What if physical chemistry was a prereq?

[MedWonk]

Have you considered that medical schools may not want everyone to go into specialties that require a hard science background?

And, this isn't a question of competence. It's about taking the path of more resistance to increase your competence beyond what's required so that you can be the best physician you can be.

Like it or not, when we start to practice you'll see things like academic prestige and pecking orders based on who went to top 20 schools. I don't know about you, but I didn't go to Stanford for undergrad, and I certainly won't be at Johns Hopkins for medical school. And that's fine by me. What we can do, however, is choose how well to educate ourselves, and maximize our time spent doing so in order to hit HMO's, nursing unions that want our practices, giblet head human resources and administration where it hurts. Life is ruthless, and you'd better be prepared for the real world.

And which specialties don't require a hard science background? Are you differentiating between specialties that are more research oriented and those that aren't? Fair enough, though let's not pretend there are specialties that don't require hard science. Some simply have more opportunity to put all that pre-clinical science coursework to use. And then, of course, there are those that simply have you do research to jump through more hoops because they're more competitive. Don't pretend that anesthesiology and derm would be as research oriented if they were as popular as PM&R.

Re: the whole "be prepared for the real world," what you're saying is, "bust ass." I recall a certain someone saying that in their post recently. Might've been a certain non-trad who got **** done despite his predominantly fluffy humanities background. One might say he took a path of more resistance to get that acceptance. And despite the school I was accepted to having a huge primary care focus, I flat out told them that it was very unlikely I would go into primary care. Sometimes it is a matter of competence and intellectual agility. You yourself said so here:

Words...

For this thread, here, what I'm saying is that "rigor" is what you and I might call "hard thinking," and because of this, majoring in less rigorous subjects will not give you an academic experience that will as effectively prepare your brain for clinical decision making as a hard science major will.

And pretty much this entire post:

Without good quantitative skills and scientific problem solving ability, a nurse is arguably more qualified to do your job.

Nurses (BSN) go through basic science prerequisites just like doctors do; nurses take 2-3 years of additional science/clinical specific coursework; advanced practice nurses then take 2 years of additional science/clinical specific coursework. Typically, advanced practice nurses also spend some time in the field between their baccalaureate degree and their graduate training, similar to a residency.

And nurses still aren't able to prescribe anything.

You're telling me that someone who majored in history is doing their self a favor by skipping 2 years of science-based coursework? Sorry, but rotations as a medical student aren't the same as training geared towards your specialty, and because of this, masters level advanced practice nurses are further ahead (in certain ways) than your average primary care history major doc.

You don't have to agree with me, but if you want to be the best and most competent doctor that you can be, you should have a strong science background; if you don't, you're doing yourself a disservice. I'm not saying that it will be totally detrimental to your career to major in anthropology, but at the same time, it won't help you -- clinically -- in the way that a hard science degree will.

Citation needed here:

Stuff...
Long story short, physical chemistry is like the whole foods hot bar for your brain, and soft sciences/liberal arts are somewhere in the international canned food aisle. I'm shocked and amazed that the 2015 MCAT will have humanities, sociology, and psychology on it. When people start majoring in that garbage we'll have a spike in medication errors and irresponsible prescriptive decision making more so than we already do. My former mentor (a PhD holder in Chemistry from UCD) died from an adverse drug reaction due to some of this... I was in nursing, before, and you wouldn't believe some of the crap I've seen. In fact, part of the reason why I'm doing a Pharmacology masters is to become more competent and responsible for my future patients. I'm done ranting.

Also, sorry about your mentor, but are you saying he died due to wrongful administration of the medication, either due to interaction with another medication, or a known allergy, or perhaps the medication wasn't clinically indicated? Or that he simply had an adverse reaction that he never previously had? The former cases are actually errors, the latter case is bad luck.

And did the doctor administering the medication have a non-science background (hard to believe since he had to have gone through med school and passed the boards) that precluded him from having the necessary competence to administer the medication properly, or maybe not administer is at all?

I think that pchem should be required. It's helped me understand pharmacology since ligand-receptor interactions are analogous to reactants in a solution doing whatever it is that they do. Thermodynamics (what can happen) and kinetics (how fast it happens) are important for my thesis on cardiac drug interactions, as well (I'm doing a masters in Pharmacology and Toxicology). I probably want to become an anesthesiologist where I'll use physical chemistry, too. So, in my biased opinion, pchem should be required.

If you're curious, though, I've been involved with pchem for the last few weeks... I've been arranging to use the UC Intercampus Exchange http://gradstudies.ucdavis.edu/forms/GS306_IntercampusExchangeApp.pdf
to take a graduate course on kinetics (physical chemistry) over at UC Berkeley next year; UC Davis' chemistry curriculum is not as strong as I'd like it to be. For example, I went to UCLA for undergrad, and they had Pchem 1 (Thermodynamics), Pchem 2 (Kinetics), Pchem 3 (Quantum Mechanics), and a course on spectroscopy. At UC Davis they have watered these courses down so that you take a low math prereq clearance quantum mechanics first (you should have formal multivariable calc and preferably DE for a real quantum mechanics course), then they require an intermediate course on molecular properties and spectroscopy, and finally you are able to take a combined thermodynamics and kinetics course. And if you're really interested in chemistry at Davis, you can take "advanced" physical chemistry with another combined thermodynamics/kinetics course. At the graduate level, they don't even offer a formal course on kinetics.

These are things I learned in an undergrad biochem course. And they will also appear on the new MCAT if that makes you happy and if my practice section was any indication. PChem sounds like it would be overkill unless you intend to do basic science research, which the goal of the aforementioned programs at Stanford and Harvard. Harvard also has a regular MD track for us plebs not really interested in basic research. I won't discourage you from doing PChem because I always think intellectual curiosity is a good thing, but I think you'll be disappointed at how relevant to clinical practice the things you'll learn in that course actually are, except for maybe anesthesiology, which you earlier indicated an interest in. I think QofQuimica, who has a PhD in organic chemistry, can probably give you a better idea of how relevant her hard science background actually is to clinical practice. My impression from prior posts is that it isn't particularly relevant. Maybe I'm wrong, but everything I've heard from physicians does not quite jibe with your line of thinking.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MDforMee]

Re: the whole "be prepared for the real world," what you're saying is, "bust ass." I recall a certain someone saying that in their post recently. Might've been a certain non-trad who got **** done despite his predominantly fluffy humanities background.

I'm in my lab, now, working on my day off (for the 3rd consecutive day). Since I don't have the time to respond to your post in the itemized fashion you'd prefer, when I get home, I'll take the time to write something up.

But, I see where you're coming from, and I understand if my opinions here may seem less than "polite." You have to see through my cynical view of easy majors and actually look at where I'm coming from, though. When you do, you'll probably find that you have more in common with me than you think. You feel me?

 

[MedWonk]

I'm in my lab, now, working on my day off (for the 3rd consecutive day). Since I don't have the time to respond to your post in the itemized fashion you'd prefer, when I get home, I'll take the time to write something up.

But, I see where you're coming from, and I understand if my opinions here may seem less than "polite." You have to see through my cynical view of easy majors and actually look at where I'm coming from, though. When you do, you'll probably find that you have more in common with me than you think. You feel me?

I can feel you.

 

[Aerus]

Without good quantitative skills and scientific problem solving ability, a nurse is arguably more qualified to do your job.

Nurses (BSN) go through basic science prerequisites just like doctors do; nurses take 2-3 years of additional science/clinical specific coursework; advanced practice nurses then take 2 years of additional science/clinical specific coursework. Typically, advanced practice nurses also spend some time in the field between their baccalaureate degree and their graduate training, similar to a residency.

And nurses still aren't able to prescribe anything.

You're telling me that someone who majored in history is doing their self a favor by skipping 2 years of science-based coursework? Sorry, but rotations as a medical student aren't the same as training geared towards your specialty, and because of this, masters level advanced practice nurses are further ahead (in certain ways) than your average primary care history major doc.

You don't have to agree with me, but if you want to be the best and most competent doctor that you can be, you should have a strong science background; if you don't, you're doing yourself a disservice. I'm not saying that it will be totally detrimental to your career to major in anthropology, but at the same time, it won't help you -- clinically -- in the way that a hard science degree will.

No no no, absolutely no. Science in undergrad is garbage at instilling "quantative skills". The vast overwhelming majority of science majors memorize a bunch of facts, formulas, and other nuances in the course, regurgitate them, and then proceed to extreme memory dump.

Social science majors and humanities majors are forced to write papers that have well constructed arguments and encourage critical thinking. Granted science majors are much time consuming, it all balances out. In the end of the day, what you learn in medical school will make whatever science education you got in undergrad moot.

Arguably the best physicians are the people who understand diverse populations and are able to sympathize with patients, which majors like Psychology and Sociology teach.

 

[Aerus]

I don't know about you but many engineers at my institution are engineers because they pass by with C's, not because they know math well. This wouldn't go well for people trying to attend medical school. (Not bashing engineers there are extremely intelligent beings in that field)

Yes, but there are also many engineers who get A's. It's all graded on a curve. Plus, Pchem is one class. I'm sure many people can afford to get a C in one class, seeing as that happens often enough in the other prereqs already. But I do see your point.

 

[Aerus]

I can see where @MDforMee is coming from.

I'd feel more comfortable if my doctor majored in Biochemistry and had a masters in Pharmacology than someone who did something like East Asian Studies, a French Minor and just barely squeezed in the med pre-reqs.

Just me though.

Do you know the undergraduate major of all your doctors who have treated you?

Whatever you major in undergrad will be minuscule to what you learn in medical school. What's the point of getting an extra 10 points of science knowledge if, in the end, the difference will be 1000000 vs. 1000010? Nothing.

And a master's degree.....let's just say there's a reason that med schools don't blink an eye about most master's programs.

 

[notbobtrustme]

This is all you need from undergrad to succeed in medical school.




That is it. Nothing you learn in undergrad is remotely worthwhile for medical school. Having seen stuff once or twice might make that block a bit easier to study from, but medical school is designed to put everyone on the same page by the end of the two years. Furthermore, the practice of medicine has very little to do with the first 2 years of medical school. You actually learn how to be a doctor in your 3rd/4th/residency. So claiming that more science in undergrad = better doctors is asinine. You could start med school straight from high school and be perfectly fine if you put the time in.

 

[LabratABQ]

Lots of people would cry and fail.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

There are already enough weed out courses and not enough weed in courses. Adding this course would not be particularly useful.

 

[LabratABQ]

There are already enough weed out courses and not enough weed in courses. Adding this course would not be particularly useful.

we need more weed is that what you're saying? the good kind that CO and WA allow? lol JK

 

[FrenchyM.D/D.O]

I can see where @MDforMee is coming from.

I'd feel more comfortable if my doctor majored in Biochemistry and had a masters in Pharmacology than someone who did something like East Asian Studies, a French Minor and just barely squeezed in the med pre-reqs.

Just me though.

I am a French major. Some people are impressed though. It shows that I can do well in the sciences (which is MUST) and do well in the liberal arts as well.
But yeah…You should not go into medicine if you hate science.

 

[TexasSurgeon]

I just discovered that my Biochemistry track requires me to take Pchem, and I have only heard what a nightmare of a class it is. If med schools suddenly made Pchem a pre-req, and it was on the MCAT. How would this change the current pre-med curriculum? I imagine we would see a lot lower GPAs and MCAT scores because it is such a hard class.

Can't you opt for the general pchem class rather than the real deal version?'
I think it would be ridiculous to include pchem in prerequisites. It wouldn't have much application to medicine- it's like when a chemical engineering major has to take biochem as an upper elective science- it's useless for that individual's future

 

[medicalmnt]

I would cry. Immensely. I'm a biochem major also and we only had physical chemistry biological orientation offered... It was still awful. My teacher just wrote derivations for days when most of the class had only taken calc 1 and had no idea what a partial derivative was.

majoring in biochem and I can't believe we have to take this class.
saving this class for when i'm already accepted (hopefully) and GPAs are meaningless

 

[thesauce]

And then, of course, there are those that simply have you do research to jump through more hoops because they're more competitive. Don't pretend that anesthesiology and derm would be as research oriented if they were as popular as PM&R.

Anesthesia is not even remotely competitive. Bad example.

 

[thesauce]

If PChem were a prereq, schools would begin offering a "lighter" version for the premeds to prevent it from being too big of a stumbling block. Schools and applicants would adapt.

 

[A7X]

If PChem were a prereq, schools would begin offering a "lighter" version for the premeds to prevent it from being too big of a stumbling block. Schools and applicants would adapt.

My school already offers a P-chem for the Life Sciences lol. It's basically an easier version of P-chem for pre-meds.

 

[ChemNerd07]

majoring in biochem and I can't believe we have to take this class.
saving this class for when i'm already accepted (hopefully) and GPAs are meaningless

Do you have to take inorganic chem? DEFINITELY save that class for after being accepted. MO theory, crystal theory, and those stupid character tables SUCK. I could not pay attention in that class to save my life. P Chem wasn't horrible, we just had no direction. If you take ODE and/or linear algebra it helps out a lot.

 

[Espadaleader]

Physical Chem as a pre-req would be overkill. Most schools require Calc 1, 2, 3 and Diff Eq as prereq for PChem.

Physicians need a strong math background but that preparation would be better spent taking a year of calc an statistics courses.

 

[MDOnlyWillDo]

As far as I know it's only required for chem and biochem majors, which are not a majority of medical school applicants (..correct me if wrong.)

It was required for my molecular bio degree. I saved that class for my very last quarter and it was the only class I took. I walked with my class at graduation not knowing if I had passed it, so I had no idea if I had truly graduated yet. I still have nightmares about that word. :::shudder:::

And, this isn't a question of competence. It's about taking the path of more resistance to increase your competence beyond what's required so that you can be the best physician you can be.

Taking another irrelevant class doesn't increase your competence for the "real world", it only shows that you can jump through another hoop placed in front of you. That is the real life lesson.

 

[m0biusace]

Is this the same pchem that chemistry majors take? Or is it baby-pchem with just a sprinkling of calculus? If its the latter, I took both courses in a baby pchem series (CHEM107A and B at UC Davis) and actually found them pretty useful. It was basically general chemistry on steroids.

 

[BlueLabel]

Long story short, physical chemistry is like the whole foods hot bar for your brain, and soft sciences/liberal arts are somewhere in the international canned food aisle.

I truly feel sorry for you if you can't appreciate the value of exposure to the liberal arts. I for one think we'd all be better off if we spent a little less time scribbling equations in PChem and more reading Shakespeare and Lincoln and Twain. The liberal arts provide a context and a richness to the human experience that is impossible to find elsewhere. A focus on the sciences is good and worthy, but it's a mistake and in fact a waste to pursue science to the total exclusion of all else.

At the end of the day, medicine can preserve life, but only art can substantiate it. Consider that the next time you see fit to scoff at the cultural patrimony of Western civilization.

PS: I was a biochem/genetics double major, and yes, I took PChem, and yes, I aced it

PPS: I was initially going to say something really nasty about how typical it is that yet another pre-med has come around here with all the answers as to what it takes to make a good doctor, but ya know, I'm a nice guy

 

[911 Turbo]

A in pchem crew

 

[medicalmnt]

Do you have to take inorganic chem? DEFINITELY save that class for after being accepted. MO theory, crystal theory, and those stupid character tables SUCK. I could not pay attention in that class to save my life. P Chem wasn't horrible, we just had no direction. If you take ODE and/or linear algebra it helps out a lot.

yup.
inorganic, physical, analytical, bioinorganic, all those random ass classes lol

 

[ChemNerd07]

yup.
inorganic, physical, analytical, bioinorganic, all those random ass classes lol

Oh man do I feel your pain. Analytical at my school is ridiculously hard and the lab is so anal it drove me crazy. Physical for me was bio orientation so it wasn't as bad as it could have been but my math minor got me through. Bio inorganic... That's a new one. I come from a small state university so our chem department is tiny. At least you could ACTUALLY use that same day instead of memorizing symmetries of molecules :-/

 

[ChemNerd07]

Is this the same pchem that chemistry majors take? Or is it baby-pchem with just a sprinkling of calculus? If its the latter, I took both courses in a baby pchem series (CHEM107A and B at UC Davis) and actually found them pretty useful. It was basically general chemistry on steroids.

Oh man 100 level? My bio orientation was Chem 331. Definitely a lot of derivations and manipulations given different conditions.

 

[ChemNerd07]

I am a French major. Some people are impressed though. It shows that I can do well in the sciences (which is MUST) and do well in the liberal arts as well.
But yeah…You should not go into medicine if you hate science.

A friend if mine was a music major and swept the floor with all of us. 41 on his MCAT also. Kid was a genius.

 

[plumazul]

A friend if mine was a music major and swept the floor with all of us. 41 on his MCAT also. Kid was a genius.

What became of him?

 

[thesauce]

A friend if mine was a music major and swept the floor with all of us. 41 on his MCAT also. Kid was a genius.

...and he had all that time to study

 

[BlueLabel]

A in pchem crew

U have Wheeler brah? If not you missed out.

 

[Muad'Dib]

I am a French major. Some people are impressed though. It shows that I can do well in the sciences (which is MUST) and do well in the liberal arts as well.
But yeah…You should not go into medicine if you hate science.

Classics major here, brah. And I made As in my science classes with the rest of 'em. We're just a little more well-rounded.

 

[knv2u]

What the heck is a "brah"? I see this and am clueless as to what it means.

 

[ChemNerd07]

What became of him?

Full ride to Penn

 

[ChemNerd07]

...and he had all that time to study

Touché...

 

[knv2u]

If PChem were a prereq, schools would begin offering a "lighter" version for the premeds to prevent it from being too big of a stumbling block. Schools and applicants would adapt.

Which would truly be a shame. Maybe if physical chemistry was added as a prerequisite, medical school admissions committees would actually be forced to examine the rigor of the applicant's undergraduate record. While some schools do, I think there are a good number of schools that will favor a 3.8 student with solid As in all the prerequisites with a "fluff" major over a student with a 3.5-3.6 with solid As in all the prerequisites but with harder classes like physical chemistry, graduate level advanced organic chemistry, etc.

 

[QuantumJ]

What if Quantum Mechanics and Electrodynamic Field theory were required? I'd be able to choose which ever school I wanted

But seriously, there is already enough fluff to take as a premed. Physical chemistry is rooted too deep in advanced mathematics and chemistry to be a realistic prereq.

 

[PreMedOrDead]

I took PChem, and it honestly wasn't that bad. If it were a change, you'd just see a lot more chemistry majors than biology.

 

[turayza]

It was required for my molecular bio degree. I saved that class for my very last quarter and it was the only class I took. I walked with my class at graduation not knowing if I had passed it, so I had no idea if I had truly graduated yet. I still have nightmares about that word. :::shudder:::

Oh no!! Well I'm glad you passed
I have two quarters of pchem and am on the second one...leaving a quarter buffer in case of failure

 

[m0biusace]

Oh man 100 level? My bio orientation was Chem 331. Definitely a lot of derivations and manipulations given different conditions.

You can't really assume that every college follows your college's course numbering system. UC Davis only has two course number divisions for undergraduates. Everything below 100 is lower division coursework (general chemistry, biology, calculus), everything above 100 is upper division and typically major-specific.

 

[911 Turbo]

U have Wheeler brah? If not you missed out.

nahh didnt have Wheeler... hadn't heard of him, I don't think he is teaching this year.

 

[Aerus]

Oh man 100 level? My bio orientation was Chem 331. Definitely a lot of derivations and manipulations given different conditions.

Do you even UC?

At my school the 100 levels is your equivalent 300 and 400's.

 

[ChemNerd07]

Do you even UC?

At my school the 100 levels is your equivalent 300 and 400's.

My bad! Most schools follow 1-- freshman 2-- sophomore 3-- junior 4-- senior.

 

[BlueLabel]

nahh didnt have Wheeler... hadn't heard of him, I don't think he is teaching this year.

Yeah he alternates teaching pchem and some grad class year to year. But he really was the best prof I had in college.

 

[medicalmnt]

Oh man do I feel your pain. Analytical at my school is ridiculously hard and the lab is so anal it drove me crazy. Physical for me was bio orientation so it wasn't as bad as it could have been but my math minor got me through. Bio inorganic... That's a new one. I come from a small state university so our chem department is tiny. At least you could ACTUALLY use that same day instead of memorizing symmetries of molecules :-/

What school?
I took calc 1/2 and might have to take applied calc2 if I transfer so I'm just hoping physical isn't too bad. But bioinorganic sounds like a doosey

 

[ChemNerd07]

What school?
I took calc 1/2 and might have to take applied calc2 if I transfer so I'm just hoping physical isn't too bad. But bioinorganic sounds like a doosey

It's just my state school. I had to go through calc 3 for my degree. Only calc 1 was required for the bio p chem calc 2 is required for the real p chem but it's almost never offered. Then ode is strongly recommended.

 

[KOB]

I just discovered that my Biochemistry track requires me to take Pchem, and I have only heard what a nightmare of a class it is. If med schools suddenly made Pchem a pre-req, and it was on the MCAT. How would this change the current pre-med curriculum? I imagine we would see a lot lower GPAs and MCAT scores because it is such a hard class.

I think it depends on school. My school offers 3 different "sort of" PChem class. One each in Physics, Chemistry and Biochem department. for me, the Biochem version of Pchem isn't that horrible. it is very biochem relavent so lots of fun indeed, at least I enjoy it.

 

[lifetothefullest]

I think that what made my pchem classes so enjoyable was that there weren't many pre-meds in them. It was a great environment and we all worked together to really learn quantum and thermo. I feel like if it was a pre-med class, it'd get a lot more competitive and bio people would really struggle since they tend to be more qualitative people (except the computational sort).

That said, there are usually a couple of versions of pchem classes. You have the chemistry department's pchem classes that usually are not too math intensive - or at least they teach you the math you need to survive. Then there's the physics version which is very math intensive and exams are proof-based. Expect to do a lot of ODE for those. Finally, there is the engineering version which is in between the two and more application-based.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

I think I'm gonna bump an old quantum mechanics thread. There has to be one somewhere...

 

[NeuResurgens]

It would be very difficult, and not very helpful in actual medical skills.

 

[Lawpy]

It would be very difficult, and not very helpful in actual medical skills.

Any course is helpful in medicine, or "actual medical skills". And yes, that includes stuff like art history.

I just discovered that my Biochemistry track requires me to take Pchem, and I have only heard what a nightmare of a class it is. If med schools suddenly made Pchem a pre-req, and it was on the MCAT. How would this change the current pre-med curriculum? I imagine we would see a lot lower GPAs and MCAT scores because it is such a hard class.

Nothing. The applicant pool will adjust to meet the demands. If anything, it's a bad thing for professors and analytical students, since the premed population will completely ruin and destroy the value of pchem, just like they are destroying physics and math.

Also, nonscience majors can and will perform much better in pchem/physics/analytical classes than biology majors/premeds, because:

1. They are open-minded
2. Their coursework emphasizes critical thinking and application

 

[NeuResurgens]

Any course is helpful in medicine, or "actual medical skills". And yes, that includes stuff like art history.

Well I mean, of course you could interpret it that way. Anything that requires brainpower is helpful in amping up the capacity of your brain to process information. But should we really make pchem a requirement just for that? We could start requiring some upper level physics and some engineering stuff as well, but that wouldn't serve much practical use for practicing physicians. It might help Medical Scientists, but it doesn't have much utility for most doctors.