Liberal art majors in med school?

[asimhaqq00]

I was wondering if people who majored in liberal arts will have a more difficult time in medical school? For ex if somebody majors in economics or political science or history would medical school be more difficult for them than somebody who majored in biology?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Law2Doc]

I was wondering if people who majored in liberal arts will have a more difficult time in medical school? For ex if somebody majors in economics or political science or history would medical school be more difficult for them than somebody who majored in biology?

No. As long as you did well in the prereqs you are fine. Thats all med school really expects you to show up with as background, and most college courses that go beyond these aren't well targeted to what you actually need to know in med school. Folks who were biochem etc majors like to tell themselves they gave themselves some advantage, but in truth both the science and non science majors do similarly in med school with some of each in the top, middle and bottom of the class in more or less normal distribution. When I was in med school many of the non science majors went on to competitive residencies, and the couple of people who dropped/failed out of med school were science majors. The amount of advantage college courses give in med school is minimal and short lived, and the latter two years of med school emphasize a very different skill set anyhow. I wouldn't sweat it.

 

[Kilgoretrout 65]

I was wondering if people who majored in liberal arts will have a more difficult time in medical school? For ex if somebody majors in economics or political science or history would medical school be more difficult for them than somebody who majored in biology?

As long as you take the core required classes to apply, can memorize trivia for multiple choice tests, you should be fine. A liberal arts major should be better at reading a lot of material and synthesizing the message.

 

[Textbookversion]

I was wondering if people who majored in liberal arts will have a more difficult time in medical school? For ex if somebody majors in economics or political science or history would medical school be more difficult for them than somebody who majored in biology?

Doesn't really matter.

The one class I think that does help though is anatomy. Which doesn't have much to do with what major you are.

 

[Nesir]

Doesn't really matter.

The one class I think that does help though is anatomy. Which doesn't have much to do with what major you are.

I went to a liberal arts school. Majored in Econ. Took the bare minimum to apply. (My school didn't even have an Anatomy class!)

I'm in a top 25 med school now, pretty much through my third year, and I would have to say that 100%, I have had no more trouble than any of my other classmates.

Bottom line, there is no real preparing for med school (do you even use the physics you learned anymore? Maybe a little V=IR and every now and then the Law of Laplace when someones Cecum blows up during endoscopy)

 

[yehhhboiii]

If you're a liberal arts major, you might have to spend some more time with concepts that your biology major peers already understand. It may be easier to do metabolism if you've memorized the Krebs cycle before.

 

[Work]

If you're a liberal arts major, you might have to spend some more time with concepts that your biology major peers already understand. It may be easier to do metabolism if you've memorized the Krebs cycle before.

I agree with this. I've found that a lot of the minutiae that I learned in undergrad has helped me understand things that other people without that background would have had to memorize. I can't think of an example right now, but I feel like it's happened a lot. I think even having taken physics has helped me in med school.

 

[Lefty Doodle]

I was a liberal arts major who did the bare minimum prereqs to get in. The first month was kind of hard because I wasn't used to a lot of the scientific terms and it felt like we just kind of dove into some subjects and were expected to figure it out ourselves. At the beginning of biochem I definitely felt like most people knew way better what was going on, but I was scoring 10-15% above the class average by the last 3 biochem exams (metabolism=sheer memorization). I think you just have to have faith that your medical school knows what it is doing when it accepts you. There are some weeks when I am like "WHAT?" but most of us are capable of more than we think.

Obviously there are very very smart people in medical school who comprise the top of the class, but it's mainly because they were born that way, not because they majored in science .

 

[Porfirio]

I was wondering if people who majored in liberal arts will have a more difficult time in medical school? For ex if somebody majors in economics or political science or history would medical school be more difficult for them than somebody who majored in biology?

Depends, but I would vote yes.

I say that because this is the first time you have seen the majority of the material.

Someone like me (Biology major) could have taken classes such as; biochemistry, anatomy/phyiso, virology, immunology, medical microbiology, microbiology. However, it is rare that most Biology majors took all of these harder science classes. Most Biology majors do the bare minimum and take easy classes to pad their GPA. In that case, you are equal to them.

 

[PatchAdamsFan]

Are you joking? Show me a biology major who can get away with the 'bare minimum', as in intro classes, and I'll show you a dump of a school. As far as I know, all the UC's require advanced classes for science majors, and are difficult indeed. However, (and I'm not a medical student, but I have many, many friends who are) the classes in medical school are far beyond what undergraduate centers teach anyway, so the field is more or less even, given your determination.

ps. I took all of those classes, plus advanced protein traffic among others, as a requirement from the school.

 

[Porfirio]

Are you joking? Show me a biology major who can get away with the 'bare minimum', as in intro classes, and I'll show you a dump of a school. As far as I know, all the UC's require advanced classes for science majors, and are difficult indeed. However, (and I'm not a medical student, but I have many, many friends who are) the classes in medical school are far beyond what undergraduate centers teach anyway, so the field is more or less even, given your determination.

ps. I took all of those classes, plus advanced protein traffic among others, as a requirement from the school.

There are many different "tracks" for a Biology major. Notice how my list did not have any botany, psychology, or the like? I did not mean "bare minimum" as intro level classes, but gaming the system to take easy upper level science classes. I apologize for not clearly explaining "bare minimum."

Not a medical student but you know someone who is, congrats bonus points for authority on a subject. I am a medical student. Medical school classes have not been "far beyond" what undergraduate centers teach. (Well, maybe the UC's by your statement?)

Again I speak from my experience (it is different for everyone), medical school is undergraduate+MCAT+sprinkles of new details related to old concepts.

 

[perplexedpixel]

As a former biochemistry major, I think I had an advantage in medical school only in the basic science curriculum (especially the biochemistry and immunology module) because some of our preclinical modules isn't taught very well. However, if you have good study skills and can memorize things well, you'll be fine. In my class, we have non-science majors who excel and get inducted into AOA, and some science majors who had to drop out for academic difficulty. It might be tougher in the beginning, as people who memorized the Krebs cycle or the clusters of differentiation on immune cells might have an early advantage, but it all evens out as the material becomes more clinical and less rooted in biochemistry and cell biology. Hard work and efficient studying can definitely make up a lot. Remember that even as a humanities or social science major, you can take a few science classes (cell biology, biochemistry, immunology) if you're worried about being at a disadvantage. Good luck!

 

[Perrotfish]

The only Undergraduate class I took that gave me any significant advantage in medical school was Spanish.

 

[Cinclus]

Since you take the necessary prereqs, you should be fine. We have tons of liberal arts majors in my class, and they're all doing just fine.

 

[eject]

I think it's not quite right to say that liberal arts majors are at a disadvantage; the major itself isn't as important as the actual undergraduate class experience. I would say that undergraduates who get a real background in human physiology, biochemistry, micro, anatomy, etc have an edge--at least that's what I observed. But there weren't very many people like that--even among the science majors.

 

[alienwares]

I find these responses interesting. So far it seems like students with a decent anatomy, biochemistry, immunology, and/or cell biology background have a significant advantage in those parts of the curriculum. I only took A&P, and found it very helpful to an extent.

Immunology in particular has been a bit of a nightmare for me so far. I definitely wish I'd seen the material before.

 

[Kevin Baker]

You might have a harder time in the basic science classes as you may have not been exposed to much in the prereqs. Once you get to systems and classes few people have had before, that disadvantage diminishes significantly.

 

[Evergrey]

As a liberal arts major I would say that everyone is on an even playing field. I never noticed that I had a disadvantage because of my college background, except for the most basic of science coursework (and therefore least clinically- and boards-relevant). However, what I *have* noticed is that I find the pedagogy of med school downright awful, which may or may not be because of the many fantastic lecturers and seminars I had as an undergrad. So I probably spend more time frustrated with the teaching than the average medical student.

Oh, and if you decide to do basic science research, like I did, you're gonna have the hardest time learning lab techniques that are considered easy by science majors. I still enjoy it though.

 

[Wordead]

Everyone at my school did about the same, although I will say that the liberal arts majors did sometimes have problems with the scientific "style of thinking", if that makes any sense. Like they would ask questions that would make everyone else just go what on earth is running through your head? That doesn't even begin to make sense. In the end though they get to the same point.

 

[Dave89]

Shouldn't make much difference, but whatever you do: take biochemistry. It will save you some grief when starting med school, and really helps ease the transition.

 

[ucladoc2b]

If you have had some of the coursework before, you may have an advantage. You may not remember every detail, but you will have some familiarity with the concepts and some of the scientific principles behind them. This background may enable you learn the material more quickly than your English major classmate.

This advantage will really be specific to your previous coursework and your medical school basic science curriculum.

My school uses a completly integrated curriculum (we have a five week "foundations" block and jump right in to organ systems). Honestly, had I had a basic phys, cell bio, and biochem class before I jumped in to med school, it would have been much easier (that and my school was implementing a new curriculum the year I started making it even more challenging).

I will offer this last point. You will still work hard regardless of major (some may have to work harder, though).

 

[JABWS]

I tend to disagree with the idea that everyone is on an even playing field. It's not that I think you'll necessarily do worse as a liberal arts major in comparison to a science major, but you'll definitely have to work a little harder at times. 100%, without a doubt, the advanced level biology courses I took as an undergraduate have helped me in medical school. A lot of topics we cover in class I've already been introduced to, and not only that, but more often than not I learned it in much more detail than what's being taught on the medical school level. So it's obviously easier for me to learn/study certain material. That's just how it works. Reviewing something for the second or even third time is always easier than learning it initially, and it really helps given the volume of material in med school.

Just to reiterate, I don't think a student's background defines them, but you're kidding yourself if you discount the very real advantage someone with a science major has over someone who only took the pre-reqs.

Edit: Love what ucladoc said above me. Regardless of your background, you have to work hard if you want to do well, no question about it.

 

[Law2Doc]

I find these responses interesting. So far it seems like students with a decent anatomy, biochemistry, immunology, and/or cell biology background have a significant advantage in those parts of the curriculum...:

Change the word "significant" to "minimal, bordering on nonexistent".

Some of the posts seem to me like ridiculous attempts by science majors to justify their own paths. How do you say you had an advantage when you there are plenty of non science majors ahead of you on the curve? The Krebs cycle? please. A lot of us covered this in the prereqs anyhow, and even then it took about an hour to commit to memory. That kind of stuff isn't an advantage at all. If you took the prereqs and did okay on the MCAT you should do fine. Pretty much anyone telling you they had any sort of significant advantage is a gunner trying to get into your head. Med school is a lot of work for everyone.

 

[Akali]

If you manage to get into med school you won't be that disadvantaged. You'll probably have a slightly difficult time just because of lack of recognition of certain things will cause you to spend a little more time looking things up.

Everyone has difficulty keeping up with the material. I've had some people tell me that they perceive they're having a harder time because they didn't major in science. Probably true, but everyone finds med school hard as hell.

Also, people who just got masters in things like biochemistry or anatomy actually really do have an easy time with units in their respective courses. That's why you find those people and make them teach you everything

 

[Law2Doc]

If you have had some of the coursework before, you may have an advantage. You may not remember every detail, but you will have some familiarity with the concepts and some of the scientific principles behind them. This background may enable you learn the material more quickly than your English major classmate...).

Meh. More often thinking you already know the material results in a much more cursory review of it in med school, which can put you at a big disadvantage to the person who spends the time learning it more currently. Or maybe you learned it wrong the first time -- sometimes college "versions" of some if these courses don't jibe well with med school version. There's a reason that half the bio majors in med school still end up in the bottom half of the class.

 

[Brent8927]

I agree with Law2Doc--I don't think there's that much of an advantage in taking more science courses, unless you're interested in MD/PhD. I think it's better to diversify. I was a photography major and haven't had any problems in med school. I did a post-bac, and during my glide year I took quantum mechanics, for fun.

Take the basic pre-reqs, and then take courses in whatever fancies your interest. If you love biology, by all means go at it. But undergrad will be your last chance to learn a lot of things, so now is the time to take that anthropology class, or Romance literature course, Baroque Art, sculpture, public speaking (everyone should take that...), religious studies, etc.

I'd also like to add you generally read more as a liberal arts major--that comes in really handy when studying in medical school. Plus you'd be surprised how many patients you'll be able to relate to. And residency interviewers--I was talking with one interviewer about quantum mechanics. At every interview my undergrad major came up (in a good way) because I stood out from the other applicants. That's not why I majored in photography, but still, it's something to consider.

Looking back, it probably wouldn't hurt to take some courses that would compliment medical training. Such as business, ethics, law, and most importantly, SPANISH!! If I could go back, I'd have taken Spanish every quarter of undergrad. It's one thing to learn medical Spanish, it's a whole other ballgame when you can actually talk to a Spanish-only speaker as a human being. I really wish I were fluent, and the further you go on in your training, the harder it gets to really master new things, because of time constraints.

 

[gravitywave]

There is a body of literature on this. It has been studied pretty extensively.

There is some weak evidence that non-science majors may struggle a little more in the basic sciences, but it's also at least as good for making the case that non-science people may have a slight advantage in the clinical years. The overwhelming conclusion is that undergraduate major makes no difference overall, and that performance in med school is tied to prior academic performance generally, regardless of major. Here's a recent review.

If there was really a difference then the admissions people would have noticed by now and acted accordingly. I happen to think that the non-science majors may have to work a little harder at some things preclinically, but that it doesn't tend to have any impact on the overall outcome. I took biochem as an undergrad and the last two lectures on metabolism ended up being all the preview I got for well over half of the biochem I had in med school.

 

[JABWS]

Change the word "significant" to "minimal, bordering on nonexistent".

Some of the posts seem to me like ridiculous attempts by science majors to justify their own paths. How do you say you had an advantage when you there are plenty of non science majors ahead of you on the curve? The Krebs cycle? please. A lot of us covered this in the prereqs anyhow, and even then it took about an hour to commit to memory. That kind of stuff isn't an advantage at all. If you took the prereqs and did okay on the MCAT you should do fine. Pretty much anyone telling you they had any sort of significant advantage is a gunner trying to get into your head. Med school is a lot of work for everyone.

This is simply untrue. I'm not a gunner, nor do I have any desire to justify my own path. If anyone is trying to justify their path, it's you. I was a Biology major and then I went to medical school, what's there to justify? I would like to point out that having an advantage doesn't guarantee you anything. Also, you have no idea where I or anyone else who has commented on this thread is on the curve.

No one is saying that you will automatically do better if you have a science background, but you are most certainly at an advantage, particularly in first year, where a lot of what you're being presented is basic science. Also, no one is saying that you won't do "fine" with another background. You can do extremely well with any background as long as you put in the work. That's something everyone can agree upon, but don't tell me that having taken two advanced level cell biology classes doesn't put me at an advantage when taking cell biology in medical school. Or the three semesters of physiology/anatomy doesn't help me in those classes. It's an advantage, look up the definition. It doesn't necessarily imply a handicap for anyone else, nor does it guarantee success, but it helps, especially in light of the volume of material in medical school.

How significant of an advantage, well that's up for debate.

 

[Danbo1957]

Of course major matters. If two students are "equal in all other facets", I want the Biology major, not the Art History major.

 

[ucladoc2b]

Meh. More often thinking you already know the material results in a much more cursory review of it in med school, which can put you at a big disadvantage to the person who spends the time learning it more currently. Or maybe you learned it wrong the first time -- sometimes college "versions" of some if these courses don't jibe well with med school version. There's a reason that half the bio majors in med school still end up in the bottom half of the class.

Can easily go the other way, too. Individual work ethic plays a big role.

Medicine is like anything else. Understanding concepts is much easier when you have a foundation.

Likely, as eveyone else gets up to speed, the advantage disappears.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

Of course major matters. If two students are "equal in all other facets", I want the Biology major, not the Art History major.

Absolutely not. The Art History major will be way more interesting to talk to. There's no real disadvantage (Theater major 4+ years out from some of the pre-reqs by the time I matriculated into med school - a top 10 school). As somebody mentioned, to only problem is basic science research. But if you're not into that, there's really no difference.

 

[Dave89]

Absolutely not. The Art History major will be way more interesting to talk to. There's no real disadvantage (Theater major 4+ years out from some of the pre-reqs by the time I matriculated into med school - a top 10 school). As somebody mentioned, to only problem is basic science research. But if you're not into that, there's really no difference.

You don't need to have a liberal arts background to be interesting. Some of us actually have hobbies outside of school

Also, I can probably count on one hand the number of people I know who'd be interested in discussing art history... ever.

 

[Brent8927]

Of course major matters. If two students are "equal in all other facets", I want the Biology major, not the Art History major.

I have always heard the opposite from those on the admissions committee--they feel bio majors are "a dime a dozen" (their words, not mine) and would take the art history major. Still, that's just my experience, and others can chime in.

OP, I think the point is to major in what you enjoy and/or would be willing to pursue if you don't get into medical school. Med school is designed for those who only took the pre-reqs. Will you have a bit easier of a time if you take biochem and anatomy? Probably. But will it be significant? No, not really. Unless you waste away your undergrad years studying as hard as you will in medical school, all the classmates I know who took some of the above courses during undergrad said their undergrad anatomy course was nothing compared to medical school anatomy, etc.

So, only take the course if you're interested in it--otherwise, why waste time learning something you're just going to learn again? Instead, learn something you'll never have the chance to learn again.

 

[Brent8927]

You don't need to have a liberal arts background to be interesting. Some of us actually have hobbies outside of school

Also, I can probably count on one hand the number of people I know who'd be interested in discussing art history... ever.

I agree you don't need to have a liberal arts background to be interesting--Richard Feynman is proof of that.

Speaking of Feynman, I've met more physicians who want to talk about physics than any other subject...

 

[FulfilledDeer]

You don't need to have a liberal arts background to be interesting. Some of us actually have hobbies outside of school

Also, I can probably count on one hand the number of people I know who'd be interested in discussing art history... ever.

Yeah, that was just reactionary of me. I guess the point is you can't generalize. Some Bio majors will drop out, and some Art History majors are dull....or eccentric. But not in a good way.

 

[Wordead]

Absolutely not. The Art History major will be way more interesting to talk to. There's no real disadvantage (Theater major 4+ years out from some of the pre-reqs by the time I matriculated into med school - a top 10 school). As somebody mentioned, to only problem is basic science research. But if you're not into that, there's really no difference.

The question is whether or not an Art History major would be at an academic disadvantage, not whether they'd be super interesting. Nor is "more likely to be admitted" relevant - I think we all know that admissions criteria are nebulous at best and downright idiotic at worst.

 

[HughMyron]

Of course major matters. If two students are "equal in all other facets", I want the Biology major, not the Art History major.

Perhaps a lowly incoming MS1 like me not supposed to talk like this to an Attending, but I don't give a crap. This statement offended me. Why even prefer one or the other?

Look, if an Art History major has proven he can rock the MCAT and demolish the curve on Biochemistry and Cell Bio, why discriminate against him? He's obviously proven his competence in several, very diverse fields.

I was that Art History major, except in Philosophy. I scored a 35 MCAT, the second highest grade out of 200 people in Organic Chemistry Laboratory, and the I set curves in Biochemistry. And I love Philosophy. So? How can you even say that I'm inferior to a Biology major just because I have a BA instead of a BS?


Typing on my phone, or I would have put out a wall of rage. Anyways, I'm sure adcoms would take the lib arts major. Anyone can be a Bio major and apply to med school. Very few people can major in the Classics or History and still top the class in Molecular Biology.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

The question is whether or not an Art History major would be at an academic disadvantage, not whether they'd be super interesting. Nor is "more likely to be admitted" relevant - I think we all know that admissions criteria are nebulous at best and downright idiotic at worst.

So that was half my point (facetious and retracted). The other half was I think there's no disadvantage - I am not speaking about admissions, but my personal experience in med school.

 

[yehhhboiii]

Perhaps a lowly incoming MS1 like me not supposed to talk like this to an Attending, but I don't give a crap. This statement offended me. Why even prefer one or the other?

Look, if an Art History major has proven he can rock the MCAT and demolish the curve on Biochemistry and Cell Bio, why discriminate against him? He's obviously proven his competence in several, very diverse fields.

I was that Art History major, except in Philosophy. I scored a 35 MCAT, the second highest grade out of 200 in Organic Chemistry Laboratory, and the I set curves in Biochemistry. And I love Philosophy. So? How can you even say that I'm inferior to a Biology major just because I have a BA instead of a BS?


Typing on my phone, or I would have put out a wall of rage.

It's easy to do well in science classes when you're not taking 4 at a time.

 

[HughMyron]

It's easy to do well in science classes when you're not taking 4 at a time.

You act as if Lib Arts classes are a cakewalk. What experience do you have to back that claim up? Just so you know, the Bacc Core classes are a lot easier than the ones for majors.

I can honestly say that writing 15-page term papers was just as difficult as memorizing enzymes and their substrates in pathway after pathway. Hell, I think I spent more time on the papers than the Biochem crap.

 

[pdxhopeful]

I don't think there's a significant difference - the liberal arts major still had to have enough science classes to fulfil the prereqs and score well on the MCAT. A bio major has the advantage of greater prior exposure to some of the material, while my classmates who were lib arts majors have the advantage of being more comfortable with ambiguity and situations where there isn't *a* right answer (which, kinda comes up a lot IRL)

 

[Law2Doc]

It's easy to do well in science classes when you're not taking 4 at a time.

It's foolish to take 4 at a time when you can get into med school taking one. Maybe even more foolish to take any in med school when you can puck them all up in a postbac later, without tge distractions of college.

Again you are trying to justify a certain path. Most science majors Will readily admit they wouldn't do well in a curriculum full of essay tests and term papers. Thus saying "my path was harder so I am more prepared" sounds like desperation here.

 

[Law2Doc]

Of course major matters. If two students are "equal in all other facets", I want the Biology major, not the Art History major.

Adcoms seek a diverse class that still shows success in the prereqs. There was a time when all premeds were bio/biochem majors, and since then a conscious decision was made that exclusively recruiting these majors tended not to generate the most desirable doctors. So yeah, since there are fewer art history majors in the applicant pool, they tend to be much more in demand by adcoms. If all things are equal (never the case, by the way), the art history major wins hands down.

 

[yehhhboiii]

It's foolish to take 4 at a time when you can get into med school taking one. Maybe even more foolish to take any in med school when you can puck them all up in a postbac later, without tge distractions of college.

Again you are trying to justify a certain path. Most science majors Will readily admit they wouldn't do well in a curriculum full of essay tests and term papers. Thus saying "my path was harder so I am more prepared" sounds like desperation here.

Ah yes. The desire for knowledge. How foolish. If you haven't seen a topic before, it's going to be more difficult to learn it. It's "not my classes were harder" but "I saw this material before" that makes you more prepared. You're not going to convince me that it's more difficult to regurgitate people's ideas off of sparknotes and wikipedia than it is to memorize a bevy of scientific facts. I don't see how people who choose to study science are inherently less able to write essays and term papers even if you choose to make an unjustified claim about what "most science majors" would say. Those Nature papers don't write themselves. Then again, perhaps laboratories hire those incomparably useful art history majors to do it for them.

 

[JABWS]

It's foolish to take 4 at a time when you can get into med school taking one. Maybe even more foolish to take any in med school when you can puck them all up in a postbac later, without tge distractions of college.

Again you are trying to justify a certain path. Most science majors Will readily admit they wouldn't do well in a curriculum full of essay tests and term papers. Thus saying "my path was harder so I am more prepared" sounds like desperation here.

Once again, you're putting words in people's mouths. When did anyone say "my path was harder so I am more prepared?" All we're saying is that our path more closely aligns with what is taught in medical school, therefore we have a strong foundation and find many topics easier than if we were having to learn them for the first time.

Seriously, do you always speak strictly using generalities. Somehow you seem to know what all or most biology majors think, how they rank amongst their peers, and how their background is more detrimental than beneficial. But at the same time, you also know what it's like as a non-science major?? And apparently you've spoken with all adcom members, because you lump them into one category and then speak on their behalf as well.

And then you say it's foolish to take 4 science classes when you can get into medical school taking one. This may be hard for you to understand, but that's a typical schedule for a science major, and some people study science for other reasons than solely to get into medical school.

Finally, to reiterate yehhhboiii's comments, science majors actually do quite a bit of writing. I know you may not have experienced this in the 3-4 freshman level pre-reqs you completed, but most advanced level science courses are writing intensive. That is, after all, what scientists do, you know.

So why don't you stop speaking for everyone else and restrict your comments to subjects with which you have some legitimate experience. Thanks.

 

[Wordead]

Comparing humanities classes to sciences classes in difficulty? You must be joking. I took upper level lit and history classes and they were about 20% of the difficulty of a d.bio or differential equations class (which are basically just one step above med school re-reqs).

 

[KinasePro]

There's probably an advantage for bio majors in med school, but the practical manifestation is that they just don't have to work as hard for their genetics/ biochem/ immunology scores as, say, a history student will.

Everyone is still responsible for the same material, but if they took 3 immunology courses as an undergrad, you can imagine how med school immunology will be pretty straight forward for them.

It's definitely a limited advantage though... the playing field is fairly level in pathology, physio, anatomy and pharm. But the classmates of mine who did undergrad coursework in immuno, neuroscience, biochem, genetics, and micro had an easier time with the coursework than those of us who were seeing it for the first time. More often than not, their undergrad courses taught the material in greater depth & quality than our medical school lecturers did.

 

[inspirationmd]

This is simply untrue. I'm not a gunner, nor do I have any desire to justify my own path. If anyone is trying to justify their path, it's you. I was a Biology major and then I went to medical school, what's there to justify? I would like to point out that having an advantage doesn't guarantee you anything. Also, you have no idea where I or anyone else who has commented on this thread is on the curve.

No one is saying that you will automatically do better if you have a science background, but you are most certainly at an advantage, particularly in first year, where a lot of what you're being presented is basic science. Also, no one is saying that you won't do "fine" with another background. You can do extremely well with any background as long as you put in the work. That's something everyone can agree upon, but don't tell me that having taken two advanced level cell biology classes doesn't put me at an advantage when taking cell biology in medical school. Or the three semesters of physiology/anatomy doesn't help me in those classes. It's an advantage, look up the definition. It doesn't necessarily imply a handicap for anyone else, nor does it guarantee success, but it helps, especially in light of the volume of material in medical school.

How significant of an advantage, well that's up for debate.

Agree. I was a double non-science major and took the bare minimum pre-med courses. So were quite a few of my friends. I think we had to work far harder than our science major friends early on to learn the basic sciences though I think it was a tad easier in the clinical years for us with regard to understanding different types of patients. Non-science majors I think are a bit more well rounded than science majors on average but you aren't going to care about that initially in med school.

Fact is if you took more advanced courses in physiology, genetics, biochem, immunology, etc you are going to have a easier time in the basic science years on average. You will be at a higher baseline than your non-science bare minimum pre-req classmates. This can translate to an extra hour or two to learn that random crap your Professor's research is on for the extra 6 points on the details of his esoteric interests. This translates to making it easier to get Honors getting you closer to AOA. It makes no sense to say that if you spent time in advanced and/or grad level physiology courses you wasted your time and have no advantage. Now with hard work as a non-science major with bare minimum pre-reqs you can overcome the advantage. You just have to work harder.

As another example, someone who does a surgical fellowship after gen surgery is going to be better at certain types of cases than there peer who just did Gen Surg. They both have the baseline traning to be excellent surgeons but one simply has more exposure which will help for those early years of attending practice. The non-fellowship trained person may approach the level of mastery with additional time dedicated to those types cases (and certain will be proficient) but again more training equals more exposure. In 4 years of med school where every class can matter depending on what you go into every advantage helps.

My recommendation is to at least add an advanced biocem and physiology course in college which would probably be the two most useful ones in my opinion. Particularly, advanced Physio knowledge equals easer time on Step 1 equals better residency prospects. Also serves you well for pimping on floors. Again you can get this by studying harder but the question was whether there is an intial advantage for science majors and I personally think there is.

 

[HughMyron]

There are non-sci majors who DON'T take advanced classes in Biochem, Genetics, etc (no offense meant)? Oh, well, I can see how that might be a problem then. Our school made every premed take those classes if they wanted a committee letter, so I just thought everyone was supposed to.

Comparing humanities classes to sciences classes in difficulty? You must be joking. I took upper level lit and history classes and they were about 20% of the difficulty of a d.bio or differential equations class (which are basically just one step above med school re-reqs).

I'm not kidding. Lib Arts depends a lot on the professors you get. Some of their classes can be complete jokes. Others are as difficult as, if not more than, 400-level science classes.

 

[Kaputt]

My science major was very helpful for med school, especially my immunology, embryology, anatomy, and microbiology classes.

Lots of folks are brilliant in med school, and some of them were liberal arts majors. They would have done wonderfully in school no matter what their major was. But for us normal folks, it helps a lot to already know the major vocabulary for some of the basic science stuff. All I needed for some subjects (like immuno) was to just brush up on the details because I remembered a good number of over-arching concepts.