To all Non Biology Majors in Med school

[shaq786]

---

Members don't see this ad.

To all non-bio majors in med school. How is the work load for you? I know alot of people here talk about how they dont study all hardcore and this and that, but my guess is becuase their bio majors and they have a bigger advantage as opposed to a non bio major that got into med school. So tell me how the work load for you non bio majors is?

 

[Law2Doc]

To all non-bio majors in med school. How is the work load for you? I know alot of people here talk about how they dont study all hardcore and this and that, but my guess is becuase their bio majors and they have a bigger advantage as opposed to a non bio major that got into med school. So tell me how the work load for you non bio majors is?

I take it from your grammar that you are a bio major? Med school is doable for all majors. While it would perhaps be nice to have some background in certain courses, med school certainly teaches you everything you need to know and then some.

 

[SoCuteMD]

The background would be nice at times, but having been a chem major I have a slightly better handle on the physics (helpful for physio) and chemistry (biochem) basics, so it's not a huge disadvantage. The bio major advantage is supposedly erased by second year (quote from a friend who is a physician, I'm sure there are those who wil disagree).

I think people exaggerate the amount they (don't) study - people post here when they have time, not when they are absolutely crunched for it.

 

[the1doc]

The background would be nice at times, but having been a chem major I have a slightly better handle on the physics (helpful for physio) and chemistry (biochem) basics, so it's not a huge disadvantage. The bio major advantage is supposedly erased by second year (quote from a friend who is a physician, I'm sure there are those who wil disagree).

I think people exaggerate the amount they (don't) study - people post here when they have time, not when they are absolutely crunched for it.

You could have a degree in Physical Education and still do well in med school if you have the ability to memorize copious amounts of mostly useless material in short periods of time.

 

[Law2Doc]

people post here when they have time, not when they are absolutely crunched for it.

I'm not sure about that -- when some people post here it's a signal that they are locked to their computer.

 

[fun8stuff]

I'm not sure about that -- when some people post here it's a signal that they are locked to their computer.

yeah, i'm locked to my computer. i won't lie.

i have had people try to tell me that bio majors don't have an advantage, but i don't see how they don't. being a chem/bio major i have taken every class i have had so far in the same amount of debt, if not considerably more so. The only exception to this is anatomy- which I had... just not in the depth. It's to the point where I see multiple choice questions on exams, that I have seen before in undergrad.

so far i would say anatomy was 50% review, biochem is 100% review, histology was 95% review, embryology was 100% review, physiology about 85% review.

 

[Hercules]

The background would be nice at times, but having been a chem major I have a slightly better handle on the physics (helpful for physio) and chemistry (biochem) basics, so it's not a huge disadvantage. The bio major advantage is supposedly erased by second year (quote from a friend who is a physician, I'm sure there are those who wil disagree).

I can vouch for this. I was a classics major (Greek, Latin, and history for those who don't know) and noticed that my grades/rank shot up during the second year of med school. I was doing roughly the same amount of work, but we were finally into material that was new for the whole class instead of just those of us w/o a Bio/Chem background. 🙂

 

[OrnotMajestic]

From what I've seen, being a bio/science major helps first term/first year....that's about it. Being a Geography major with a History emphasis, I struggled in one class first term. Now in my second term, my grades have shot up (A's). It's doable for everyone.

 

[Law2Doc]

From what I've seen, being a bio/science major helps first term/first year....that's about it. Being a Geography major with a History emphasis, I struggled in one class first term. Now in my second term, my grades have shot up (A's). It's doable for everyone.

I think that's not that unusual (although not all schools do the same stuff first). Probably occurs because those who have to work at all cylinders from day one don't hit that ramping up period in terms of time management and workload schedule when the new material starts for others.

 

[tupac_don]

yeah, i'm locked to my computer. i won't lie.

i have had people try to tell me that bio majors don't have an advantage, but i don't see how they don't. being a chem/bio major i have taken every class i have had so far in the same amount of debt, if not considerably more so. The only exception to this is anatomy- which I had... just not in the depth. It's to the point where I see multiple choice questions on exams, that I have seen before in undergrad.

so far i would say anatomy was 50% review, biochem is 100% review, histology was 95% review, embryology was 100% review, physiology about 85% review.

Exactly having the background helps tremendously. I can't see really how a non bio major can compete, unless they are brilliant to begin with. Or have a very strong drive to succeed and prove themselves, that they overcompensate by studying the material voraciously. The only disadvantage to being a bio major, is that you had the courses before, and you might feel more at ease so you don't push yourself as hard.

But absolutely, being a bio major is a an advantange.

 

[SoCuteMD]

I can't see really how a non bio major can compete, unless they are brilliant to begin with. Or have a very strong drive to succeed and prove themselves, that they overcompensate by studying the material voraciously.

I disagree. My two best friends and I study side by side for the most part. They were both bio majors, I was not. I generally put in a few extra hours on the weekends compared to one and a few less hours than the other, but I am also a bit less focused when studying - stopping to post on SDN or IM with someone. Our grades are scarily similar - not top of the class, but regularly towards the top of the standard deviation for each test.

And I think "overcompensate" is the wrong word to use here.

 

[Hoya11]

Learning Bio or Biochem, and orgo, is a lot like learning for med school. You memorize. If you are one of these majors, you either learn to memorize in college or inherently like to(or are naturally good at) memorizing/learning this way.

The fact that you are not a bio/biochem major may mean you dont like this type of learning. Your brain is not set up this way. I was a math major. Only when you enter med school and you HAVE to take these courses will you then learn this method of study.

So IMO its not that these folks just know facts beforehad, they know the method of studying and success for these types of courses without having to struggle first and then readjust.

 

[SoCuteMD]

Good point Hoya!!

 

[fun8stuff]

I disagree. My two best friends and I study side by side for the most part. They were both bio majors, I was not. I generally put in a few extra hours on the weekends compared to one and a few less hours than the other, but I am also a bit less focused when studying - stopping to post on SDN or IM with someone. Our grades are scarily similar - not top of the class, but regularly towards the top of the standard deviation for each test.

And I think "overcompensate" is the wrong word to use here.

It probably depends on how rigorous the bio major's undergrad program was and how well they did. The advanced classes I took for my biology&chemistry degrees were in more depth and covered more info than my med classes so far. i think for someone who comes from a program like this, then it will be an advantage (at least during year1). It makes good sense- if they have already memorized/learned the info in undergrad, they will pick up on it faster.... unless these nonscience people in med school are just that brilliant. It's probably a little bit of both...

and like hoya said- these bio/chem majors are used to learning this type of material and taking these type of exams. they know how to study for it. this may not necessarily be true for nonbio majors (although they did take the prereqs).

 

[Law2Doc]

I can't see really how a non bio major can compete, unless they are brilliant to begin with.

Not hardly. Being a bio major helps, I'm sure, to the extent a lot of the background material is repeat. But bio majors really don't have a monopoly on aptitude for medical science. Certainly they do not statistically fare as well on the MCAT as quite a few other majors (the AMCAS link is someplace on SDN), so I suspect quite a few also hit similar other hurdles in med school and on the boards.

 

[tupac_don]

I disagree. My two best friends and I study side by side for the most part. They were both bio majors, I was not. I generally put in a few extra hours on the weekends compared to one and a few less hours than the other, but I am also a bit less focused when studying - stopping to post on SDN or IM with someone. Our grades are scarily similar - not top of the class, but regularly towards the top of the standard deviation for each test.

And I think "overcompensate" is the wrong word to use here.

I disagree. Maybe you are smarter than your friends. I mean unless you take into account base line intelligence as a factor, you can't really prove much. I think if you took two individuals of roughly the same IQ, roughly the same ability (memory, comprehension etc.), one was a bio major, and one was not. I can bet you that the one who saw stuff before, will do better, its a small edge that can be easily exploited, in the right hands. But you gotta understand one more thing, that even if you are a bio major, and don't have as good memory as someone who is a bio major, you will beat him.

But again I simply completely disagree with you that two individuals with similar abilities but with different backgrounds will be performing more or less equally. I will always give the edge to the bio major, always. Now keep in mind that you have people of all walks of life, ambition, memory, that unless you take these confounding factors into consideration, you can't really make an accurate assesment of whats better, its all hearsay.

But logically it does make sense that if you had something you will be better at it, unless of course the person who hasn't had it is naturally more gifted and can compensate for the lack of not having previously seen this material.

 

[azzarah]

First year sucked. Second year was much better. 🙂

 

[fun8stuff]

Not hardly. Being a bio major helps, I'm sure, to the extent a lot of the background material is repeat. But bio majors really don't have a monopoly on aptitude for medical science. Certainly they do not statistically fare as well on the MCAT as quite a few other majors (the AMCAS link is someplace on SDN), so I suspect quite a few also hit similar other hurdles in med school and on the boards.

I heard this too, but it was explained to me in this way.... just about everybody who wants to be premed is a bio major; this is standard. Therefore, the avg MCAT for the bio majors will be closer to the mean. However, the group of people who are humanity majors who choose to apply to med school tend to be of higher caliber than the avg premed bio major. Not just anyone is going to be able to do well in humanities and in the biology prereqs.

In other words, the avg joe who goes to college and wants to be a doctor will more likely pick biology as their undergrad major. But, only the top humanity/non-bio majors (in general) will choose to take the MCAT and apply to med school (on avg).

Now, what I would like to see is if the nonbio majors entering med school have a higher MCAT avg than the avg bio majors entering med school. Because I believe the data you refer to is just of people who take the MCAT. It doesn't say that the avg nonscience major entering med school has higher stats than avg bio major... or does it?

 

[Law2Doc]

I heard this too, but it was explained to me in this way.... just about everybody who wants to be premed is a bio major; this is standard. Therefore, the avg MCAT for the bio majors will be closer to the mean. However, the group of people who are humanity majors who choose to apply to med school tend to be of higher caliber than the avg premed bio major. Not just anyone is going to be able to do well in humanities and in the biology prereqs.

In other words, the avg joe who goes to college and wants to be a doctor will more likely pick biology as their undergrad major. But, only the top humanity/non-bio majors (in general) will choose to take the MCAT and apply to med school (on avg).

Now, what I would like to see is if the nonbio majors entering med school have a higher MCAT avg than the avg bio majors entering med school. Because I believe the data you refer to is just of people who take the MCAT. It doesn't say that the avg nonscience major entering med school has higher stats than avg bio major... or does it?

I found a link on the AAMC site, for 2002. It has data for both applicants and matriculants. In that year at least, bio majors were among the worst MCAT scorers of matriculants. See http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/archive/famg6e2002a.htm

 

[Law2Doc]

I found a link on the AAMC site, for 2002. It has data for both applicants and matriculants. In that year at least, bio majors were among the worst MCAT scorers of matriculants. See http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/archive/famg6e2002a.htm

Here is more recent data -- the trend has continued.
http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgpabymaj1.htm

 

[fun8stuff]

Here is more recent data -- the trend has continued.
http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/2005/mcatgpabymaj1.htm

2 things with this data...
First...
The avg mcat for bio majors that matriculated was: 30.0
The avg mcat for humanities that matriculated was: 30.9
The avg mcat for nonbiomajors that matriculated was: 30.4
The avg mcat for nonbio/nonmath/nonphysical sci that matriculated was: 29.95

As you can see those that were not math,bio, or physical science majors only faired slightly worse on the MCAT (0.05). Even the Humanities majors only did about 0.9 better on avg. IMHO, this is not that big of a difference.

Second...
Look at the total amount of bio majors that took the exam.... 9,545. This is 2000 more people than everyone else combined. You can't really make comparisons with this data... it's like comparing apples and oranges. Most people who are premed are bio majors. If the same percent of humanities majors took the mcat as do the bio majors, theor avg would be much lower. It's just that those who are not bio majors and take the MCAT, are exemplary students.

 

[fun8stuff]

2 things with this data...
First...
The avg mcat for bio majors that matriculated was: 30.0
The avg mcat for humanities that matriculated was: 30.9
The avg mcat for nonbiomajors that matriculated was: 30.4
The avg mcat for nonbio/nonmath/nonphysical sci that matriculated was: 29.95

As you can see those that were not math,bio, or physical science majors only faired slightly worse on the MCAT (0.05). Even the Humanities majors only did about 0.9 better on avg. IMHO, this is not that big of a difference.

Second...
Look at the total amount of bio majors that took the exam.... 9,545. This is 2000 more people than everyone else combined. You can't really make comparisons with this data... it's like comparing apples and oranges. Most people who are premed are bio majors. If the same percent of humanities majors took the mcat as do the bio majors, theor avg would be much lower. It's just that those who are not bio majors and take the MCAT, are exemplary students.

although this article is a little old, perhaps it answers our question....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=9759107&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[Law2Doc]

2 things with this data...
First...
The avg mcat for bio majors that matriculated was: 30.0
The avg mcat for humanities that matriculated was: 30.9
The avg mcat for nonbiomajors that matriculated was: 30.4
The avg mcat for nonbio/nonmath/nonphysical sci that matriculated was: 29.95

As you can see those that were not math,bio, or physical science majors only faired slightly worse on the MCAT (0.05). Even the Humanities majors only did about 0.9 better on avg. IMHO, this is not that big of a difference.

Second...
Look at the total amount of bio majors that took the exam.... 9,545. This is 2000 more people than everyone else combined. You can't really make comparisons with this data... it's like comparing apples and oranges. Most people who are premed are bio majors. If the same percent of humanities majors took the mcat as do the bio majors, theor avg would be much lower. It's just that those who are not bio majors and take the MCAT, are exemplary students.

All I'm saying is that contrary to some posts on this thread, the bio majors, on average, simply do not appear to be the gold standard that is going to blow away the competition. (Nor were they for a number of years, based on the 2002 numbers). Looking at the MCAT, a fairly basic science intensive test, as compared to non-bio majors is perhaps illustrative. Bio major matriculants in most cases will have had many more science courses than, eg., humanities major matriculants, and yet they didn't even surpass non-bio majors on the biological sciences section. The percentage of people shouldn't matter when we are talking just about matriculants -- the original notion was that the average bio student would do better in med school than the average non-bio student, so these numbers are exactly the one's you'd need to look at. And what they perhaps tell us is that the average bio student is not better in a basic science test for which he/she should in theory have had more background studies. Not sure if you can extrapolate that into med school, the boards, etc., but it certainly is suggestive. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Law2Doc]

although this article is a little old, perhaps it answers our question....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=9759107&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum

This supports what I just posted above -- that bio majors are not particularly advantaged (notwithstanding supposedly having had additional premed background sciences).

 

[fun8stuff]

This supports what I just posted above -- that bio majors are not particularly advantaged (notwithstanding supposedly having had additional premed background sciences).

I know. I am agreeing with you 🙂 A biology major is quite variable. A friend of mine from another school took all his upper classes in entomology, zoology, botany, ecology, and few others of that sort that have nothing to do with med school cources.

 

[OrnotMajestic]

Put it this way: In two months of biochem, we have covered nearly an entire biochemistry undergrad career. This, of course, according to the biochem majors in my class. Do they have advantage? Sure, they've had some of this before. Performance is up to each individual.

 

[the1doc]

The material in med school is not conceptually difficult (for the most part). It's just a memorization game. Except for the extremely gifted with extraordinary long-term memory, I can't see how bio majors would have an advantage in med school.

I know med students who are complete *****s...but can memorize pages of material at a time...by use of stupid acronyms that usually relate to sex or masturbation or both...and then they turn around and forget the acronyms in two days and all the material that was related to the acronyms....wait...I'm describing myself....

 

[spanbutterfly]

I heard this too, but it was explained to me in this way.... just about everybody who wants to be premed is a bio major; this is standard. Therefore, the avg MCAT for the bio majors will be closer to the mean. However, the group of people who are humanity majors who choose to apply to med school tend to be of higher caliber than the avg premed bio major. Not just anyone is going to be able to do well in humanities and in the biology prereqs.

In other words, the avg joe who goes to college and wants to be a doctor will more likely pick biology as their undergrad major. But, only the top humanity/non-bio majors (in general) will choose to take the MCAT and apply to med school (on avg).

Now, what I would like to see is if the nonbio majors entering med school have a higher MCAT avg than the avg bio majors entering med school. Because I believe the data you refer to is just of people who take the MCAT. It doesn't say that the avg nonscience major entering med school has higher stats than avg bio major... or does it?

And what if you are both a bio major AND a humanities major .... hehe, that's me. Categorizing people always gets you in trouble. Get over it, whether you have a strong bio background or not, humanities or not, getting into medical school puts everyone at a baseline, exceptional intelligence. We're a minority and should count our blessings. I think the only thing that people have to worry about is failing, and where there's a will there's a way at this point in the game. If you're smart enough to get in you will pass, unless A. You have no time management skills or B. You lose sight of why you want to become a doctor in the first place and start lacking motivation.

 

[Katya00]

Most med schools require a certain number of bio/chem/physics classes be taken, so I don't see that there is a huge advantage for bio majors. Biochem isn't always taken by Bio majors either, it wasn't a requirement at my school. And many of the non-bio majors could have taken other classes in addition to the classes required for their degree, such as Anatomy and Physiology or Microbiology, giving them an edge.

And what about studying for the MCAT? Anyone who got a good score would have had to study the material, making it not the first time to see this material once in med school.

I think it helps to have seen the material before, because the more familiar you are with terms, the easier it is to memorize (or rememorize) info but it's not like the non-Bio majors were living under a rock before getting into med school, never hearing, reading or seeing anything related to Biology and medicine.

 

[Law2Doc]

but it's not like the non-Bio majors were living under a rock before getting into med school, never hearing, reading or seeing anything related to Biology and medicine.

True, but speaking for the rock dwellers, I still don't think we are particularly disadvantaged, except perhaps debatably in the first few weeks of biochem.

 

[Gut Shot]

True, but speaking for the rock dwellers, I still don't think we are particularly disadvantaged, except perhaps debatably in the first few weeks of biochem.

I was a chem major/biomedical PhD when I started, and anatomy beat my brains out. Well, I was acres away from failing, but it felt like a daily coup-countercoup. Then contents of my sella turcica ached like never before!

 

[Anka]

As a lit major, there were times when I knew less about a given subject (again, primarily in the first couple of terms). But that evened out. What hasn't evened out is my ability to compose well-thought-out notes and give good presentations, which means a lot in your clinical years. Also, while memorizing is important to getting your fund of knowledge, and scientific facts for part of your fund of knowledge, a lot of what you're doing in your clinical years is pattern recognition, which is something that's highly trained in most literature/English.

In short, major in what you want to major in. There are strengths in each of the majors. If you know you're going to have a problem with something like biochem, take a biochem course before you start (you don't need to do a whole major).

Best,
Anka

 

[emack]

I majored in Math, with an eclectic sprinkling of electives. I had an advantage on the MCAT-- critical thinking, problem solving, blah blah blah.

In some MS1 courses so far, I have felt at a disadvantage to classmates with biology (or even more medically specialized) backgrounds.

My take thus far: It's totally doable for non-bio (and non-science) majors. The problem occurs when every single thing you learn for months at a time is brand new material. It gets you down; it's exhausting. I struggled through anatomy, which was all brand new to me, and then breathed a sigh of relief when we started biochem, because I had at least taken an intro course in it. For any given course, it's possible to start fresh with no background and do well, but I think it's discouraging to always feel like the stupidest person in the room. With no background, one has to work harder. And with absolutely no background, one has to work harder all the time. And my impression of med school so far is that without some well-deserved respite every so often-- post-exam parties, long weekends, slacking off, a social life-- it can be a long (and not so fun) haul.

 

[njbmd]

Hi there,
Learning is learning and medical school requires that you are able to digest a large volume of information in a relatively short period of time. If you are facile at learning; medical school is not going to be a problem. The guy who ended up being first in my class was a classical literature major. He was the ultimate critical thinker and did quite well with no science background beyond the premed courses.

If you have been capable of learning the materials for your major + the pre-med four, then you will be fine in medical school. There is nothing to worry about; if you got in, you can do the work.

I was a chemistry major and did better than most of my class. Physical chem, advanced analytical chemistry and differential equations was totally not useful. If I had it to do over again and I knew that I wanted to go to medical school, I would major in American studies; minor in Spanish and take the pre-med four.

If you can learn new material; you will thrive in medical school.

njbmd 🙂

 

[om207]

I was a biology major, and I minored in art history. I think my art history classes helped me more in med school than my biology classes. There's two reasons why I say this:

1- Whatever I learned in a particular semester long biology undergrad course, the corresponding med school course covered it in the first week or so. I didn't find myself reviewing much. Most of the material was still new, despite taking the class before.

2- Art history helped me learn how to learn- med school style. Even though the content was very different, I was basically memorizing tons of info about paintings. (Ex. each exam covered maybe 50 paintings, where you would memorize the artist, time period, date, style, and specific details of importance for each work.) Basically, memorize tons of details for every exam. I don't think its just art history courses, I assume any history type course would be very similar.

If I had to do it all over again, I would definitely major in art history.