How does taking college courses in the humanities make one a better doctor?

[LoveBeingHuman:)]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Seems adcoms love humanities courses...

 

[LucidSplash]

Because doctors aren't automatons. In addition to the science side of what we do, the art of being a physician includes cultural competency and the ability to communicate well with patients in a way they can relate to and respect.

Your organic chemistry class doesn't cover that but many of the humanities and social sciences can help us grow in those areas.

 

[Endoxifen]

Because doctors aren't automatons. In addition to the science side of what we do, the art of being a physician includes cultural competency and the ability to communicate well with patients in a way they can relate to and respect.

Your organic chemistry class doesn't cover that but many of the humanities and social sciences can help us grow in those areas.

Out of curiosity, has it ever been suggested that undergrads should take a formal course in pedagogy? I'm sure medical students get some sort of training, but it pry couldn't hurt.

 

[LizzyM]

I have never heard a course in pedagogy recommended.

Humanities inform one of the human condition and the existential questions of life.

 

[LucidSplash]

Out of curiosity, has it ever been suggested that undergrads should take a formal course in pedagogy? I'm sure medical students get some sort of training, but it pry couldn't hurt.

I'd agree that it can't hurt thought I don't know that's it's ever been recommended. The most useful would be a course skewed towards teaching adult learners, which is entirely different than teaching children or teens.

And really the only formal instruction I ever received on the subject was when I took the ATLS Instructor class. Which was easily the most painful class I have taken in my entire life and it was only 2 days. The topic was dry (it was about teaching adult learners) and the delivery was miserable. So no, medical students and residents aren't formally taught how to teach. If you're inclined in that direction you pick it up as you go along and seek feedback from mentors. I'm not saying it wouldnt be a good idea, just that it's probably pretty rare to get formal instruction on the topic in our field.

 

[GnothiSeauton]

Because they hope it is evidence of general curiosity on your part, as opposed to someone who is strictly interested in the sciences--or worse is only interested in doing the minimum necessary to make big doctor bucks. The broader and more profound your sense of curiosity the more likely you are to be a lifelong learner and perceptive researcher/clinician. Presumably.

 

[Lucca]

They will help make the world a richer, more interesting place to live. They can teach you how to think critically and develop new ideas when confronted with ambiguous, subjective information. Studying the human condition in English, especially as it pertains to serious or chronic disease, can give you some insight into something you've never experienced. Being able to think metaphorically and analytically about narratives can help you observe something in a patient's history another might have missed. Instead of approaching intractable situations and difficult patients as frustrating "problems" that are merely "in your way", you might have some insight into how to best make them feel better even if you are not curing or treating a problem directly. If you understand where people are coming from and also have the tools to spontaneously create a convincing argument that will align their goals with your own, you might be able to convince someone in a difficult situation that taking their medication is important, or that they really need to make it to the next follow up appointment, or that this expensive procedure that is going to set them back a lot of money will be worth it for their health.

If you have a clear, strong grasp on your own values that have been formed independently of the vapid, toxic arena of national politics through debate, reflection, and exposure to challenging ideas, you will know how to act in difficult situations and when placed in leadership roles you will be able to articulate a vision for how a team, group, hospital, university, department, clinic, etc ought to be organized and what it's core goals should be (as opposed to merely being a competent organizer for the structure of the organization as it is; that is, a technocrat).

If you are a student of history you can better understand how the conditions you find yourself in developed, or understand how a community developed the problems (or solutions) it has and in that way be able to participate more actively in a community by working to fix organizational, health, or distribution issues at a structural level. If nothing else, you can at least better understand the social and economic dimensions of your patients' lives.

If you study art you can learn how to observe something both objectively and subjectively. It's an opportunity to work collaboratively with others to understand visual information and what it says about the artist, the subject of the art, or ourselves in a much lower stakes environment than the clinic.

I could go on.

 

[Saifa]

The Tigris and Euphrates rivers flooded unpredictably and resulted in periods of draught and flood, so the Mesopotamians viewed God as vengeful and merciless.

The Nile was predictable and facilitated consistent farming, so Egyptian Gods were fair and just.

Tells you more about how people work than physiology or a stupid prison experiment.

 

[Goro]

Seems adcoms love humanities courses...

There are six competencies that medical students need to have as required by the LCME and COCA. There are competencies that residents need to master, as required by ACGME and the AOA.

Only one of these are medical/scientific knowledge. The rest are humanistic domains.

We don't love humanities courses per se, but getting a break from the typical pre-med is a relief and builds a better Class of future doctors.

Look at #6 and 7...this is at the med school level.
https://med.virginia.edu/ume-curric...017-18_Functions-and-Structure_2016-03-24.pdf

Notice how few of these relate to science, and this from AAMC!
https://www.staging.aamc.org/initiatives/admissionsinitiative/competencies/

 

[moggat]

Absolutely everything @Lucca said. Also, I the most important thing I ever learned in college was in upper level humanities classes, and that was how to critically and fairly challenge accepted wisdom. In the sciences you're trained to synthesize vast quantities of information (which is definitely useful) but never really encouraged to analyze the validity of it. Especially since we treat so much science like it was performed by infallible, perfect robots instead of real people who may bring their own perspectives and bias to their work. Humanities classes actually ENCOURAGE students to challenge the accepted wisdom and to critic the biggest names in the field. Of course sometimes it can lead to awkward situations (like spending 5 pages disagreeing with the fundamental arguments of your professor's graduate advisor), and sometimes you can be flat out wrong, but in the humanities your right to have an opinion and make an argument is never questioned.

 

[Lucca]

It must also be said though that the usefulness of a humanities course is not a given. It depends a lot on the structure of the course, the professor, your classmates (#1), the size of the class, etc. The classroom is also not the only place where you can learn these things, not by a long shot. But it can be a comfortable environment to do so.

There are big lecture hall English classes where you take a multiple choice exam about events in some book and then write what are essentially book summaries for an easy A. Nobody is going to learn anything useful in that environment.

 

[Cakey Jones]

I have never heard a course in pedagogy recommended.

Humanities inform one of the human condition and the existential questions of life.

Exactly! As an English and Music major, I'm so thankful for having studied the literary history of human thought and experience, along with the art of musically expressing relatable human experience. The humanities breed intellectual curiosity, and if one contemplates the fruits of this curiosity then insight and wisdom naturally come. This ultimately will make a better doctor, in my opinion.

 

[aldol16]

There's also more to college than being pre-med or being a future doctor. The purpose of college is to explore your interests and to obtain a well-rounded education that will make you an informed citizen. At least that's my view of the purpose of college. Pursuing your interests in the humanities through courses makes you a well-rounded person - and those interests are what people pick up on, not just the fact that you took the courses.

 

[Obnoxious Dad]

These humanities courses impart a certain "joie de vivre" and "savoir faire". Now, people who've taken these classes may not be able to distinguish chicken pox from a broken ankle, but what's a misdiagnosis among friends?

In all seriousness this emphasis on the social sciences and humanities in medical school admissions is the flip side of denigrating science. If you place greater emphasis on one thing, you discount another. With limited seats this is a zero sum game. I don't care if a physician can compare and contrast Thelonious Monk and Horace Silver, although I dug both of them. I want that jamoke to come up with the right diagnosis and treatment. That starts and ends with science.

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Helps to be a more well rounded person. Someone who is so nerdy about science that all they talk about is the Kreb's cycle is boring. I mean go to a play, concert, or art gallery once in a while for crying out loud.

 

[Lucca]

These humanities courses impart a certain "joie de vivre" and "savoir faire". Now, people who've taken these classes may not be able to distinguish chicken pox from a broken ankle, but what's a misdiagnosis among friends?

In all seriousness this emphasis on the social sciences and humanities in medical school admissions is the flip side of denigrating science. If you place greater emphasis on one thing, you discount another. With limited seats this is a zero sum game. I don't care if a physician can compare and contrast Thelonious Monk and Horace Silver, although I dug both of them. I want that jamoke to come up with the right diagnosis and treatment. That starts and ends with science.

You are definitely setting up a false dichotomy. I'm a hardcore science nerd. But I have a second degree in the humanities. Like @aldol16 mentioned, college is more than a stepping stone to medical school and classes/activities outside of the sciences have a lot to add. It's not as if humanities majors are getting a +5 boost to LizzyM.

Besides, everyone knows that the real science that will be relevant to clinical practice is going to be learned in medical school and beyond, not in undergrad. An aptitude for science is sufficient to get you there, you don't need to be a walking encyclopedia before you walk through the door.

 

[gyngyn]

These humanities courses impart a certain "joie de vivre" and "savoir faire". Now, people who've taken these classes may not be able to distinguish chicken pox from a broken ankle, but what's a misdiagnosis among friends?

In all seriousness this emphasis on the social sciences and humanities in medical school admissions is the flip side of denigrating science. If you place greater emphasis on one thing, you discount another. With limited seats this is a zero sum game. I don't care if a physician can compare and contrast Thelonious Monk and Horace Silver, although I dug both of them. I want that jamoke to come up with the right diagnosis and treatment. That starts and ends with science.

A diagnostician is only as good as the accuracy of information obtained.
The ability to relate to others, to communicate effectively and to understand the social context of the information obtained are absolutely necessary for accurate diagnosis.
Without trust, there will be no effective intervention.

 

[GnothiSeauton]

These humanities courses impart a certain "joie de vivre" and "savoir faire". Now, people who've taken these classes may not be able to distinguish chicken pox from a broken ankle, but what's a misdiagnosis among friends?

In all seriousness this emphasis on the social sciences and humanities in medical school admissions is the flip side of denigrating science. If you place greater emphasis on one thing, you discount another. With limited seats this is a zero sum game. I don't care if a physician can compare and contrast Thelonious Monk and Horace Silver, although I dug both of them. I want that jamoke to come up with the right diagnosis and treatment. That starts and ends with science.

There are a sufficient number of highly qualified applicants for admissions committees to get people who are multi-talented. The emphasis on GPA and MCAT guarantees that scientific aptitude is the first benchmark. After that finer distinctions can be made.

 

[AttemptingScholar]

Don't forget, your patients won't be doctors. It's important to understand how they think, what they value, how to talk to them. Humanities inform patient interactions. For example, one class my school recommends for premeds is from the Religion Department. It's about how death is handled in different religions and cultures. It won't help me make a diagnosis but being able to breach those subjects appropriately and in an informed manner will help me be a better doctor.

And yeah, I've heard pretty consistently that your science Bachelor's isn't like med school. You don't learn to be a doctor in UG, no matter how many bio courses or shadowing hours are in your application. I also imagine part of the process is to expose you to other career paths so you know you want to be a doctor more than those. "Try research to make sure you wouldn't rather be a research scientist" "Try humanities to make sure you wouldn't rather go into humanities." No one wants a doctor to realize they have some other passion for the first time in the middle of their fellowship because they never explored different academic fields!

 

[begoood95]

These humanities courses impart a certain "joie de vivre" and "savoir faire". Now, people who've taken these classes may not be able to distinguish chicken pox from a broken ankle, but what's a misdiagnosis among friends?

In all seriousness this emphasis on the social sciences and humanities in medical school admissions is the flip side of denigrating science. If you place greater emphasis on one thing, you discount another. With limited seats this is a zero sum game. I don't care if a physician can compare and contrast Thelonious Monk and Horace Silver, although I dug both of them. I want that jamoke to come up with the right diagnosis and treatment. That starts and ends with science.

This sentence is a perfect example of the potential insights the humanities and social sciences bring to physicians, and the harm that a purely scientific perspective could bring. You are very obviously failing to recognize that science itself is but another system created by humans, and is therefore not as infallible as you're implying. Diagnosis, treatments, and the like are all socially constructed in one way or another, and what we might consider a "disease," may very well be a blessing to others -- who are we to force a treatment upon them? What if they don't want to be treated at all? Your interpretation of a patient's illness will be different than their own experience, and what my courses in anthropology, philosophy, and sociology have taught me is that their experience is just as valid, and should be at minimum included in our analysis and treatment of their disease.

Scientific methodology is extremely helpful to a point, and no doubt are we better off with scientifically competent physicians. However, it is the more human, subjective nature of the experience of illness that it cannot touch. If you want to delve into that realm, you have to be familiar with paradigms within the humanities and social sciences: if you want to become a truly "holistic" physician -- which is in fact a great goal to have -- you must sometimes break from the rigidity and detachment taught in the physical sciences.

I had one major in the physical sciences, and two in social sciences and humanities. Undoubtedly, it will be the latter two that impact my future as a physician more so than the former, the knowledge of which will most likely be supplanted by what I learn in medical school, as @Lucca suggested.

 

[Goro]

It's not a zero sum game.

We want and can get students who will be good students, but more importantly, good doctors. We don't want research scientists; that's for grad school.

Again, there are more required humanistic domains than there are for scientific knowledge.

These humanities courses impart a certain "joie de vivre" and "savoir faire". Now, people who've taken these classes may not be able to distinguish chicken pox from a broken ankle, but what's a misdiagnosis among friends?

In all seriousness this emphasis on the social sciences and humanities in medical school admissions is the flip side of denigrating science. If you place greater emphasis on one thing, you discount another. With limited seats this is a zero sum game. I don't care if a physician can compare and contrast Thelonious Monk and Horace Silver, although I dug both of them. I want that jamoke to come up with the right diagnosis and treatment. That starts and ends with science.

 

[SouthernGent]

As someone who has a degree in both the sciences (Biology) and Humanities (History), and also an active musician in college, I'll throw in my 2 cents. I view the humanities as a gateway to understanding the human condition and relating to our fellow man. The arts, history, all the fields of the humanities can give insight into the human condition and communicating it. Look at Beethoven or John Williams for instance. By just the molding of sound over silence, they are able to communicate without words to audiences around the world and across centuries an emotion, a scene. The humanities show, well, our humanity. What makes us who we are as people and our cultures. I believe the humanities are ideal for fostering an understanding of the human condition, and studying them bolsters our ability to communicate across borders, both physical and non-physical. Does studying the Humanities make someone a shoe in? No. Just the same as a 4.0 does not make someone an instant acceptance. But it does contribute, and depending on what is gained from studying it, the humanities can help develop someone into a better applicant.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

As someone who has a degree in both the sciences (Biology) and Humanities (History), and also an active musician in college, I'll throw in my 2 cents. I view the humanities as a gateway to understanding the human condition and relating to our fellow man. The arts, history, all the fields of the humanities can give insight into the human condition and communicating it. Look at Beethoven or John Williams for instance. By just the molding of sound over silence, they are able to communicate without words to audiences around the world and across centuries an emotion, a scene. The humanities show, well, our humanity. What makes us who we are as people and our cultures. I believe the humanities are ideal for fostering an understanding of the human condition, and studying them bolsters our ability to communicate across borders, both physical and non-physical. Does studying the Humanities make someone a shoe in? No. Just the same as a 4.0 does not make someone an instant acceptance. But it does contribute, and depending on what is gained from studying it, the humanities can help develop someone into a better applicant.

Agreed. Math degree with an English minor, and I worked as both a musician and a writer for a few years. My humanities courses and experience in writing and performing music were great for teaching me about what it means to be human and go through an experience differently than others. As someone posted above, your experience with diagnosing and treating an illness may be (will be) starkly different than the patient's experience. Being able to empathize with that at all will make you a better doctor and human.

 

[DokterMom]

This sentence is a perfect example of the potential insights the humanities and social sciences bring to physicians, and the harm that a purely scientific perspective could bring. You are very obviously failing to recognize that science itself is but another system created by humans, and is therefore not as infallible as you're implying. Diagnosis, treatments, and the like are all socially constructed in one way or another, and what we might consider a "disease," may very well be a blessing to others -- who are we to force a treatment upon them? What if they don't want to be treated at all? Your interpretation of a patient's illness will be different than their own experience, and what my courses in anthropology, philosophy, and sociology have taught me is that their experience is just as valid, and should be at minimum included in our analysis and treatment of their disease.

Scientific methodology is extremely helpful to a point, and no doubt are we better off with scientifically competent physicians. However, it is the more human, subjective nature of the experience of illness that it cannot touch. If you want to delve into that realm, you have to be familiar with paradigms within the humanities and social sciences: if you want to become a truly "holistic" physician -- which is in fact a great goal to have -- you must sometimes break from the rigidity and detachment taught in the physical sciences.

I had one major in the physical sciences, and two in social sciences and humanities. Undoubtedly, it will be the latter two that impact my future as a physician more so than the former, the knowledge of which will most likely be supplanted by what I learn in medical school, as @Lucca suggested.

Excellent point! I vividly remember reading about this study a few years ago (just dug up a synopsis) and recall thinking how a broader knowledge of humanities and anthropology could help physicians (in this case psychiatrists) practice more effectively.

http://news.stanford.edu/2014/07/16/voices-culture-luhrmann-071614/

From another article:

"Schizophrenia has been observed all around the world in various countries, cultures, and races and thus, there is no doubt that it is a universal illness. But does the disorder manifest itself in the same way in all of these countries, as the DSM diagnosis criteria would suggest? Recent research shows this to be false. Schizophrenia does indeed vary in many ways across the world. Firstly, different cultures and races display markedly different symptoms and manifestations of schizophrenia, often due to the cultural norms and sociocentricity of a culture"​

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Excellent point! I vividly remember reading about this study a few years ago (just dug up a synopsis) and recall thinking how a broader knowledge of humanities and anthropology could help physicians (in this case psychiatrists) practice more effectively.

http://news.stanford.edu/2014/07/16/voices-culture-luhrmann-071614/

From another article:

"Schizophrenia has been observed all around the world in various countries, cultures, and races and thus, there is no doubt that it is a universal illness. But does the disorder manifest itself in the same way in all of these countries, as the DSM diagnosis criteria would suggest? Recent research shows this to be false. Schizophrenia does indeed vary in many ways across the world. Firstly, different cultures and races display markedly different symptoms and manifestations of schizophrenia, often due to the cultural norms and sociocentricity of a culture"​

The number of actual cases versus reported cases will vary by country too. In some countries, a psychiatric dx is a social stain on the whole family, and physicians will dx something less damning.

 

[begoood95]

Excellent point! I vividly remember reading about this study a few years ago (just dug up a synopsis) and recall thinking how a broader knowledge of humanities and anthropology could help physicians (in this case psychiatrists) practice more effectively.

http://news.stanford.edu/2014/07/16/voices-culture-luhrmann-071614/

From another article:

"Schizophrenia has been observed all around the world in various countries, cultures, and races and thus, there is no doubt that it is a universal illness. But does the disorder manifest itself in the same way in all of these countries, as the DSM diagnosis criteria would suggest? Recent research shows this to be false. Schizophrenia does indeed vary in many ways across the world. Firstly, different cultures and races display markedly different symptoms and manifestations of schizophrenia, often due to the cultural norms and sociocentricity of a culture"​

100x yes! Anthropology (perhaps more specifically, cultural anthropology) should be a required course in my opinion. And a course on the sociology of health in illness. Seriously, those two courses, I think, are incredibly useful for physicians.

A oft-cited book within medical anthropology is "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down: A Hmong Child, Her American Doctors, And the Collision of Two Cultures" by Anne Fadiman. Highly recommend, and I was thinking about it specifically when responding to OP in my example.