Sociology on the MCAT: Why?

[JAH360]

This may be too controversial for SDN, but I'm asking because I'm trying to understand. I think there may be something I'm missing.

The MCAT exists to assess future doctors' understanding of science, and our ability to use our understanding of science to solve problems, as medicine is a discipline grounded in science and critical thinking. Why is sociology, a discipline that isn't accepted by most of the scientific community, being tested on the MCAT? Why is the AAMC requiring we learn a discipline that isn't peer reviewed, and is denounced by many prominent scientists and scientific associations? The Sokal affair is testament to the shortcomings of postmodernistic thought and its unscientific processes.

I've taken four sociology classes, trying to understand it, and yet I just can't reconcile sociologist's insistence that all human behavior, and the differences in human behavior between different people, is pure social construct with my understanding of science and the decades of peer-reviewed research in biology, genetics, and behavior that say otherwise; this implication that evolution and genetics can affect everything about a human, but behavior remains untouched, doesn't align with anything else on the MCAT. This notion that humans are somehow immune to the laws of heredity that every other organism on the planet is subject to goes completely against everything we're currently expected to understand as premeds. I realize that sociology exists to challenge our understanding of human society, but it does so in a manner of conspiracy theory, logical fallacy, and science denial. It bases its entire doctrine on the ridiculous assertion that the Human Condition doesn't exist, which is insanely counterproductive in society's migration towards bettering itself.

I am taking the 2014 MCAT, thankfully, so this isn't a gripe about having to study more. But, as a man of science, I would feel utterly violated being required to humor such unscientific philosophy. To me, this change discredits the validity of the MCAT in assessing peoples' potential as future doctors, because it requires that we accept ideas that aren't supported by science. They might as well start implementing passages about how vaccines cause autism and how global warming is a hoax.

I know that there must be a motive here I'm missing. During my time studying for the MCAT, I've thought about it deeply, but I just can't figure it out. Could someone explain it to me?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[theparty]

The MCAT exists to assess future doctors' understanding of science, and our ability to use our understanding of science to solve problems, as medicine is a discipline grounded in science and critical thinking.

but a 1/3 of your current overall score is verbal, and it's not even reading scientific literature. i'd say that practicing medicine is the application of science to human bodies and beings - not science for the sake of science (ie astronomy, paleontology). it's grounded in science, but it's useless if you can't convey the message with lesser educated individuals. i'm actually surprised classes like sociology & psychology aren't required by medical schools, they seem more practical than physics in constantly dealing with new people on a daily basis. it's also a minor part of the upcoming exam, while your examples are quite hyperbolic. the current exam isn't any better at figuring out who's going to be a capable practicing physician 10 years from their exam, it's just a standardized test to put everyone on the same scale.

 

[JAH360]

but a 1/3 of your current overall score is verbal, and it's not even reading scientific literature. i'd say that practicing medicine is the application of science to human bodies and beings - not science for the sake of science (ie astronomy, paleontology). it's grounded in science, but it's useless if you can't convey the message with lesser educated individuals. i'm actually surprised classes like sociology & psychology aren't required by medical schools, they seem more practical than physics in constantly dealing with new people on a daily basis. it's also a minor part of the upcoming exam, while your examples are quite hyperbolic. the current exam isn't any better at figuring out who's going to be a capable practicing physician 10 years from their exam, it's just a standardized test to put everyone on the same scale.

But we're taught bedside manner in medical school. I don't see how requiring us to learn the flawed thought processes of postmodernism is going to make us better doctors.

And there are many who contest the validity of the verbal section, too, because of its subjectivity. Nonetheless, the verbal reasoning section exists to test our ability to, well, reason, which is perfectly understandable. Which is why it's all the more mysterious to me that a discipline completely lacking in reason and rationality is being added to the MCAT.

 

[DrCharlemagne]

If you think genetics, biology and behavior argue that behavior isn't governed by social constructs, then you don't understand genetics, biology, neuroscience, behavior analysis or sociology very well.

 

[theparty]

I don't see how requiring us to learn the flawed thought processes of postmodernism is going to make us better doctors.

if that's how you'd describe it after 4 sociology classes (i only took 1 by chance), i hardly think a post on an internet forum is going to change your mind. it really comes across as you've already made up your own opinion on this topic.

Why is sociology, a discipline that isn't accepted by most of the scientific community, being tested on the MCAT?

also, as "a man of science", could you please reference this?

 

[JAH360]

If you think genetics, biology and behavior argue that behavior isn't governed by social constructs, then you don't understand genetics, biology, neuroscience, behavior analysis or sociology very well.

Straw man. That isn't what I said. I said behavior isn't purely a social construct, and that patterns in behavior aren't purely social. Sociology argues that there's nothing biological in behavior. One of my sociology professor literally told us that there are no biological differences between men and women, and that hormones don't affect mood. He also said there are no genetic differences between races. These are assertions that are held in high regard in the sociological community.

Sociologists insist that gender roles are completely social, with absolutely no biological basis whatsoever. They say that women are more nurturing than men because they've been socially conditioned to be that way, when science has shown that the elevated levels of oxytocin, prolactin, and progesterone cause the nurturing behavior in women, and that estrogen also plays a role. The sociological notion just. Isn't. Scientific.

Sociologists also argue that sexuality is fluid, and completely socially conditioned. As a gay man, this is insanely offensive. Again, neuroscience is showing that sexuality is determined before birth, and is perhaps controlled by the caudate nucleus. The sociological notion just. Isn't. Scientific.

Sociologists argue that men are more aggressive because they've been socially conditioned to be aggressive. Again, science has shown this just isn't the case. The conversion of testosterone to estradiol in the brain causes higher levels of aggression in men. The sociological notion just. Isn't. Scientific.

Should we, as future doctors and representatives of the virtues of science, encourage these baseless ideas?

also, as "a man of science", could you please reference this?

Sure.
Richard Dawkins, a world-famous evolutionary biologist, utterly obliterates social constructivists: http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/824-postmodernism-disrobed
Richard Feynman, famous physicist, calls sociology a "cargo cult science": https://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
You should also read "Higher Superstition" by two Princeton and UPenn scientists, also eviscerating sociologists for their post-hoc methods: http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Superstition-Academic-Quarrels-Science/dp/0801857074
Neither the ICE nor the DHS classify sociology as STEM: http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/stem-list.pdf
I also encourage you to read "Fashionable Nonsense" by physicists Sokal and Bricmont, again, calling out sociologists on their, well, nonsense: http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078
Raymond Tallis, famous physician and clinical neuroscientist apparently doesn't "understand genetics, biology, neuroscience, behavior analysis or sociology very well," either. I suppose he and I have that in common: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/tallis.html
Carl Bareiter, well-known education researcher, points out the unscientific nature of sociology, and the dangers of its spread among universities (this link is a PDF): http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ressive_Discourse/file/5046352278fefde28d.pdf
Nicholas Shackel, Professor of Philosophy, hilariously takes down postmodern methodology: http://philpapers.org/rec/SHATVO-2
Famous physicist and scientific communicator Victor Stenger calls for science professors to stand up to the proliferation of postmodernistic social science ideologies in academic settings: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/reality.html
Mathematician Richard Brown calls out sociologists for their rejection of science and the scientific method: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Mathematics-Socially-Constructed-Interpretations/dp/9812835245

Chomsky, who needs no introduction, calls out sociological/postmodernistic ideologies for having a "terrible effect in the third world" and "making no sense":

You should also read about the Sokal Affair. Google it. Basically, Sokal and a couple other physicists at NYU submitted a mock paper to a sociology journal, arguing that gravity is a social construct. The journal actually published it.

I also have about 50 citations to show that even the Philosophical community rejects Sociology, if you'd like for me to share.

Also, for what it's worth, Neil DeGrasse Tyson came to speak at my university in April, and when a student asked him about postmodernism, he laughed it off. (He also poked fun at the study of genetics, so maybe he was just joking, or he looks down on any discipline that isn't astrophysics, but take it for what it's worth). Obviously, there's no way I can verify that this happened, because we weren't allowed to record video, but it's more nails in the coffin, to me.

TL;DR: Sociology isn't science, and isn't accepted as science by most of the scientific community. "Falsifiability is the gold-standard: if an idea cannot meet this criteria, science it ain’t."

"[Postmodernism] is an intellectual current characterized by the more-or-less explicit rejection of the rationalist tradition of the Enlightenment, by theoretical discourses disconnected from any empirical test, and by a cognitive and cultural relativism that regards science as nothing more than a "narration," a "myth," or a social construction among many others."

So I return to my original post: why is it on the MCAT when it is so loud in its rejection of science?

 

[theparty]

literally all your examples except for 1 ("Neither the ICE nor the DHS classify sociology as STEM") are basically case studies (ie individual's opinions) instead of empirical data. on an equal accord i could just list off some these noted scientists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming] and use your sarcastic example that "global warming is a hoax" against you. kary mullis won a nobel prize in chemistry but is an AIDS denialist - his brilliance in one discipline doesn't make him an authority in others. i don't think anyone is arguing sociology is a "science" in the sense of it applies the scientific method. wiki classifies it as a "social science" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology], but that isn't meant to say it stands alongside chemistry or physics. considering more often than not, test-takers tend to get their lowest score in verbal, i'm sure a lot of "men of science" would argue that as being extraneous to their ability to practice medicine - when in fact the mcat doesn't even attempt to bill itself as a science exam: "Its purpose is to test the skills and knowledge that medical educators and physicians have identified as key prerequisites for success in medical school and the practice of medicine." [https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/faq/313932/mcat-purpose.html]. although most of us here would rather win one in medicine or physics or chemistry, as we might hold that in higher regard, they give nobel prizes in social sciences too (peace, economics) as well as arts (literature), regardless of what anyone outside of their organization feels about it. i don't think we as applicants could advise an organization as big and developed as the aamc as to how to conduct their process; not to say that you're wrong, but they undoubtedly incorporated it for a reason with loads more experience in the process than you. you've obviously stored ammunition against sociology over time (i can't imagine you just randomly found all those examples just now), and clearly come off in strong opposition. perhaps you can put yourself in a position to influence the exam topics in the future, but until then, and especially considering you don't even have to "humor" it (despite somehow falling into 4 sociology classes - what was your major by the way? i can't remember any of the science majors at my school being required to take any sociology...), perhaps just let it be and find something else [and perhaps more important] to demonstrate against? i can't imagine you're going to find a lot of equally fervent support for your position, but at the same time, i really don't see you changing your mind on the matter regardless...

and again, i'm not attacking your opinion (that is what it is), or arguing for or against sociology myself, but regardless of what you [or i or anyone besides the aamc] thinks or feels about it, it is what it is.

 

[JAH360]

I edited my last post to add in examples of the unscientific nature of sociology.

I wasn't saying the MCAT is wrong for adding sociology or to try to start a debate about it, I was just genuinely wondering why they did it, because it doesn't make any sense to me. I assumed there were reasons beyond my understanding, which is why I asked. But when someone responded attempting to insult my intelligence, I needed to make it clear that I know very well what I'm talking about.

I was a Neuroscience and Political Science double major before changing my second major from poli sci to Biochemistry.

Edit: Before someone responds telling me that the verbal section of the MCAT isn't scientific, I would like to point out that the verbal section isn't anti-scientific; sociology is.

 

[theparty]

googled "mcat sociology":

1st link: https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/mcat2015/testsections/
"Understanding the behavioral and socio-cultural determinants of health is important to the study of medicine. You will be tested on your knowledge of the ways in which psychological, social, and biological factors influence perceptions and reactions to the world; behavior, and behavior change; what people think about themselves and others; the cultural and social differences that influence well-being; and the relationships between social stratification, access to resources, and well-being."

2nd link: https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/mcat2015/faqs/
"Why are you including social and behavioral sciences topics on the new test?
The development of the new Psychological, Social and Biological Foundations of Behavior section was a collaborative effort. The section was developed by the MR5 Committee and a working group it appointed called the Behavioral and Social Sciences working group.

These two groups used multiple methods to determine whether to include a new section of the exam focused on the psychological and social foundations of behavior and to identify the content of such a section. They conducted a review of the literature (e.g., IOM Report on Improving Medical Education: Enhancing the Behavioral and Social Science Content of Medical School Curricula) and considered input from blue-ribbon and advisory panels, like the Behavioral and Social Sciences Foundations for Future Physicians Committee, as well as input from individuals with expertise in the behavioral and social sciences as it relates to medical school curricula and medical practice.

Results from the literature review and input from the blue-ribbon and advisory panels indicated that knowledge of the behavioral and social determinants of health and wellness are becoming more important in medical education and that more medical schools are developing courses that emphasize the behavioral and social determinants of health. Blueprints for the new test section emphasize concepts that tomorrow’s doctors need to know in order to serve a more diverse population and to understand the impact of behavior on health and wellness. The new test communicates the need for future physicians to be prepared to deal with the behavioral and social issues of medicine."

But when someone responded attempting to insult my intelligence, I needed to make it clear that I know very well what I'm talking about.

The MCAT exists to assess future doctors' understanding of science, and our ability to use our understanding of science to solve problems, as medicine is a discipline grounded in science and critical thinking.

i will ask [and perhaps this comes across as condescending], but are you a practicing physician? i don't see how you as a pre-medical (according to your account) might be justified in saying what the mcat tests (i've copied & pasted what the aamc claims are the purpose of the exam, which is quite different from your above quote), or what practicing medicine is (without having practiced it yourself, regardless of any shadowing experience), based on your current position. AGAIN, not trying to come across as saying your opinions in any of this are wrong, but all your arguments thus far have gaping holes in them. that's not to attack you, i might imagine you're a more qualified applicant than i am, but your opinion and support on this topic thus far has been unpersuasive, and you come across as quite vitriolic against sociology regardless of its inclusion on the mcat.

 

[deleted439911]

First I will concede your point that sociology is not hard science, and post modernism, etc. etc. But from what I see from the above poster's link, the MCAT only outlines to understand the research methods behind the social sciences, I really doubt they're gonna set you into a "post-modernist" mind set just to pass the test. It's just like how the MCAT doesn't test you to know all the controversies behind particle physics or cosmology.

Science give you the basic understanding of what's happening. But even before that, how do you connect to the patient as a human being? Having this section on the MCAT tells school that you at least went through these material and looked at other cultures, and looked at people as a product of their communities, instead of some arrangement of Carbs, water, and cells, and billions of bacteria.

Also I read Feynman's essay it isn't narrowly critiquing sociology. His critique is towards the lack of research integrity in general.

 

[JAH360]

googled "mcat sociology":

1st link: https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/mcat2015/testsections/
"Understanding the behavioral and socio-cultural determinants of health is important to the study of medicine. You will be tested on your knowledge of the ways in which psychological, social, and biological factors influence perceptions and reactions to the world; behavior, and behavior change; what people think about themselves and others; the cultural and social differences that influence well-being; and the relationships between social stratification, access to resources, and well-being."

2nd link: https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/mcat2015/faqs/
"Why are you including social and behavioral sciences topics on the new test?
The development of the new Psychological, Social and Biological Foundations of Behavior section was a collaborative effort. The section was developed by the MR5 Committee and a working group it appointed called the Behavioral and Social Sciences working group.

These two groups used multiple methods to determine whether to include a new section of the exam focused on the psychological and social foundations of behavior and to identify the content of such a section. They conducted a review of the literature (e.g., IOM Report on Improving Medical Education: Enhancing the Behavioral and Social Science Content of Medical School Curricula) and considered input from blue-ribbon and advisory panels, like the Behavioral and Social Sciences Foundations for Future Physicians Committee, as well as input from individuals with expertise in the behavioral and social sciences as it relates to medical school curricula and medical practice.

Results from the literature review and input from the blue-ribbon and advisory panels indicated that knowledge of the behavioral and social determinants of health and wellness are becoming more important in medical education and that more medical schools are developing courses that emphasize the behavioral and social determinants of health. Blueprints for the new test section emphasize concepts that tomorrow’s doctors need to know in order to serve a more diverse population and to understand the impact of behavior on health and wellness. The new test communicates the need for future physicians to be prepared to deal with the behavioral and social issues of medicine."





i will ask [and perhaps this comes across as condescending], but are you a practicing physician? i don't see how you as a pre-medical (according to your account) might be justified in saying what the mcat tests (i've copied & pasted what the aamc claims are the purpose of the exam, which is quite different from your above quote), or what practicing medicine is (without having practiced it yourself, regardless of any shadowing experience), based on your current position. AGAIN, not trying to come across as saying your opinions in any of this are wrong, but all your arguments thus far have gaping holes in them. that's not to attack you, i might imagine you're a more qualified applicant than i am, but your opinion and support on this topic thus far has been unpersuasive, and you come across as quite vitriolic against sociology regardless of its inclusion on the mcat.

That was very enlightening. I hope they only test applicants on the (very few) parts of sociology that can actually be empirically defended. I'm glad to see they make a point that biology does, in fact, have a role in behavior.

Also, I wasn't making an argument that sociology shouldn't be on the MCAT, and I made no assumption about what it's like to practice medicine--I was plain and simply pointing out that sociology isn't science, and so I wanted to understand why it was being added to the MCAT. That's all. (Although, I do want to point out that the idea that an MD holds more clout in discussions of phylogeny than someone with a suma cum laude double major BS in Neuroscience and Biochemistry, who literally does biological research, is rather self-inflating and quite silly. Most MDs aren't researchers, and phylogenetics and evolution aren't taught in most medical schools. Remember, MDs have their doctorate in medicine, not biology.)

And please show me the gaping holes. If you're more persuaded that "biology plays no roles in behavior" than by the decades of peer-reviewed science (3 examples I outlined a few posts ago) and the 15 citations of the country's leading scientist saying otherwise, then I'd imagine you're a pretty tough person to persuade[sic].

And I'm vitriolic against all forms of science denial. I love science. It's my life. I come from a family of mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and doctors (a sociologist would probably contend that my family's academic success is solely related to our social class and the fact that we value education. I would counter by saying, at the risk of sounding pompous, it probably has more to do with the unusually concentrated level of genius IQs in my family and my extended family, both on my father's and mother's side. And then I would point out that IQ, for the most part, is genetically determined). Widespread scientific literacy, and the embrace of rational thought, are two things I'm very passionate about. I want to be some sort of scientific communicator for children when I retire (kinda like Bill Nye), because I think understanding science is extremely important for society. Proper science education is essential for the future success of our country, and postmodernism, the belief that science is a "social construct," is prompting science denial and justifying willful ignorance.

First I will concede your point that sociology is not hard science, and post modernism, etc. etc. But from what I see from the above poster's link, the MCAT only outlines to understand the research methods behind the social sciences, I really doubt they're gonna set you into a "post-modernist" mind set just to pass the test. It's just like how the MCAT doesn't test you to know all the controversies behind particle physics or cosmology.

Science give you the basic understanding of what's happening. But even before that, how do you connect to the patient as a human being? Having this section on the MCAT tells school that you at least went through these material and looked at other cultures, and looked at people as a product of their communities, instead of some arrangement of Carbs, water, and cells, and billions of bacteria.

Also I read Feynman's essay it isn't narrowly critiquing sociology. His critique is towards the lack of research integrity in general.

I did want to touch on scientific controversies as it compares to social science controversies (although I'd imagine I'm beating a dead horse at this point). When Romney and Obama were campaigning, many Nobel Prize-winning economists were vehemently pro-Obama, and many Nobel Prize-winning economists were vehemently pro-Romney. There is no consensus on economics, even among the most esteemed economists, and even though it's a study thousands of years old, because it's not something that can be falsified, and thus it can't be empirically defended. Scientists, on the other hand, aren't still debating over whether DNA replication is conservative or semiconservative, because that has been tested, it has been repeated, it has been peer reviewed, and it has been accepted. This is the scientific process. The social sciences (contrary to what they claim) do not follow the scientific method. If they did, there wouldn't be so much disagreement and lack of consensus in their respective disciplines. Social sciences are opinions that can't be empirically defended.

Now, the controversies behind quantum physics mirror the controversies of all new scientific ideas in history, and so scientists will test, repeat, and peer review their little butts off to come to a consensus. In the social sciences, however, there are very few ideas where there is consensus. Two people can have PhDs in political science, yet one be far-right politically, and the other be far-left. Two people with PhDs in organic chemistry, who are from different geopolitical, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, are pretty much going to see eye-to-eye in organic chemistry. (Now I'm sure someone can find some rogue scientist who thinks chirality is a myth, but assertions from the exception are argumentative fallacies)

I'm all for education in diversity, cultural sensitivity, the promotion of inclusion, and the crumbling of social barriers, but I'm not all for sacrificing science in the name of political correctness. There is a healthy medium, and I trust that the AAMC will do its job in emphasizing this medium.

And this thread further illustrates why I love science so much: debates defending science aren't opinion versus opinion... they're science versus opinion. Ones correctness isn't measured on popular opinion, its measured on his correctness.

And if anyone wants to take a jab at trying to counter my assertions about biology and behavior, I am armed like a doomsday planner with citations to refute that shiz.

 

[theparty]

And please show me the gaping holes. If you're more persuaded that "biology plays no roles in behavior" than by the decades of peer-reviewed science (3 examples I outlined a few posts ago) and the 15 citations of the country's leading scientist saying otherwise, then I'd imagine you're a pretty tough person to persuade[sic].

And I'm vitriolic against all forms of science denial. I love science. It's my life. I come from a family of mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and doctors (a sociologist would probably contend that my family's academic success is solely related to our social class and the fact that we value education. I would counter by saying, at the risk of sounding pompous, it probably has more to do with the unusually concentrated level of genius IQs in my family and my extended family, both on my father's and mother's side. And then I would point out that IQ, for the most part, is genetically determined). Widespread scientific literacy, and the embrace of rational thought, are two things I'm very passionate about. I want to be some sort of scientific communicator for children when I retire (kinda like Bill Nye), because I think understanding science is extremely important for society. Proper science education is essential for the future success of our country, and postmodernism, the belief that science is a "social construct," is prompting science denial and justifying willful ignorance.

i've literally responded to every single one your posts in this thread pointing out their faults. in this one for example, you're refering to your quoting of scientists from multiple countries, while calling them "the country's leading scientist [sic]". and do you really want to play the "my family is smarter than..." game? like an academic equivalent of "my dad could beat up your dad"? i'll just go tell my ivy league parents who are both physicians that there are smarter people out there, i'm sure they won't be surprised, or feel at all inferior. the answer you were looking for, direct from the horse's mouth, was as simple as a google search away - you've come here for something else. if you think someone here is going to be more enlightening than aamc themselves on a topic concerning them, then i really don't know what else to say, and concede you whatever you come up with next. congrats on that "unusually concentrated level of genius IQs in my family", i'm sure that holds more weight than all those usually concentrated levels of genius IQs floating around...

you are so self-righteous i am seriously wondering if all this just trolling. the end.