Quantitative Medical School

[mepc95]

I am currently a chemical engineering undergrad (3rd year) torn between going to grad school in BME or to med school. I have two main questions.

1) Is there such a thing out there as a quantitative med school where instead of learning millions of slides and memorizing a bunch of things students go into more depth and apply engineering, mathematics, and physics principles in lecture/exams?

2) Is med school just straight up memorizing and regurgitating?

Thank you in advance

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NotASerialKiller]

There's a great deal of memorization, but also plenty of comprehension based learning. That part revolves around understanding physiological concepts that are based in physics, but the med school part of it doesn't get very mathematical. For example understanding how pressure determines lung volume helps you deduce how your breathing is affected by pathologies that change the pressure or compliance of your lungs. You use physics by learning basic equations for this, but it's pretty limited. Same thing with flow questions in the lungs and cardiovascular system, you'll see familiar equations from undergrad physics but it doesn't get a lot deeper than that.

Basically if you're after math/physics and don't like the idea of having to memorize a lot of stuff (a huge amount of this in pharmacology and clinical guidelines/checklists that you have to know) then medicine probably isn't for you. Sounds like you might prefer the biomedical research/engineering path.

 

[Med Ed]

I am currently a chemical engineering undergrad (3rd year) torn between going to grad school in BME or to med school. I have two main questions.

1) Is there such a thing out there as a quantitative med school where instead of learning millions of slides and memorizing a bunch of things students go into more depth and apply engineering, mathematics, and physics principles in lecture/exams?

No.

2) Is med school just straight up memorizing and regurgitating?

No.

Your questions put the BM in BME. You should not be torn between grad school and med school until you have a better idea what med school is about. In extremely simplified terms, you spend the earlier part of medical school building a fund of knowledge, and the later part applying that fund in clinical settings (while continuing to add to it). During residency the process continues until you achieve the competence to practice independently.

 

[aldol16]

1) Is there such a thing out there as a quantitative med school where instead of learning millions of slides and memorizing a bunch of things students go into more depth and apply engineering, mathematics, and physics principles in lecture/exams?

Only one I've heard of is Harvard's HST program.

 

[aldol16]

No.

HST does this. They are unique, I believe, among med schools in requiring differential equations.

 

[eteshoe]

1. Maybe something like the Harvard HST. Though a straight PhD may be more up your alley

2. You have to synthesize some knowledge but it is a hell of a lot of memorizing

 

[Med Ed]

Only one I've heard of is Harvard's HST program.

Close, but no cigar. Perhaps the OP can wait for U of I's new school.

 

[aldol16]

Close, but no cigar. Perhaps the OP can wait for U of I's new school.

In what way does HST not fit the bill of using "engineering, mathematics, and physics principles" in teaching medicine, in your opinion? I was looking into that program when I applied for this very reason (I eventually decided not to apply to it because I figured I had had enough of this in graduate school).

 

[Med Ed]

In what way does HST not fit the bill of using "engineering, mathematics, and physics principles" in teaching medicine, in your opinion? I was looking into that program when I applied for this very reason (I eventually decided not to apply to it because I figured I had had enough of this in graduate school).

Perhaps I am mistaken, but the HST program has always struck me as a modified 2+2 with some extra bells and whistles and a bunch of research time carved out. Certainly tailored to those who lean toward the physical sciences, but when I read the initial question I imagined he was asking about the existence of a medical school with a fundamentally different approach to learning medicine. It will be interesting to see what Illinois produces.

 

[aldol16]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but the HST program has always struck me as a modified 2+2 with some extra bells and whistles and a bunch of research time carved out. Certainly tailored to those who lean toward the physical sciences, but when I read the initial question I imagined he was asking about the existence of a medical school with a fundamentally different approach to learning medicine. It will be interesting to see what Illinois produces.

Ah, I see! I don't have any hidden knowledge of the program - what I gleaned from their website and from some threads on here was that it heavily emphasized a different way of teaching the material. I know that the HST and Pathways students don't have classes together and indeed, the classes are completely different. The HST people have lectures whereas Pathways has flipped classroom. HST also emphasizes a mathematical/quantitative modeling approach to medicine whereas Pathways was more traditional in terms of approach.

 

[libertyyne]

What about the quantitative part in actual practice? Analyzing research and applying it to practice requires quantitative reasoning skills. Or do most physicians use heuristics when making these decisions? It feels like it is the latter which makes me sad.

 

[aldol16]

What about the quantitative part in actual practice? Analyzing research and applying it to practice requires quantitative reasoning skills. Or do most physicians use heuristics when making these decisions? It feels like it is the latter which makes me sad.

I think there can be some steps towards encouraging physicians to keep current in the literature and read it critically but these goals must be viewed in light of a physician's highly demanding schedule. Personal and mental health are important for doctors too.

 

[sliceofbread136]

1) no not really. Apparantly hst as above

2) actually yes a lot of the first 2 years is a lot of memorizing and regurgitation, especially in comparison to a lot of what you learn in engineering. However when you get to your clinical years things change. Each patient is really a unique "problem" to solve, often times with no one straight forward answer. Here I think is where someone like you would find the most intellectual stimulation.

If you looking to incorporate more math into your career it is possible to do through your research, more so in some specialties than others. If you really like signals/systems radiology, rad onc and to a lesser extent cardiology are options. Fluids mechanics are pretty big in heme/onc.

 

[mepc95]

Awesome information. Just what I was looking for, Anything else is encouraged.

 

[sliceofbread136]

What about the quantitative part in actual practice? Analyzing research and applying it to practice requires quantitative reasoning skills. Or do most physicians use heuristics when making these decisions? It feels like it is the latter which makes me sad.

Depends on the quality of the physician to be honest.

 

[libertyyne]

Depends on the quality of the physician to be honest.

I had a physician once tell me that a limited observational study conducted at the center was better then a randomized control trial. I had to try very hard not to spit out my drink and do a double take.

 

[mepc95]

1) no not really. Apparantly hst as above

2) actually yes a lot of the first 2 years is a lot of memorizing and regurgitation, especially in comparison to a lot of what you learn in engineering. However when you get to your clinical years things change. Each patient is really a unique "problem" to solve, often times with no one straight forward answer. Here I think is where someone like you would find the most intellectual stimulation.

If you looking to incorporate more math into your career it is possible to do through your research, more so in some specialties than others. If you really like signals/systems radiology, rad onc and to a lesser extent cardiology are options. Fluids mechanics are pretty big in heme/onc.

1) no not really. Apparantly hst as above

2) actually yes a lot of the first 2 years is a lot of memorizing and regurgitation, especially in comparison to a lot of what you learn in engineering. However when you get to your clinical years things change. Each patient is really a unique "problem" to solve, often times with no one straight forward answer. Here I think is where someone like you would find the most intellectual stimulation.

If you looking to incorporate more math into your career it is possible to do through your research, more so in some specialties than others. If you really like signals/systems radiology, rad onc and to a lesser extent cardiology are options. Fluids mechanics are pretty big in heme/onc.

As an MD how does the performing research part work? would I be paid as a researcher or as a doctor? do I pick the split that I want between clinical and research? Could I develop medical devices? I am interested in cardiology and fluid mechanics.

 

[aldol16]

As an MD how does the performing research part work? would I be paid as a researcher or as a doctor? do I pick the split that I want between clinical and research? Could I develop medical devices? I am interested in cardiology and fluid mechanics.

In theory, you get to pick both your field of research and the split you want between clinic and "bench." But in practice, you find that time is a hard commodity to come by and your "employers" may have conflicts of interest. Depending on who is employing and funding you, the research entity funding you might want you to spend more time performing research whereas the hospital administration will want you to see more patients. And whether you work for/with a research PI or become a PI yourself will also determine a large part of this. If you're your own PI, then you're going to have to spend a lot of time doing research in order to get funding money to remain a PI and run your lab. If you work with a research PI, then you probably have more flexibility as to how much you want to spend doing research and how much time you want to invest in seeing patients.

As an MD, you'll more likely be doing the latter rather than the former. So you'll be doing research in collaboration with others who will be primarily responsible for securing grant funding for projects and running a lab. The burden is distributed more there.

 

[WedgeDawg]

I am currently a chemical engineering undergrad (3rd year) torn between going to grad school in BME or to med school. I have two main questions.

1) Is there such a thing out there as a quantitative med school where instead of learning millions of slides and memorizing a bunch of things students go into more depth and apply engineering, mathematics, and physics principles in lecture/exams?

Knowledge is a prerequisite to understanding which is a prerequisite to application. You have to know facts as well as understand physiological / pathophysiological processes in order to apply them in research or patient care.

2) Is med school just straight up memorizing and regurgitating?

No. You have to know, understand, apply, and adapt. Dealing with disease requires a multifaceted approach.

 

[sliceofbread136]

As an MD how does the performing research part work? would I be paid as a researcher or as a doctor? do I pick the split that I want between clinical and research? Could I develop medical devices? I am interested in cardiology and fluid mechanics.

So for a basic science researcher (which it sounds like you are more interested in) it seems like they are forced to an 80/20 or 90/10 research/clinical time split. The current grant environment just seems to require a good bit of time investment, so it is harder to get involved in other things. If you are heavily involved in research your pay will likely be lower than someone working mainly clinically. You can definitely work in making medical devices!

 

[Med Ed]

As an MD how does the performing research part work? would I be paid as a researcher or as a doctor? do I pick the split that I want between clinical and research? Could I develop medical devices? I am interested in cardiology and fluid mechanics.

You need to find some MD/PhD's who work in academia and industry and talk to them. Even if you don't do a full MD/PhD, they will be your best source if information. There has also been quite a bit published over the years on physician-scientist training and the physician-scientist workforce. Here are a couple to get you started:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441397/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874256/

 

[mimelim]

HST does this. They are unique, I believe, among med schools in requiring differential equations.

In what way does HST not fit the bill of using "engineering, mathematics, and physics principles" in teaching medicine, in your opinion? I was looking into that program when I applied for this very reason (I eventually decided not to apply to it because I figured I had had enough of this in graduate school).

I don't think you know what HST is. It is HMS with STEM layered on top, not a different way of teaching medicine. You still have just as much memorization as any other medical school. You simply have a system setup to allow you to do a lot more before you graduate than spend the standard 4 years doing the MD degree.

 

[aldol16]

I don't think you know what HST is. It is HMS with STEM layered on top, not a different way of teaching medicine. You still have just as much memorization as any other medical school. You simply have a system setup to allow you to do a lot more before you graduate than spend the standard 4 years doing the MD degree.

It is a different way of teaching medicine in that the curriculum and the classes are structured differently. I know that they have an introductory crash course on MATLAB (or maybe some other computer science-like course) that emphasizes mathematical modeling in the context of medicine. The idea is that they will draw on this skill throughout their pre-clinical years to learn medicine (and complete assignments). Their teaching philosophy is also different from the Pathways program - it's to teach the science of medicine through a quantitative lens rather than simple memorization (you'll have to memorize some things, of course). I think the fact that the Pathways and HST students are separated and taught in completely different ways is telling. For the first half year, the HST students spend like 8 hours a day in class and lab whereas Pathways has flipped classroom and the classes are only in the morning. The style is completely different.

As I said, I never applied, so I don't have any knowledge about this program as an applicant but there is a reason that I am familiar with the program (which I would be happy to discuss over PM).