Undergrad genetics course - irrelevant for medicine?

[tluedeke]

I'm curious whether anyone else shares my opinion on this class being a nearly complete waste of time? I'm currently taking this as a pre-req, and I'd have to say that it is one of the top two or three most hated classes I've ever taken. I'm literally angry after a couple of hours of studying it, because I really couldn't care less about the genetic peculiarities of deep sea Archaea residing near black smokers, or what particular wild-form gene was mutated in the third step of an experiment in 1941.

I own two or three medical genetics books that are commonly used by medical schools, and when I compare what is in there to what we are learning in this undergrad genetics course, I'd say at least 75% of the latter is completely irrelevant. In fact, most of it seems to be obsessed with rehashing every microscopic detail of experiments that were conducted 75-100+ years ago, and have little relevance to the field as it currently exists. I'll actually assuage my frustration by picking up those medical genetics books, and happily perusing the interesting stuff in them.

Similarly, in taking masters/Ph.D level classes in immunology, metabolism, and physiology, I don't see how the undergrad genetics material particularly helps prepare for these disciplines, even though genetics plays an absolutely critical role.

Am I just being too grumpy, or am I making a valid observation? Would a more focused undergrad genetics class better prepare students for the medical professions?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[aldol16]

I think it's more of the way your class is taught rather than the material being irrelevant. You should be taking the general principles of genetics out of the course and not focusing on the minute details of experiments conducted long ago. Instead, you should be focusing on how and why those experiments were done and what implications their results had on the field. Memorizing a ton of genetic details that you'll never use again is irrelevant. Approach the course with the intention of understanding how genetics works.

 

[longhaul3]

I think the classic experiments are the best things you could learn about genetics in an undergrad course. It is amazing to think about how much they have changed our world, even beyond the lab. If you're in college now then your parents probably aren't quite old enough, but my parents were born into a world that wasn't sure whether DNA was the means of genetic inheritance. A series of arduous experiments with boring details proved it, and now it's obvious to an elementary schooler and the foundation for almost all biological lab science and cancer research. In another few decades, my children will be amazed that I was born into a world that had never seen a sequenced genome (or the internet, but that's a different matter) and wonder why it's relevant that they'll be learning about it in college. I say try to adopt this perspective next time your professor is droning on about a classic experiment and see if you can't get interested in it.

You will learn basically everything a physician needs to know about genetics in medical school, so don't worry about that now. I don't think it's worth reading through the textbooks and studying Robertsonian translocations and uniparental disomy on your own as an undergrad.

 

[new_dood_don't_be_rude]

Genetics is just a basic science course that touches on topics essential to the foundation of biology. I agree that all of the material may not be relevant to medicine, but that's the case for most of the pre-med weed out courses. It's basically testing whether or not you can get an A in arguably one of the toughest taught undergrad biology courses.

 

[DrDwayneJohnson]

It also helps weed people out at some schools. Sounds like yours is quite effective

 

[tluedeke]

It also helps weed people out at some schools. Sounds like yours is quite effective

I think the classic experiments are the best things you could learn about genetics in an undergrad course. It is amazing to think about how much they have changed our world, even beyond the lab. If you're in college now then your parents probably aren't quite old enough, but my parents were born into a world that wasn't sure whether DNA was the means of genetic inheritance. A series of arduous experiments with boring details proved it, and now it's obvious to an elementary schooler and the foundation for almost all biological lab science and cancer research. In another few decades, my children will be amazed that I was born into a world that had never seen a sequenced genome (or the internet, but that's a different matter) and wonder why it's relevant that they'll be learning about it in college. I say try to adopt this perspective next time your professor is droning on about a classic experiment and see if you can't get interested in it.

You will learn basically everything a physician needs to know about genetics in medical school, so don't worry about that now. I don't think it's worth reading through the textbooks and studying Robertsonian translocations and uniparental disomy on your own as an undergrad.

Here's where I guess we have a difference of opinion. The classic experiments, although brilliant in their own right, were typically conducted in a time where they (1) didn't have technology, and (2) used extravagant workarounds to deal with (1). Does that mean there is unique pedagogical magic in learning via repeating the historical sequence of discovery, and hyperfocusing on minute experimental details? Dubious, and there isn't a lot of evidence, from what I can find. And it comes at quite a cost when modern techniques/knowledge are ignored to make space for that process, or student come out believing that the old views are how things work today (the Mendelian concept of dominance has been a major problem for years in genetics education).

My feeling is that genetics shouldn't really even be taught as an independent subject. Genetics is a consequence of molecular biology, and should be taught as part of that discipline. Mechanism + behavior, taught at the same time.

BTW, I'm 48. So my parents did grow up in a time before DNA was completely understood! My Mom was 13 years old when Watson/Crick issued their famous paper in 1953.

 

[tluedeke]

It also helps weed people out at some schools. Sounds like yours is quite effective

Nope, I don't think it is.

 

[DrDwayneJohnson]

Nope, I don't think it is.

I'm sure you aren't the only one in your course who feels this way, though. You're 48, so you can handle a bit more than the 19 year olds in your class in terms of putting up with perceived bullsh*t (note: that wasn't me trying to discredit your point). I'm personally not a fan of genetics, but I'm sure the general concepts help in at least some fashion.

 

[longhaul3]

Here's where I guess we have a difference of opinion. The classic experiments, although brilliant in their own right, were typically conducted in a time where they (1) didn't have technology, and (2) used extravagant workarounds to deal with (1). Does that mean there is unique pedagogical magic in learning via repeating the historical sequence of discovery, and hyperfocusing on minute experimental details? Dubious, and there isn't a lot of evidence, from what I can find. And it comes at quite a cost when modern techniques/knowledge are ignored to make space for that process, or student come out believing that the old views are how things work today (the Mendelian concept of dominance has been a major problem for years in genetics education).

My feeling is that genetics shouldn't really even be taught as an independent subject. Genetics is a consequence of molecular biology, and should be taught as part of that discipline. Mechanism + behavior, taught at the same time.

BTW, I'm 48. So my parents did grow up in a time before DNA was completely understood! My Mom was 13 years old when Watson/Crick issued their famous paper in 1953.

Sorry, obviously didn't realize you're not the typical college kid. I'm sticking to my opinion regarding the first part of your post. I think understanding the state of the art at the time and learning how they worked around it and often invented new technologies that we now take for granted are part and parcel of appreciating them for their groundbreakingness.

I agree 100% with the problem of emphasizing Mendelian inheritance in foundational genetics education. It makes it so much harder to grasp concepts like haploinsufficiency and, more relevant to our field of study, why some diseases are dominant while very similar diseases are recessive. I agree that teaching the mechanism, e.g. gain of function, loss of function, haploinsufficiency, two-hit, to derive the phenotype is more logical. If it makes you feel better, this is how my med school genetics course was taught.

In the end, you're right that it shouldn't be a separate course until it reaches an advanced, probably graduate, level. I don't think genetics as its own class is necessary or helpful for a pre-med curriculum, but then again neither do most medical schools—obviously it's not part of the standard pre-med curriculum.

 

[Goro]

I'm curious whether anyone else shares my opinion on this class being a nearly complete waste of time? I'm currently taking this as a pre-req, and I'd have to say that it is one of the top two or three most hated classes I've ever taken. I'm literally angry after a couple of hours of studying it, because I really couldn't care less about the genetic peculiarities of deep sea Archaea residing near black smokers, or what particular wild-form gene was mutated in the third step of an experiment in 1941.

I own two or three medical genetics books that are commonly used by medical schools, and when I compare what is in there to what we are learning in this undergrad genetics course, I'd say at least 75% of the latter is completely irrelevant. In fact, most of it seems to be obsessed with rehashing every microscopic detail of experiments that were conducted 75-100+ years ago, and have little relevance to the field as it currently exists. I'll actually assuage my frustration by picking up those medical genetics books, and happily perusing the interesting stuff in them.

Similarly, in taking masters/Ph.D level classes in immunology, metabolism, and physiology, I don't see how the undergrad genetics material particularly helps prepare for these disciplines, even though genetics plays an absolutely critical role.

Am I just being too grumpy, or am I making a valid observation? Would a more focused undergrad genetics class better prepare students for the medical professions?

Do you really think that you need physics or inorganic chemistry for med school?

The idea isn't the content, it's to teach you how to deal with the content. And learning how we got here in terms of scientific thought and findings is relevant. History didn't being when you were born.

The point of a UG curriculum isn't to teach you what's in med school, it's to prepare you for med school by teaching you how to think, reason, memorize and apply.


I think genetics should be required for med school, personally.

 

[neekzg]

I'm curious whether anyone else shares my opinion on this class being a nearly complete waste of time? I'm currently taking this as a pre-req, and I'd have to say that it is one of the top two or three most hated classes I've ever taken. I'm literally angry after a couple of hours of studying it, because I really couldn't care less about the genetic peculiarities of deep sea Archaea residing near black smokers, or what particular wild-form gene was mutated in the third step of an experiment in 1941.

I own two or three medical genetics books that are commonly used by medical schools, and when I compare what is in there to what we are learning in this undergrad genetics course, I'd say at least 75% of the latter is completely irrelevant. In fact, most of it seems to be obsessed with rehashing every microscopic detail of experiments that were conducted 75-100+ years ago, and have little relevance to the field as it currently exists. I'll actually assuage my frustration by picking up those medical genetics books, and happily perusing the interesting stuff in them.

Similarly, in taking masters/Ph.D level classes in immunology, metabolism, and physiology, I don't see how the undergrad genetics material particularly helps prepare for these disciplines, even though genetics plays an absolutely critical role.

Am I just being too grumpy, or am I making a valid observation? Would a more focused undergrad genetics class better prepare students for the medical professions?

it sounds like your genetics pre-req class sucks. I took a lot of genetics classes in undergrad that were helpful for med school lol

 

[longhaul3]

Because you are missing the point. The content of any class in undergrad is not particularly relevant to medicine. It is the skill set set of being a student and showing the academic ability to master complex subjects. And what you are doing is emotionally fighting the validity of the topic instead of working to apply your academic potential and master it, no matter what. That is what is needed by a medical student and prospective physician.

Additionally, the history of how experiments and discoveries are made are important, not at all because of the technology, but because of understanding the scientific thought process, which will always be applicable. Identifying an issue, designing an experiment, and executing it is a concept that is timeless.

I don't follow. Which point am I missing? Did you mean to quote a different post?

 

[vellez]

If you know autosomal dominant/recessive, x linked recessive, and mitochondrial, you'll know about as much as doctors know.

 

[tluedeke]

If it makes you feel better, this is how my med school genetics course was taught.

That pleases me to hear it. I really should like genetics as a discipline, but I loathe it with an intense hatred I've not experienced since I took Electricity & Magnetism as an undergrad physics major. I think if it were more applied (i.e. medicine, I'd really enjoy it a lot more).

 

[tluedeke]

I think genetics should be required for med school, personally.

It is, at a lot of places. Or at least *STRONGLY* encouraged.

 

[TRPMinus]

Do you really think that you need physics or inorganic chemistry for med school?

The idea isn't the content, it's to teach you how to deal with the content. And learning how we got here in terms of scientific thought and findings is relevant. History didn't being when you were born.

The point of a UG curriculum isn't to teach you what's in med school, it's to prepare you for med school by teaching you how to think, reason, memorize and apply.


I think genetics should be required for med school, personally.

I'll piggyback on this. Genetics was also the chief weed-out class at my undergrad. Personally, I think it prepared me for the MCAT better than anything (and you never know when one of those classic experiments will show up in a passage wink wink) and it teaches a ton of foundational concepts. Not to mention the class will flat-out make you more logical/methodical and teach you to integrate your knowledge of mathematics and science.

 

[non-trad++]

I'm curious whether anyone else shares my opinion on this class being a nearly complete waste of time? I'm currently taking this as a pre-req, and I'd have to say that it is one of the top two or three most hated classes I've ever taken. I'm literally angry after a couple of hours of studying it, because I really couldn't care less about the genetic peculiarities of deep sea Archaea residing near black smokers, or what particular wild-form gene was mutated in the third step of an experiment in 1941.

I own two or three medical genetics books that are commonly used by medical schools, and when I compare what is in there to what we are learning in this undergrad genetics course, I'd say at least 75% of the latter is completely irrelevant. In fact, most of it seems to be obsessed with rehashing every microscopic detail of experiments that were conducted 75-100+ years ago, and have little relevance to the field as it currently exists. I'll actually assuage my frustration by picking up those medical genetics books, and happily perusing the interesting stuff in them.

Similarly, in taking masters/Ph.D level classes in immunology, metabolism, and physiology, I don't see how the undergrad genetics material particularly helps prepare for these disciplines, even though genetics plays an absolutely critical role.

Am I just being too grumpy, or am I making a valid observation? Would a more focused undergrad genetics class better prepare students for the medical professions?

My God how wrong, misled, and bitter you sound!

Agreeing with @Goro not only should Genetics be a pre-requisite, but even require 8 semester hrs;
Genetics is the tool/knowledge/blueprint which Medicine has been 'waiting' for... forever.
...and I will only say this to you: 'Plastics', I mean 'Epigenetics'!

 

[Goro]

My God how wrong, misled, and bitter you sound!
I came to this post to see 'where u come from' before replying to your other post where you mentioned going into Engineering...

Agreeing with @Goro not only should Genetics be a pre-requisite, but even require 8 semester hrs;
Genetics is the tool/knowledge/blueprint which Medicine has been 'waiting' for... forever.
...and I will only say this to you: 'Plastics', I mean 'Epigenetics'!

And not everybody taking genetics wants to be a doctor.

Understanding the classic Avery-Mcleod experiments was the keystone to discovering the role of DNA in inheritance!

 

[non-trad++]

That pleases me to hear it. I really should like genetics as a discipline, but I loathe it with an intense hatred I've not experienced since I took Electricity & Magnetism as an undergrad physics major. I think if it were more applied (i.e. medicine, I'd really enjoy it a lot more).

You hated Electricity & Magnetism in UG? the LIGHT itself?!

Genetics is not an applied [science]?! Have you heard of CRISPR or Genetics counseling?

No further questions.

 

[calivianya]

It sounds like your genetics course was way different from mine. Mine was all problem solving. There were no basic knowledge questions on the test; it was all restriction enzyme mapping, hybridization, whatever problems. It felt like a math class. As someone who hates math, I hated every second of it.

I would have killed for some basic memorization of science experiments in there at the time.

 

[mistafab]

The lessons you learn there are definitely used in med school. Shoot, every day I am using knowledge I built (poorly) in undergrad - definitely genetics.

 

[skeptastic]

Do you really think that you need physics or inorganic chemistry for med school?

The idea isn't the content, it's to teach you how to deal with the content. And learning how we got here in terms of scientific thought and findings is relevant. History didn't being when you were born.

The point of a UG curriculum isn't to teach you what's in med school, it's to prepare you for med school by teaching you how to think, reason, memorize and apply.


I think genetics should be required for med school, personally.

Love this post!

 

[skeptastic]

Because you are missing the point. The content of any class in undergrad is not particularly relevant to medicine. It is the skill set set of being a student and showing the academic ability to master complex subjects. And what you are doing is emotionally fighting the validity of the topic instead of working to apply your academic potential and master it, no matter what. That is what is needed by a medical student and prospective physician.

Additionally, the history of how experiments and discoveries are made are important, not at all because of the technology, but because of understanding the scientific thought process, which will always be applicable. Identifying an issue, designing an experiment, and executing it is a concept that is timeless.

This is such valuable insight. Thank you.

 

[Thor123422]

It's quite irrelevant. You can teach yourself the relevant parts of genetics in an afternoon.