistaken. Humanities majors simply on average have a higher mcat, and thus it is not a good thing to base your argument off of, as if you have a pool of 100 kids with 32's as their average and select a majority of them, then your average will inevitably be 32.
However GPA is not so very playful and can be used in this discussion, of which it is evident humanities majors have lower GPA's making it overall easier to get in.

 

[EmmaNemma]

No, you're mistaken. Humanities majors simply on average have a higher mcat, and thus it is not a good thing to base your argument off of, as if you have a pool of 100 kids with 32's as their average and select a majority of them, then your average will inevitably be 32.
However GPA is not so very playful and can be used in this discussion, of which it is evident humanities majors have lower GPA's making it overall easier to get in.

Huh?? This is a joke right.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Huh?? This is a joke right.

No, I am not, but this entire discussion however is a joke and not really worth discussing.