Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
I'd just like some friendly thoughts on reducing the time in pre-med/med school. Eight years seems excessive to me. Especially with all the talk of pay cuts. I don't mind the pay cuts as I've expressed before, but I don't think being in debt is a positive way to start out your career. I also think that that time causes us to miss out on many things in life.

If everything we learned was necessary and relevant I'd have no argument, but with the current focus on "liberal learning" seems like a waste to me. Electives are nice, if you elect to take them. However, I don't want to pay to take a 200 level physics class when I've never met a doctor who uses 100 level physics.

Why not just require biology and chemistry classes for our education and maybe a few electives from various fields? We could be out of school in 6 years, or, we could get in more relevant education in the 8 years.

This has been done in engineering, so why not us?

Also, I would appreciate it if you refrained from general name calling and condescension in this thread. It takes away from the validity of what you have to say.
 

Drrrrrr. Celty

Osteo Dullahan
7+ Year Member
Nov 10, 2009
16,060
5,261
181
Status
Medical Student
That's how they do it in the UK.
Realistically it might be interesting, however the down side is your doing basically a A.A in life science or premedical studies. If you decide that a certain subject interests you you'll never be able to really explore deeper. I personally think that having a degree prior to doing medical school makes us unique. It's also good for guys like me who went into high school not really caring about anything or not thinking ahead beyond the summer break time. It's just not good in screening out people and for high school people because they likely don't know what they want to do yet.
That being said, 2 years isn't that much...
 

Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I'd just like some friendly thoughts on reducing the time in pre-med/med school. Eight years seems excessive to me. Especially with all the talk of pay cuts. I don't mind the pay cuts as I've expressed before, but I don't think being in debt is a positive way to start out your career. I also think that that time causes us to miss out on many things in life.

If everything we learned was necessary and relevant I'd have no argument, but with the current focus on "liberal learning" seems like a waste to me. Electives are nice, if you elect to take them. However, I don't want to pay to take a 200 level physics class when I've never met a doctor who uses 100 level physics.

Why not just require biology and chemistry classes for our education and maybe a few electives from various fields? We could be out of school in 6 years, or, we could get in more relevant education in the 8 years.

This has been done in engineering, so why not us?

Also, I would appreciate it if you refrained from general name calling and condescension in this thread. It takes away from the validity of what you have to say.
There's other health professions that require much less training. PA, Nursing you may want to explore that etc..

Also you can look into combined BS/MD programs which shaves some time form the standard 8yrs..


UK has fast track programs that take 6yrs excluding residency..

Finally you neglected residency so medical training is at least 11yrs via the standard route which I guess is even worse for you.

I believe most people don't think undergrad education is too long or some core courses are useless. It's good to have a wellrounded education for a number of reasons and one important reason is that a small minority of premed actually get into med school. Having a broad background allows one to transition into other disciplines if need be..
 
Feb 16, 2010
22
0
0
Texas
Status
Pre-Medical
My father actually graduated undergrad and med school in six years. It's possible if you work your ass off, apparently.
 

riverjib

5+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Oct 30, 2009
639
3
141
NY
Status
Pre-Medical
I'd just like some friendly thoughts on reducing the time in pre-med/med school. Eight years seems excessive to me. Especially with all the talk of pay cuts. I don't mind the pay cuts as I've expressed before, but I don't think being in debt is a positive way to start out your career. I also think that that time causes us to miss out on many things in life.

If everything we learned was necessary and relevant I'd have no argument, but with the current focus on "liberal learning" seems like a waste to me. Electives are nice, if you elect to take them. However, I don't want to pay to take a 200 level physics class when I've never met a doctor who uses 100 level physics.

Why not just require biology and chemistry classes for our education and maybe a few electives from various fields? We could be out of school in 6 years, or, we could get in more relevant education in the 8 years.

This has been done in engineering, so why not us?

Also, I would appreciate it if you refrained from general name calling and condescension in this thread. It takes away from the validity of what you have to say.
This has been done. There are plenty of 6-7 year BS/MD programs out there for high school students who are sufficiently motivated and prepared.

I know plenty of doctors (especially orthopedic surgeons) who use 100-level physics. If they were going to pare down the requirements, I'd say that the least relevant course is the second semester of orgo, which is actually when orgo started to make sense to me. Both semesters of physics (including the dreaded E&M), gen chem, and bio are totally relevant, and physicians need at least one semester of orgo as a basis for biochem, physiology, and pharmacology. No US MD or DO program requires 200-level physics.

As far as "liberal learning" is concerned, I'm not going to argue that physicians need 2+ years of history, social sciences, and humanities. But BS/MD programs pare those courses down significantly. You don't even need a bachelor's degree for many med schools, but you're at a disadvantage if you don't get one. The bachelor's degree simply proves your academic capability in a wide variety of disciplines. Med school is so competitive that those who don't have exemplary grades go for Master's degrees. That's clearly far beyond the level of education required to succeed in med school, but that's how it goes. Those who have "always" been certain they want to be doctors should aim for shorter routes early in life. Once you're in college, all bets are off.
 

Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
That's how they do it in the UK.
Realistically it might be interesting, however the down side is your doing basically a A.A in life science or premedical studies. If you decide that a certain subject interests you you'll never be able to really explore deeper. I personally think that having a degree prior to doing medical school makes us unique. It's also good for guys like me who went into high school not really caring about anything or not thinking ahead beyond the summer break time. It's just not good in screening out people and for high school people because they likely don't know what they want to do yet.
That being said, 2 years isn't that much...
Remember the British education system requires A/AS Levels (2yrs) post HS b4 getting to Univ. Med sch generally takes 6yrs so post HS, it 8yrs just like US.

I went to a British school for HS and A levels..
 
Feb 23, 2010
21
0
0
Gainesville, FL
www.facebook.com
Status
Pre-Medical
I'd just like some friendly thoughts on reducing the time in pre-med/med school. Eight years seems excessive to me. Especially with all the talk of pay cuts. I don't mind the pay cuts as I've expressed before, but I don't think being in debt is a positive way to start out your career. I also think that that time causes us to miss out on many things in life.

If everything we learned was necessary and relevant I'd have no argument, but with the current focus on "liberal learning" seems like a waste to me. Electives are nice, if you elect to take them. However, I don't want to pay to take a 200 level physics class when I've never met a doctor who uses 100 level physics.

Why not just require biology and chemistry classes for our education and maybe a few electives from various fields? We could be out of school in 6 years, or, we could get in more relevant education in the 8 years.
I completely agree. I sort of resent having to pay hundreds of dollars (if not ultimately more) for classes that seem to be irrelevant. You can expedite your undergrad time by taking summer courses/more credits at a time, but this unfortunately still does not address the problem of having to take unrelated mandatory classes. It wouldn't be quite as bad if we didn't have to pay for those classes. But, with things the way they are, I feel my time could be better spent doing something like medically relevant volunteering of some sort. Some universities have an accelerated 7 year program but they are typically very intense and you would be committing yourself to that school, but you may want to look into it. Anyway, I feel your pain!
 
Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
There's other health professions that require much less training. PA, Nursing you may want to explore that etc..

Also you can look into combined BS/MD programs which shaves some time form the standard 8yrs..


UK has fast track programs that take 6yrs excluding residency..

Finally you neglected residency so medical training is at least 11yrs via the standard route which I guess is even worse for you.

I believe most people don't think undergrad education is too long or some core courses are useless. It's good to have a wellrounded education for a number of reasons and one important reason is that a small minority of premed actually get into med school. Having a broad background allows one to transition into other disciplines if need be..

To clarify a bit, I am not suggesting that I cannot go through with the education, I'm mostly advocating for future generations of pre-meds because I know that there is a lot of (possibly unnecessarily so?)baggage going along with a medical education. I also think that residencies and such are completely necessary and relevant so I have no real problems with those last years. I have my heart set on surgery though <3 no chance of a change for me.

I agree that the liberal arts education is good for transitions into other fields and very enriching to most, but I think that it is strange that that is our only option. I think it would alleviate a lot of the stress for people who are certain of their goals to have an educational place where they can get where they are going for less money, less stress and less time.
 
Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
I completely agree. I sort of resent having to pay hundreds of dollars (if not ultimately more) for classes that seem to be irrelevant. You can expedite your undergrad time by taking summer courses/more credits at a time, but this unfortunately still does not address the problem of having to take unrelated mandatory classes. It wouldn't be quite as bad if we didn't have to pay for those classes. But, with things the way they are, I feel my time could be better spent doing something like medically relevant volunteering of some sort. Some universities have an accelerated 7 year program but they are typically very intense and you would be committing yourself to that school, but you may want to look into it. Anyway, I feel your pain!

Good to know I'm not alone :) Another problem is that none of the mandatory classes in smaller universities (like the one I attend) are directed toward medical/bio type people. If anything they are more directed at the comsci majors and athletes. I would love it if they had a Physics for Pre-Meds class that taught us what we needed to know for our field with relevant examples.
 
Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
My father actually graduated undergrad and med school in six years. It's possible if you work your ass off, apparently.
It is quite possible to graduate earlier, but you still pay the same amount, and still have to do a lot of non-relevant work.
 

tennisball80

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Feb 5, 2008
3,434
2
0
United States
Status
Pre-Medical
I was wondering why Canada did not follow the UK system. I know in Australia that you can earn an MBBS degree right after high school.

If you have a dual citizen shop, go for it.
 

Perrotfish

Has an MD in Horribleness
10+ Year Member
May 26, 2007
7,983
3,861
281
Status
Attending Physician
I know plenty of doctors (especially orthopedic surgeons) who use 100-level physics. If they were going to pare down the requirements, I'd say that the least relevant course is the second semester of orgo, which is actually when orgo started to make sense to me. Both semesters of physics (including the dreaded E&M), gen chem, and bio are totally relevant, and physicians need at least one semester of orgo as a basis for biochem, physiology, and pharmacology.
If you think you need any chemistry whatsoever for medical pharmacology it shows you've never taken the course. It's strictly word association: x drug does y and has z side effects. That's what the boards test anyway, I'm sure there are many research focused schools that torture their kids with the chemistry of everything. Biochem is basically the same: when you're memorizing pathways you're just memorizing names, not the structures (thankfully). And of course fsaying that you need an otherwise useless couse to prepare you for a different useless course is not the strongest argument. Physics and gen chem for physio are probably the sanest prereqs other than bio.

Also in no sense does an ortho need a a calculus based physics background. It might be nice to understand the concepts of torque and shear stress, but they are never going to sit down and diagram out forces unless they're involved in some very serious research. Really that's the problem: we're all being prepared for research even though most of us will never do any and we are passing the costs on to our patients..
 
Last edited:

Law2Doc

5K+ Member
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
30,981
9,881
281
Status
Attending Physician
I'd just like some friendly thoughts on reducing the time in pre-med/med school. Eight years seems excessive to me. Especially with all the talk of pay cuts. I don't mind the pay cuts as I've expressed before, but I don't think being in debt is a positive way to start out your career. I also think that that time causes us to miss out on many things in life.

If everything we learned was necessary and relevant I'd have no argument, but with the current focus on "liberal learning" seems like a waste to me. Electives are nice, if you elect to take them. However, I don't want to pay to take a 200 level physics class when I've never met a doctor who uses 100 level physics.

Why not just require biology and chemistry classes for our education and maybe a few electives from various fields? We could be out of school in 6 years, or, we could get in more relevant education in the 8 years.

This has been done in engineering, so why not us?

Also, I would appreciate it if you refrained from general name calling and condescension in this thread. It takes away from the validity of what you have to say.
The US system came after some of the foreign, integrated college-med school systems and rejected those because they didn't give folks a broad education. More recently, (the 1970s), the notion of med school admissions was revamped out of a realization that this was a service industry, not a pure science, and that the kind of doctors patients wanted and the kind that are generated simply by taking nothing more than the prereq sciences did not jibe well. Since the late 70s you have seen an increase in non-sci majors, nontrads, minorities and women to the field. Like it or not, this is a service industry, one of the most important skills you are going to have is to be able to talk to people and find a connection with them. Having a more, not less, broad education helps you with this. Being more mature in years also can help with this. The notion that "I don't need physics, calculus, english" etc misses the point of a broad education. Our system gives you the opportunity to come out well rounded. It allows med schools to put together a diverse class of sci and non-sci individuals, folks with diverse experiences, not just folks who took some bio and chem and otherwise haven't expanded their horizons. The average age is 24 and climbing, not declining. And while maybe there are financial disincentives to spending so much time in school, the field demands it. Many of the shorter US allo paths are being phased out. Not because the folks aren't learning what they need, science-wise, but because there are so many advantages to accepting folks with the additional experiences a few extra years of seasoning and liberal arts education can bring, if you let it. As a premed you are champing at the bit anxious to start, I get that. But you are going to look back with nostalgia at your premed college life, if you do it right. It can be the most fundamental, most useful background you can get for a predominantly service industry. Spend the time taking things you won't use. Make yourself well rounded and able to converse on a multitude of non-sci subjects. Learn a foreign language. Maybe some business. And partake in the social offerings of college. It will shape you in ways far more important than simply taking the prereqs and rushing to med school. Once med school starts, you barely will have time for more than school. It's a limiting education -- you need to get your broad one first or you end up knowing nothing but biochem. And believe me, it's far easier to talk to patients if you've spent time outside of the classroom/lab/library during your 20s. US saw all the other educational models and picked this one, for good reason. The delay is intentional, and evolved from patient service needs, which frankly are as important as your desire to get through it quicker. Take advantage of this path, don't think of it as wasteful. It's not. It's important to your evolution to doctorhood. Speaking as a resident, I find I draw useful skills and knowledge from my college background and experience all the time in my patient care encounters, far more than from the basic science years of med school. To be a good doctor you often have to have experiences outside of the premed-med school path. I think there are actually still very good and beneficial reasons for a long undergrad.

And even to the extent that it gives some people exposure to other fields so they don't end up in med school for the wrong reasons would be a useful reason to maintain the liberal arts background. You have to realize that the US system was set up to decide who will be a doctor at the med school admissions level. We find it unfair to require folks to incur time and expense on this path only to get thrown out later, as they do in the UK and other countries. Here, you prove yourself in undergrad, are accepted, and once in med school in all probability you will become a doctor (less than 5% attrition). Foreign countries who accept folks right out of high school, before they have actually proved themselves, have much much higher attrition. They have to because they haven't allowed folks to mature and put together any sort of academic or EC resume. In the US 90% of the freshmen who go to college thinking they are "premed" will get pared away by the time they actually apply, and then 50% get in after that. so the folks who get in are destined for doctordom. it's a good system, doesn't force folks to incur high tuition debt only to get thrown out. It's a good system. We like it better, because those other systems existed before ours and we rejected using those. And further refined who gets in to med school in the 70s, once we realized what the profession was all about (service, not science) and once it was accepted that patients get a vote.
 
Last edited:

Perrotfish

Has an MD in Horribleness
10+ Year Member
May 26, 2007
7,983
3,861
281
Status
Attending Physician
The US system came after some of the foreign, integrated college-med school systems and rejected those because they didn't give folks a broad education. More recently, (the 1970s), the notion of med school admissions was revamped out of a realization that this was a service industry, not a pure science, and that the kind of doctors patients wanted and the kind that are generated simply by taking nothing more than the prereq sciences did not jibe well. Since the late 70s you have seen an increase in non-sci majors, nontrads, minorities and women to the field. Like it or not, this is a service industry, one of the most important skills you are going to have is to be able to talk to people and find a connection with them. Having a more, not less, broad education helps you with this. Being more mature in years also can help with this. The notion that "I don't need physics, calculus, english" etc misses the point of a broad education. Our system gives you the opportunity to come out well rounded. It allows med schools to put together a diverse class of sci and non-sci individuals, folks with diverse experiences, not just folks who took some bio and chem and otherwise haven't expanded their horizons. The average age is 24 and climbing, not declining. And while maybe there are financial disincentives to spending so much time in school, the field demands it. Many of the shorter US allo paths are being phased out. Not because the folks aren't learning what they need, science-wise, but because there are so many advantages to accepting folks with the additional experiences a few extra years of seasoning and liberal arts education can bring, if you let it. As a premed you are champing at the bit anxious to start, I get that. But you are going to look back with nostalgia at your premed college life, if you do it right. It can be the most fundamental, most useful background you can get for a predominantly service industry. Spend the time taking things you won't use. Make yourself well rounded and able to converse on a multitude of non-sci subjects. Learn a foreign language. Maybe some business. And partake in the social offerings of college. It will shape you in ways far more important than simply taking the prereqs and rushing to med school. Once med school starts, you barely will have time for more than school. It's a limiting education -- you need to get your broad one first or you end up knowing nothing but biochem. And believe me, it's far easier to talk to patients if you've spent time outside of the classroom/lab/library during your 20s. US saw all the other educational models and picked this one, for good reason. The delay is intentional, and evolved from patient service needs, which frankly are as important as your desire to get through it quicker. Take advantage of this path, don't think of it as wasteful. It's not. It's important to your evolution to doctorhood. Speaking as a resident, I find I draw useful skills and knowledge from my college background and experience all the time in my patient care encounters, far more than from the basic science years of med school. To be a good doctor you often have to have experiences outside of the premed-med school path. I think there are actually still very good and beneficial reasons for a long undergrad.

And even to the extent that it gives some people exposure to other fields so they don't end up in med school for the wrong reasons would be a useful reason to maintain the liberal arts background. You have to realize that the US system was set up to decide who will be a doctor at the med school admissions level. We find it unfair to require folks to incur time and expense on this path only to get thrown out later, as they do in the UK and other countries. Here, you prove yourself in undergrad, are accepted, and once in med school in all probability you will become a doctor (less than 5% attrition). Foreign countries who accept folks right out of high school, before they have actually proved themselves, have much much higher attrition. They have to because they haven't allowed folks to mature and put together any sort of academic or EC resume. In the US 90% of the freshmen who go to college thinking they are "premed" will get pared away by the time they actually apply, and then 50% get in after that. so the folks who get in are destined for doctordom. it's a good system, doesn't force folks to incur high tuition debt only to get thrown out. It's a good system. We like it better, because those other systems existed before ours and we rejected using those. And further refined who gets in to med school in the 70s, once we realized what the profession was all about (service, not science) and once it was accepted that patients get a vote.

Wow, that's a VERY optimistic view of our system. I'm going to have to disagree. For the first part I disagree because if that's what the system set out to accomplish it has failed spectacularly. A student who realized they want to go to medical school later than the age of 17 in our system will likely have irrevocably damaged his application, the AMCAS policy of counting all grades equally and requiring a huge ammount of application padding assures selection of candidates who have not spent their time soul searching, but rather who have been plannning for this since the womb. If the goal was to keep people from unfairly wasting time and money only to be thrown out they have done an equally terrible job: many premeds waste a decade and a small fortune trying to gain admission to a medical school only to end up with nothing. Finally if this profession were about 'service, not science' they would be doing everything they could to produce more and cheaper doctors, because that's what makes a nation healthier. Instead they artificially limit the number of physicians produces with byzantine legal requirements for establishing medical schools and residencies, and then shunt most of the doctors they do make into specialties that dont improve outcomes nearly as much as GPs. The reason that they maintain the current system is that the profession, like all other professions, is about neither service nor science. It's about prestige and money.

Our system evolved, not out of altruism, but out of elitism. Every new opportunity cost that the admisisons committe could add (ECs, liberal arts degrees, medical missions, whatever) helped to make sure that medicine would remain a sport for the rich. Their emphasis on a permanent record, with no grade forgiveness under any circumstances, makes sure they select for students who not only never faced any read adversity, but who also wouldn't blink at accepting degrees with high GPAs (high cost private colleges, liberal arts or the premedical sciences) vs. lower GPA degrees that might lead to a reasonable debt load and employment if things don't work out. Until the last generation medical school admissions made no secret of their intentions to recruit aristocrats, but now they're forced to lie, even to themselves, and pretend that being well rounded and well traveled somehow impacts patient care despite having no scientific evidence to support that claim. Meanwhile they continue to make sure that the system favors the wealthiest 1% in hundreds of ways.

In the 70s what America rejected was Europes push for economic equality. We chose to stick with unregulated finances, employment at will, private health care, limited unionization, and professional education that favors the wealthy. It wasn't a decision that was made in the spirit of Charity.
 
Last edited:

Drrrrrr. Celty

Osteo Dullahan
7+ Year Member
Nov 10, 2009
16,060
5,261
181
Status
Medical Student
Wow, that's a VERY optimistic view of our system. I'm going to have to disagree. For the first part I disagree because if that's what the system set out to accomplish it has failed spectacularly. A student who realized they want to go to medical school later than the age of 17 in our system will likely have irrevocably damaged his application, the AMCAS policy of counting all grades equally and requiring a huge ammount of application padding assures selection of candidates who have not spent their time soul searching, but rather who have been plannning for this since the womb. If the goal was to keep people from unfairly wasting time and money only to be thrown out they have done an equally terrible job: many premeds waste a decade and a small fortune trying to gain admission to a medical school only to end up with nothing. Finally if this profession were about 'service, not science' they would be doing everything they could to produce more and cheaper doctors, because that's what makes a nation healthier. Instead they artificially limit the number of physicians produces with byzantine legal requirements for establishing medical schools and residencies, and then shunt most of the doctors they do make into specialties that dont improve outcomes nearly as much as GPs. The reason that they maintain the current system is that the profession, like all other professions, is about neither service nor science. It's about prestige and money.
It's nice that DO schools slightly understand the whole retake concept. I'll admit if your a engineering major ( or any major which you can get a job after college) you really don't give you sh!t's about your gpa. You know as long as you just pass every hard class with a C you'll still graduate. However when they realize later that they want something different there screwed over. There are tons of ways to get into medical schools ( SMP's , post-bacc's) but your right, those people will spend fortunes and in the end its all just a risk.
The smart Premed who knows immediately at age 17 he's going into medicine, will of course be coming in with a completely different mindset. She or he will be ready to work harder and manage things so that medical school admissions accept them. Hell if you know you want to go into medical school at age 17 be ready to find a non-science major which appeals best to you.
But in the end there is no system which is perfect. EC's like going to grad school and getting a PhD and having life experience do make up for having a cruddy gpa in undergrad because you just didn't care. But still again you'll be spending years working just to salvage your application.. But that's more then likely how most of the allied health fields get a lot of there students. From people whom the medical school application has either cut off or deemed simply not worth it.
I'm going to say that medicine is a service degree. Working with people and servicing them with your medical knowledge. In the end your going to go to the doctor with the best bed side manor and not the cranky old hyper science nut who see's you as a bag of organs.
Our system evolved, not out of altruism, but out of elitism. Every new opportunity cost that the admisisons committe could add (ECs, liberal arts degrees, medical missions, whatever) helped to make sure that medicine would remain a sport for the rich. Their emphasis on a permanent record, with no grade forgiveness under any circumstances, makes sure they select for students who not only never faced any read adversity, but who also wouldn't blink at accepting degrees with high GPAs (high cost private colleges, liberal arts or the premedical sciences) vs. lower GPA degrees that might lead to a reasonable debt load and employment if things don't work out. Until the last generation medical school admissions made no secret of their intentions to recruit aristocrats, but now they're forced to lie, even to themselves, and pretend that being well rounded and well traveled somehow impacts patient care despite having no scientific evidence to support that claim. Meanwhile they continue to make sure that the system favors the wealthiest 1% in hundreds of ways.
Ok... we get it you have less hope in the world then Nietzsche whats your point? Medical admissions is a competition for scarce resources( spots) and the guy with the biggest guns and ammo or the one best supplied is going to surely over take the less prepared. I mean what are you attempting to imply that all human life isn't like this? The rich get the best and the others get the second hand sh!t. To change that concept you'll literally have to alter human history and culture to actually fit this utopian attempt.
The end result is that it all boils down to the concept of, " alls fair in love and war."
In the 70s what America rejected was Europes push for economic equality. We chose to stick with unregulated finances, employment at will, private health care, limited unionization, and professional education that favors the wealthy. It wasn't a decision that was made in the spirit of Charity.
And both system sucks. Europe's highly inflated and America's bankrupt.
Meh... I think medical school will be fun..
 

justdoit31

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jul 13, 2008
1,222
4
0
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Texas Tech just announced to the students (they announce through media this week) that starting next year they will have a Family Medicine fast track program where a small group of individuals who want to go into Family Med can do med school in 3 years instead of 4- they are knocking out several rotations that aren't pertinent during 3rd/4th year. So I guess if you just want to go into family you could cut it down to 7 years.

Also, several people in my class did undergrad in 3 years due to AP and CLEP credits. Honestly I feel the amount of time in medical school is fine for people wanting to pursue a non-family med career. And undergrad wasn't that hard so I couldn't complain about it.
 

roseglass6370

Are we there yet?
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Jun 24, 2008
610
13
101
Status
Other Health Professions Student
I'd just like some friendly thoughts on reducing the time in pre-med/med school. Eight years seems excessive to me. Especially with all the talk of pay cuts. I don't mind the pay cuts as I've expressed before, but I don't think being in debt is a positive way to start out your career. I also think that that time causes us to miss out on many things in life.

If everything we learned was necessary and relevant I'd have no argument, but with the current focus on "liberal learning" seems like a waste to me. Electives are nice, if you elect to take them. However, I don't want to pay to take a 200 level physics class when I've never met a doctor who uses 100 level physics.

Why not just require biology and chemistry classes for our education and maybe a few electives from various fields? We could be out of school in 6 years, or, we could get in more relevant education in the 8 years.

This has been done in engineering, so why not us?

Also, I would appreciate it if you refrained from general name calling and condescension in this thread. It takes away from the validity of what you have to say.
The time it takes to become a doctor weeds out people who aren't serious enough to see it through to the end. Also, while most of the things we learn in Physics and Chem etc. aren't going to be used in our career, they create difficult hoops for us to jump through to show that we can tackle some of the harder subjects without giving up.
 

Perrotfish

Has an MD in Horribleness
10+ Year Member
May 26, 2007
7,983
3,861
281
Status
Attending Physician
Ok... we get it you have less hope in the world then Nietzsche whats your point? Medical admissions is a competition for scarce resources( spots) and the guy with the biggest guns and ammo or the one best supplied is going to surely over take the less prepared. I mean what are you attempting to imply that all human life isn't like this? The rich get the best and the others get the second hand sh!t. To change that concept you'll literally have to alter human history and culture to actually fit this utopian attempt.
The end result is that it all boils down to the concept of, " alls fair in love and war."
Basically my point is that there is no reason that the spots need to be scare, or high cost, at all. If you deregulate the market so that the medical school and residency system no longer has to operate as a trust you could create real competition between differet training models, reduce the required training time to the bare minimum, drastically increase the number of physicians, and split the savings between physicians and the customers. It sucks a little when the rich make sure their kids are always first in line, but it sucks a lot when they make sure that their kids are the only ones allowed in the line at all. When a system this important becomes that rigged is when it's a good time for governmet intervention and deregulation.

I'm not hopeless for the world in general, just cynical about this profession in this country. Most other locations and professions don't cause me to rant nearly as much. Engineering, for examlple, though definitely still a field where a rich kid can buy some advatages is WAY more fair in terms of training than medicine, eve though I think they attract comparable types of students and present them with similar challenges. Actually it's amazing that medicine has been able to maintain this system when so many other professions have gone to more of a free market model, it's really a testament to how good we are at fighting for our own best interests.

Does no one else see the value in a deep, broad and well-rounded education?
Not in terms of patient care. It can have tremendous spiritual value, but your spiritual wellbeing is not and should not be the concern of those involved with your medical training.
 
Last edited:

illegallysmooth

Smooth member
10+ Year Member
May 21, 2008
1,506
78
271
Buffalove
Status
Attending Physician
Not in terms of patient care. It can have tremendous spiritual value, but your spiritual wellbeing is not and should not be the concern of those involved with your medical training.
You are more than a doctor. I wasn't acting in terms of patient care. I mean, as a grown, mature, intelligent, well-educated PERSON.
 

Dial71

10+ Year Member
Jun 5, 2008
143
2
0
Status
Medical Student
Good to know I'm not alone :) Another problem is that none of the mandatory classes in smaller universities (like the one I attend) are directed toward medical/bio type people. If anything they are more directed at the comsci majors and athletes. I would love it if they had a Physics for Pre-Meds class that taught us what we needed to know for our field with relevant examples.
I don't agree in the least. We take pre-reqs to learn basic sciences, not medicine. Application will come later in medicial school.

The danger of offering special pre-med sections of courses is to further insulate pre-meds from the general student body.
 

Perrotfish

Has an MD in Horribleness
10+ Year Member
May 26, 2007
7,983
3,861
281
Status
Attending Physician
You are more than a doctor. I wasn't acting in terms of patient care. I mean, as a grown, mature, intelligent, well-educated PERSON.
Honestly I think that the premedical process stunts spiritual and emotional growth by locking students into a treadmill of artifical academic challenges to the exclusion of all else. Whatever virtues a well rounded education might have in terms of maturity are killed by the stress and competition of premedicine. I'm not even sure a normal education is in any way superior to normal life experience for maturity and personal growth, and I am sure that premedicine is way worse than either.

In any event, like I said earlier I think that people should be able to decide for themselves what makes them a grown, mature person. The job of medical school admissions is to decide if you're going to deliver good patient care. That's it.
 

illegallysmooth

Smooth member
10+ Year Member
May 21, 2008
1,506
78
271
Buffalove
Status
Attending Physician
Honestly I think that the premedical process stunts spiritual and emotional growth by locking students into a treadmill of artifical academic challenges to the exclusion of all else. Whatever virtues a well rounded education might have in terms of maturity are killed by the stress and competition of premedicine. I'm not even sure a normal education is in any way superior to normal life experience for maturity and personal growth, and I am sure that premedicine is way worse than either.

In any event, like I said earlier I think that people should be able to decide for themselves what makes them a grown, mature person. The job of medical school admissions is to decide if you're going to deliver good patient care. That's it.
I don't think we have the same opinion of the rigor of pre-med education. I know plenty of people who got into medical school leading well-balanced lives - with friends, parties, sports, etc. Myself included. The engineers were worse off, but I know a couple that did well and maintained active hobbies and other interests.
 

Law2Doc

5K+ Member
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
30,981
9,881
281
Status
Attending Physician
I don't think we have the same opinion of the rigor of pre-med education. I know plenty of people who got into medical school leading well-balanced lives - with friends, parties, sports, etc. Myself included. The engineers were worse off, but I know a couple that did well and maintained active hobbies and other interests.
Agreed. I think there are ways to take advantage of undergrad, and ways to squander it by saying "I gotta do X, Y and Z to help my med school chances". Honestly I doubt that the percentage of folks who get in from the two groups are all that different. But the value of the education they get clearly is. The dude who only takes the prereqs and majors in something he finds fun, and does ECs he finds fun and interesting (with a modest amount of hospital volunteering thrown in), probably does at least as well (if not better) in admissions as the person who is the biochem major who signs up for every premed club and does a crazy amount of premed oriented ECs and research. I think folks make "premed" a life into itself and go nuts trying to outdo other premeds, when actually admissions rewards the unique and more broadly educated. So yeah, I suspect that for the approach perrotfish took for undergrad, there wasn't much value to it, but the approach that a lot of us non-premeds took probably advantaged us in very different, and valuable ways.
 

she woolf

Steinem quotin' feminist
Mar 8, 2010
88
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Did you hear about the 3 year bachelor degrees? You should google them cuz I'm too lazy to do it for you. ;) Some colleges offer them or maybe move to Europe because I believe most of theirs are 3yr degrees.
 

Drrrrrr. Celty

Osteo Dullahan
7+ Year Member
Nov 10, 2009
16,060
5,261
181
Status
Medical Student
Basically my point is that there is no reason that the spots need to be scare, or high cost, at all. If you deregulate the market so that the medical school and residency system no longer has to operate as a trust you could create real competition between differet training models, reduce the required training time to the bare minimum, drastically increase the number of physicians, and split the savings between physicians and the customers. It sucks a little when the rich make sure their kids are always first in line, but it sucks a lot when they make sure that their kids are the only ones allowed in the line at all. When a system this important becomes that rigged is when it's a good time for governmet intervention and deregulation.

I'm not hopeless for the world in general, just cynical about this profession in this country. Most other locations and professions don't cause me to rant nearly as much. Engineering, for examlple, though definitely still a field where a rich kid can buy some advatages is WAY more fair in terms of training than medicine, eve though I think they attract comparable types of students and present them with similar challenges. Actually it's amazing that medicine has been able to maintain this system when so many other professions have gone to more of a free market model, it's really a testament to how good we are at fighting for our own best interests.



Not in terms of patient care. It can have tremendous spiritual value, but your spiritual wellbeing is not and should not be the concern of those involved with your medical training.

Hmm... I'll have to admit this argument of your is good. Medicine spots are scarce and we could fix the deficiency of trained physicians easily. However the AMA is defending itself from becoming like law, if we remove residency spot caps or medical school caps then the field will go down hill. I think though its arguable one of the quick solutions to this problem.
But deregulation proposes many more problems including the flooding of possibly badly trained physicians.
Who knows, personally I'm having trouble being hypothetical in a situation of deregulation. I think in the end it all comes down to conflict theory ( poor envy the rich and aspire to be like them, thus they fight and try to achieve there position). If we deregulate medicine will lose its monetary appeal. Then people will stop going into it. Then having a decrease in applications it'll break down more or less.
Engineering is working for things, medicine is working with people. You can't compare them because in the end if you need a doctor you'll pay anything to keep yourself alive. For engineering you'll just put off the project until later. As we all know you can put off a critical surgery or procedure ( unless you want to die). So really this concept is difficult to work with.
 

PremedIowa

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
472
1
141
Status
Medical Student
I like having a Bachelor's degree. It allows me to understand things going on in biological sciences and chemistry research outside of clinical medicine. Many of the advances have come from basic science research and it helps to have a solid grounding in advanced biology because that stuff is often ignored during med school. It also allowed me to study philosophy/ethics, psychology, develop writing skills, and have a solid laboratory background. I use many of these things daily or at least weekly.

Also, there are some specialties that demand a strong physical sciences background. Radiology and radiation oncology call for advanced physics, pathology stains are selected based off chemical properties, and every doctor needs to understand drug response and metabolism curves. Oncologists need to have an intense understand of cellular biology. Although these things are gained largely through residency, it helps to have a background.

I think the key to being happy with a longer education is to just be happy doing it. Start living the good life rather than doing nothing but studying and preparing for med school. Too many of us push off things we want to do for "later", but the reality is that later often turns to never. Life only gets more busy from here on out, so take your time in undergrad and enjoy the process to the greatest extent you can. Heck, the majority of small talk you do with patients has nothing to do with medicine. It's about baseball or March Madness or the weather or children. You don't learn about those things in a medical school lecture hall.
 
Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
The time it takes to become a doctor weeds out people who aren't serious enough to see it through to the end. Also, while most of the things we learn in Physics and Chem etc. aren't going to be used in our career, they create difficult hoops for us to jump through to show that we can tackle some of the harder subjects without giving up.
I frequently come across the term "weeding out" and I think that it may be used too carelessly and without enough explanation in some cases. Why do they want us to jump through hoops? I understand the value of realizing that a person will not give up, but I also believe that it should be relevantly difficult material.

Make us jump through medically relevant hoops on our way to medicine and mathematically relevant hoops on our way to math careers. Some math is needed for medicine yes, but why not just teach us the math we need in medicine?

Is it not a difficult enough feat for us to accomplish? If it isn't, then why are we weeding out those who are qualified and capable of it? Shouldn't we be trying to weed out the people who aren't capable of working in medicine, and not weeding out the people who aren't capable of working at maximum proficiency in every subject?
 
Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
Agreed. I think there are ways to take advantage of undergrad, and ways to squander it by saying "I gotta do X, Y and Z to help my med school chances". Honestly I doubt that the percentage of folks who get in from the two groups are all that different. But the value of the education they get clearly is. The dude who only takes the prereqs and majors in something he finds fun, and does ECs he finds fun and interesting (with a modest amount of hospital volunteering thrown in), probably does at least as well (if not better) in admissions as the person who is the biochem major who signs up for every premed club and does a crazy amount of premed oriented ECs and research. I think folks make "premed" a life into itself and go nuts trying to outdo other premeds, when actually admissions rewards the unique and more broadly educated. So yeah, I suspect that for the approach perrotfish took for undergrad, there wasn't much value to it, but the approach that a lot of us non-premeds took probably advantaged us in very different, and valuable ways.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Perrotfish. I love my student organizations and volunteer work and they have helped me to grow spiritually and as a person more than a classroom ever could. They've also given me unique skills that are advantageous for work and my future career.

The key differences between growing in a class room, and growing in my spare time, is that growing in a class room costs a lot of money, often times does not aid in growth, and is not in an area you have an interest in.

If they truly wanted us to stretch our comfort zones they'd make us all take acting classes. Can you imagine your entire research team trying to play out the Producers? That would enable communication, coordination and social growth on a level that many science-types are in desperate need of. It would also be a source of refreshing comedy and embarrassment that would alleviate the undergrad stress.
 
Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
Did you hear about the 3 year bachelor degrees? You should google them cuz I'm too lazy to do it for you. ;) Some colleges offer them or maybe move to Europe because I believe most of theirs are 3yr degrees.
I googled and got moderately promising and frustrating results. There were few programs for biology but it seems like the idea is picking up speed. Btw, love your sig.
 
Mar 12, 2010
91
0
0
Status
I googled and got moderately promising and frustrating results. There were few programs for biology but it seems like the idea is picking up speed. Btw, love your sig.
You could try UCLA:

Premedical Education: Ordinarily a bachelor's degree is required for admission, but in certain instances students who have completed three full academic years at an accredited college or university might be accepted.

;)
 

Law2Doc

5K+ Member
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
30,981
9,881
281
Status
Attending Physician
I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Perrotfish. I love my student organizations and volunteer work and they have helped me to grow spiritually and as a person more than a classroom ever could. ...
This is actually not agreeing with him, but me. I'm the one who is saying get a broad education and do activities you enjoy, without worrying so much about pre-med-dom. He's saying they should do away with all the hoops and just make it a shorter, premed-focused path from day one.
 

Law2Doc

5K+ Member
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
30,981
9,881
281
Status
Attending Physician
I frequently come across the term "weeding out" and I think that it may be used too carelessly and without enough explanation in some cases. Why do they want us to jump through hoops? I understand the value of realizing that a person will not give up, but I also believe that it should be relevantly difficult material.

Make us jump through medically relevant hoops on our way to medicine and mathematically relevant hoops on our way to math careers. Some math is needed for medicine yes, but why not just teach us the math we need in medicine?

Is it not a difficult enough feat for us to accomplish? If it isn't, then why are we weeding out those who are qualified and capable of it? Shouldn't we be trying to weed out the people who aren't capable of working in medicine, and not weeding out the people who aren't capable of working at maximum proficiency in every subject?
The point isn't to try and teach you medicine related stuff in undergrad. You will learn all the medicine you need in med school, and learn it better and more appropriately. The prereqs serve two purposes. (1) to give you a very generalized background in "science" upon which you can build. You need a very basic science background before you can launch usefully into med school. You don't need to know anatomy, physiology or biochemistry or microbiology before you start med school. But it's helpful if you've had a bit of biology, chemistry, physics before you start. This is just foundation, not something you will actually use. But just like a house, if there's no foundation, you really don't have something to build on. (2) you need folks to take a common set of courses so you can compare people. The MCAT is well and nice, but it's a single day event. The prereqs are nice because they serve to give some insight into how folks do in science courses over a couple of years. And since everyone has to take these courses, there is some basis to compare. Now again, they don't want to get too med school specific -- they want a mere foundation in sciences. The rest med schools would prefer to teach you "their" way. I've heard many many med school professors wishing so many folks didn't waste their undergrad trying to learn med school courses like anatomy. Inevitably they are going to learn it "wrong" and have to spend some time undoing things, or worse, will try to coast thinking they "already know it" from their undergrad exposure. They also are using up credits that could have been better spent learning something they aren't going to learn again, better, in med school. It's wasted effort.

So yeah, the prereqs serve a couple of purposes. Premeds want to run before they can walk. At this stage it's about getting a foundation and a basis for comparison. Later you will learn things that are more med school specific. But honestly, even the med school material is going to be 90% useless to you in your careers. As a family doctor, how much histology are you really going to use? Or as an orthopod, how much biochem? It's about being well rounded even then. You need a background, an education broader than just your task. This isn't vocational school, where you learn how to be a locksmith, or a diesel mechanic and nothing else. You are learning to be a very well educated professional, and will have lots of arrows in your quiver of knowledge that you can pull out as needed. No education is wasteful. What is wasteful is limiting your education out of some notion that "I don't see why I need X,Y or Z". That's grade school thinking -- the old "why do I need math if I'm going to be a football player" mentality. A professional needs to have a better perspective.
 

she woolf

Steinem quotin' feminist
Mar 8, 2010
88
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
The point isn't to try and teach you medicine related stuff in undergrad. You will learn all the medicine you need in med school, and learn it better and more appropriately. The prereqs serve two purposes. (1) to give you a very generalized background in "science" upon which you can build. You need a very basic science background before you can launch usefully into med school. You don't need to know anatomy, physiology or biochemistry or microbiology before you start med school. But it's helpful if you've had a bit of biology, chemistry, physics before you start. This is just foundation, not something you will actually use. But just like a house, if there's no foundation, you really don't have something to build on. (2) you need folks to take a common set of courses so you can compare people. The MCAT is well and nice, but it's a single day event. The prereqs are nice because they serve to give some insight into how folks do in science courses over a couple of years. And since everyone has to take these courses, there is some basis to compare. Now again, they don't want to get too med school specific -- they want a mere foundation in sciences. The rest med schools would prefer to teach you "their" way. I've heard many many med school professors wishing so many folks didn't waste their undergrad trying to learn med school courses like anatomy. Inevitably they are going to learn it "wrong" and have to spend some time undoing things, or worse, will try to coast thinking they "already know it" from their undergrad exposure. They also are using up credits that could have been better spent learning something they aren't going to learn again, better, in med school. It's wasted effort.

So yeah, the prereqs serve a couple of purposes. Premeds want to run before they can walk. At this stage it's about getting a foundation and a basis for comparison. Later you will learn things that are more med school specific. But honestly, even the med school material is going to be 90% useless to you in your careers. As a family doctor, how much histology are you really going to use? Or as an orthopod, how much biochem? It's about being well rounded even then. You need a background, an education broader than just your task. This isn't vocational school, where you learn how to be a locksmith, or a diesel mechanic and nothing else. You are learning to be a very well educated professional, and will have lots of arrows in your quiver of knowledge that you can pull out as needed. No education is wasteful. What is wasteful is limiting your education out of some notion that "I don't see why I need X,Y or Z". That's grade school thinking -- the old "why do I need math if I'm going to be a football player" mentality. A professional needs to have a better perspective.
I disagree with the whole "well roundedness" concept. That's all great in nice but honestly the colleges that force you to take their required lib arts courses and sometimes theology courses before ou get to learn what you want to learn SUCK. Plain and simple. Some people don't want to take english classes where grading is subjective and can mess up your gpa if the teacher doesn't like you. With science you have some control in how well you do and people find that control comforting. I don't think you should punish the kid that finds stoichiometry relaxing, by claiming/assuming he isn't well rounded and sociable. As if a lib arts degree makes one more spiritual aware and sociable and whatever garble adcom are spewing.:mad: Let people take 3yr degree programs. Don't punish people that want a head start in sci/math. It seems rather pointless. Once you get interviewed they should be able to tell if you are well rounded by speaking to you and getting to know your personality
 

she woolf

Steinem quotin' feminist
Mar 8, 2010
88
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
I googled and got moderately promising and frustrating results. There were few programs for biology but it seems like the idea is picking up speed. Btw, love your sig.
;) Thanks! U of Washington and Hartwick college are offering them. [but I'm sure you googled already :laugh:] I think its great and I hope more colleges get the memo.
 

Law2Doc

5K+ Member
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
30,981
9,881
281
Status
Attending Physician
I disagree with the whole "well roundedness" concept. That's all great in nice but honestly the colleges that force you to take their required lib arts courses and sometimes theology courses before ou get to learn what you want to learn SUCK. Plain and simple. Some people don't want to take english classes where grading is subjective and can mess up your gpa if the teacher doesn't like you. With science you have some control in how well you do and people find that control comforting. I don't think you should punish the kid that finds stoichiometry relaxing, by claiming/assuming he isn't well rounded and sociable. As if a lib arts degree makes one more spiritual aware and sociable and whatever garble adcom are spewing.:mad: Let people take 3yr degree programs. Don't punish people that want a head start in sci/math. It seems rather pointless. Once you get interviewed they should be able to tell if you are well rounded by speaking to you and getting to know your personality
People on here use the black on white text colors for a reason. Your light blue is pretty much invisible on a lot of our screens. I guess you needed a well rounded education to realize that.:idea:

You can get a broad education and still take a lot of science classes. My (and a lot of med school professors BTW) biggest objection is the folks who take "premed" classes beyond the prereqs, because you are going to get all that in spades in med school, and so honestly it's a waste of college credit toward something you will get ample exposure to later. It's sort of like ordering a steak and a side order of fries even though it comes with fries. Sure you might like fries, but that's too much fries at the expense of having asparagus or broccoli or something else you might get some value out of.
 

Drrrrrr. Celty

Osteo Dullahan
7+ Year Member
Nov 10, 2009
16,060
5,261
181
Status
Medical Student
I disagree with the whole "well roundedness" concept. That's all great in nice but honestly the colleges that force you to take their required lib arts courses and sometimes theology courses before ou get to learn what you want to learn SUCK. Plain and simple. Some people don't want to take english classes where grading is subjective and can mess up your gpa if the teacher doesn't like you. With science you have some control in how well you do and people find that control comforting. I don't think you should punish the kid that finds stoichiometry relaxing, by claiming/assuming he isn't well rounded and sociable. As if a lib arts degree makes one more spiritual aware and sociable and whatever garble adcom are spewing.:mad: Let people take 3yr degree programs. Don't punish people that want a head start in sci/math. It seems rather pointless. Once you get interviewed they should be able to tell if you are well rounded by speaking to you and getting to know your personality
I disagree, liberal arts requirements are good for you. The whole point is to learn things like writing comprehension and how to critically think. Ok your a premed, so what. Does that mean you can write or thinking critically or analyze a passage quickly to get the jist? In the end the general education requirements build you up in life applicable skills which colleges see as extremely useful in todays society. Like at my college we can't graduate without taking 3 semesters of lang. That's extremely applicable to life and is useful. How useful in stoichemotry in life come on?
I've had this argument with so many premeds, and they just don't get the point of history and English to them. It's as if they somehow think that being premed means that they are not immersed in the culture and sociological principles.
 

she woolf

Steinem quotin' feminist
Mar 8, 2010
88
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
People on here use the black on white text colors for a reason. Your light blue is pretty much invisible on a lot of our screens. I guess you needed a well rounded education to realize that.:idea:

You can get a broad education and still take a lot of science classes. My (and a lot of med school professors BTW) biggest objection is the folks who take "premed" classes beyond the prereqs, because you are going to get all that in spades in med school, and so honestly it's a waste of college credit toward something you will get ample exposure to later. It's sort of like ordering a steak and a side order of fries even though it comes with fries. Sure you might like fries, but that's too much fries at the expense of having asparagus or broccoli or something else you might get some value out of.
OUCH ;) I prefer the blue because black is boring and blue shows up great on my laptop. and unless your vision sucks I don't see how someone sitting 12 or so in. from the p.c screen can't read it :rolleyes:

I do understand reading/writting being neccessary. However, history not pertaining to medicine etc. is useless unless you ENJOY history. My point is some people only enjoy sci/math courses and they shouldn't feel obligated to take world/american history. Non sci/math majors aren't more anything than sci/math majors. It's all individual IMO
 
Mar 12, 2010
91
0
0
Status
The point isn't to try and teach you medicine related stuff in undergrad. You will learn all the medicine you need in med school, and learn it better and more appropriately. The prereqs serve two purposes. (1) to give you a very generalized background in "science" upon which you can build. You need a very basic science background before you can launch usefully into med school. You don't need to know anatomy, physiology or biochemistry or microbiology before you start med school. But it's helpful if you've had a bit of biology, chemistry, physics before you start. This is just foundation, not something you will actually use. But just like a house, if there's no foundation, you really don't have something to build on. (2) you need folks to take a common set of courses so you can compare people. The MCAT is well and nice, but it's a single day event. The prereqs are nice because they serve to give some insight into how folks do in science courses over a couple of years. And since everyone has to take these courses, there is some basis to compare. Now again, they don't want to get too med school specific -- they want a mere foundation in sciences. The rest med schools would prefer to teach you "their" way. I've heard many many med school professors wishing so many folks didn't waste their undergrad trying to learn med school courses like anatomy. Inevitably they are going to learn it "wrong" and have to spend some time undoing things, or worse, will try to coast thinking they "already know it" from their undergrad exposure. They also are using up credits that could have been better spent learning something they aren't going to learn again, better, in med school. It's wasted effort.

So yeah, the prereqs serve a couple of purposes. Premeds want to run before they can walk. At this stage it's about getting a foundation and a basis for comparison. Later you will learn things that are more med school specific. But honestly, even the med school material is going to be 90% useless to you in your careers. As a family doctor, how much histology are you really going to use? Or as an orthopod, how much biochem? It's about being well rounded even then. You need a background, an education broader than just your task. This isn't vocational school, where you learn how to be a locksmith, or a diesel mechanic and nothing else. You are learning to be a very well educated professional, and will have lots of arrows in your quiver of knowledge that you can pull out as needed. No education is wasteful. What is wasteful is limiting your education out of some notion that "I don't see why I need X,Y or Z". That's grade school thinking -- the old "why do I need math if I'm going to be a football player" mentality. A professional needs to have a better perspective.
This was an excellent post. I think there's also something to be said for simply having to prove yourself. Parallel to everything you've pointed out, part of completing an undergrad is establishing your ability to follow through and (in theory), the place place where you learn how to learn. Regardless of area of study or future intent, a four year degree today is what the high school diploma used to be. It's simply become the minimum entry-level standard in nearly every professional environment.
 

mmmcdowe

Duke of minimal vowels
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Sep 13, 2008
9,735
1,506
481
Status
Resident [Any Field]
OUCH ;) I prefer the blue because black is boring and blue shows up great on my laptop. and unless your vision sucks I don't see how someone sitting 12 or so in. from the p.c screen can't read it :rolleyes:

I do understand reading/writting being neccessary. However, history not pertaining to medicine etc. is useless unless you ENJOY history. My point is some people only enjoy sci/math courses and they shouldn't feel obligated to take world/american history. Nonsci/math majors aren't more anything than sci/math majors. It's all individual IMO
I disagree. I think minimal exposure in as many fields as possible is important for an educated person, especially in a field like medicine which is so founded on personal connections with patients. It gives you something to talk about and ground to relate to patients on. Being a science robot makes you unidimensional, boring, and not a very good physician unless you happen to work at a free clinic for biochemists. Here's an extreme example, but a way that I know personally I have benefited from historical exposure. I once observed a possibly mentally ill patient discussing historical events. By knowing some general historical information about the Vietnam War, I was able to confirm that there was a lot of historical inaccuracy and that the history the patient was quoting was a product of his or her delusions. Another example I have read was of a patient who's mind was stuck back in his or her youth and knowing the time period (WWII actually) allowed for some insight on the course of the illness. Not beneficial to the patient, ultimately, but who knows it might someday help us learn about the natural history of this problem.
 
Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
This is actually not agreeing with him, but me. I'm the one who is saying get a broad education and do activities you enjoy, without worrying so much about pre-med-dom. He's saying they should do away with all the hoops and just make it a shorter, premed-focused path from day one.

You either did not read my whole post, did not read it carefully, or are poor in terms of reading comprehension, which would refute your own well-rounded theory. Please do go back to my post, and then respond again. It is irresponsible to respond to something that you don't understand.
 
Last edited:

illegallysmooth

Smooth member
10+ Year Member
May 21, 2008
1,506
78
271
Buffalove
Status
Attending Physician
I think the people on this thread who see no value in a well-rounded education will change their minds in several years. I know I'm pre-med too, but I've been out of undergrad for several years. Once you graduate and mature a bit you will see the value in being a well-educated person.
 

Drrrrrr. Celty

Osteo Dullahan
7+ Year Member
Nov 10, 2009
16,060
5,261
181
Status
Medical Student
OUCH ;) I prefer the blue because black is boring and blue shows up great on my laptop. and unless your vision sucks I don't see how someone sitting 12 or so in. from the p.c screen can't read it :rolleyes:

I do understand reading/writting being neccessary. However, history not pertaining to medicine etc. is useless unless you ENJOY history. My point is some people only enjoy sci/math courses and they shouldn't feel obligated to take world/american history. Non sci/math majors aren't more anything than sci/math majors. It's all individual IMO
Reading and writing teach to analyze for subjective meaning and to be very clear on context. This makes things like history important because without studying history or attempting to understand it. A good example is thinking about doctors in the past century, like the DO schism due to drugs being horribly toxic and other things.
Not to mention if you don't really know history then you likely are very much a fan of culture. Being a uncultured barbarian will make you even if you have a MD or DO or any doc degree look like a absolute bimbo. I mean what if a IM doctor was asked what year world war 2 ended and said 1571 or something? I certainly wouldn't want to associate with someone like that.
 
Mar 16, 2010
60
0
0
Virginia
Status
Pre-Medical
I think the people on this thread who see no value in a well-rounded education will change their minds in several years. I know I'm pre-med too, but I've been out of undergrad for several years. Once you graduate and mature a bit you will see the value in being a well-educated person.

I think you should find some statistics on the value of a well-rounded education or formulate a logical argument. Either way, claiming superior maturity does not help your case. It may very well be that a well-rounded education is important, but please, present a case because the theory is known already.
 
Jun 30, 2009
430
0
0
small town, America
Status
Pre-Medical
I'd just like some friendly thoughts on reducing the time in pre-med/med school. Eight years seems excessive to me. Especially with all the talk of pay cuts. I don't mind the pay cuts as I've expressed before, but I don't think being in debt is a positive way to start out your career. I also think that that time causes us to miss out on many things in life.

If everything we learned was necessary and relevant I'd have no argument, but with the current focus on "liberal learning" seems like a waste to me. Electives are nice, if you elect to take them. However, I don't want to pay to take a 200 level physics class when I've never met a doctor who uses 100 level physics.

Why not just require biology and chemistry classes for our education and maybe a few electives from various fields? We could be out of school in 6 years, or, we could get in more relevant education in the 8 years.

This has been done in engineering, so why not us?

Also, I would appreciate it if you refrained from general name calling and condescension in this thread. It takes away from the validity of what you have to say.

it is not just UK that does that. i know a few european and Afircan countries which do the same. including Spain. i personally think that system is better especially for people who are sure coming out of high school that medicine is for them. But as mentioned it does not give a lot of options for people who do not know out of high school. Or those who think they want to be doctors but change their minds.

But since, we do not live in any of those societies... I know 8 years sounds like a lot but I believe the trick is to not put off your life because you are in school. Yes you will be in school a long time, but your outside life should go on. You obviously won't have as much free time as you may pursuing another career but it is still possible to have a full life.
 

she woolf

Steinem quotin' feminist
Mar 8, 2010
88
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Reading and writing teach to analyze for subjective meaning and to be very clear on context. This makes things like history important because without studying history or attempting to understand it. A good example is thinking about doctors in the past century, like the DO schism due to drugs being horribly toxic and other things.
Not to mention if you don't really know history then you likely are very much a fan of culture. Being a uncultured barbarian will make you even if you have a MD or DO or any doc degree look like a absolute bimbo. I mean what if a IM doctor was asked what year world war 2 ended and said 1571 or something? I certainly wouldn't want to associate with someone like that.
I think too many people believe that sci/math majors have absolutely no interest in anything non sci/math related at all, and that's not what i think/am saying. You don't need to be forced to take required lib arts courses to understand history/culture etc. Many people enjoy reading on their own and writting on their own and would prefer not to be graded or told their ideas are wrong or it's mandatory to finish 300pgs by tomorrow. I enjoy reading on my own time. In fact I'm reading 'Emperor of the Air' written by a Harvard med student :) but I don't enjoy English courses and being forced to read things I don't enjoy.
 

mmmcdowe

Duke of minimal vowels
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Sep 13, 2008
9,735
1,506
481
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I think too many people believe that sci/math majors have absolutely no interest in anything non sci/math related at all, and that's not what i think/am saying. You don't need to be forced to take required lib arts courses to understand history/culture etc. Many people enjoy reading on their own and writting on their own and would prefer not to be graded or told their ideas are wrong or it's mandatory to finish 300pgs by tomorrow. I enjoy reading on my own time. In fact I'm reading 'Emperor of the Air' written by a Harvard med student :) but I don't enjoy English courses and being forced to read things I don't enjoy.
Then medical school is not for you! :laugh: Your fonts remind me of premeddiva.
 
Last edited:

she woolf

Steinem quotin' feminist
Mar 8, 2010
88
0
0
Status
Pre-Medical
I get that there is going to be required reading. I mean some peeople, like me, will do the work if they chose the major/ courses. But having to take lib arts courses when you specifically have a biochemistry major is what I'm talking about. Like ST John's U in NY, they make you take lib arts and theology courses even if your major is Bioengineering.
 

mmmcdowe

Duke of minimal vowels
Staff member
Administrator
Gold Donor
10+ Year Member
Sep 13, 2008
9,735
1,506
481
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I get that there is going to be required reading. I mean some peeople, like me, will do the work if they chose the major/ courses. But having to take lib arts courses when you specifically have a biochemistry major is what I'm talking about. Like ST John's U in NY, they make you take lib arts and theology courses even if your major is Bioengineering.
You're going to have to take a number of classes in medical school that you will find it quite easily to complain aren't going to help you practice medicine. There will always be classes that you won't want to take. Just like a liberal arts education, some medical courses are meant to make you more well rounded. Also, there's usually a lot of freedom in undergrad curriculum as far as required classes. Is there not ANY english class that you want to take? I took science fiction studies to fulfill half of my requirement.... Are you going to complain about the pre-med pre-reqs too? Why should I take physics if I'm a bio major and pre-med???
 

mvenus929

10+ Year Member
Jul 6, 2006
6,792
1,579
281
Status
Fellow [Any Field]
I'm all for the well-rounded education myself. Frankly, I loved taking my history, ASL, and geography classes. But I like learning about people, in all aspects. I can treat them as a doctor in the present, while appreciating what makes them who they are from the rest of the stuff I studied.

I'm a die-hard science person. I have loved biology for years and years, but I still advocate for the liberal arts degree, rather than going straight ahead towards medicine. There are some things you just don't know that you'll like until you're forced into taking/doing them.