why doesnt anyone actually like to learn?

[Ramoray]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I am amazed since i began med school how absolutely nobody in my class has an interest in learning or understanding the foundations of science; instead they are concerned with high yield facts, memorizing and cramming details just with a goal of passing the tests. I find that on this forum too with everyone being shocked at someone reading robbins or people always using point form review books for everything. I think its absouletly insane. When i was in undergrad i had a good study group of people who liked to understand things and discuss when we studied how things tied together etc. ANd i think its everyones responsiblity to spend these first 2 years of medschool learning a solid foundation and learn processes and learn how to think, rather then memorize because we will always have resources to look up facts but if people dont know how to think what good will it do.
I mean when else in our careers will we have the time to learn path well or any other subject.. well be too busy and will not have the time. I guess i am wondering why NOBODY reads robbins, katzung pharm, moore anatomy etc.. why dont medstudents actually care about learning? of course there are exceptions so dont take offense if you do like learning. just curious

 

[ronaldo]

I agree with your perspective as well as the underlying sentiment. I though grad school was place for thinkers and readers and generally intelligent people. It's an understatement to say that I have found none of this: no curiousity, no analytical rigor, no interesting thinknig beyond the narrow confines of what is absolutely required. I thought (read: dearly hoped) when I left undergrad I would never hear another automoton repeat "but will this be on the test" or "what do i need to know to pass." Honestly its frightening to think we are training a generation of doctors who cannot think, only react with lists, tables, irrelevant facts and dismay when more is expected.

 

[Informer]

I disagree, i've learned so much and i know many of my classmates are interested in learning. However, there are things you learn for clinic and there are things you learn for tests . . . when boards come rolling around, you basically have to sacrifice a few things and say "i just need to cram things in"

that's real life, sorry if we arent meeting your standards

 

[Blade28]

I think you'll find that once everyone hits third year, they'll want to apply what they've learned to the new clinical situations they'll face. At that point, people do actually want to "learn," so to speak - because all the book smarts in the world won't help if you can't integrate it into your rotation's clinical duties.

 

[Benzo4every1]

Let's just say that I learn more now than the first two years. It's kinda cool when what you apply in the clinical years fall back on what you had been tryin to learn the first two years 😀

 

[stomper627]

I am amazed since i began med school how absolutely nobody in my class has an interest in learning or understanding the foundations of science; instead they are concerned with high yield facts, memorizing and cramming details just with a goal of passing the tests. I find that on this forum too with everyone being shocked at someone reading robbins or people always using point form review books for everything. I think its absouletly insane. When i was in undergrad i had a good study group of people who liked to understand things and discuss when we studied how things tied together etc. ANd i think its everyones responsiblity to spend these first 2 years of medschool learning a solid foundation and learn processes and learn how to think, rather then memorize because we will always have resources to look up facts but if people dont know how to think what good will it do.
I mean when else in our careers will we have the time to learn path well or any other subject.. well be too busy and will not have the time. I guess i am wondering why NOBODY reads robbins, katzung pharm, moore anatomy etc.. why dont medstudents actually care about learning? of course there are exceptions so dont take offense if you do like learning. just curious

Hmm....perhaps because most med students want to become physicians....NOT PhDs. Most of what youll learn to become a physician is taught during clinicals, and mostly during residency. If you want to become a PhD/MD then by all means go ahead and learn all that minutia....otherwise...learn it for the test, then forget it.
stomper

 

[swedcrip]

I think I used to want to learn. But med school beat that out of me pretty quick.

To get by, you have to put forth a substantial amount of effort towards rote memorization. With the time that's left, the interest to learn more about science not being there for everyone - not a surprise to me. Sometimes I want to learn about anything BUT science. If anyone out there is willing to fundamentally reform medical training, then maybe you'll have less of us who don't share your strong desire.

I'm not sure what point in training you're at, but if you dismiss review books as a high yield method of learning the material, I'm not sure you grasp the extent of the material out there. I have no idea the time it would take to actually learn the fundamentals behind everything. I just know I don't have it (at least to commit to one part of my life).

 

[automaton]

i don't have to read robbins or katzung because i go to a real school with lectures and faculty, not a self-study diploma factory. what about you ramoray?

 

[Ramoray]

i don't have to read robbins or katzung because i go to a real school with lectures and faculty, not a self-study diploma factory. what about you ramoray?

If your faculty is so great and better than robbins or katzung why havent they published a book that has been around and regarded as the best in their filed for decades? what a silly post

 

[Ramoray]

Hmm....perhaps because most med students want to become physicians....NOT PhDs. Most of what youll learn to become a physician is taught during clinicals, and mostly during residency. If you want to become a PhD/MD then by all means go ahead and learn all that minutia....otherwise...learn it for the test, then forget it.
stomper

Well you are a DO, i wouldnt expect that you would be capable of learning.. that is why you went DO, i was more asking MD students. but thanks for your input

 

[Janders]

Well you are a DO, i wouldnt expect that you would be capable of learning.. that is why you went DO, i was more asking MD students. but thanks for your input

*cough*

 

[Discobolus]

I'm sure your glowing personality will allow you to continue to get excellent grades during your clinical years.

Oh, and I have read enough of Robbins to catch a few wonderful quotes such as the one in my signature.

Well you are a DO, i wouldnt expect that you would be capable of learning.. that is why you went DO, i was more asking MD students. but thanks for your input

 

[stomper627]

Well you are a DO, i wouldnt expect that you would be capable of learning.. that is why you went DO, i was more asking MD students. but thanks for your input

A great reply from a youngun-wet-behind-the-ears-have-not-experienced-clinical-medicine-in-any-way-with-attending-physicians-who-are-both-DOs-and-MDs MSI. You really have not clue....but keep trying. Someday youll get it.
Flame some more, *****.

 

[Hernandez]

Well you are a DO, i wouldnt expect that you would be capable of learning.. that is why you went DO, i was more asking MD students. but thanks for your input

 

[Ramoray]

dude get some new and creative pics to post- i saw that one more than a year ago on other peoples posts when initially it was funny- not years later when the idea has been used a million times. You sound like one of the drones i am talking about- just memorizes or posts without thinking... yup helping me prove my point, i love it! keep it up!

 

[automaton]

If your faculty is so great and better than robbins or katzung why havent they published a book that has been around and regarded as the best in their filed for decades? what a silly post

haha what a stupid post, you don't even know who my faculty are.

 

[Hernandez]

dude get some new and creative pics to post- i saw that one more than a year ago on other peoples posts when initially it was funny- not years later when the idea has been used a million times. You sound like one of the drones i am talking about- just memorizes or posts without thinking... yup helping me prove my point, i love it! keep it up!

🙄, yup, you've figured me out. I'm too lazy to dig my nose out of my review books to come up with anything original to counter your obviously insightful and non-archaic views on Osteopaths and your insecurities about medical education and your peers. How many times do we need to read the primary books such as Robbins or Harrison’s? Should we sacrifice the utility of the review books and only read text books? No, because at some point, it becomes infeasible to take in all of the material necessary to adequately jump through the hoops and learn the material pertinent to passing the classes, and that, inevitably leads to a degradation of the quality of care which we can render or bring many to a point where it would be extremely difficult to pass our classes. Not all of us are blessed with memories that can allow us the time to read these books and retain enough information that the fewer times of repetition of the necessary information does not hinder our learning process.

I disagree with you, on most counts besides the implication that we should always wish to further our career and practice of medicine by learning. BUT, it should be geared towards the betterment of our services and quality of care rendered, not the minutiae of which cytochrome system exactly that phenyotoin acts on and other clinically useless information. And personally, I don't see what is wrong with going through the primary reference once or twice and then going to the outlined material, that way you learn the underlying concepts and can then concentrate on what is more relevant to either the test or to clinical practice. You're impression of medical students is probably based on the constant moaning and bitching that we do about the time we put in and the relationships and friendships that we are forced to neglect and miss and the loss of the free time to do that which we wish. But all in all, medical students are the hardest working and most motivated group of people I've ever been around and I wouldn't trade my peers for any other group, minus show girls who were enamored with me, but that's another story.

No version of the Hippocratic Oath that I'm aware of places knowledge over patient care, and quit frankly, if you're more worried about that stuff, you need to go into research.

 

[automaton]

ramoray likes robbins and katzung so much because it's written in english unlike all his lecture notes and slides that are written in ukrainian/russian.

 

[stomper627]

Im sitting here looking at my Harrisons and my Robbins, with the dust collecting on them, and Im wondering why I dont read them. I have now realized that I do not get my information from texts. Why? Because most of them are outdated. Me, I use Uptodate, or Emed. These are kept up to date with journals, yet a text gets a new edition....what...every 5+years? Very cool....youll learn a lot, Ramoron.....youll just look stupid considering it will be out of date.
Have fun getting through your clinicals....I would love to be your resident!!!....or even better, your attending when you are a resident.
stomper

 

[Dr_Amr]

well , I think it's also usefull to review some of those huge text books , but this would work if took'em as my primary source of medical knowledge, coz this will first exhaust my energies and spare time , and it may also be abit outdated

🙂

 

[Long Dong]

Me, I use Uptodate, or Emed. These are kept up to date with journals, yet a text gets a new edition....what...every 5+years?

Word it's all about uptodate and emed for pbl and site one primary research article just to make the pbl tutor happy.

 

[Elysium]

Well you are a DO, i wouldnt expect that you would be capable of learning.. that is why you went DO, i was more asking MD students. but thanks for your input

HAHA! I can't wait til Ramrod gets bent over on his surgery rotation. Maybe you could cut a hole in your Harrison's and use it as a doughnut to sit on because you're not gonna be able to walk, bro.

You are obviously very intelligent, ramrod. I wonder why you would be slumming with the lowly MDs when you could be mentally masturbating with the PhDs.

😕

 

[carrigallen]

I read Robbins. I also occasionally read bits of Harrison's, Katzung, and other texts, if I am confused or especially interested in a subject. That said, I do use First Aid, BRS, etc, but mostly for review.

I think that most students do like the material, they just prefer not to say it.

 

[Informer]

Ramoray, you have no idea how immature you are . . .

Someone ban this fool please

 

[chicamedica]

I actually attempted to read Robbins Path Basis of Disease to study for the path section of step I. You know, I read the 1st 500 pages before I realized that the book is so big because it's so wordy. a lot of the content is simply empty prose. When I dropped this futile plan and instead read BRS path (referring to Robbins just for reference), I discovered that many concepts covered in the BRS review book were never even touched upon in Robbins. (i.e. BRS path was much more complete than the big famous textbook). And even BRS path did not cover 100% of topics that could appear on Step 1. (not to scare anyone. . .it was like 95-99% though). I'd say Robbins would have covered about 70% of the topics.

The beauty of review books is that the empty prose is cut out, thereby presenting the concepts themselves in an easy to read, organized format. The fundamentals and knowledge described in such review books is still all there, if not even more so. it's just not diluted by the prose.

Just b/c students use review books doesn't mean they don't like learning for the sake of learning. and when students say things like "is this going to be on the test" i feel the purpose is more to know what to focus on for their studying at that particular moment.

Obviously we all know by now that there is a vast amount knowledge involved in medicine. It's a lifetime of learning. However since tests/exams are a part of the educational system, one has to prioritize studying and know what to study at what time. If you think about it, the purpose of exams IS to focus our studying. Just b/c one might be interested in delving into the fascinating details of the molecular workings of the coagulation cascade, the week before a cardiology exam might not be the best time for that. There are whole courses and residency programs devoted to studying coagulation cascade.

It's about prioritizing, ramoray. Students would not be in med school in they didn't love learning. Medicine especially is about knowing what the priorities are at each particular moment.





p.s. btw on the wards I have worked with a number of highly qualified, knowledgeable attendings and residents who happened to be D.Os. Their competence was on a par with the MDs. I feel the prejudice towards DO's is unwarranted, especially that some DO schools are quite excellent and arguably offer a better education and facilities than some mid to lower tier allopathic schools.

(and before you write off my comments, ramoray, i am an MS3 at a top 15 allopathic school, since sadly you feel this info is necessary to validate my statements)

 

[Ramoray]

I actually attempted to read Robbins Path Basis of Disease to study for the path section of step I. You know, I read the 1st 500 pages before I realized that the book is so big because it's so wordy. a lot of the content is simply empty prose. When I dropped this futile plan and instead read BRS path (referring to Robbins just for reference), I discovered that many concepts covered in the BRS review book were never even touched upon in Robbins. (i.e. BRS path was much more complete than the big famous textbook). And even BRS path did not cover 100% of topics that could appear on Step 1. (not to scare anyone. . .it was like 95-99% though). I'd say Robbins would have covered about 70% of the topics.

--> For one I never said i didnt use review books, of course you have to use review books AFTER you get a thorough understanding. My only concern or thing i noticed is that the majority of people in my class were using review books for learning the material for the first time and i can tell you 100 percent that they miss a ton of thigns doing that. And although i believe you are telling the truth about the first 500 pages maybe in robbins, i can assure you robbins coveres every single thing brs does( maybe there is <5 that brs has that robbins doesnt) but robbins has about >30 percent what brs doesnt) I read robbins and then go over corresponding brs so I know that robbins is not missing anything.
Hey i agree with you and especially carrie, i just know from experience that you cannot learn from review books cause i see how knowledgable alot of my classmates are who do. For example brs often lists a disease and maybe 5 of its presenting symptoms and 4 pathological features but usually it has little to no explanation of WHY those things relate to the disease, or the mechanism of how they relate, which means that this often leaves people unable to think in new situations where a similar idea is presented or similar disease but not the same one, alot ofpeople are unable to reason out symptoms, pathological features etc of disease that we dont direction learn about or concepts that are new or whatever.
Anyway the only thing i was saying is that i find it hard to believe that anyone can believe their first go around on a topic as much from a review book as from a tried and true tested thorough text. Then of course you must use and I use thoroughly, review books so cruise through for review. I mean of course its a waste of time to review a long prose if you already understand a topic but that (wordy prose) is often key for a thorough explanatino if a concept is complex. That was my only point but i respect everyones own method, maybe I am just not as bright as others who can actually learn just as much from review books, maybe its just me.. i dont know.
I also apologize about the DO comment, I do have a high respect for DOs and was not serious and should not have made that comment so I do apologize.

 

[chicamedica]

I actually attempted to read Robbins Path Basis of Disease to study for the path section of step I. You know, I read the 1st 500 pages before I realized that the book is so big because it's so wordy. a lot of the content is simply empty prose. When I dropped this futile plan and instead read BRS path (referring to Robbins just for reference), I discovered that many concepts covered in the BRS review book were never even touched upon in Robbins. (i.e. BRS path was much more complete than the big famous textbook). And even BRS path did not cover 100% of topics that could appear on Step 1. (not to scare anyone. . .it was like 95-99% though). I'd say Robbins would have covered about 70% of the topics.

--> For one I never said i didnt use review books, of course you have to use review books AFTER you get a thorough understanding. My only concern or thing i noticed is that the majority of people in my class were using review books for learning the material for the first time and i can tell you 100 percent that they miss a ton of thigns doing that. And although i believe you are telling the truth about the first 500 pages maybe in robbins, i can assure you robbins coveres every single thing brs does( maybe there is <5 that brs has that robbins doesnt) but robbins has about >30 percent what brs doesnt) I read robbins and then go over corresponding brs so I know that robbins is not missing anything.
Hey i agree with you and especially carrie, i just know from experience that you cannot learn from review books cause i see how knowledgable alot of my classmates are who do. For example brs often lists a disease and maybe 5 of its presenting symptoms and 4 pathological features but usually it has little to no explanation of WHY those things relate to the disease, or the mechanism of how they relate, which means that this often leaves people unable to think in new situations where a similar idea is presented or similar disease but not the same one, alot ofpeople are unable to reason out symptoms, pathological features etc of disease that we dont direction learn about or concepts that are new or whatever.
Anyway the only thing i was saying is that i find it hard to believe that anyone can believe their first go around on a topic as much from a review book as from a tried and true tested thorough text. Then of course you must use and I use thoroughly, review books so cruise through for review. I mean of course its a waste of time to review a long prose if you already understand a topic but that (wordy prose) is often key for a thorough explanatino if a concept is complex. That was my only point but i respect everyones own method, maybe I am just not as bright as others who can actually learn just as much from review books, maybe its just me.. i dont know.
.

How condescending. My conclusion was not based on just those 1st 500 pages. I skimmed all the other chapters trying to find more detail about stuff I'd read in BRS, oftentimes to no avail. There are big holes in what Robbins covers and if one relies on just that source, one will be in big trouble for step 1.

As far as studying for class, I neither used review books nor Robbins. I did not need to read Robbins, b/c at my med school we have very highly detailed syllabi written by faculty that explained the mechanisms often in deeper detail than Robbins does, and of course covered a lot more topics too. I do wish, however that I used review books to supplement my studying during preclinical courses.

Also, ramoray, there may be some wisdom to your classmates' studying first from review books. To be able to think about the deeper concepts, it often helps to start from the basics and build on that.

In other words, it all depends on people's study styles. You prefer to first start with thinking about molecular mechanisms and read prose, that's fine. Some of your classmates prefer starting with the basics in review books and may need more of an outline form to understand complex topics, that's fine too, if that works for them. You shouldn't assume someone is less inquisitive because of that, or because they might not be asking the same questions at the same time you are. Many students might also have already studied (in undergrad, or pursuing advanced degrees prior to med school, or doing research) the inner workings of subjects that you only now are starting to try to figure out. It's not for you to judge or criticize. Just do your own work, learn for yourself, and most importantly gain a little modesty and don't assume you're the most knowledgeable and most loving of learning in your class, because you just never know and it's just not something you can (or should) judge.

 

[Ramoray]

How condescending. My conclusion was not based on just those 1st 500 pages. I skimmed all the other chapters trying to find more detail about stuff I'd read in BRS, oftentimes to no avail. There are big holes in what Robbins covers and if one relies on just that source, one will be in big trouble for step 1.

QUOTE]

First off i just assumed since you said you had stopped using it after the first 500 pages that meant that you didnt look at it again and changed to brs, sorry i was not attempting to be condescending. But i absolutely assure you what your saying is not true as i have been through all but 2 of the chapterse in the new edition over 7 times per chapter and i have thoroughly annoted my brs with page numbers to every single thing in brs and i assure you that robbins coveres98 percent of what brs has as well has having about 40 percent more things on TOP of what brs has. I can give you a page number in robbins for anything you could find in brs. And i agree, if your class syllabi are sufficient than that is fine. If you read my original post the only problem i had is students who ONLY rely on review material and all the posts saying memorize brs 5 times etc. Pathology, like physiology is a subject taht requires virtually NO memorization if you read to understanding. I have done extremely well in path and phsyio and have NEVER memorized a thing straight out. That is what im saying is if people take the time to learn they wouldnt need to memorize like most medstudents i see love to do. sorry if you took offense to my post

 

[automaton]

yeah man, path works under this super geometric logical system. it requires no memorization whatsoever. for instance, i derived the 12 signs of SLE by advanced logic from the simple assumption "P". i also mathematically derived the functions of interleukins and their numbered names. it all fits so perfectly once you UNDERSTAND it. once you UNDERSTAND pathology there is no reason WHATSOEVER to memorize things from the coagulation cascade, because our medical demigod predescessors had the amazing foresight to name things systematically, instead of assigning random ass numbers, alphanumeric combinations, video game characters, or their own last names. all of you who do not see this don't UNDERSTAND pathology - you are all inferior technicians.

 

[chicamedica]

yeah man, path works under this super geometric logical system. it requires no memorization whatsoever. for instance, i derived the 12 signs of SLE by advanced logic from the simple assumption "P". i also mathematically derived the functions of interleukins and their numbered names. it all fits so perfectly once you UNDERSTAND it. once you UNDERSTAND pathology there is no reason WHATSOEVER to memorize things from the coagulation cascade, because our medical demigod predescessors had the amazing foresight to name things systematically, instead of assigning random ass numbers, alphanumeric combinations, video game characters, or their own last names. all of you who do not see this don't UNDERSTAND pathology - you are all inferior technicians.

WELL SAID!

 

[irrka]

mmm i read Robbins when i had insomnia. it was verrrry good. especially the earlier chapters. nothing like pages and pages on chronic vs acute inflammation to put you to sleep. definitely on the verbose side. maybe i just never outgrew the picture book age 😉

 

[the_equalizer]

Look man, I agree with what you've been saying (with what I had the will to read of it anyways) and I've actually had this conversation with classmates/friends over the last 2 years. In my opinion, you've got to read the big books. The review books are great, they've got the "relevant" and "important" stuff we need to recognize what we're seeing, but to really see problems deeply you need deep knowledge, not deep thought of superficially presented material, which is what it seemed that a previous poster was espousing.

But, what the hell are you doing saying this here? I'd bet that you're venting, you're fed up w/ poring over huge books to satisfy yourself while others read freakin' BRS and think they've got it covered too. I understand man, I've been there, but let it go. Everybody's got their own plans and goals, you do what you need to do to get there. Believe me, you will have ample opportunity to shine having read the texts vs. the reviews, but you shouldn't be doing it for that. You're reading robbins/harrisons because that's what you feel you need to do. Let others do what they need to do as well. And now, lets kick ass on the boards.

 

[djipopo]

I've been there, but let it go. Everybody's got their own plans and goals, you do what you need to do to get there. Believe me, you will have ample opportunity to shine having read the texts vs. the reviews, but you shouldn't be doing it for that. You're reading robbins/harrisons because that's what you feel you need to do. Let others do what they need to do as well. And now, lets kick ass on the boards.

Well said. 😎

 

[scootad.]

poor 'lil ramoray, seeking external validation for all the hours he's now realized he's wasted with his nose glued to the pages of them useless textbooks. my heart goes out to you and your kind, i know its sad to realize you've sacrificed your life to an end that could be accomplished by your more efficient classmates in one third of the time, but maybe, just maybe with your true understanding of pathological concepts you can become the next nobel prize winner. gluck!

 

[the citizen]

But i absolutely assure you what your saying is not true as i have been through all but 2 of the chapterse in the new edition over 7 times per chapter and i have thoroughly annoted my brs with page numbers to every single thing in brs and i assure you that robbins coveres98 percent of what brs has as well has having about 40 percent more things on TOP of what brs has.

I may be way off base here, but reading a textbook seven times does not sound like reading for understanding. You may need to slow down and think more while you read. I am the slowest reader I know, but I only have to read primary texts/literature once and then refresh with the condensed version if needed.

I agree with your overall sentiment though, and having a true understanding of the material will serve you well over time. However, there is just too much information in medicine to get a deep understanding of everything the first time you are exposed to it. A certain degree of anti-intellectualism is almost required just to get through, so remember, you are drinking from a fire hydrant. Don't worry, they teach you all the important stuff over and over again.

 

[14022]

I think this is a very interesting post. I have also noticed this in school. I am guilty of passing up the texts for the paperbacks, but not because I am lazy, but because of my learning methods. My reading comprehension is poor. I can read a chapter in Robbins in 6 hours and learn very little of it. I would have to read it 2 or 3 times for it to be useful. I can read the same material in a review book 2-3 times in the same amount of time and know all of it. I have done quite well using this method. I save the texts for when I need clarification or doing something that requires more detail. Back in the day when students had time to read harrison's from cover to cover, there was no such thing as medical genetics, CT scans, HIV, etc. The number of drugs they used 30 years ago was relatively limited. Advances in medicine (and steps backwards as in the case with HIV) has required us to learn everything they learned 30 years ago in school and so much much more in the same amount of time. For this reason, we need to be as efficient as possible in our learning.

I use review books not because I do not like to learn. The exact opposite is true. I use review books so I can truely learn WELL as much information about as many different topics as possible by the time I graduate. Bottom line is that I will have to treat thousands of different diseases in a few years. I would rather my doctor know enough about all of these diseases rather than the history, epidemiology, genetics, biochemistry, and cell biology of half of them. If he knows all of this for all of them, that is awesome. But my feeble brain will not allow it.