Why a preference for non science majors?

[Rednawz]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I understand that medical schools are about "diversifying" their student bodies. But disregarding this mysterious element, it seems much more practical that med schools would favor science people over non science people.

1) medicine is after all, a science. why not take the applicants whose undergraduate training has made them the most adept in subjects like genetics, biochemistry, physiology, molecular biology, and most importantly a scientific approach to understanding and solving complex problems. Is it not a tad ridiculous that the hardest science class you take before entering medical school is organic chemistry? Medical schools could spend less time teaching the basic science components of medicine and could focus more on the clinical.

2) I hear constantly medical schools want to see commitment. Shouldn't people who major in non science subjects be seen as wishy-washy? After all that's the lingering stigma associated with individuals who only a few years into their graduate lives decide to pursue a career in medicine. Again, medicine is a science, so how is spending four years of your life in college as a non science major seen as dedication to wanting to become a physician?

 

[liveoak]

medicine is not strictly a science. doctors aren't exactly researchers.

 

[Rednawz]

researchers discover science. physicians apply science. take the science out of medicine and you are back in the middle ages.

 

[liveoak]

researchers discover science. physicians apply science. take the science out of medicine and you are back in the middle ages.

applying science is an art.

 

[Rednawz]

...your point?

 

[Neurosis]

I personally think it's great to diversify, that way you won't find your entire class saturated with only biology and chemistry students. It's better to have people with fresh new perspective than strictly and monotonously having the same group coming and going. But that's just my humble opinion. 😉.

 

[elblackwell]

I think it's interesting that you assume that non science majors don't take upper level biology classes.
Medicine has a humanistic aspect as well as a scientific, and while science is very important for physicians, so is understanding humans and society. We all have to take the MCAT anyways. If you majored in bio and got a 14 in BS, and I majored in a non science major and got the same score, we can assume that we both have similar abilities in biology. If I haven't taken upper level bio courses, than I am going to have to spend more time learning basic genetics, physiology, etc... in MS1. After that, we both take the same USMLE. In the end, regardless of undergrad major, everyone will know the scientific material pertinent to medicine. The question is though, will you know the non- science material a non science major learned in undergrad? Probably not.
Search for a recent thread about how medical schools "discriminate" against non science majors, I'm sure both of you would have a great discussion.

 

[Stumpyman]

Keep in mind, in almost every country BUT the US, students go straight from HS with Gen bio and Gen chem to Med school.

 

[Morsetlis]

Our physicians are a lot more compassionate as a result.

 

[Rednawz]

I think it's interesting that you assume that non science majors don't take upper level biology classes.
Medicine has a humanistic aspect as well as a scientific, and while science is very important for physicians, so is understanding humans and society. We all have to take the MCAT anyways. If you majored in bio and got a 14 in BS, and I majored in a non science major and got the same score, we can assume that we both have similar abilities in biology. If I haven't taken upper level bio courses, than I am going to have to spend more time learning basic genetics, physiology, etc... in MS1. After that, we both take the same USMLE. In the end, regardless of undergrad major, everyone will know the scientific material pertinent to medicine. The question is though, will you know the non- science material a non science major learned in undergrad? Probably not.
Search for a recent thread about how medical schools "discriminate" against non science majors, I'm sure both of you would have a great discussion.

Although it's great to get a 14 in biology, I wouldn't say it's a safe assumption that every person who gets a 14 on the bio section has an equal understanding of biology. It's covers too great a range on materials and there aren't enough questions to be such a definitive assessment of a persons capabilities. It functions to assess an individuals aptitude for standardized test and to a lesser extent their knowledge of bio.

You are correct. I won't know as much "non-science material" as humanities majors. But so what? How will lack of random sociological theories hinder my capabilities of treating a patient? Sure, non science classes forces a person to think more about "humans and society," but I don't think its the only way, or even a good way to gauge a proper sense of those things. It's a pretty faulty argument that being a humanities major helps you understand the "humanistic" part of medicine. I'm only a stinky premed, but I think you can only learn that through living life, having experiences, making mistakes and learning from them.

In the meantime while I'm doing that however, I'll be striving the push the boundaries of my understanding of science.

 

[liveoak]

You are correct. I won't know as much "non-science material" as humanities majors. But so what? How will lack of random sociological theories hinder my capabilities of treating a patient? Sure, non science classes forces a person to think more about "humans and society," but I don't think its the only way, or even a good way to gauge a proper sense of those things. It's a pretty faulty argument that being a humanities major helps you understand the "humanistic" part of medicine. I'm only a stinky premed, but I think you can only learn that through living life, having experiences, making mistakes and learning from them.

Good lord. Go write a poem, dork.

 

[simondimond]

You will learn all you need to know about medicine IN MEDICAL SCHOOL. You don't learn about medicine in undergrad. Organic chemistry is simply a weed out course. How well you do simply proves that you probably have what it takes to get through the med school curriculum.

Medicine is a people/service profession. No matter how much science you might know, if your interpersonal skills suck then your science knowledge means nothing because you are going to have a patient who will not listen to you and they are still going to be sick. Medicine is an applied science that requires so many other skills not related to science.

Non-science majors are potentially seen as more well-rounded and can bring a new perspective to an incoming class. Some people think that is BS but if you think about it they take the same pre-req's, the MCAT, and they have other courses that have exposed them to the world outside of a laboratory.

I used to think that you needed to somehow become a doctor before you got into medical school by taking as much science courses as possible. As I got older, I saw that that was not the case.

 

[elblackwell]

Although it's great to get a 14 in biology, I wouldn't say it's a safe assumption that every person who gets a 14 on the bio section has an equal understanding of biology. It's covers too great a range on materials and there aren't enough questions to be such a definitive assessment of a persons capabilities. It functions to assess an individuals aptitude for standardized test and to a lesser extent their knowledge of bio.

You are correct. I won't know as much "non-science material" as humanities majors. But so what? How will lack of random sociological theories hinder my capabilities of treating a patient? Sure, non science classes forces a person to think more about "humans and society," but I don't think its the only way, or even a good way to gauge a proper sense of those things. It's a pretty faulty argument that being a humanities major helps you understand the "humanistic" part of medicine. I'm only a stinky premed, but I think you can only learn that through living life, having experiences, making mistakes and learning from them.

In the meantime while I'm doing that however, I'll be striving the push the boundaries of my understanding of science.

I think that is why med schools try to get people who think like you as well as others who do care about "random" sociological theories. I believe that the logic in that lies in the assumption that students can learn from each other as well as faculty. The more diverse the student population, the more perspectives each student is exposed to.
There are many specialties in medicine. Someone who goes into primary care, family medicine, or public health could definitely utilize material learned in the social sciences or humanities majors. While they may seem like just "random" theories, sociological theories and theories from other non-science disciplines are meant to develop critical thinking, kind of like how some physics theories aren't necessarily applicable to medicine, but they allow one to develop a certain type of reasoning skill that can later be used in other areas.
As for the MCAT, I definitely agree that it tests standardized test taking skills, but I would like to believe that it also tests for the ability to handle a wealth of information in various areas. So, while someone who majored in sociology may not have the wealth of biological knowledge that you possess, the MCAT can show whether they have the ability to handle and apply biological (or medical) knowledge. Obviously, that is the ideal scenario, and it is possible that the MCAT doesn't accurately reflect these skills, but it does serve to even the playing field between science and non science majors.

 

[dmf2682]

I used to think that you needed to somehow become a doctor before you got into medical school by taking as much science courses as possible. As I got older, I saw that that was not the case.

Very wise. And how old might you be now?

 

[dmf2682]

Current arguments aside I'm taking upper level bio and chemistry classes mostly because I want to make sure I'm really that interested in the science. Med school won't be worth it if I don't enjoy the coursework and taking upper level sciences seems like a good, relatively inexpensive way to find out.

 

[eli20]

You are correct. I won't know as much "non-science material" as humanities majors. But so what? How will lack of random sociological theories hinder my capabilities of treating a patient? Sure, non science classes forces a person to think more about "humans and society," but I don't think its the only way, or even a good way to gauge a proper sense of those things. It's a pretty faulty argument that being a humanities major helps you understand the "humanistic" part of medicine. I'm only a stinky premed, but I think you can only learn that through living life, having experiences, making mistakes and learning from them.

Because you don't treat patients as a collection of symptoms in a vacuum, all people are products of complex sociology, politics, psychology, and history - and making an attempt to understand and value those disciplines allows you to take better care of a patient. I agree that majoring in a humanity isn't the only way to do this, but I'll argue that it is a good way to show you have a sustained interest in these factors in addition to medicine. Someone else already pointed out that this isn't an either-or situation, its about using both science and the humanities to provide superior care.

 

[shinbeats]

I understand that medical schools are about "diversifying" their student bodies. But disregarding this mysterious element, it seems much more practical that med schools would favor science people over non science people.

1) medicine is after all, a science. why not take the applicants whose undergraduate training has made them the most adept in subjects like genetics, biochemistry, physiology, molecular biology, and most importantly a scientific approach to understanding and solving complex problems. Is it not a tad ridiculous that the hardest science class you take before entering medical school is organic chemistry? Medical schools could spend less time teaching the basic science components of medicine and could focus more on the clinical.

2) I hear constantly medical schools want to see commitment. Shouldn't people who major in non science subjects be seen as wishy-washy? After all that's the lingering stigma associated with individuals who only a few years into their graduate lives decide to pursue a career in medicine. Again, medicine is a science, so how is spending four years of your life in college as a non science major seen as dedication to wanting to become a physician?

First of all I would like to say that I graduated as a Biochemistry major.
Second of all, If this guy is going to become a "Compassionate and understanding Physician" please just kill me now lol
Hey ******* being a Physician is more than just knowing the Sciences. There's a reason why you're not on the admissions committee enrolling in an army of Science majoring robots. Get a life and stfu.

 

[ModernAlchemist]

If this guy is going to become a "Compassionate and understanding Physician" please just kill me now lol
Hey ******* being a Physician is more than just knowing the Sciences. There's a reason why you're not on the admissions committee enrolling in an army of Science majoring robots. Get a life and stfu.

I completely agree with the not making a class full of robots, but I don't see how majoring in something else has anything to do with it. I know many "robots" in humanities majors. Just because you look diversified on paper doesn't mean you don't crank out essays like a robot.

I agree with the OP that it is very confusing for admissions officials to constantly reiterate that a commitment to medicine is a huge factor and then give preferred treatment to someone who majored in something that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with medicine.

Granted, I am the first person to say that we need more diverse people in medical school, but I say that we put more weight on the non-medical extra-curriculars and interview if that's the case. It's ironic that diversity of interests and character meant to promote more compassionate doctors is assessed by a requirement that is indicated on paper. If they want diversity, they should assess personality and life experience.

 

[flodhi1]

I completely agree with the not making a class full of robots, but I don't see how majoring in something else has anything to do with it. I know many "robots" in humanities majors. Just because you look diversified on paper doesn't mean you don't crank out essays like a robot.

I agree with the OP that it is very confusing for admissions officials to constantly reiterate that a commitment to medicine is a huge factor and then give preferred treatment to someone who majored in something that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with medicine.

Granted, I am the first person to say that we need more diverse people in medical school, but I say that we put more weight on the non-medical extra-curriculars and interview if that's the case. It's ironic that diversity of interests and character meant to promote more compassionate doctors is assessed by a requirement that is indicated on paper. If they want diversity, they should assess personality and life experience.

How can you have a commitment to medicine when you have more weight on non-medical ECs?
Doesn't commitment begin by knowing something first. Therefore commitment to medicine is supposed to be volunteering and shadowing in health clinics which would lead to a strong understanding of the physician profession and his role in society.
ADCOM do assess personalities through out your interview. Your life experiences are also assessed especially if you state them in your personal statement. There's a reason why there are numerous individuals that have high GPAs, high MCAT scores, multiple interviews and still don't get accepted. The interviewer tends to see a flaw in the persons personality, major flaws could be social awkwardness, aggression, arrogance etc...

 

[ModernAlchemist]

How can you have a commitment to medicine when you have more weight on non-medical ECs?
Doesn't commitment begin by knowing something first. Therefore commitment to medicine is supposed to be volunteering and shadowing in health clinics which would lead to a strong understanding of the physician profession and his role in society.
ADCOM do assess personalities through out your interview. Your life experiences are also assessed especially if you state them in your personal statement. There's a reason why there are numerous individuals that have high GPAs, high MCAT scores, multiple interviews and still don't get accepted. The interviewer tends to see a flaw in the persons personality, major flaws could be social awkwardness, aggression, arrogance etc...

I totally agree. I was talking more in relative terms. I meant that IF the committee was attempting to emphasize an applicant's diversity, non-medical ECs would indicate more about the person than what type of classes they took. I was saying that more weight should be put on those activities than is currently. I do not think they should be thought of as more significant than MCAT or GPA, but just more emphasized for the purpose of that specific assessment.

I do think that they weed out some people in the interview, but from what I have seen, they are assessing it the wrong way. I don't believe that having a different major makes you more diverse in the way that is important for a doctor. I was under the impression that diversity was important because doctors can be relatable and more mature in various aspects of their life. That said, someone who has spent time working in the professional world or has spent time as a touring musician or played a sport for their school are more likely to have those qualities than someone who can write a philosophy paper. I really respect people who can succeed in the humanities (I'm not one of those people). Though, I do not think that it is a valuable assessment of what type of diversity is important when you're looking for someone who will be a more effective physician.

 

[mauberley]

I'm not aware of a school where non-science majors comprise a majority of the student body. I think the question arises from a misunderstanding of what's at work. There's a desire to see more non-science majors enter medicine, but it's not a "preference" over science majors. Rather, it's that being a non-science major does not negatively affect one's application.

The choice of major can indicate useful personality traits, just as extracurricular activities can. This is pure speculation on my part, but ECs could be "less indicative" because people may simply take a "laundry list" approach, rendering participation less meaningful.

Others have already exhausted the "medicine is not a pure science" angle, so there's little need in reiterating those points. I'd further add that by not requiring a science major, it is demonstrated that a love of, aptitude for, or interest in science need not have been manifested in being a science major. There are other ways to show this.

 

[Appoggiatura]

I think the problem with you, OP, is how close-minded you are about the value of other disciplines, namely humanities.

As the risk of making generalizations, non-science majors applying to med school show that they have diverse interests and are open to different subjects and pursuits...hopefully making them well-rounded and interesting people as a result. I'm not bagging on gung-ho science people, though. I think medical schools just want to see someone who is passionate about something and who is a "lifelong learner".

 

[Grom]

First of all I would like to say that I graduated as a Biochemistry major.
Second of all, If this guy is going to become a "Compassionate and understanding Physician" please just kill me now lol
Hey ******* being a Physician is more than just knowing the Sciences. There's a reason why you're not on the admissions committee enrolling in an army of Science majoring robots. Get a life and stfu.

You may not agree with his argument, but that doesn't mean he can't become a compassionate physician and you certainly aren't helping him by calling him a *******.

 

[ScholarStud]

From, http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=requirements

Currently, the time required for premedical undergraduate science preparation is substantial. Although expectations for scientific rigor at the undergraduate level are being increased, we do not intend to make the time commitment to science courses so burdensome that medical school candidacy would be limited to science majors/concentrators and that little time would be available in college to pursue other academically challenging scholarly avenues, the foundation for intellectual growth. Therefore, the ideal solution is one in which the current time commitment to premedical science courses is refocused on more relevant content, interdisciplinary when practical, that can be covered within the same time frame or a time frame only modestly expanded. The premedical curriculum should foster scholastic rigor, analytical thinking, quantitative assessment, and analyses of complex systems in human biology. In fact, an inculcation of scientific method and scientific rigor are deemed more important than the specific content of premedical science courses per se. We adhere to the important principle that the college years are not, and should not be, designed primarily to prepare students for professional schools. Instead, the college years should be devoted to a creative engagement in the elements of a broad, intellectually expansive liberal arts education.

 

[ScholarStud]

To expand on my last post, some schools do prefer additional upper-division science courses. Many (most? arguable..) higher-tier schools however, do not.

 

[greenlights]

I think everyone else has covered the major points, so I won't run them into the ground. After all, I was an English major, so you can guess which side I fall on in this argument.

But I particularly take exception to this idea that science majors are somehow all in it for the pure, unadulterated love of science. I lost track of the number of bio majors who told me the only reason they were majoring in bio was because they couldn't write. We also had a healthy number of biophysical chem majors who entirely selected their major because it required the least amount of courses in addition to premed requirements. And I'm pretty sure adcoms are aware of this, just as they can pick out slackers in the humanities majors.

 

[alexandertg6]

Although it's great to get a 14 in biology, I wouldn't say it's a safe assumption that every person who gets a 14 on the bio section has an equal understanding of biology.

This. Of course im one of the ones who does 😀 and only posting to point that out, no but seriously I would not say that being a biology or chemistry major gives you a better understanding of being a doctor. Medical science is half the equation. People skills is the other half. You need both, and since everyone who does well on the MCAT and med school prereqs demonstrates capability in sciences, I can see why they might favor people who have demonstrated the second as well.

Alex

EDIT: I thought I might add that I am a bio major. I did it cuz I find the mechanism and theory of life fascinating...

 

[vlk2008]

I'm not aware of a school where non-science majors comprise a majority of the student body. I think the question arises from a misunderstanding of what's at work. There's a desire to see more non-science majors enter medicine, but it's not a "preference" over science majors. Rather, it's that being a non-science major does not negatively affect one's application.

The choice of major can indicate useful personality traits, just as extracurricular activities can. This is pure speculation on my part, but ECs could be "less indicative" because people may simply take a "laundry list" approach, rendering participation less meaningful.

Others have already exhausted the "medicine is not a pure science" angle, so there's little need in reiterating those points. I'd further add that by not requiring a science major, it is demonstrated that a love of, aptitude for, or interest in science need not have been manifested in being a science major. There are other ways to show this.

I agree with this! I really don't think adcoms by any means discriminate against science majors. At my school they show the breakdowns of people who applied/got in to medical school by major, and the proportions were pretty much the same across all majors. Sure the biology majors had a larger number or rejects than say psychology, but there were also a significantly larger number of biology major applicants so that is expected!

I dont think that if two applicants with identical GPA's and MCATS were being viewed, one a science major and one humanities, that the ADCOM would make their decision based on what major the applicant was..