is it true that physics and maths majors are more successful physicians than bio majors?

[dnp1123]

i shadowed a neurosurgeon, a physics major in college, and he asked me what i was studying.

i told him i was a bio major, and he said "oh, you're like the many other pre-meds that have worked and volunteered for me and my office."

we had a little discussion about our college studies and he mentioned while it's not the worst thing in the world to study bio as a major in college, he highly recommended physics and math because it does offer several opportunities and well paying jobs after college if my heart isn't in medicine. plus, the skills you learn as a physics and math major are much more desired in employment, including medical school and residency as opposed to a bio major where you're just memorizing and spitting things out like a robot. what wouuld you guys do?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[james11]

if I could tell my freshman self about picking a major, it's that you don't learn anything in college, so don't stress about it, you acquire skills on the job wherever you end up. so just do whatever seems interesting or at least less painful. it really doesn't matter

 

[premedicalstudent]

I'd say: to hell with that. Do what you're actually interested in.

 

[Frogger27]

If your goal is med school, pick the easiest major that will allow you to get the most inflated GPA

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I doubt it matters. People who are successful in math tend to be able to think logically and critically, but that doesn't mean that bio majors aren't as good at that. Major in whatever interests you. I'm actually the only one in my class who is using my math degree to go to med school. The rest are going into teaching or for a PhD.

 

[Lucca]

I think people who challenge themselves in their coursework are going to be better equipped to tackle future challenging academic coursework.

 

[DokterMom]

It is true that statistically, math and physics majors have higher medical school acceptance rates than biology majors. And that pre-health majors have among the worst acceptance rates of any degree program --

 

[leonardoson]

As a physics major, I will argue that the subject I am studying will give me more problem solving skills than memorizing phylum and regurgitating them onto an exam. Physics and math teaches you how to think logically. Plus you learn cool things that other's only read buzzfeed articles about. And in the event that I don't get accepted into medical school, my "problem solving degree" will be more marketable than a Bio degree.

 

[Atom612]

he highly recommended physics and math because it does offer several opportunities and well paying jobs after college if my heart isn't in medicine.

I think this reasoning is flawed, and may have been true a decade or more ago. While physics and math majors have better job prospects in general, it's more accurate for people actually interested in related careers. If you didn't do any relevant internships or research during undergrad because you were focused on medicine, then your physics/math job prospects aren't going to be much better than a bio major's if you decide medicine isn't for you.

 

[libertyyne]

Physics and math majors are more successful at everything. I will say this again, biology is as useful as a history degree.

 

[leonardoson]

I think this reasoning is flawed, and may have been true a decade or more ago. While physics and math majors have better job prospects in general, it's more accurate for people actually interested in related careers. If you didn't do any relevant internships or research during undergrad because you were focused on medicine, then your physics/math job prospects aren't going to be much better than a bio major's if you decide medicine isn't for you.

This absolutely isn't true.

 

[Atom612]

This absolutely isn't true.

It seems to be common knowledge that simply having the degree doesn't automatically open doors for you anymore.

If you're the manager in charge of hiring, you're saying that you wouldn't pick the applicant who had done relevant internships and experiences during undergrad over the applicant whose only experience to the field was getting the degree? How does that make sense?

Applicant A has always been interested in math and physics and spent hundreds of hours interning at CERN (or other relevant area), networking and obtaining references in the field

Applicant B majored in physics because they thought it looked good on paper, and due to being interested in medicine has hundreds of hours volunteering at a hospital and shadowing physicians, but has no other physics-related experience. Additionally, because they were interested in medicine, they've spent two years after college working as a medical scribe, and nothing physics related at all. Now, they realize medicine isn't going to happen and are applying for a job related to their major.

It seems clear that applicant A will be chosen every single time, and I'm having a hard time believing applicant B would just be able to walk in somewhere with no relevant experience and be accepted with open arms after they decided medicine isn't for them years down the road. Are the math and physics fields so bereft of candidates that they'll take anyone with a degree?

 

[leonardoson]

It seems to be common knowledge that simply having the degree doesn't automatically open doors for you anymore.

If you're the manager in charge of hiring, you're saying that you wouldn't pick the applicant who had done relevant internships and experiences during undergrad over the applicant whose only experience to the field was getting the degree? How does that make sense?

Applicant A has always been interested in math and physics and spent hundreds of hours interning at CERN (or other relevant area), networking and obtaining references in the field

Applicant B majored in physics because they thought it looked good on paper, and due to being interested in medicine has hundreds of hours volunteering at a hospital and shadowing physicians, but has no other physics-related experience. Additionally, because they were interested in medicine, they've spent two years after college working as a medical scribe, and nothing physics related at all. Now, they realize medicine isn't going to happen and are applying for a job related to their major.

It seems clear that applicant A will be chosen every single time, and have a hard time believing the physics community will accept someone like applicant B with no relevant experience with open arms after they decided medicine isn't for them years down the road. Are the math and physics fields so bereft of candidates that they'll take anyone with a degree?

You are generalizing every physics major who is interested in medicine as having no experience. You should probably also look up how many REU's CERN has and then determine if that's a relevant statement. You should also take into account if physics majors interested in medicine only major in that area because they want to "look good". This is despite the fact that the major itself is extremely challenging, and anyone doing it to "look good" drops out very quick, or get's through the classes with C's. Your situation has provided you with the hopeful argument that will make you seem correct.

Here is an N=1 example since you like generalizing logic. 80% of the outgoing physics class was hired by a large tech corporation. They are currently making $60,000 right out of college. 60% of them never did any research other than the required senior research class.

 

[Lawpy]

plus, the skills you learn as a physics and math major are much more desired in employment, including medical school and residency as opposed to a bio major where you're just memorizing and spitting things out like a robot. what wouuld you guys do?

I agree. The biology degree is just a piece of paper with zero value. This is why the career prospects outside of healthcare are pretty crappy (and this is also why I always recommend pursuing something else like computer science, economics/finance etc. for failed bio majors).

However, I argue that undergrad major has zero bearing on future success as a physician.

Physics and math majors are more successful at everything. I will say this again, biology is as useful as a history degree.

Wouldn't go that far. History degree still teaches critical thinking and analysis skills, especially when it comes to deciphering old texts to map out the history of events. This can be pretty useful in the social side of medicine, as well as in law. So history >>> biology.

 

[libertyyne]

I wish some one told me and screamed at me when I started college that I can become a doctor without majoring in biology. I am doing that favor to future grads.
1. Degree is useless
2. Having a major other than bio will make you stand out.
3. Almost no bearing on the quality of physician you will become
4. Study something you enjoy.
5 study something that gives you a solid plan B.
6. Does not prepare you for the mcat or medical school in addition to any other degree would.
7. Should not be considered a stem degree.
8 class sizes also tend to be larger due to premeds.

 

[Lucca]

Physics and math majors are more successful at everything. I will say this again, biology is as useful as a history degree.

Hey, history is cool and fun and learning to write arguments based on source documents and conflicting documentation and providing interpretations is an actual skill.

 

[Atom612]

You are generalizing every physics major who is interested in medicine as having no experience.

I'm addressing a specific subset of people who only decided to major in physics because it would "look better" than bio.

You should also take into account if physics majors interested in medicine only major in that area because they want to "look good".

My post was in response to OP, who is a bio major, asking about switching to physics to math to "look good" to adcoms, that's literally what this post is about. So, good job.

Here is an N=1 example since you like generalizing logic. 80% of the outgoing physics class was hired by a large tech corporation. They are currently making $60,000 right out of college. 60% of them never did any research other than the required senior research class.

Nice anecdote, bro. It sounds like those 80% were pursuing a relevant career. So what about the numbers for the amount of people hired who took time away from their field pursuing a different career? Because if you had read my first post, it was addressing the idea that simply majoring in physics is better because you'll have better job prospects if you decide medicine isn't for you. Unless you make that decision during your senior year, you're probably not going to be applying to large tech corporations right out of college.

I'm at work right now so I can't go scour the internet to prove a point to a stranger on an anonymous internet forum. Quick googling provided this:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jzy/career_prospects_for_physics_majors/

" But what of career prospects?

In an answer to the Quora question What is it like to major in physics? PhD physicist Joshua Parks wrote:

It may not be too crazy to claim that as far as career options go, physics majors may be much more like English or other humanities majors (who often make career choices unrelated to their study) than their science and engineering counterparts.

At Physics Forums, ParticleGrl wrote

If you are an engineer, you can almost certainly get a job in a technical field right out of college. Physics majors, on the other hand, end up all over the place (insurance, finance, teaching high school, programming, etc).

We discuss some career paths for physics majors below.

Summary

• The primary reason to major in physics (outside of intrinsic interest) is as a prerequisite to a physics PhD or as background for teaching high school physics.
• Over 50% of those who get PhDs in physics don't become physicists, often because of difficulty finding jobs.
• Physics majors are able to get jobs in other quantitative fields, but often with more difficulty than they would had they majored in those fields. "

There's also other links and statistics included in the source.

I'm not knocking physics majors at all. I have huge respect for them and agree that it's way harder than general bio as a major. However, OP was asking about the idea of switching to physics from bio in order to look "better" to adcoms and maybe having better job prospects if he decides down the road he doesn't want to do medicine anymore. Is OP motivated enough to put themselves through the rigors of the degree to make the grades, to be involved in physics/math ECs in addition to the medicine ECs he needs to be competitive for both medical schools and other employers? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But I wouldn't switch to physics or math as a major for those reasons alone.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Wow. Glad I majored in math.

 

[Lawpy]

Yeah, physics is incredibly versatile (and a complete opposite of the narrowness of biology degrees).

http://www.physicists.org/careersvc/pify/indigo.html

 

[libertyyne]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economic-guide-to-picking-a-college-major/
"All STEM fields aren’t the same

Politicians love to tout the importance of science, technology, engineering and math majors. But when it comes to earnings, the “S” majors don’t really belong with the “TEM” ones. Engineering majors are nearly all high-paying. So are most computer and math majors, and math-heavy sciences like astrophysics.3 But many sciences, particularly the life sciences, pay below the overall median for recent college graduates. Students who major in neuroscience, meteorology, biology and ecology all stand to make $35,000 or less — and that’s if they can get a full-time job, which many can’t. Zoology ranks as one of the lowest-paying majors of any category, with a median full-time wage of $26,000 a year."

 

[ChymeofPassion]

As a biology major who is actually interested in biology, I think there is a higher percentage of people than you think that joined biology because they love the subject, but that percentage is outspoken by the few extremely loud idiots that pursue it to be a doctor, hate it, and don't get into medical school. Also keep in mind the kind of people in the SDN forums; high power, high income professions ARE EVERYTHING to the over-achiever. If medicine doesn't work out, to an average Sdner with a biology degree that means all is lost; to the average person, there are tons of jobs that could fulfill that love of science, teaching, and critical thinking, whether thats a PH.d
, MS, teachers license, or even law school. This entire post comes across as a bunch of math and physics majors sucking each other off and comparing hypotheticals based on their perception of what would make them happy, whether that's the subject material or income.

Tldr; **** off and play with your vectors in the corner

 

[BiologyMajor86]

FWIW: if one wants to practice patent law (a highly sought out field with high demand and salary in a tightening law profession), the following trend has been observed by several law school graduates and professors that have moved on to this field, or practiced.

The minimum (usually) requirements include: PhD in Biology, Masters in Chemistry OR Bachelor's in Physics or Engineering. This has a few interpretations, but one may be that the training done during an undergraduate physics degree is more than sufficient and hence efficient compared to a biology undergraduate degree. This is why the biology majors in college need to complete further training as a PhD before getting employed as a patent attorney.

As for medicine, practicing family members in the field have all told me the same thing. Just cross off the checklist required to get into medical school (high GPA, high MCAT, get feet wet in research and volunteering) like a robot, because this type of checklist and robotic behavior is one that is most desired by residency programs and employers in health care institutions. Take care of as many patients as possible, follow instructions clearly while bringing your boss (many without an MD or DO) $$$.

 

[spicynuggetfiend]

I majored in physics, but I wasn't premed until after I graduated. It helped me incredibly in certain areas of problem solving, especially on the MCAT. That being said, I personally found it very difficult and it kind of destroyed my GPA.

It's a great field to study, as long as you know what you're getting yourself into. Definitely DO NOT do it just to impress adcoms. I majored in it because I was genuinely interested in it.

 

[BiologyMajor86]

Yeah, physics is incredibly versatile (and a complete opposite of the narrowness of biology degrees).

http://www.physicists.org/careersvc/pify/indigo.html

As someone with a mere biology degree looking into the physics/math combination, do you think there is a minimum intelligence required to be successful in these fields? I often hear of students double majoring in math and physics because the latter is almost impossible without tackling the hardcore subjects in the former. I have done quite alright in biology through BRUTE FORCE, BRUTE MEMORIZATION, and BRUTE practice methods. This method was actually helpful up to Calculus 2 and even in Gen Chem 1/2, but I was not required to go further than those introductory courses. For example, I hear quantum mechanics and abstract algebra are subjects where you either get it or you don't. Same goes for E & M, optics, etc. What do you, or any other physics majors think about this pre-req of "innate intelligence?" TED-talks guest speakers will think this is crazy, while old school professionals will probably say there is a certain degree of intelligence threshold required to do well in physics and math (or engineering, for that matter), i.e., all men are not created equal.

Example: olympians with the gift to perform and represent their nation, etc.

 

[spicynuggetfiend]

As someone with a mere biology degree looking into the physics/math combination, do you think there is a minimum intelligence required to be successful in these fields? I often hear of students double majoring in math and physics because the latter is almost impossible without tackling the hardcore subjects in the former. I have done quite alright in biology through BRUTE FORCE, BRUTE MEMORIZATION, and BRUTE practice methods. This method was actually helpful up to Calculus 2 and even in Gen Chem 1/2, but I was not required to go further than those introductory courses. For example, I hear quantum mechanics and abstract algebra are subjects where you either get it or you don't. Same goes for E & M, optics, etc. What do you, or any other physics majors think about this pre-req of "innate intelligence?" TED-talks guest speakers will think this is crazy, while old school professionals will probably say there is a certain degree of intelligence threshold required to do well in physics and math (or engineering, for that matter), i.e., all men are not created equal.

Example: olympians with the gift to perform and represent their nation, etc.

Innate intelligence is definitely an aspect of it. Having taken upper-level classes in both subjects, and with all due respect, I would argue that there are more people who are cut out to study biology than to study physics and math. I was probably not one of the ones cut out for physics, which is why I chose not to go to graduate school.

Also, you don't need advanced math (like abstract algebra, complex analysis, etc) -- my professors always told me it isn't the math element that makes physics difficult, it's the physics. That being said, you'll need the advanced math more for certain fields of research like string theory, but that isn't taught in the undergraduate level

 

[Geo16]

I wish some one told me and screamed at me when I started college that I can become a doctor without majoring in biology. I am doing that favor to future grads.
1. Degree is useless
2. Having a major other than bio will make you stand out.
3. Almost no bearing on the quality of physician you will become
4. Study something you enjoy.
5 study something that gives you a solid plan B.
6. Does not prepare you for the mcat or medical school in addition to any other degree would.
7. Should not be considered a stem degree.
8 class sizes also tend to be larger due to premeds.

There was a similar post somewhere. It did say this with a same notion. So hence I followed this advice.
So I picked Geology, Earth Science or Geography. Three of them have something to do with Earth and Earth system. Going to apply to different schools with different majors so I have 3 of them in my mind 😛
I want to study something that I enjoy. That's like a gift! We get to study what we want. I want to study about Earth.
Also, sidetrack:
I think it's more tough for other non-STEM majors. Because on top of finishing their own dedicated major requirements, once they get their majors/concentration approved, they must finish their major requirements for graduation. Not to mention on top of medical school requirements!! Most STEM majors got almost the exact same major pre-requisites as medical school pre-requisites.
Also, their upper class requirements are filled with BCPM subjects. So even if they have low BCPM sGPA, they can raise it up. But that's not the case for most of Social Science majors.
So... Social Science majors aren't the students you want to look down on!! >:C
My idea is that all majors have it hard. STEM major or not, all majors must study the same amount of work in order to get into Med school!

 

[aldol16]

we had a little discussion about our college studies and he mentioned while it's not the worst thing in the world to study bio as a major in college, he highly recommended physics and math because it does offer several opportunities and well paying jobs after college if my heart isn't in medicine. plus, the skills you learn as a physics and math major are much more desired in employment, including medical school and residency as opposed to a bio major where you're just memorizing and spitting things out like a robot. what wouuld you guys do?

There are multiple factors at play here. Math and physics definitely do offer more job opportunities if you decide to not do medicine - many well-paying jobs in the finance and consulting industries, for example. But I doubt your college major will impact where you go for residency. Although it is possible that those majors may instill a certain skillset that emphasizes problem-solving, it's also possible that those majors just attract students who already have those skills and want to develop them. So it may not be the major itself that imparts the skills but rather the students who choose that major.

 

[james11]

There are multiple factors at play here. Math and physics definitely do offer more job opportunities if you decide to not do medicine - many well-paying jobs in the finance and consulting industries, for example.

worked at a major consulting firm and your major does not affect your candidacy at all. we had lit majors, history, engineering, etc. in fact, i landed the job as a bio major.

 

[Lawpy]

As someone with a mere biology degree looking into the physics/math combination, do you think there is a minimum intelligence required to be successful in these fields? I often hear of students double majoring in math and physics because the latter is almost impossible without tackling the hardcore subjects in the former. I have done quite alright in biology through BRUTE FORCE, BRUTE MEMORIZATION, and BRUTE practice methods. This method was actually helpful up to Calculus 2 and even in Gen Chem 1/2, but I was not required to go further than those introductory courses. For example, I hear quantum mechanics and abstract algebra are subjects where you either get it or you don't. Same goes for E & M, optics, etc. What do you, or any other physics majors think about this pre-req of "innate intelligence?" TED-talks guest speakers will think this is crazy, while old school professionals will probably say there is a certain degree of intelligence threshold required to do well in physics and math (or engineering, for that matter), i.e., all men are not created equal.

Example: olympians with the gift to perform and represent their nation, etc.

I don't think there's a prereq of innate intelligence to do well in math and physics. I failed a lot of math and physics tests back in high school because they initially didn't make much sense, and I got lost in the problem solving. It was after I did a lot of serious troubleshooting and practice problems that everything started making sense to me. From there, I did well in college in several courses, although they still weren't easy by any means, and I still got a lot of Cs on many exams because the problems were really difficult.

My physics professors did note that there is a difference in aptitude between physics majors and engineers in physics courses. I partially agree with this in regards to upper level courses because practicality is thrown out the window, and the physics becomes much more theoretical. This is good for the physics majors aiming for grad school, since a lot of grad physics deals with such abstractions. But this isn't really due to different innate intelligence.

I think doing well in math and physics requires a lot of hard work, practice and motivation. And even for some of the upper levels (mainly in astronomy/astrophysics courses), I found myself visiting my professor's office hours weekly for extra help and clarification on topics, since some of the stuff didn't make sense to me (like d'Alembert operators and spherical harmonics). Ended up doing well, but it definitely was difficult but rewarding experience.

Innate intelligence is definitely an aspect of it. Having taken upper-level classes in both subjects, and with all due respect, I would argue that there are more people who are cut out to study biology than to study physics and math. I was probably not one of the ones cut out for physics, which is why I chose not to go to graduate school.

Also, you don't need advanced math (like abstract algebra, complex analysis, etc) -- my professors always told me it isn't the math element that makes physics difficult, it's the physics. That being said, you'll need the advanced math more for certain fields of research like string theory, but that isn't taught in the undergraduate level

Yeah it's true that upper level courses in math and physics are much harder than upper level biology courses, but I don't think this is due to differing innate intelligence... but rather due to different skills being tested. I would probably end up with a lot of B's and C's in bio exams since I'm terrible with rote memorization (that's why I'm sticking with useful Anki guides like Anki Central to help me out in medical school).

And yeah I agree with your professors' statements. The math isn't all that bad, but the physics is pretty difficult. That said, the math involved can get time consuming, and a small error made in the solutions can lead to very different and incorrect answers.

 

[aldol16]

worked at a major consulting firm and your major does not affect your candidacy at all. we had lit majors, history, engineering, etc. in fact, i landed the job as a bio major.

Depends on the specialty of the firm. If you worked at one of the big three as a generalist, then yeah, major doesn't really matter.

 

[Lucca]

While we're on the subject: does anyone understand what mathematicians do? Like how does one come up with new math. I've had my math friends explain it to me several times and I STILL don't get it lol

 

[eteshoe]

Wow. Glad I majored in math.

Glad I did engineering

 

[Vladimir7]

People bashing Biology here while the vast majority of discovery of diseases and treatment of said diseases is due to studying Biological principles. The biggest and IMO most important section of the MCAT is:

• Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems

That is why in a lot of Universities including mine, physics and math (and chemistry) are PREREQUISITES to studying Biology, not the other way around. I don't like the idea of undermining Biology or exalting Physics/Math especially when it's not about the major itself but the people in them.

Biology itself is far more than just memorization (need to know complex processes such as negative feedback etc..) and physics/math each have their fair share of memorizing (formulas and theories).

TL;DR: people tend to gravitate towards different majors for different reasons, but the major DOES NOT determine the proficiency of the Individual.

 

[Vladimir7]

To answer the question simply then; No, I believe successful physicians are those who work hard to diagnose their patients by carefully analyzing symptoms instead of using simple heuristics of memorizing and regurgitating

 

[Vladimir7]

While we're on the subject: does anyone understand what mathematicians do? Like how does one come up with new math. I've had my math friends explain it to me several times and I STILL don't get it lol

LOL at this^me neither. I think new math comes from new postulates/theories/proofs? Like group theory and junk? idk...

 

[TheBiologist]

mathematics and physics do provide reasoning skills that are valuable in diagnostics as well as general life problem solving, yes

In fact, I think the highest scoring people on the "LSAT" ( for law school - it's 100% reasoning i.e. no background info required) majored in mathematics followed by physics. I think physics/engineering is up there for the MCAT as well

but IMO I agree you should major what you are interested in, be it math or biology

 

[leonardoson]

Botched post from other draft

 

[leonardoson]

At a basic, general level yes, but key word is roots. Will understanding the quantum mechanical interactions of the atoms make you a better physician?

no

 

[leonardoson]

Biology program, not biology classes. The physics and chemistry classes I had to take before I could start the bio classes had plenty of intro quantum mechanics.

That clears things up

 

[Lawpy]

People bashing Biology here while the vast majority of discovery of diseases and treatment of said diseases is due to studying Biological principles. The biggest and IMO most important section of the MCAT is:

• Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems

That is why in a lot of Universities including mine, physics and math (and chemistry) are PREREQUISITES to studying Biology, not the other way around. I don't like the idea of undermining Biology or exalting Physics/Math especially when it's not about the major itself but the people in them.

Biology itself is far more than just memorization (need to know complex processes such as negative feedback etc..) and physics/math each have their fair share of memorizing (formulas and theories).

TL;DR: people tend to gravitate towards different majors for different reasons, but the major DOES NOT determine the proficiency of the Individual.

The criticisms were largely on the value of biology degrees, which we (at least I) think are completely useless. Biology itself is useful in many ways, but the degree itself is meaningless (although more power to you if you find it meaningful).

Knowing pathways and regulation requires solid memorization in order to apply the necessary concepts. You won't be able to understand what inhibits the citric acid cycle if you don't know what the cycle does (and what the key enzymes and substrates are). Medicine is built on rote memorization in order for clinical analysis and applications to work.

And the prerequisites for studying biology are really basic man. Not sure how you can deny that. Only at grade-deflating top tiers (and other schools of that caliber + engineering-driven schools) would you see biology majors being required to take calculus-based physics and calculus. Not surprisingly, students who excel in such courses proceed to demolish the MCAT, but at this point, it's due to the caliber of the students and quality of the school as opposed to the actual major.

This doesn't change the prevailing opinion that math and physics are in fact a lot harder biology. But long-term successes in medicine have little-to-nothing to do with undergrad major.

 

[Saifa]

I'm enrolled as a biology major at my local campus because I can obtain the degree from the satellite campus without needing to transfer. I'm also currently in the throes of calculus-based physics and second semester calculus. I can't help but continue to think that the hard part of undergrad will be over when those classes are.

 

[kb1900]

literally all my bio exams outside of bio 1 are written such that rote memorization will get u nowhere. its like 70-80% biochem experimental design questions/data interpretation and 20-30% detail oriented questions

also the MCAT is bio-centric in almost every section to some degree. I definitely would not have gotten the score I did without the intensive bio, lab-based background I had going into the test

so while there may be some merit to discussing how helpful major selection is as a back up plan to medicine there is most definitely no point in trying to generalize how useful your major is for pursuing medicine because of the huge amount of variability in departments, schools and curricula.


if you are 100% committed to medicine, just pick the major you will succeed in, have an interest in, and has a good department/reputation at your school.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

mathematics and physics do provide reasoning skills that are valuable in diagnostics as well as general life problem solving, yes

In fact, I think the highest scoring people on the "LSAT" ( for law school - it's 100% reasoning i.e. no background info required) majored in mathematics followed by physics. I think physics/engineering is up there for the MCAT as well

but IMO I agree you should major what you are interested in, be it math or biology

I've heard that thing about the LSAT and math majors. I haven't done any real reading on it, but I took the LSAT and scored very well. I think being a math major helped.

 

[spicynuggetfiend]

While we're on the subject: does anyone understand what mathematicians do? Like how does one come up with new math. I've had my math friends explain it to me several times and I STILL don't get it lol

It varies... algebraists describe new ways of adding and multiplying numbers, topologists describe manifolds (shapes) in n dimensions, number theorists discover different types of inifinites among many other things. All very rigorous, using weird symbols and writing 20 page proofs with a consistent flow of logic. As to how they come up with it, I guess they read a lot of literature, drink a lot of coffee, and scribble on a chalkboard for 10 hours a day until they come up with something.

Really dry stuff, more power to the people who get off to it.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

While we're on the subject: does anyone understand what mathematicians do? Like how does one come up with new math. I've had my math friends explain it to me several times and I STILL don't get it lol

That's probably because it's a flawed question. You don't create new math. Much like biologists discovered evolution, mathematicians discover things in math. The easiest way to say it is basically when something novel is discovered in math, it is because the discoverer had a deep understanding of the problem and the existing groundwork, then found a novel way to solve the problem.

For example, Newton and Leibniz did not invent calculus. They discovered it while working on infinitesimal sequences, trying to unify geometry and algebra-math that had been around for hundreds of years (though much different than today). They took what they knew and approached an unanswered question (the orbits of celestial bodies) in a novel way using existing tools. This forced them to develop a new language.

This is probably the most extreme example. Most discoveries in mathematics don't involve rewriting the whole language. For example, the brilliant mathematicians working on the twin primes conjecture are not really inventing anything new. They are simply using existing mathematics in a novel way, creating new ideas in the process.

 

[libertyyne]

It varies... algebraists describe new ways of adding and multiplying numbers, topologists describe manifolds (shapes) in n dimensions, number theorists discover different types of inifinites among many other things. All very rigorous, using weird symbols and writing 20 page proofs with a consistent flow of logic. As to how they come up with it, I guess they read a lot of literature, drink a lot of coffee, and scribble on a chalkboard for 10 hours a day until they come up with something.

Really dry stuff, more power to the people who get off to it.

That's probably because it's a flawed question. You don't create new math. Much like biologists discovered evolution, mathematicians discover things in math. The easiest way to say it is basically when something novel is discovered in math, it is because the discoverer had a deep understanding of the problem and the existing groundwork, then found a novel way to solve the problem.

For example, Newton and Leibniz did not invent calculus. They discovered it while working on infinitesimal sequences, trying to unify geometry and algebra-math that had been around for hundreds of years (though much different than today). They took what they knew and approached an unanswered question (the orbits of celestial bodies) in a novel way using existing tools. This forced them to develop a new language.

This is probably the most extreme example. Most discoveries in mathematics don't involve rewriting the whole language. For example, the brilliant mathematicians working on the twin primes conjecture are not really inventing anything new. They are simply using existing mathematics in a novel way, creating new ideas in the process.

So who deals with uncertainty and risk and chaos? I suppose you pure math folks look down upon stats folks. I was just reading The Drunkards walk and it was fascinating on how everything came together in probability theory and that Einsteins most cited paper was on the theory of stochastic processes.

 

[raiderette]

Life is short. I took psych and had chemistry and philosophy as minors. Study what you love.
That course you took in college will only cover 1-2 weeks of med school.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

So who deals with uncertainty and risk and chaos? I suppose you pure math folks look down upon stats folks. I was just reading The Drunkards walk and it was fascinating on how everything came together in probability theory and that Einsteins most cited paper was on the theory of stochastic processes.

Actually, most of the negative views of stats people I've heard is from the stats people, lol. Bunch of self-deprecating folks.

Even Einstein didn't do anything without building upon those who came before him (standing on the shoulders of giants, one might say 😉 ).

I'm actually not much of a pure math guy. I do enjoy it academically, but my research is all in game theory and mathematical biology.

 

[Lawpy]

That's probably because it's a flawed question. You don't create new math. Much like biologists discovered evolution, mathematicians discover things in math. The easiest way to say it is basically when something novel is discovered in math, it is because the discoverer had a deep understanding of the problem and the existing groundwork, then found a novel way to solve the problem.

For example, Newton and Leibniz did not invent calculus. They discovered it while working on infinitesimal sequences, trying to unify geometry and algebra-math that had been around for hundreds of years (though much different than today). They took what they knew and approached an unanswered question (the orbits of celestial bodies) in a novel way using existing tools. This forced them to develop a new language.

This is probably the most extreme example. Most discoveries in mathematics don't involve rewriting the whole language. For example, the brilliant mathematicians working on the twin primes conjecture are not really inventing anything new. They are simply using existing mathematics in a novel way, creating new ideas in the process.

Spoken like a sincere platonist

I'm biased because I think math is just a tool invented to describe physical phenomena. That's why the leading math pioneers had been physicists and natural philosophers... until around the 19th century when Karl Weierstrass and colleagues decided to completely reform mathematics to establish a philosophy and science of its own.

While stuff from differential geometry, abstract algebra and number theory have had applications in theoretical physics, I think whatever discoveries being made in physics + chemistry + engineering etc. are also shaping and expanding the mathematical field (numerical analysis being a good example).

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Spoken like a sincere platonist

I'm biased because I think math is just a tool invented to describe physical phenomena. That's why the leading math pioneers happen to be physicists and natural philosophers... until around the 19th century when Karl Weierstrass and colleagues decided to reform mathematics to establish a philosophy and science of its own.

The early pioneers of math were physicists because it really required practical problems that required an extensive mathematical language. But the field of mathematics has been pioneered by mathematicians, and many problems in physics are being answered totally or partially by mathematicians (paging Professor Tao). Call it returning the favor. 😉

But yes, mathematics is a language, and it's great at describing the physical world. That doesn't discount the amazing things being done in pure math. It just makes math that much more awesome. 😀