What's up with the heat with Texas Medical Schools?

[JohnnyMath]

I had a professor once ambiguously talk about how he doesn't like Texas medical schools and how they run business. It was so ambiguous and so generalizing, not an institution or two, but he kept on mentioning "ALL TEXAS" and "TEXAS", putting so much emphasis on the word "Texas",etc.


I'm very interested in going to school possibly in Texas....so is there anything specific about Texas medical schools that I should be aware of before I invest in personal resources in applying?

Or do you think maybe his rant was underlying implicit political disagreement with social policies in Texas?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

is there anything specific about Texas medical schools that I should be aware of before I invest in personal resources in applying?

All Texas medical schools require you to wear a cowboy hat and swear allegiance to George W. Bush during the White Coat ceremony. If you're not O.K. with that, better look elsewhere.

As a college student at a US university, you should know how crazy and baseless such a broad brush comment is.

 

[DokterMom]

Texas high schools would be a very valid complaint, because the textbooks selected by the state's committee have undue influence (because of the state's sheer size) on the content of books other states have to choose from. It's a disgrace, really, when 'intelligent design' gets included in biology textbooks and 'young earth' theory gets presented alongside geology. Not to mention the climate change "controversy"...

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to live here.

 

[Mavs88]

Do you have residency here? If not, getting into a school here will be very difficult for you due to our 90% in-state law.

 

[Doctor Strange]

The problem is that Texas medical schools are in Texas!

 

[JohnnyMath]

Texas high schools would be a very valid complaint, because the textbooks selected by the state's committee have undue influence (because of the state's sheer size) on the content of books other states have to choose from. It's a disgrace, really, when 'intelligent design' gets included in biology textbooks and 'young earth' theory gets presented alongside geology. Not to mention the climate change "controversy"...

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to live here.

I agree, our "interdisciplinary" approach to science is disgusting.

 

[JohnnyMath]

Do you have residency here? If not, getting into a school here will be very difficult for you due to our 90% in-state law.

Yup, born and raised in the Lone Star State. Hmmm, now that I think about it, I think that rule might be it! He's an Eastern European individual, he implies resentment at the US, the US' medical system, and whatnot...so I think he might see the Texas rule as discriminatory to international students, considering he said he wanted to apply internationally as a student but ultimately "decided" to stay in his home country.

 

[SunsFun]

Well, Texas residency does give an edge to a prospective applicant and arguably more so than any other state. From a pure fairness perspective it doesn't make much sense that being a resident of a certain state makes a difference in your acceptance chances and not to even mention tuition disparity.

 

[Catman21]

The problem is that Texas medical schools are in Texas!

Theres nothing wrong with texas or its medical programs

 

[Catman21]

Well, Texas residency does give an edge to a prospective applicant and arguably more so than any other state. From a pure fairness perspective it doesn't make much sense that being a resident of a certain state makes a difference in your acceptance chances and not to even mention tuition disparity.

It does make sense, they dont throw these rules around all willy nilly just for fun. The reason why Tx has the 90% rule is due to the HUGE lack of doctors in certain areas of texas, and a Texas resident is more likely to stay in texas (and hopefully return back to that underserved area) than a slacker cali brah from LA whos only lookin for an MD and will upon completion return to their state of residence. We get our funds from the state, so the state would like its doctors to serve its people. Pretty straight forward really, and it does make much sense.

 

[LA1004]

Texas high schools would be a very valid complaint, because the textbooks selected by the state's committee have undue influence (because of the state's sheer size) on the content of books other states have to choose from. It's a disgrace, really, when 'intelligent design' gets included in biology textbooks and 'young earth' theory gets presented alongside geology. Not to mention the climate change "controversy"...

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to live here.

I don't see a problem in this approach. If you consider how schools look for applicants who are "well rounded", having a student learn about intelligent design and young earth theory is not an issue. It will engender discussion and promote debate, which is great for both secular and religious professionals.
I defend that students should learn about different belief systems (taoism, buddhism, christianity, etc) not to convert them to a particular belief system, but to help us appreciate different cultures and respect their beliefs. The new MCAT will emphasize sociology and psychology as well as the exact sciences, so these are great topics to learn and be aware of.

 

[Ja3ger]

I don't see a problem in this approach. If you consider how schools look for applicants who are "well rounded", having a student learn about intelligent design and young earth theory is not an issue. It will engender discussion and promote debate, which is great for both secular and religious professionals.
I defend that students should learn about different belief systems (taoism, buddhism, christianity, etc) not to convert them to a particular belief system, but to help us appreciate different cultures and respect their beliefs. The new MCAT will emphasize sociology and psychology as well as the exact sciences, so these are great topics to learn and be aware of.

The problem is putting that bullsh*t in SCIENCE textbooks. History and/or mythology textbooks, fine.

 

[BlueLabel]

Texas high schools would be a very valid complaint, because the textbooks selected by the state's committee have undue influence (because of the state's sheer size) on the content of books other states have to choose from. It's a disgrace, really, when 'intelligent design' gets included in biology textbooks and 'young earth' theory gets presented alongside geology. Not to mention the climate change "controversy"...

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to live here.

I agree with your underlying objection to including that drivel in biology texts but in 12 years of public schooling in Texas I never heard a whisper of any of that in the classroom.

 

[BlueLabel]

Well, Texas residency does give an edge to a prospective applicant and arguably more so than any other state. From a pure fairness perspective it doesn't make much sense that being a resident of a certain state makes a difference in your acceptance chances and not to even mention tuition disparity.

Dumb. Residents are much more likely to practice in their home state, it makes perfect sense and the schools have not only a clear interest but in fact an obligation to address the needs of the taxpayers who subsidize their programs. Also many if not most TX schools have a policy of awarding all OOS matriculants a scholarship to qualify them for IS tuition.

 

[Starry]

I agree with your underlying objection to including that drivel in biology texts but in 12 years of public schooling in Texas I never heard a whisper of any of that in the classroom.

This state is huge. Each area has a distinct character. I can easily imagine creationism being taught in Biology in some schools. My own Bio teacher simply avoided discussing evolution very much since it's sort of a no-go in my area (semi-rural).

 

[BlueLabel]

This state is huge. Each area has a distinct character. I can easily imagine creationism being taught in Biology in some schools. My own Bio teacher simply avoided discussing evolution very much since it's sort of a no-go in my area (semi-rural).

That's a good point and I don't dispute what you're saying at all, but it certainly gives the lie to the earlier contention that perverse Texas creationism ideology is somehow becoming a national norm in the schoolroom when it isn't even that common in schools within the state.

 

[istillbelieve]

I had a professor once ambiguously talk about how he doesn't like Texas medical schools and how they run business. It was so ambiguous and so generalizing, not an institution or two, but he kept on mentioning "ALL TEXAS" and "TEXAS", putting so much emphasis on the word "Texas",etc.


I'm very interested in going to school possibly in Texas....so is there anything specific about Texas medical schools that I should be aware of before I invest in personal resources in applying?

Or do you think maybe his rant was underlying implicit political disagreement with social policies in Texas?

I think it would be better to approach the professor. I don't think anyone can or would answer questions of the sort.

 

[Starry]

That's a good point and I don't dispute what you're saying at all, but it certainly gives the lie to the earlier contention that perverse Texas creationism ideology is somehow becoming a national norm in the schoolroom when it isn't even that common in schools within the state.

Yeah I agree. I don't know where that poster got that idea. I'd be surprised if any state actually wanted to adopt Texas' educational material anyways considering the state's very low national ranking in measures of educational proficiency. IIRC, we were ranked 50th in 2010 or something. To say we kinda suck is an understatement. Idk why any state would want to copy us!

Somehow our universities are awesome though. \m/

 

[BlueLabel]

Yeah I agree. I don't know where that poster got that idea. I'd be surprised if any state actually wanted to adopt Texas' educational material anyways considering the state's very low national ranking in measures of educational proficiency. IIRC, we were ranked 50th in 2010 or something. To say we kinda suck is an understatement. Idk why any state would want to copy us!

Somehow our universities are awesome though. \m/

Well, not so fast. It's definitely true that standards set here for public school textbooks do have an influence on other states because of the size of our market. All I'm saying is that I think it's a bridge too far to claim that those standards are thoroughly compromised by creationism and other non-scientific ideology to the extent that this has some palpable negative impact on national education, because in my experience and that of most of my peers I detected exactly none of it.

But yeah, Texas universities are pretty great even when our football isn't. Gig em.

 

[LA1004]

The problem is putting that bullsh*t in SCIENCE textbooks. History and/or mythology textbooks, fine.

I wouldn't call someone's beliefs fecal matter, it doesn't bode well for future physicians/doctors. All I'm saying is teaching both isn't detrimental to education. In fact, having both to compare helps us appreciate the contributions scientific research has had on our understanding of the world.

 

[DokterMom]

I wouldn't call someone's beliefs fecal matter, it doesn't bode well for future physicians/doctors. All I'm saying is teaching both isn't detrimental to education. In fact, having both to compare helps us appreciate the contributions scientific research has had on our understanding of the world.

I'm fine with teaching both -- But in philosophy, history, or religion classes. Not in science classes. Every religion has a creation story. They're wonderful and important and should be taught, but in the context of social theory, not alongside geology, biology, astronomy or physics.

Teaching willful blindness to information that challenges our preconceived understanding of the world and condoning ignorance of proven scientific evidence is dangerous and counterproductive -- especially in science. While a healthy debate in science is to be encouraged, at some point, the vast preponderance of evidence decisively favors one view or another -- at which point it's time to end the 'debate' until new evidence emerges. The earth is simply not flat. Giving voice to the few who sill claim it is does not favor a 'balanced viewpoint'. It does not foster 'judgement and critical thinking' in our high school students --

Science is simply not a "you decide what you want to believe" discipline.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'm fine with teaching both -- But in philosophy, history, or religion classes. Not in science classes. Every religion has a creation story. They're wonderful and important and should be taught, but in the context of social theory, not alongside geology, biology, astronomy or physics.

Teaching willful blindness to information that challenges our preconceived understanding of the world and condoning ignorance of proven scientific evidence is dangerous and counterproductive -- especially in science. While a healthy debate in science is to be encouraged, at some point, the vast preponderance of evidence decisively favors one view or another -- at which point it's time to end the 'debate' until new evidence emerges. The earth is simply not flat. Giving voice to the few who sill claim it is does not favor a 'balanced viewpoint'. It does not foster 'judgement and critical thinking' in our high school students --

Science is simply not a "you decide what you want to believe" discipline.

Unfortunately our society seems to be becoming increasingly anti-intellectual. People seem to think that everyone's opinions are equivalent and valid, thus the whole reason why the intelligent design debate is an even an issue ("look! it's not blatantly anti-scientific, let's include it in a textbook! so that, you know, the kids can know all of the possibilities!").

 

[mcloaf]

I wouldn't call someone's beliefs fecal matter, it doesn't bode well for future physicians/doctors. All I'm saying is teaching both isn't detrimental to education. In fact, having both to compare helps us appreciate the contributions scientific research has had on our understanding of the world.

You're entirely missing the point; whether on purpose or unintentionally, I can't tell.

 

[LA1004]

You're entirely missing the point; whether on purpose or unintentionally, I can't tell.

I fail to see how I missed the point. Care to explain to me, please?

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to live here.

Then why don't you move to some awesome liberal state like Massachusetts, since you look down on Texas so much? By the way, as soon as you move out, the void will fill up because Texas is one of the best states for physicians to practice in the country.

 

[sinombre]

I fail to see how I missed the point. Care to explain to me, please?

The claim is that non-science shouldn't be taught as if it were science, mainly because non-science isn't science.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Theres nothing wrong with texas or its medical programs

Your sarcasm meter is broken.

 

[LA1004]

The claim is that non-science shouldn't be taught as if it were science, mainly because non-science isn't science.

I see, thanks for clarifying. That I do agree with, but I believe it should still be taught but in the same context we teach the evolution of the atomic model, for example.
Creationism is an important part of the scientific understanding of our world, because it inspired scientists to dig deeper as to how our world actually works. We don't demean Plato for believing atoms are solid, indivisible balls. We value his contribution to our current understanding of the atom, and the same should be done with this topic. That's why I don't believe it should be removed from the curriculum.

 

[Ja3ger]

I see, thanks for clarifying. That I do agree with, but I believe it should still be taught but in the same context we teach the evolution of the atomic model, for example.
Creationism is an important part of the scientific understanding of our world, because it inspired scientists to dig deeper as to how our world actually works. We don't demean Plato for believing atoms are solid, indivisible balls. We value his contribution to our current understanding of the atom, and the same should be done with this topic. That's why I don't believe it should be removed from the curriculum.

You're right, I vote that this video be shown

 

[LA1004]

You're right, I vote that this video be shown

Very creative

 

[LA1004]

I'm fine with teaching both -- But in philosophy, history, or religion classes. Not in science classes. Every religion has a creation story. They're wonderful and important and should be taught, but in the context of social theory, not alongside geology, biology, astronomy or physics.

Teaching willful blindness to information that challenges our preconceived understanding of the world and condoning ignorance of proven scientific evidence is dangerous and counterproductive -- especially in science. While a healthy debate in science is to be encouraged, at some point, the vast preponderance of evidence decisively favors one view or another -- at which point it's time to end the 'debate' until new evidence emerges. The earth is simply not flat. Giving voice to the few who sill claim it is does not favor a 'balanced viewpoint'. It does not foster 'judgement and critical thinking' in our high school students --

Science is simply not a "you decide what you want to believe" discipline.

I agree with everything you say, but creationism and flat earth theory has helped mould our current understanding, so I see no problem teaching the evolution of our understanding on this topic in a science class.

 

[Reckoner]

I see, thanks for clarifying. That I do agree with, but I believe it should still be taught but in the same context we teach the evolution of the atomic model, for example.
Creationism is an important part of the scientific understanding of our world, because it inspired scientists to dig deeper as to how our world actually works. We don't demean Plato for believing atoms are solid, indivisible balls. We value his contribution to our current understanding of the atom, and the same should be done with this topic. That's why I don't believe it should be removed from the curriculum.

I think you're conflating modern day creationism with pre-Darwin creationism. I don't think anyone on here would argue that we shouldn't teach the dominant scientific view before we understood evolution from a historical perspective. But modern day creationism, which stands opposed to our current scientific understanding of how biology works, has no place in a science textbook.

ETA: I just re-read your post, and I think we might agree, although you didn't make the distinction. Apologies if that's the case.

 

[LA1004]

I think you're conflating modern day creationism with pre-Darwin creationism. I don't think anyone on here would argue that we shouldn't teach the dominant scientific view before we understood evolution from a historical perspective. But modern day creationism, which stands opposed to our current scientific understanding of how biology works, has no place in a science textbook.

ETA: I just re-read your post, and I think we might agree, although you didn't make the distinction. Apologies if that's the case.

Like we say in Portuguese, I agree with you in number, gender, and degree (numero, genero, e grau). I assumed the discussion was on the pre-Darwin creationism in the curriculum, not the modern apologetic view. Thanks for clarifying that for me!

 

[DokterMom]

Like we say in Portuguese, I agree with you in number, gender, and degree (numero, genero, e grau). I assumed the discussion was on the pre-Darwin creationism in the curriculum, not the modern apologetic view. Thanks for clarifying that for me!

Guess you haven't spent much time in Texas then

 

[SunsFun]

It does make sense, they dont throw these rules around all willy nilly just for fun. The reason why Tx has the 90% rule is due to the HUGE lack of doctors in certain areas of texas, and a Texas resident is more likely to stay in texas (and hopefully return back to that underserved area) than a slacker cali brah from LA whos only lookin for an MD and will upon completion return to their state of residence. We get our funds from the state, so the state would like its doctors to serve its people. Pretty straight forward really, and it does make much sense.

You're arguing with a point I didn't make. I am not disputing that there are underserved areas in Texas but I don't see how you're going to claim that situation in Texas is somehow worse than anywhere else. Also, most of the data I saw shows that people stay where they do residency. Going to medical school in Texas makes you just as competitive for residencies all over the US.

Look, we are one country be it Texas, Alabama, New York, or Alaska. This pointless "statism" doesn't bring us any closer to a solution. The fact that Texas has its own system and is much less likely to play ball than any other place is not a good thing.

 

[SunsFun]

Dumb. Residents are much more likely to practice in their home state, it makes perfect sense and the schools have not only a clear interest but in fact an obligation to address the needs of the taxpayers who subsidize their programs. Also many if not most TX schools have a policy of awarding all OOS matriculants a scholarship to qualify them for IS tuition.

I don't argue that it is in the interest of pretty much every state to graduate people who want to practice there. It just that if every state acted like Texas we wouldn't even have a national system.

 

[Deadlifts]

I don't argue that it is in the interest of pretty much every state to graduate people who want to practice there. It just that if every state acted like Texas we wouldn't even have a national system.

Is your only gripe really then with the TMDSAS? There are other states with very similar IS/OOS acceptance ratios to the Texas schools.

 

[BlueLabel]

Is your only gripe really then with the TMDSAS? There are other states with very similar IS/OOS acceptance ratios to the Texas schools.

No kidding. I also love how the goalposts keep moving on this one

 

[SunsFun]

Is your only gripe really then with the TMDSAS? There are other states with very similar IS/OOS acceptance ratios to the Texas schools.

That certainly is a glaring example of a needless barrier. Texas is just an easy state to pick on because of its size and effect on national admissions overall, but yeah I am in no way saying that those state are any better.

I apply a simple principle here. If everybody did what Texas is doing would it be a good thing overall? I don't think so so what Texas is doing arguably hurts everybody else more than it helps Texas.

The way I look at it is that we are one country and shouldn't have people with similar stats getting completely different odds of acceptance based on region that person lives at alone.

 

[Mavs88]

That certainly is a glaring example of a needless barrier. Texas is just an easy state to pick on because of its size and effect on national admissions overall, but yeah I am in no way saying that those state are any better.

I apply a simple principle here. If everybody did what Texas is doing would it be a good thing overall? I don't think so so what Texas is doing arguably hurts everybody else more than it helps Texas.

The way I look at it is that we are one country and shouldn't have people with similar stats getting completely different odds of acceptance based on region that person lives at alone.

If you have a problem, just move here

 

[Catman21]

That certainly is a glaring example of a needless barrier. Texas is just an easy state to pick on because of its size and effect on national admissions overall, but yeah I am in no way saying that those state are any better.

I apply a simple principle here. If everybody did what Texas is doing would it be a good thing overall? I don't think so so what Texas is doing arguably hurts everybody else more than it helps Texas.

The way I look at it is that we are one country and shouldn't have people with similar stats getting completely different odds of acceptance based on region that person lives at alone.

I dont know how else to really explain this.

I'm not sure why my parents paying 20 years of taxes that help subsidize our 7/8 state subsidized medical schools (only exception being baylor, which doesn't use TDMSAS) dont get me some sort of preference in matriculating and graduating and staying and practicing in our home state of texas? But you coming in for med school, and very likely getting a residency back in your home state, should get as equal treatment? cmon now bro, thats just plain silly.

This was in response to your "needless barrier" btw.

You may still sign up with an apply with TMDSAS, I have to sign up with the national system still. TDMSAS isnt a barrier. Its just a different system. The barrier is the acceptance ratios, which all states are close to whether its a law or not.

 

[BlueLabel]

I dont know how else to really explain this.

I'm not sure why my parents paying 20 years of taxes that help subsidize our 7/8 state subsidized medical schools (only exception being baylor, which doesn't use TDMSAS) dont get me some sort of preference in matriculating and graduating and staying and practicing in our home state of texas? But you coming in for med school, and very likely getting a residency back in your home state, should get as equal treatment? cmon now bro, thats just plain silly.

This was in response to your "needless barrier" btw.

You may still sign up with an apply with TMDSAS, I have to sign up with the national system still. TDMSAS isnt a barrier. Its just a different system. The barrier is the acceptance ratios, which all states are close to whether its a law or not.

Yeah, this. And by the way this absolute babble about "one country one system" has exactly nothing to do with the idea of state-funded institutions emphasizing the benefit of their bankrollers.

 

[LA1004]

Guess you haven't spent much time in Texas then

Only been to Dallas Airport

 

[taniaekal]

I agree with your underlying objection to including that drivel in biology texts but in 12 years of public schooling in Texas I never heard a whisper of any of that in the classroom.

Same. My biology teacher during senior year was as Southern Texan as they get - conservative, self proclaimed "extremely Republican", and very much religious - yet, she never even mentioned the Young Earth stuff and said that believing in that made "no sense".

 

[Patros]

Yeah, this. And by the way this absolute babble about "one country one system" has exactly nothing to do with the idea of state-funded institutions emphasizing the benefit of their bankrollers.

Just out of curiosity, why does Texas have a separate application system? Is it because there are so many public schools there? California also has a lot, but they seem to work fine with AMCAS.

 

[BlueLabel]

.