- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 15
Harrison's covers every subject. Biochem, genetics, physiology, even biostatistics and epidemiology...even ethics, it's all there. Integrated and correlated from the molecular level to the patient on the bed. So why are we learning from multiple other, disjointed, non-integrated resources? The quality of some of them just plain sucks, or at best is debatable ("Netter vs. Grants"...etc). In other cases it's either over our heads (most biochem/genetics texts, and most intra-school course notes) or over-simplified (Lange's Pathophys, Dubin's EKG, etc...) And we're never able to review it in a single unified resource (First Aid makes its own sh*tty diagrams)
Example:
First Aid coronary anatomy:
Harrison's coronary anatomy:
Obviously first aid isn't where you first learn anatomy...but neither was Harrison's. But we're grownups, we took bio and even anatomy in undergrad...why are we learning the same BS again, still presented completely separate from its clinical relevance? We still have PhD professors writing course notes-- and exam questions(!)-- and giving lectures on things about which they have no real clinical understanding. At all. But we memorize (and forget) their crappy notes anyway. Why does it have to be like this? We're going to be doctors.
Discuss.
Example:
First Aid coronary anatomy:
Harrison's coronary anatomy:
Obviously first aid isn't where you first learn anatomy...but neither was Harrison's. But we're grownups, we took bio and even anatomy in undergrad...why are we learning the same BS again, still presented completely separate from its clinical relevance? We still have PhD professors writing course notes-- and exam questions(!)-- and giving lectures on things about which they have no real clinical understanding. At all. But we memorize (and forget) their crappy notes anyway. Why does it have to be like this? We're going to be doctors.
Discuss.