Show-off basic science PhDs/professors :mad:

[Kiroro]

---

Members do not see this ad.

ok... so I hardly ever use sdn to vent my anger... but have you guys had some basic science professors who are just plain trying to show off how much specialized knowledge they have in every single lectures?

We have this genetics PhD that has to give 729 different examples and mechanisms of how different genes and proteins work in certain processes (i.e. way too many recombination examples )

I use study guides for USMLE on the side to aid my lectures (as I'm sure many of you do) but judging from those books, this professor is giving us way too many useless info for the board exam... Yes, I know that we are not just studying for the boards but this guy includes way too much info and talks way too much to the point that our lecture is like aimed for PhD students for genetics....

It's just so frustrating😡 I wish they could be more considerate for students who has to spend hours in reviewing his lectures in the middle of the night👎

 

[Ashers]

That's exactly how our neuroanatomy course was. My class has 204 med students (including the 4 MD/PhDs) and 5 or 6 pure grad students. The course direct, a PhD, has the course structure geared towards the grad students, and not very clinical, because, as he told one of my friends who brought in a curriculum from the medical neuro anatomy class at another med school that she TA'd for while she was a neuro grad student he stated, "It's my course, and I can do what I want."

It was also one of the worst classes I've ever had. I have a complete mental block against all things neuro now, and I never want to have anything to do with it ever again.

We also had like 9 hours of lecture on membrane potentials. Now that seems useful. I'd rather have more time going over lesions.

 

[Kiroro]

I wish there is something we can do anonymously to tell them to stop giving a meaningless lecture… too bad I have no balls to email professor directly or deans about these suggestions…

 

[njbmd]

I wish there is something we can do anonymously to tell them to stop giving a meaningless lecture… too bad I have no balls to email professor directly or deans about these suggestions…

This is where you do some serious writing on the evaluation sheets. The problem with evaluating medical school classes is that they give you the sheets in front of the professor on the last day or during the exam. If you are the person sitting there writing long comments such as explaining that the professor was way off base rather than lecturing on what you needed in the practical sense, the professor is glaring at you.

We went to an on-line evaluation system which is working better but still, a majority of the class does not fill out the evaluation sheets. When enough class members fill out the evals, a professor DOES get replaced. It isn't very helpful for you but it does help those who come behind you.

We also had class reps who would regularly meet with the Chairman of the Deparments too. These folks could convey our feelings in terms of problems with a specific course or professor. When presented honestly and professionally, we were able to affect some change. For example, in pharm, we had a professor that lectured his research instead of what we needed for CNS pharm. I was the class rep for this class. I spoke with the professor and then asked for a meeting with the chairman of the department which was granted. The problem was that the professor did not cover the objectives of the lecture as stated in the syllabus. It was very professional and he made up a super handout that I used for USMLE study (all steps).

Fill out your evals but let your administration (through your class officers if possible) know that there is a problem. You are paying loads of money in tuition not to get what you need.

 

[BozoSparky]

i identify with feeling overwhelmed by too much tangential info in a lecture.

on the other hand...it would suck to have a prof come in and spit out BRS facts...sometimes it's nice to hear what's going on at the cutting edge.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

This is a pretty solid trend. In all medical schools, professors are given contracts with a percentage of teaching responsibilities which range from 0 to 100%, the remainder of which will be administration and/or research. Unfortunately, universities are innately geared toward research money, so most basic science professors will be about 75% research. That's where the money is (and a good component of most ranking systems).

Professors who lose their ability to get grants or get tired of research tend to take on more teaching responsibilities if they have tenure. If they are not tenured, they just get sent packing. The point is this. You are stuck with these people, and they are stuck with you. Call it a byproduct of the tenure system, but the politics of academics have a tendency to override poor evaluations.

Of course the main problem is the fact that Ph.D.'s are trained to be very self-centered as far as their research goes, and all of them in academia believe that their work is the most important thing in the world. Indeed it is to them, because without that one thing that they are specialized in, they are out of a job.

There are also a fair amount of Ph.D.'s who despise M.D.'s either because they are jealous of the societal standing/salary or because they feel like practicing medicine is selling out. Of course, medical schools will not pay M.D.'s to teach basic science years (honestly, Ph.D.'s are no more qualified to do it) since it would cost them a fortune. Academic docs are already taking a lower paying job than private practice, so getting one to take even less money to stand in front of a classroom is simply not doable. So in the long run, the Ph.D. compensates for his/her jealousy by trying to impress the student with how much they know about their specialty area.

 

[Droopy Snoopy]

Hate this as well. One of my neuro professors last year gave 6-8 lectures, almost all of the special senses block, on just his research. Beyond the general info, I have zero chance of seeing any of that crap ever again. Huge waste of time, but he advised us he might give a pop quiz anytime (never did) so I sat through lectures playing freecell. He was a nice enough guy, and I don't think his deal was med envy. He was just a lazy, unimaginative teacher. He'd spent his life in a lab, so that's what he presented.

 

[BozoSparky]

This is a pretty solid trend. In all medical schools, professors are given contracts with a percentage of teaching responsibilities which range from 0 to 100%, the remainder of which will be administration and/or research. Unfortunately, universities are innately geared toward research money, so most basic science professors will be about 75% research. That's where the money is (and a good component of most ranking systems).

Professors who lose their ability to get grants or get tired of research tend to take on more teaching responsibilities if they have tenure. If they are not tenured, they just get sent packing. The point is this. You are stuck with these people, and they are stuck with you. Call it a byproduct of the tenure system, but the politics of academics have a tendency to override poor evaluations.

Of course the main problem is the fact that Ph.D.'s are trained to be very self-centered as far as their research goes, and all of them in academia believe that their work is the most important thing in the world. Indeed it is to them, because without that one thing that they are specialized in, they are out of a job.

There are also a fair amount of Ph.D.'s who despise M.D.'s either because they are jealous of the societal standing/salary or because they feel like practicing medicine is selling out. Of course, medical schools will not pay M.D.'s to teach basic science years (honestly, Ph.D.'s are no more qualified to do it) since it would cost them a fortune. Academic docs are already taking a lower paying job than private practice, so getting one to take even less money to stand in front of a classroom is simply not doable. So in the long run, the Ph.D. compensates for his/her jealousy by trying to impress the student with how much they know about their specialty area.

maybe in some cases, but i don't think this is true in general. i don't think phd's are as lame and jealous as you make them out to be...they love science and yeah, they tend to get into the nitty gritty. somebody has to...it's important stuff.

 

[Kiroro]

maybe in some cases, but i don't think this is true in general. i don't think phd's are as lame and jealous as you make them out to be...they love science and yeah, they tend to get into the nitty gritty. somebody has to...it's important stuff.

I somewhat agree with you. I don't really think PhDs are showing off b/c of jealousy but more like they are making the statement that they have higher intellectual capacity than MDs.

Most of the PhDs at my school (probably at most of the medschools) actually got their degree from pretty prestigious research Universities. Like the show-off genetics PhD of ours is from Columbia U.

I go to a decent med school but it's not really ranked or anything. So from the PhD's point of view, they probably think that they were more intelligent than us back in the time they were getting their graduate degrees. However, general population tend to respect MDs over PhDs. So some PhDs show-off in lectures in order to give us (future MDs) a hint that PhDs are actually more intelligent than MDs.🙄

 

[beetlerum]

Of course the main problem is the fact that Ph.D.'s are trained to be very self-centered as far as their research goes, and all of them in academia believe that their work is the most important thing in the world. Indeed it is to them, because without that one thing that they are specialized in, they are out of a job.

There are also a fair amount of Ph.D.'s who despise M.D.'s either because they are jealous of the societal standing/salary or because they feel like practicing medicine is selling out. Of course, medical schools will not pay M.D.'s to teach basic science years (honestly, Ph.D.'s are no more qualified to do it) since it would cost them a fortune. Academic docs are already taking a lower paying job than private practice, so getting one to take even less money to stand in front of a classroom is simply not doable. So in the long run, the Ph.D. compensates for his/her jealousy by trying to impress the student with how much they know about their specialty area.

Actually, PhDs are most definitely far more qualified to teach basic science courses than MDs. They usually teach in their fields of specialization! How could someone have such a skewed view of reality to believe that a physician would have the same ability to teach a basic science course as a scientist working in this area. Really, now.

By the way, if you look at surveys of prestige, scientists and professors actually rank right up with doctors. They are very well respected. Among highly educated people, I would guess they're even more respected. Perhaps you mean that PhDs are jealous of MD salaries? Maybe there's something to that. However, I also think PhDs get tired of dealing with arrogant and disrespectul med students who make ridiculous assertions about how self-centered PhDs are (talk about people in glass houses throwing stones) or even more ridiculous claims doctors could teach basic science courses as well as scientists working that area. (Although you said MDs, you made it clear you were talking about practicing academic physicians).

 

[Wizard of Oz]

The USMLE in addition to many medical schools uses a standard question database that has been statistically measured against a wide variety of fledgling physicians and tested for reliability and validity. Medical schools know this, so they design their classes to cover core concepts and facts.

Here's my point. You can get a vagrant off the street to come and read the lecture material to the students. Many schools give out or sell comprehensive syllabi or texts that specifically gear the students to an objective set prescribed by the USMLE writers. Most places I'm familiar with (my school included) do not require class attendance, and it is not uncommon to have less than a third of the class show up. When the prof isn't any good, then class attendance just distracts you from studying.

The first two years of medical school are not about critical thinking. You can not accurately measure critical thinking with multiple choice exams, and it is this very thing that PhD's despise. Any question where you have a 20-25 percent chance of being correct with a blind guess does not test critical thinking.

Here's how it works--you memorize for two years, not understand, memorize. You learn how to be a doctor later. The best memorizers get the best board scores and stay competative because such is correlated with quicker differentials later on. You don't need someone who claims to be an expert to teach you how to memorize text. I've visited lectures at different schools (one of which was a top twenty) where the professor answered a student question by saying "That won't be on boards or our test, so don't worry about it." I've since learned that such is actually the approach that is selected for with the volume of rote memory that medical school requires.

I have been in basic science graduate programs at multiple universities, and the number of PhD's who prioritize their med school teaching over their own independent research is few and far between. The teaching is just something that they have to do to keep their labs. In many cases, they have no special acumen for the material or it is so basic to them that any of their colleagues would be equally qualified. I left my PhD program and went into medicine because I could not stand the political brouhaha of academic science and all of the ego conflicts.

I don't mean to over-generalize. There are some PhD's out there who do a great job, but what I am saying is that there is usually little incentive for them to do a great job because their tenure is based on grant income and not med student evaluations. If they teach badly, then they can just as easily find something else for them to teach, but it is extremely expensive to recruit new faculty with hard startup lab funds because they are poor instructors. It's all about the dead presidents.

I do agree that professors are considered prestigious, but my parents somehow get a much greater satisfaction telling their friends that their kid is going to be a doctor than they did when they thought I was earning a PhD. The same goes for my social life as far as potential breeding partners are concerned. Darwinian selective pressure is toward MD over PhD many fold.

 

[SanDiegoSOD]

I feel you on this. Not so much the show off part, but more about the uselessness of some of the material. I've had one professor so far who was supposed to lecture for 8 hours on cell signaling. Probably about 5 of those hours were spent discussing knock-out mice and the various things you could study with them. Maybe 30 mins should have been devoted to that, but hey, what can you do? The nice thing is that you can always stop going to class and learn the material on your own, which is the better option for probably about 1/2 of the professors we have, and I'm sure the same applies to a varying degree at other schools.

 

[pratik7]

I think its kinda funny that if you look up a certain profs research interest, 9/10 the lecture will be geared towards their interest on some stupid gene or gene product that alters some stupid signal transduction pathway. Next time I see a patient, I think im just gonna take a blood sample and tell them to wait for 3 days in the waiting room while i go perform a FISH assay (cause it appears in every damn lecture)

ok ...and now back to our reg scheduled rants

 

[Droopy Snoopy]

Actually, PhDs are most definitely far more qualified to teach basic science courses than MDs. They usually teach in their fields of specialization! How could someone have such a skewed view of reality to believe that a physician would have the same ability to teach a basic science course as a scientist working in this area. Really, now.

By the way, if you look at surveys of prestige, scientists and professors actually rank right up with doctors. They are very well respected. Among highly educated people, I would guess they're even more respected. Perhaps you mean that PhDs are jealous of MD salaries? Maybe there's something to that. However, I also think PhDs get tired of dealing with arrogant and disrespectul med students who make ridiculous assertions about how self-centered PhDs are (talk about people in glass houses throwing stones) or even more ridiculous claims doctors could teach basic science courses as well as scientists working that area. (Although you said MDs, you made it clear you were talking about practicing academic physicians).

I think PhDs are very well respected, but you'd have to show me that study listing their prestige on par or better than docs. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the entire preclinical curriculum being taught by practicing MDs. While PhDs in biochemistry might be better qualified to teach biochemistry than a pediatrician, they don't usually have an answer for questions outside their small research area, like "how is this information relevent to sick people?". I don't care how many kinase-kinase-kinases are involved in some obscure pathway you discovered 20 years ago. It's not going to matter to my patients how you genetically engineered your mice, or how you tune the flow cytometer. I'm going to cram it for exam and forget, and if I become a pathologist or whatever I'll pick it up during residency anyway.

 

[RedSHIFT]

can't wait to hear what you say about show off attendings

 

[BozoSparky]

I think PhDs are very well respected, but you'd have to show me that study listing their prestige on par or better than docs. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with the entire preclinical curriculum being taught by practicing MDs. While PhDs in biochemistry might be better qualified to teach biochemistry than a pediatrician, they don't usually have an answer for questions outside their small research area, like "how is this information relevent to sick people?". I don't care how many kinase-kinase-kinases are involved in some obscure pathway you discovered 20 years ago. It's not going to matter to my patients how you genetically engineered your mice, or how you tune the flow cytometer. I'm going to cram it for exam and forget, and if I become a pathologist or whatever I'll pick it up during residency anyway.

yeah!!!...stupid biochemistry...it's never helpin' those sick people. we were better off long ago before all this 'science' nonsense!

 

[mendel121]

Actually, PhDs are most definitely far more qualified to teach basic science courses than MDs. They usually teach in their fields of specialization! How could someone have such a skewed view of reality to believe that a physician would have the same ability to teach a basic science course as a scientist working in this area. Really, now.

Amen

yeah!!!...stupid biochemistry...it's never helpin' those sick people. we were better off long ago before all this 'science' nonsense!

Seriously those damn PhDs, I mean if it weren't for them we'd have much less to learn in med school - really why should people expect to live to 80 - really 40 and out, just like a hundred years ago.

I don't buy that PhDs hate MDs, I think that's med student b*tching mostly - but if we had to look for a reason for PhDs to despise MDs/med students - um, I think this thread would be it.

 

[Droopy Snoopy]

yeah!!!...stupid biochemistry...it's never helpin' those sick people. we were better off long ago before all this 'science' nonsense!

Yeah, that didn't come out quite the way it was meant. I'm just saying it shows when a tenured prof is begrudgingly fulfilling a job requirement so they can get back to the lab. These folks know their stuff is dry, but to make it worse by monotonously reading their excrutiatingly detailed slides is just wrong. I simply prefer MDs because make concepts more interesting by putting them into a clinical context.

 

[Ultra7]

Hey, what do you guys think about MD/PhDs as teachers?
The best of both worlds?
Or the worst?

 

[Wizard of Oz]

Hey, what do you guys think about MD/PhDs as teachers?
The best of both worlds?
Or the worst?

Those who can do, those who can't...

No, really I'm being too hard on scientists. There probably aren't enough mudphuds out there teaching to draw any kind of generalization. Similarly, it isn't fair to paint basic scientists with such a wide brush.

MD/PhD's will probably thin out as the money required to generate them becomes too great. There is honestly no incentive to earn both degrees save for the stipend, but then again, the years of professional practice lost fails to justify this in the long run.

pratik7 brought up a really good point about FISH. The basic scientist may know a lot about the theory of clinical tests, but (speaking as a medical technologist who actually performs these tests) they are often not familiar with the actual state of the art as far as actual practice is concerned.

For instance, I had a prof in class state that we can test for TB in sputum using PCR methodologies. This is not true--no such test is FDA-approved (CSF yes, sputum no). They also fail to understand that modern adaptations to classical clinical microbiology can beat PCR. If you had a good pathologist (M.D.) lecturing, then the information provided would be CORRECT and CURRENT.

Also, the basic scientist knows that we can do fancy labeling of glycine to test for a type of gout or that we can do PCR/sequencing for just about anything involving foreign or altered DNA, but these tests would be too costly to offer on a routine basis. In other words, yes they are cool, but no insurance will not pay for them. Since they are actually impractical and not used, students get poor information about how medicine is really practiced.

 

[hale-bopp]

Amen

I don't buy that PhDs hate MDs, I think that's med student b*tching mostly - but if we had to look for a reason for PhDs to despise MDs/med students - um, I think this thread would be it.

maybe not "hate"... but I know that when I was working in a research lab and told them I was going to med school, my P.I. talked a lot of trash about how PhDs were REAL scientists, and MDs were only mechanics... I think there's a lot of bitterness because PhDs do think they're smarter, but they get paid worse, there's 7-8 for every tenure track position, and to the lay public "Doctor" is probably a more respectable position...

on the other hand, I think the reason most of them go off about their research during lecture is because they love it and to them it IS the most important thing in the world. but it is really annoying when you're supposed to be learning about the menstrual cycle and you have an entire lecture on VEG-F. and, at least at my school, if they hate med students, it's most likely because we whine and only care about learning what we need to know for the test, instead of learning for the sake of learning (well, it's what drinking from a firehose does).

 

[Wizard of Oz]

my P.I. talked a lot of trash about how PhDs were REAL scientists, and MDs were only mechanics... I think there's a lot of bitterness because PhDs do think they're smarter, but they get paid worse, there's 7-8 for every tenure track position, and to the lay public "Doctor" is probably a more respectable position...

I definitely agree--PhD's ARE the real scientists and MD's are the mechanics, but that is exactly why more people prefer medicine. In the science world, yesterday's problems are today's problems and will probably be next week's problems too. You may spend years doing the exact same thing with the exact same people. Plus when you are the mechanic, you actually get to talk to the person driving the car.

I tried to be a scientist, I promise! But how many times does an attractive member of the opposite have to walk away from you after you try to explain your job before the social consequences of your career choice seriously inhibit your personal and emotional well-being? PhD careers select for introverted people, and some people can't get used to being introverted. I'm not even mentioning having to spend a career in academics depending on the American tax-payer for your well-being year after year after year. The science lifestyle jades a lot of profs, and this leads to SOME of them becoming poor teachers.

Please note I said SOME. There are plenty of good ones too!

 

[beetlerum]

Here's one survey of prestige:

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=494

Doctors and scientists are about even. University science professors, moreover, are among the most prestigious scientists.

Being a doctor will get you a lot more tail, though. That I'll agree with.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

Being a doctor will get you a lot more tail, though. That I'll agree with.

I know that's why I'm here.

 

[DHG]

nevermind.

 

[indo]

that professor has spent his whole life studying an enzyme you really only need to know the name of. Therefore, you have to know the unique AA sequences, conformational changes, energy, and oxidant/reductant requirements, Km, vmax, and 4 different names for the enzyme. ENJOY!

 

[Neuronix]

MD/PhD's will probably thin out as the money required to generate them becomes too great. There is honestly no incentive to earn both degrees save for the stipend, but then again, the years of professional practice lost fails to justify this in the long run.

Whatever you say there boss.

 

[Wizard of Oz]

Whatever you say there boss.

Name something an M.D./Ph.D. can do that a regular M.D. can't, and I'd be happy to participate in reasonable banter with you. Maybe MSTP's are justified on the coasts where living costs are high, but in the middle of the country, most mudphuds simply remain clinicians and take the salary or go into pathology which is not competative enough to justify the extra years of science training. M.D./Ph.D. is something that you do only because you are in love with the prestige factor of having two doctorates, otherwise there would be at least as many people completing independent Ph.D.'s after finishing medical school or working the program in between MS 2 and 3 on their own dime.

 

[Neuronix]

Name something an M.D./Ph.D. can do that a regular M.D. can't, and I'd be happy to participate in reasonable banter with you.

You and I both well know that there's no positions that MD/PhDs are uniquely trained to fill. The MD/PhD hasn't even been around in good numbers for very long.

Maybe MSTP's are justified on the coasts where living costs are high, but in the middle of the country, most mudphuds simply remain clinicians and take the salary or go into pathology which is not competative enough to justify the extra years of science training.

Don't forget the cost of tuition and fees. That's much more than cost of living. I hardly think therefore that the MD/PhD is more justified somehow on the coast. Meanwhile, the most popular specialties for MD/PhDs are in order (and always have been) 1) Internal Medicine 2) Pediatrics and 3) Pathology. I don't understand where this "go into pathology" comes from. As for "taking the salary" and remaining a clinician, on the order of 90% stay in academic medicine of one type or another. This isn't particularly better pay than research in many cases. All of this being said, I'm not quite sure what your point is. It's okay to get the MD/PhD for the upfront money it provides, but that's one of the only reasons to justify it? In any case, none of the top three MD/PhD specialties are competitive, it is true. I don't even think the MD/PhD helps you much to get a residency. So, why would the competitiveness of the residency program have something to do with science training? It's the competitiveness maybe of getting a research job later on that I'm thinking about.

M.D./Ph.D. is something that you do only because you are in love with the prestige factor of having two doctorates, otherwise there would be at least as many people completing independent Ph.D.'s after finishing medical school or working the program in between MS 2 and 3 on their own dime.

Yeah, reasonable banter to be found here. You make a blanket statement that doesn't even really make sense. If you are in love with the prestige factor of having two doctorates, why wouldn't there be at least as many people completing PhDs in other ways? Obviously, the money plays a role in making the combined MD/PhD programs what they are, but that's not what you're saying in the start of your sentence.

Do you think maybe one could be in love with the idea of getting two doctorates because you like all the extra knowledge that might give you and the advantage it will give you in a research career in academic medicine? No. To the hardcore cynics, it always boils down to prestige and money.

 

[vtucci]

There should be no blanket statement that PhDs or MDs are more qualified to teach the basic science courses. It is the professor who can communicate effectively that is best for the basic sciences.

However, I do understand your frustration in that many PhDs focus on very esoteric subjects that MDs will never use in clinical practice and often fail to tie in the clinical relevance for their topics.

Is the OP a 1st year or a 2nd year?

 

[21JumpStreet]

There should be no blanket statement that PhDs or MDs are more qualified to teach the basic science courses. It is the professor who can communicate effectively that is best for the basic sciences.

However, I do understand your frustration in that many PhDs focus on very esoteric subjects that MDs will never use in clinical practice and often fail to tie in the clinical relevance for their topics.

Is the OP a 1st year or a 2nd year?

Yes, I agree that it is the person teaching that makes the difference. As far as going off in a tangent, I have seen both M.D.'s and Phd's go off in tangents. This is also more of a person thing too.

 

[beetlerum]

There should be no blanket statement that PhDs or MDs are more qualified to teach the basic science courses. It is the professor who can communicate effectively that is best for the basic sciences.

In context, it was scientist vs. physician. The blanket statement can be made that scientists are more qualified to teach the basic science courses than physicians. Of course there could be some random physician who knows a lot, but in general, this is definitely true. Physicians remember surprisingly little of the basic science, in general. Perhaps they had as little interest in it as do the med students in this thread whining about learning something they won't use clinically.

 

[vtucci]

I don't think the students are whining necessarily about something that they won't use clinically. But the reality is that we have a finite amount of time and space in our brains to memorize things and it is preferrable that we memorize the concepts that we are going to use and not each step of the TCA cycle IF we don't remember this, we can look it up. There are a lot of elements like this in first year.

If there is no application, it is going to be difficult for many students to retain the information past the exam. After all, many med students suffer from what our dean calls intellectual bullemia and purge information that seems less relevant after every exam.

 

[vtucci]

Yes, I agree that it is the person teaching that makes the difference. As far as going off in a tangent, I have seen both M.D.'s and Phd's go off in tangents. This is also more of a person thing too.

I have seen MDs go off on tangents as well but I agree with the OP that the PhDs are more likely to teach their research areas and test on minutae. I hated first year because the questions and lectures seemed random and I was left wondering after many lectures- I care about this because.... Thank god for second year!!!