If MDs rather than PhDs taught basic sci, would you study harder?

[profunda]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Would that convince you the material being taught is more relevant, and you'd be more interested and study harder?

Why not have MDs teach basic sci?

 

[doc05]

because MD's are not basic scientists.

 

[southerndoc]

I wish there were enough MD PhD's to teach the basic sciences.

 

[ckent]

I wish that they would get people who had no connection to research to teach us the basic sciences. Maybe get people with master's in biology to teach us the basic sciences, or strictly clinical MD's. It got really annoying when prof's felt the need to spend time during class talking about basic science research, really, really annoying when they talked about their own research.

 

[mpp]

The vast majority of the basic science courses at our school are taught by M.D.'s. Even anatomy is taught by an M.D. There are no courses in the first two years taught solely by Ph.D.'s (although they are Ph.D. instructors for some lectures). I am not sure if this makes us study harder but in my opinion it makes the courses more relevant to the reason I am in medical school.

 

[kcrd]

At Temple, in the classes where most of the instructors are PhD's, they will bring MD's in for periodic "clinical correlation" lectures, and it works out nicely. I suppose MD/PhD's would be ideal, but for certain topics, I'd rather have a PhD teaching. An MD does not get the type of training in, for example Biochemistry, that a PhD does, so the PhD is a more qualified instructor for such a course. Our Path and Pathophys courses are taught entirely by MD's.

 

[irlandesa]

Originally posted by kcrd
At Temple, in the classes where most of the instructors are PhD's, they will bring MD's in for periodic "clinical correlation" lectures, and it works out nicely. I suppose MD/PhD's would be ideal, but for certain topics, I'd rather have a PhD teaching. An MD does not get the type of training in, for example Biochemistry, that a PhD does, so the PhD is a more qualified instructor for such a course. Our Path and Pathophys courses are taught entirely by MD's.

yes, essentially the same at Tufts. During second year, when you get to the more clinically relevant material of the wards and Step 1; all courses are taught entirely by MD's except Neuroscience (co-chaired by an MD and a PhD). I have enjoyed learning and lectures MUCH more b/c of this, and feel better prepared for 3rd year and Step 1. Although, many of the PhD professors are very intelligent, kindly, and helpful, especially in Anatomy!

 

[profunda]

MD/PhDs are more clinical than PhDs, but they are usually still hardcore scientists who cant stop talking about their own research.

An MD who does not know about a certain aspect of biochemistry because it is not clinically important means he/she wont teach/test you on that aspect. Why would you want to waste your mornings learning PhD biochemistry and not clinical biochemistry?

Most schools I know of, clinical correlations are few and rare. Even if they did exist, most are by MD/Phds.

Originally posted by kcrd
At Temple, in the classes where most of the instructors are PhD's, they will bring MD's in for periodic "clinical correlation" lectures, and it works out nicely. I suppose MD/PhD's would be ideal, but for certain topics, I'd rather have a PhD teaching. An MD does not get the type of training in, for example Biochemistry, that a PhD does, so the PhD is a more qualified instructor for such a course. Our Path and Pathophys courses are taught entirely by MD's.

 

[carrigallen]

i'm guessing some schools (ie Duke's 1 yr) have slimmed down basic science curricula which focus on the essentials. I think some subjects, like micro, pharm, path, phys, it's good to have an in-depth understanding which a PhD can provide.

 

[DarksideAllstar]

I'm going to go with a big "no".

 

[southerndoc]

Originally posted by carrigallen
i'm guessing some schools (ie Duke's 1 yr) have slimmed down basic science curricula which focus on the essentials. I think some subjects, like micro, pharm, path, phys, it's good to have an in-depth understanding which a PhD can provide.

Which brings up an interesting question. I wonder what Duke's Step I average is?

 

[12R34Y]

My school (Univ Kansas) we had ONE MD teach ONE class all of first year. ALL PHD's at our school for every single course. it did suck at times. some were great, others were research freaks.

later

 

[doc05]

Originally posted by carrigallen
i'm guessing some schools (ie Duke's 1 yr) have slimmed down basic science curricula which focus on the essentials. I think some subjects, like micro, pharm, path, phys, it's good to have an in-depth understanding which a PhD can provide.

Except that no medical school teaches anything in-depth. Medical school microbio is about memorizing microorganisms and pertinent features. That is not what microbiology is really about. Pharm, path, and phys are likewise truly superficial in coverage. Don't kid yourselves into thinking that a PhD teaching a course makes it truly in-depth, overly detailed, or useless.

You need to know everything they teach you in medical school. Just because you find something boring doesn't mean it's not important.

 

[doc05]

Originally posted by 12R34Y
My school (Univ Kansas) we had ONE MD teach ONE class all of first year. ALL PHD's at our school for every single course. it did suck at times. some were great, others were research freaks.

It should get better in your second year. The fact is that the 1st year of medical school sucks because you're not studying anything that a normal medical student wants to study (except perhaps anatomy). Normal processes are pretty simple, and the only way to stretch it into a full year is to include detail which many students find boring.

You will likely see more MDs teaching in your second year because pathological processes are clinically-slanted (though not truly clinical per se).

 

[southerndoc]

Originally posted by doc05
Except that no medical school teaches anything in-depth. Medical school microbio is about memorizing microorganisms and pertinent features. That is not what microbiology is really about. Pharm, path, and phys are likewise truly superficial in coverage. Don't kid yourselves into thinking that a PhD teaching a course makes it truly in-depth, overly detailed, or useless.

Having had to learn all of that minutia about viruses (proteins, replicative enzymes, etc.), bacteria (the same), etc. doesn't make me think my learning was superficial.

However, I do not think my learning was on a PhD level either.

So superficial is probably a bad choice of words. Perhaps we are learning it at an intermediate level. Our textbooks were graduate-level texts and not some review or overview book.

 

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by Geek Medic
Having had to learn all of that minutia about viruses (proteins, replicative enzymes, etc.), bacteria (the same), etc. doesn't make me think my learning was superficial.

However, I do not think my learning was on a PhD level either.

So superficial is probably a bad choice of words. Perhaps we are learning it at an intermediate level. Our textbooks were graduate-level texts and not some review or overview book.

He meant superficial RELATIVE to PhD-level work. I agree with that. I have taken PhD and MD courses and there is a definitive difference between the depth of material presented

 

[trauma_junky]

I'm getting my masters in biology and I have a harder biochemistry than the medical students. We cover everything plus more in one semester that they cover in two. Now that is just at UTSA, I don't know about other schools. I'm looking forward to my first year of medschool, because I've already had all the classes on a more indepth level. But to be honest, having a PhD lecture is truely an exercise in eyelid strength. They love to talk about their microcosm of understanding and forget anything even remotely clinically relavent. Ever read a basic science journal, yuk! They Suck! They get off to that stuff, forget that!

 

[yipeee]

i would prefer MD's to teach ANY subject over a PhD in med school. they don't try to screw you with their questions and they focus on what you need to know!

PhD are FRUSTRATED and they take it out on med students.

 

[Skip Intro]

Originally posted by yipeee
i would prefer MD's to teach ANY subject over a PhD in med school. they don't try to screw you with their questions and they focus on what you need to know!

PhD are FRUSTRATED and they take it out on med students.

🙄