PhDs playing doctor

Started by Frank Nutter
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Frank Nutter

Frank Nutter

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Some of our microbio profs have been going into a lot of specifics on patient exam and management...imaging to order, things to rule out, when to admit, symptom management, etc...all non-microbiology stuff.

Is it just me or are they not qualified to cover this kind of thing?
 
They may or may not be qualified to comment on some of it. Imaging and differential diagnosis are stuff that would be pretty relevant and I think it'd be reasonable to be aware of if you're teaching that material. Admission criteria, maybe not so much, although it's not exactly rocket science and I'm sure basic science profs could learn what was relevant to their extremely narrow area of teaching if they so desired.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Take it with a grain of salt, be grateful someone's trying to make your basic science teaching so clinically relevant, and keep in mind that the clinical stuff will be covered repeatedly by physicians in your clinical years.
 
All depends on their experience in and exposure to clinical medicine. One thing is for sure, they know more than you and they probably teach the course for a good reason.
 
We have professors that are PhD's tell us these types of things all the time. I really wouldn't worry about it too much because there isn't much of a difference between a clinician (MD) tell you directly "X, Y and Z are the differential diagnoses; physical exam will yield such and such results; you should admit under the following criteria, etc." and telling the PhD those things so that the PhD can tell you when he teaches the course. Granted, the PhD has absolutely no clinical experiences, aside from working in a lab for 30 years, but that doesn't mean they haven't picked up this information over that time. To echo what someone else said, they are probably teaching the course for a good reason so just sit back and enjoy it.
 
Some of our PhDs that teach some of our lectures are physicians overseas that can't actually practice in North America.

So yeah, don't discriminate against the PhDs.
 
thats not playing doctor..if we can learn that stuff from a textbook so they can they...doesn't make them less qualified to share relevant info (most of the teachers are using material from a textbook or primary source anyways)..many PhDs are involved in the pathology lab or the clinical aspects of infectious disease..they're especially good at knowing treatment (which antibiotic to prescribe)

our microbio faculty is a PhD..and she teaches this material better than most of the MDs in infectious disease
 
topsurgeon2010 said:
thats not playing doctor..if we can learn that stuff from a textbook so they can they...doesn't make them less qualified to share relevant info (most of the teachers are using material from a textbook or primary source anyways)..many PhDs are involved in the pathology lab or the clinical aspects of infectious disease..they're especially good at knowing treatment (which antibiotic to prescribe)

our microbio faculty is a PhD..and she teaches this material better than most of the MDs in infectious disease
Click to expand...


Maybe, maybe, not...I've seen mistakes and questionable regimens.
 
Frank Nutter said:
Some of our microbio profs have been going into a lot of specifics on patient exam and management...imaging to order, things to rule out, when to admit, symptom management, etc...all non-microbiology stuff.
Click to expand...


I second that- I have had some PhDs (mainly anatomy, neuroscience, pharmacology) that peppered in clinical stuff like exam findings and imaging etc that ended up being spot on, though I did have a few biochem/cell bio PhDs that ended up being very off
 
Well PhDs are supposed to be the foremost experts in their field. I would definitely expect say a PhD pharmacologist to be more knowledgeable than most typical physicians on how to calculate dosing regimens, drug-drug interactions, etc.
 
pseudoknot said:
They may or may not be qualified to comment on some of it. Imaging and differential diagnosis are stuff that would be pretty relevant and I think it'd be reasonable to be aware of if you're teaching that material. Admission criteria, maybe not so much, although it's not exactly rocket science and I'm sure basic science profs could learn what was relevant to their extremely narrow area of teaching if they so desired.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Take it with a grain of salt, be grateful someone's trying to make your basic science teaching so clinically relevant, and keep in mind that the clinical stuff will be covered repeatedly by physicians in your clinical years.
Click to expand...
I agree--be grateful that your getting exposed to this info this early on.
 
Hmm, good question. Best to type up a lengthy well-written opinion piece and take it directly to your Dean.
 
Frank Nutter said:
Maybe, maybe, not...I've seen mistakes and questionable regimens.
Click to expand...

Maybe they are wrong but is this judgment just based on your ms2 experience? Sounds like they are trying make the class clinically relevant. Would you prefer your classes to just be cellular pathways and various enhanced media?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.