Med School Profs

[capnamerica]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hello,

Premed here. I am just curious as to how you are finding your profs in med school on the whole. I ask because I was taking immunology this semester, but I dropped it because PERSONALLY I found the profs teaching style to just suck outright. She is a smart woman, I'll give her that, but she doesn't indicate what is testable material and what is material from frequent tangents she goes on. Also, I didn't like the text (Kuby Immuno), which many apparently like, but I didn't. It didn't really seem to start by focusing on the broader picture. I felt that it jumped right into specific stuff.

But anyways, that's my take on it. Your thoughts?

 

[DrBowtie]

Well, there isn't any dropping courses, so you're basically stuck with your profs and many of them will be terrible. You'll either not come to class anymore and find ways to learn the material outside of their lectures, or you'll just grit your teeth and force yourself to listen.

 

[dude1344]

Get used to it. Everything is "testable material."

 

[MossPoh]

I was never one to understand why people complained about stuff like that. I was always taught that they expected you to learn on your own and you showed up to get things clarified. What is or isn't on the exam is a moot point. You just study everything and figure out what is the highest yield. For the most part, you can see what is the most important by looking for repeating themes or checking out websites and other books to see what they focus on a lot.

Really, I don't care about how our professors are because I rarely go to lecture, nor do I even watch the lectures usually. One can spit off that whole "auditory versus visual versus blah blah blah" learner stuff (which really hasn't been proven) but in the end, you have to take your education into your own hands. You aren't going to get professors for your CME credits and most of the stuff after your first 2 years isn't going to be learned in a lecture hall.

So short answer is, everything is testable so really, it is quite easy to study when you know every word, diagram and picture on the powerpoint (and maybe from a book) is testable. In reality, one can decipher what is most important by powerpoints, first aid or maybe a board type review book.

 

[fishsticks2629]

Get used to it. Everything is "testable material."

Im curious about this statement. In undergrad (state U) a lot of classes would spoon food you what would be on the test or explain what key concepts you should know. They hand out review sheets indicating what was fair game.

In med school do they just say, "chapters 1-25 will be on the test", in which EVERYTHING is "testable material". I am aware that it depends on the school and prof, but generally speaking what do most ask?

 

[LetThemEatCake]

I was never one to understand why people complained about stuff like that. I was always taught that they expected you to learn on your own and you showed up to get things clarified. What is or isn't on the exam is a moot point. You just study everything and figure out what is the highest yield. For the most part, you can see what is the most important by looking for repeating themes or checking out websites and other books to see what they focus on a lot.

Really, I don't care about how our professors are because I rarely go to lecture, nor do I even watch the lectures usually. One can spit off that whole "auditory versus visual versus blah blah blah" learner stuff (which really hasn't been proven) but in the end, you have to take your education into your own hands. You aren't going to get professors for your CME credits and most of the stuff after your first 2 years isn't going to be learned in a lecture hall.

So short answer is, everything is testable so really, it is quite easy to study when you know every word, diagram and picture on the powerpoint (and maybe from a book) is testable. In reality, one can decipher what is most important by powerpoints, first aid or maybe a board type review book.

You are truly brilliant. Anyone who does not see it, fails to understand the implication underlying your logic and foresight. Beautiful. See you at the top.

 

[UTlonghorn]

Im curious about this statement. In undergrad (state U) a lot of classes would spoon food you what would be on the test or explain what key concepts you should know. They hand out review sheets indicating what was fair game.

In med school do they just say, "chapters 1-25 will be on the test", in which EVERYTHING is "testable material". I am aware that it depends on the school and prof, but generally speaking what do most ask?

Yes.

You're presented with a crapload of lectures, and everything is fair game. While professors often present the objectives of lectures, it is extremely rare for them to tell you what you should know. They expect you as medical students (who will one day have to be knowledgable docs) to know it all.

 

[capnamerica]

Hmm...Now I'm starting to think that a benefit of PBL is lack of lecturers who go on tangents. But then I wonder, what are you tested on in PBL. I know at some schools, you get marked on your performance in PBL sessions, but are there also tests and exams in courses as evaluations, or is it just the PBL sessions?

 

[Dwindlin]

I was never one to understand why people complained about stuff like that. I was always taught that they expected you to learn on your own and you showed up to get things clarified. What is or isn't on the exam is a moot point. You just study everything and figure out what is the highest yield. For the most part, you can see what is the most important by looking for repeating themes or checking out websites and other books to see what they focus on a lot.

Really, I don't care about how our professors are because I rarely go to lecture, nor do I even watch the lectures usually. One can spit off that whole "auditory versus visual versus blah blah blah" learner stuff (which really hasn't been proven) but in the end, you have to take your education into your own hands. You aren't going to get professors for your CME credits and most of the stuff after your first 2 years isn't going to be learned in a lecture hall.

So short answer is, everything is testable so really, it is quite easy to study when you know every word, diagram and picture on the powerpoint (and maybe from a book) is testable. In reality, one can decipher what is most important by powerpoints, first aid or maybe a board type review book.

👍

 

[omgyou8myrice]

Are we in the same immuno class? 🙄

 

[Ok2Panic]

Hello,

Premed here. I am just curious as to how you are finding your profs in med school on the whole. I ask because I was taking immunology this semester, but I dropped it because PERSONALLY I found the profs teaching style to just suck outright. She is a smart woman, I'll give her that, but she doesn't indicate what is testable material and what is material from frequent tangents she goes on. Also, I didn't like the text (Kuby Immuno), which many apparently like, but I didn't. It didn't really seem to start by focusing on the broader picture. I felt that it jumped right into specific stuff.

But anyways, that's my take on it. Your thoughts?

I just wanted to second what was already said here, even moreso because I was definitely one of the "My profs suck, I'm dropping this class" type during undergrad. The quality of professors is just so immaterial that it's just a complete waste of time to even complain about it. Whether the lecturer sucked or was fabulous, you have to know the material all the same so

 

[Ilovewater]

Im curious about this statement. In undergrad (state U) a lot of classes would spoon food you what would be on the test or explain what key concepts you should know. They hand out review sheets indicating what was fair game.

In med school do they just say, "chapters 1-25 will be on the test", in which EVERYTHING is "testable material". I am aware that it depends on the school and prof, but generally speaking what do most ask?

Pretty much. Our exams always contain a few questions that ask for the smallest details you can imagine, so you just make sure you know everything in the syllabus (if you are given one) including pictures, graphs, tables, diagrams, etc. Even if you get a crappy professor, you'll just have to power through those few lectures and learn it on your own...or get your friends to help you out if they understand the material. Plus, with my experiences thus far, even when a professor tells you what they will likely test you on, you do not trust them. Learn everything anyways!

 

[Belleza156]

Generally you'll get really excited if a particular prof is good. With most profs, I debate whether I just wasted a good 2-4 hours of good study time. Rare to find a professor that simplifies what you should focus on. It's pretty much whatever is in their powerpoint is game, as well as anything in the "required text" and dont be surprised if a question or two pop up from the additional recommended texts so that the gunners who speed read and have time to leisurely read extra material can get those brain f&*^k questions correct on the exams. ....and if it's on a subject they do research in, watch out because a slide with a simple picture can somehow derive 30 mechanism questions. In med school powerpoint slides are OBNOXIOUS. They are not your friend. Easier to read the book and learn everything than to try to decipher what they want you to know from the lectures powerpoints.

 

[mvenus929]

My school does it a bit differently. We're given objectives for every lecture, and whatever is in the 'answer' to those objectives (which we're never given) is fair game for lecture.

It's not so bad until you have 102 bullet points for a two hour session. Of course, by the time you get through those 102 bullet points and can figure out the answer to most of them, you got the material down pretty well.

 

[zebalong]

Hmm...Now I'm starting to think that a benefit of PBL is lack of lecturers who go on tangents. But then I wonder, what are you tested on in PBL. I know at some schools, you get marked on your performance in PBL sessions, but are there also tests and exams in courses as evaluations, or is it just the PBL sessions?

Honestly to me it seems you are just looking for the easy way out of something where there is no "easy" way. I think other people have said it in many different ways but you're going to need to learn to suck it up in med school. In Ugrad, sure u can get by with dropping some courses, but in med school there is none of that (obviously). Add to that that many of the big academic schools use guest lecturers that are really famous but really don't know what is going on in your class nor write the tests you will find yourself frustrated and failing if you take your approach to taking classes in med school. If you hate your lecturers then don't go, but learn every required piece of material so well that if given a bunch of questions randomly out of ANY part of the text you could answer them.

PBL isn't an answer to your problem, PBL is just a learning style it isn't a way to get spoon fed the material. Some of my facilitators of PBL go off on tangents even though they are supposed to be the ones keeping us on track.

Think about it this way to, I don't think there is ANY school that teaches everything on step 1, but on the test you'll be responsible for it. Learn to get down, get dirty, and get that info in your brain any way possible- start practicing now b/c in med school it is sink or swim. Like other people have said, take responsibility for your own learning.

 

[sylvanthus]

Objectives are useless imo. They are usually so broad that basically you have to know everything anyhow. For example, "know the pathophysiology, diagnosis, clinical findings, and treatment of ......" Umm ok that pretty much means know everything. Or for pharm, "know the mechanism of action, duration, route, metabolism, and all adverse effects for..." Yaaa that helps me narrow it down, not.

Also, medical school professors in some ways are like undergrad professors in that they assume they know what is best for you and do not take your opinion into consideration. Things don't suddenly change when you enter a professional school. We are still the students, they are still the professors. The only thing that really changes is we have to put up with more because we're 100,000 in debt and don't want to piss anyone off.

 

[Laryngophed]

Yes.

You're presented with a crapload of lectures, and everything is fair game. While professors often present the objectives of lectures, it is extremely rare for them to tell you what you should know. They expect you as medical students (who will one day have to be knowledgable docs) to know it all.

This is partially correct, in my humble opinion. I don't think they expect us to know it all, instead I think they expect us to figure out what is and is not important and allocate our time appropriately. There is simply too much to learn it all but forcing us to develop a sense of judgment and learn to discriminate between the critical and inane sounds like something a physician would need to be able to do.

 

[Dwindlin]

This is partially correct, in my humble opinion. I don't think they expect us to know it all, instead I think they expect us to figure out what is and is not important and allocate our time appropriately. There is simply too much to learn it all but forcing us to develop a sense of judgment and learn to discriminate between the critical and inane sounds like something a physician would need to be able to do.

I think its school dependent. Everything we're presented is fair game.

 

[Laryngophed]

I think its school dependent. Everything we're presented is fair game.

The same for us but the vast majority of the test is stuff that one should decide is critical to understanding the material. It may be more school dependent than I'm imagining, but it'd be fairly crappy to fill an exam with stuff that doesn't demonstrate your actual level of understanding and mastery. That said, I'd be willing to bet it has been done.

 

[capnamerica]

👍 Very true. I honestly feel like I cheated by dropping the immuno course, but I really can't afford to get any more bad marks. Sounds like I have to start reading faster and a lot more. Thanks everyone!

Honestly to me it seems you are just looking for the easy way out of something where there is no "easy" way. I think other people have said it in many different ways but you're going to need to learn to suck it up in med school. In Ugrad, sure u can get by with dropping some courses, but in med school there is none of that (obviously). Add to that that many of the big academic schools use guest lecturers that are really famous but really don't know what is going on in your class nor write the tests you will find yourself frustrated and failing if you take your approach to taking classes in med school. If you hate your lecturers then don't go, but learn every required piece of material so well that if given a bunch of questions randomly out of ANY part of the text you could answer them.

PBL isn't an answer to your problem, PBL is just a learning style it isn't a way to get spoon fed the material. Some of my facilitators of PBL go off on tangents even though they are supposed to be the ones keeping us on track.

Think about it this way to, I don't think there is ANY school that teaches everything on step 1, but on the test you'll be responsible for it. Learn to get down, get dirty, and get that info in your brain any way possible- start practicing now b/c in med school it is sink or swim. Like other people have said, take responsibility for your own learning.

 

[PrettyYungDocta]

med school=independent learning.

as long as you have a book and syllabus, your good to go.

 

[UTlonghorn]

This is partially correct, in my humble opinion. I don't think they expect us to know it all, instead I think they expect us to figure out what is and is not important and allocate our time appropriately. There is simply too much to learn it all but forcing us to develop a sense of judgment and learn to discriminate between the critical and inane sounds like something a physician would need to be able to do.

I definitely agree with you in that many professors expect you to filter out the most important concepts and focus on those first. I think this is important because the majority of questions come from the major concepts. I think it's feasible that some people only focus on these concepts and perform well on exams. However, at my school (and I'm sure this is true at many other schools), little details that were breezed over in the lecture come up on tests, which is why as a general rule I try to give nearly every bit of the lecture material a little attention. Also, it varies based on professors. Some professors only test the basic concepts presented in lecture, others will be very picky about details. Since there can be many lecturers it is often difficult to know in what depth each lecturer would like you to know the material. This is why I was saying that in general, details are important in med school.

 

[pingouin]

Given the OP's current level of training, moving to Pre-Allo

 

[apumic]

Hello,

Premed here. I am just curious as to how you are finding your profs in med school on the whole. I ask because I was taking immunology this semester, but I dropped it because PERSONALLY I found the profs teaching style to just suck outright. She is a smart woman, I'll give her that, but she doesn't indicate what is testable material and what is material from frequent tangents she goes on. Also, I didn't like the text (Kuby Immuno), which many apparently like, but I didn't. It didn't really seem to start by focusing on the broader picture. I felt that it jumped right into specific stuff.

But anyways, that's my take on it. Your thoughts?

My take: live w/ it and learn to read people better. I've had tangential instructors but if you pay close attn, they still have their "tells" (they're human). If you're having trouble, ask.

FYI, ALL material in a class is testable material.

 

[Perrotfish]

FYI, ALL material in a class is testable material.

"All material is testable" is one of those technically true things that's almost never acctually true in medical school.

If you go to a good medical school, your second year of preclinicals and all of your tests during clinicals will either be standardized shelf exams or writte to mimic standaridized shelf exams. For those years most students do not attend any lectures and don't read anythig except review textbooks and question books for the shelf exam. There's a very clear expectation from both the administration and the students that everyone should be able to achieve at least a 90% on every exam using nothing but a Goljan and a Robin's review and that all other material is basically untestable.

For your first year what is testable is much more school dependant, but it doesn't vary much year to year and odds are the class above you is going to give you some kind of a written document telling you exactly what to study. For most of my school's classes there was a shelf at the end so if you knew the BRS cold you could pass the test. For some reason Biochem was the exception to the rule but we were told in no uncertain terms that all of the test questions would be coming from the slides presented in class rather than the much larger volume of assigned reading.

When a professor is forced to say "all material is testable" chances are he's explaining to a gunner why two or three questions on the test can only be found in the textbook rather than in a Goljan or a lecture. If you're that guy then yes, everything is testable. However if you're aiming for less than a 95% you shouldn't have a problem figuring out exactly what is testable and what is optional. If your profs start pulling questions from random parts of giant textbooks your administrataion will probably reign them in in a hurry.

 

[hmockingbird]

If you don't like the textbook, get another one? I had two extra textbooks for Orgo, as did many people in the class, and it was really helpful. You won't be able to drop in med school, so you'd better get used to it. Also, most of my undergrad courses don't specify what's going to be on the test and what isn't. You're lucky if you get a professor who does unless it's an intro class. Most will give practice exams or something like that but one exam isn't going to have all the test material on it. I took immunology last term and we used Somprayac, which is a nice basic intro textbook.

 

[bidiboom]

...The only thing that really changes is we have to put up with more because we're 100,000 in debt and don't want to piss anyone off...

May I ask, are you in a US med school? And, is this a norm in med education, "not to piss off anyone"?

 

[toooldforthis]

P=MD, at the point when we are in MS who cares! (IMHO) get it done and move on.

Just like me and undergrad math.....just keep swimming, just keep swimming....

 

[nygiants fan]

May I ask, are you in a US med school? And, is this a norm in med education, "not to piss off anyone"?

Your rec letters during clinicals and your dean's letter are VERY important in your overall evaluation for a residency position. That, your Step 1 score, clerkship grades, research, and Step 2 to a lesser extent than Step 1 make up most of your file. If you are arrogant or incompetent, that will affect the quality of your letters. Think about it: If other doctors find you insufferable or idiotic, then why should a residency program waste time and money training you?

 

[Catalystik]

I know at some schools, you get marked on your performance in PBL sessions, but are there also tests and exams in courses as evaluations, or is it just the PBL sessions?

Many schools will use nationally standardized subject exams, like the "Shelf exams" provided by the National Board of Medical Examiners: http://www.nbme.org/Schools/Subject-Exams/Subjects/Exams.html

 

[IMSingular]

English historian Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) put it this way: "The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous."😉