Why is Organic Chemistry important for medical school?

[Louis C.K.]

Hey all,

I just wanted to get people's thoughts on why Organic Chem is so important for medical school admissions. I remember spending countless hours studying for Organic I and II, and I have always wondered what the significance of this course is for the pre-medical path. I think we can all agree that one will not be reciting electron-pushing mechanisms during the practice of medicine, and I also imagine that knowing countless reaction synthesis schemes is equally as useless. Do you think it is a good way to weed out people? Does the emphasis on spatial learning reveal something unique about someone's intelligence? Or is it more to do with taking many possibilities and narrowing them down to only a few (predicting what reaction will most likely happen - SN2, E2, SN1/E1, etc), and the possible relation to differential diagnosis? I can certainly understand where nomenclature would come in handy when learning about pharmacology and metabolism and what not, but I feel like the majority of knowledge I've gained through these courses will never be used again. Please share your thoughts!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NickNaylor]

It's not overly important. It's seen as a rigorous course in the sciences, thus doing well in it suggests that you can handle rigorous science work like that you might see in medical school. It has almost zero utility in medical school and certainly not in medical practice.

 

[Osteoth]

Because our physician-educators are nice people and want to keep their organic chemist friends employed.

 

[Doug Underhill]

How do you determine whether a patient should receive generic citalopram or Lexapro (escitalopram) if you don't know what an enantiomer is? How can you understand inborn errors of metabolism if you can't explain the relevant metabolic pathway? A basic understanding of orgo is very useful.

Very few doctors will ever use the Friedel-Crafts acylation reaction, however.

 

[mehc012]

Orgo requires that you
a) memorize mechanisms and minutiae
b) understand core concepts and thought processes
c) be comfortable with spatial reasoning
d) be able to combine a), b), and c) to fit a near-infinite number of scenarios, with every step having potential side effects and changing the course of your synthesis as a whole.

Seems like a pretty valuable set of tools to me - definitely worth learning.

 

[MajorBubblez]

I concur. It's not the knowledge, it's the skill sets you develop that are important. Very similar concept to calculus. Being able to brake problems down and "see" where they're going is an important skill. Ditto the spatial reasoning.

Orgo requires that you
a) memorize mechanisms and minutiae
b) understand core concepts and thought processes
c) be comfortable with spatial reasoning
d) be able to combine a), b), and c) to fit a near-infinite number of scenarios, with every step having potential side effects and changing the course of your synthesis as a whole.

Seems like a pretty valuable set of tools to me - definitely worth learning.

 

[EthylMethylMan]

Because pharmacology.

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Agree with @mehc012. Organic definitely gives you a valuable set of tools. Is it absolutely necessary? Probably not. Unfortunately, it's often used to punish pre-meds, which is a shame.

O-chem is actually a lot of fun when it's taught well 😉

 

[Apollo1]

Hey all, I just wanted to get people's thoughts on why Organic Chem is so important for medical school admissions

Because...

 

[Louis C.K.]

Thanks for your input everyone! I have to say, I think Apollo1 has the most sound argument...

 

[Goro]

It's not. It's a concept heavy course more designed to weed out weak students. As a bridge to Biochem, it might be OK, but you don't need to know that crap about R and S forms and stereoisomers, which were the bane of my Orgo experience. Lab was fun.

Most of the stuff in pre-med you will not use again, but at least provides a framework for what you will know. For example, to understand nerve conductance, knowing elements of physiology is helpful. Ditto for basic molecular biology for understanding how some antibiotics work.

Physics you don't need at all.

Hey all,

I just wanted to get people's thoughts on why Organic Chem is so important for medical school admissions. I remember spending countless hours studying for Organic I and II, and I have always wondered what the significance of this course is for the pre-medical path. I think we can all agree that one will not be reciting electron-pushing mechanisms during the practice of medicine, and I also imagine that knowing countless reaction synthesis schemes is equally as useless. Do you think it is a good way to weed out people? Does the emphasis on spatial learning reveal something unique about someone's intelligence? Or is it more to do with taking many possibilities and narrowing them down to only a few (predicting what reaction will most likely happen - SN2, E2, SN1/E1, etc), and the possible relation to differential diagnosis? I can certainly understand where nomenclature would come in handy when learning about pharmacology and metabolism and what not, but I feel like the majority of knowledge I've gained through these courses will never be used again. Please share your thoughts!

 

[toutou]

I hate organic. I absolutely hated gen chem and organic. Till this day I don't understand why I became a biochem major lol. Hated stereochemistry. LOVEEEE reactions. It honestly took me almost the entire first semester to really grasp the concept and understood what was going on. Orgo 2 sucks.

 

[NP545]

Most of the stuff in pre-med you will not use again, but at least provides a framework for what you will know. For example, to understand nerve conductance, knowing elements of physiology is helpful. Ditto for basic molecular biology for understanding how some antibiotics work.

Physics you don't need at all.

Kind of ties into the benefits that some other countries have with their med school education. They realized that undergrad coursework is useless, and offer medical school education right after high school. This replaces undergrad 4 years altogether and removes the unnecessary stuff altogether.

I like this model better as it helps reduce some debt, while at the same time not wasting 4 years of your life. Don't get me wrong, undergrad is good to become more rounded, but I feel it could be eliminated for people pursuing med school, as other countries have done.

 

[NickNaylor]

Kind of ties into the benefits that some other countries have with their med school education. They realized that undergrad coursework is useless, and offer medical school education right after high school. This replaces undergrad 4 years altogether and removes the unnecessary stuff altogether.

I like this model better as it helps reduce some debt, while at the same time not wasting 4 years of your life. Don't get me wrong, undergrad is good to become more rounded, but I feel it could be eliminated for people pursuing med school, as other countries have done.

I wouldn't say it's useless. It offers the opportunity to explore other things and really explore whether medicine is "right" for you. That sort of thing doesn't come up in the cost/benefit analysis, but if you think college is "useless," you're doing something wrong.

 

[67552931811]

It's not. It's a concept heavy course more designed to weed out weak students. As a bridge to Biochem, it might be OK, but you don't need to know that crap about R and S forms and stereoisomers, which were the bane of my Orgo experience. Lab was fun.

Most of the stuff in pre-med you will not use again, but at least provides a framework for what you will know. For example, to understand nerve conductance, knowing elements of physiology is helpful. Ditto for basic molecular biology for understanding how some antibiotics work.

Physics you don't need at all.

.

 

[Fedekz]

I'm probably an outlier but I love o chem, I find myself asking the same questions you are but about physics. When am I going to need to calculate how many seconds a 2kg pottery wheel spinning at 50 rpm with a radius of .2m will take to stop if the power goes out? To me that is less applicable to medicine than o chem

 

[Medix450]

I'd say it teaches you how to think through problems. You need to be able to apply everything you know in orgo, rather than rely on wrote memorization and regurgitation. I really enjoyed it.

 

[NP545]

I wouldn't say it's useless. It offers the opportunity to explore other things and really explore whether medicine is "right" for you. That sort of thing doesn't come up in the cost/benefit analysis, but if you think college is "useless," you're doing something wrong.

I think I acknowledged that undergrad was partially useful in becoming well rounded. As for your other point, I think that we overestimate the "unsure" people. From my experiences at least, most people are decdicated in becoming a doctor after committing to premed post-HS. But, your own experiences may tell you otherwise. To me at least, I don't feel like undergrad is necessary for med school, because we will be learning stuff in med school anyways that will not require anything to be known from undergrad (except for the basic sciences framework which could be provided in HS if the education system ever gets improved)
Just my 2 cents, based on what I've seen from people here and other countries, while they save an extra 4 years and be in the same position of doctor. Albeit in a different country, but nonetheless, the same duties, which is all that matters if you truly want to be a doctor.

I'm probably an outlier but I love o chem, I find myself asking the same questions you are but about physics. When am I going to need to calculate how many seconds a 2kg pottery wheel spinning at 50 rpm with a radius of .2m will take to stop if the power goes out? To me that is less applicable to medicine than o chem

I actually found physics to be the most useful class from the prereqs. Not in preparing you for med, but rather teaching you stuff applicable to your everyday life. Also, a few of the medical residents I talked to told me that physics was the most helpful class they took in undergrad.

 

[MajorBubblez]

I'm probably an outlier but I love o chem, I find myself asking the same questions you are but about physics. When am I going to need to calculate how many seconds a 2kg pottery wheel spinning at 50 rpm with a radius of .2m will take to stop if the power goes out? To me that is less applicable to medicine than o chem

Lol I'm an even greater outlier. I love ochem and physics.

 

[Eppur Si Muove]

Organic provides some of the foundations for biochemistry that are important for medicine

 

[Theafoni]

Critical thinking my man

 

[W19]

I wouldn't say it's useless. It offers the opportunity to explore other things and really explore whether medicine is "right" for you. That sort of thing doesn't come up in the cost/benefit analysis, but if you think college is "useless," you're doing something wrong.

I think people can explore what they want to do in 2 years... I think med school should be 2-3 years prereqs, 3 years med school and 3+ residency/fellowship... There was a study that showed that foreign trained physicians (not caribbean) are as competent as american trained physicians. Therefore, our extra years do not make us any better...

 

[gyngyn]

I just wanted to get people's thoughts on why Organic Chem is so important for medical school admissions. I remember spending countless hours studying for Organic I and II, and I have always wondered what the significance of this course is for the pre-medical path.

No one really knows. I think it has some historical significance.

 

[radkat101]

How do you determine whether a patient should receive generic citalopram or Lexapro (escitalopram) if you don't know what an enantiomer is? How can you understand inborn errors of metabolism if you can't explain the relevant metabolic pathway? A basic understanding of orgo is very useful.

Very few doctors will ever use the Friedel-Crafts acylation reaction, however.

Definitely agree with this. I really don't understand how people say it's not relevant. Sure it's not THAT important, but that's why you get it out of the way in undergrad and don't have to worry about it anymore in medical school. There's tons of o-chem lingo in medical texts that many of us aren't really aware of when we go through the material because we aren't confused by things like "enantiomer" or weird functional group names that pop up when learning pharmacology or diseases with metabolic/biochemical origins.

This point was really driven home a while back when an article was linked on here from some "patient advocate" nurse bashing doctors by saying that they were poisoning their patients by giving them a "new" drug that was different from the proven therapy (unfortunately I don't really remember all the details). In her article, she provided the line diagrams of both of the chemicals to demonstrate the "difference" and was trying to rally a bunch of nurses in supporting her efforts to ban doctors from using the drug. Anyone with basic o-chem knowledge would have immediately noticed upon observing these structures that they were in fact the same, just expressed slightly differently. You know... the whole "implied hydrogens" thing... A physician eventually commented on the article pointing this out, and further discussion in the comments section ceased.

Edit: I will admit that the second half of o-chem is pretty useless.

 

[NP545]

How do you determine whether a patient should receive generic citalopram or Lexapro (escitalopram)

Google.

 

[ciruji]

Textbooks are filled with a lot of fun facts and practical uses of organic chemistry in medicine and you keep asking this?

In the other hand, the social sciences and humanities courses are stupid and pointless.

Plus, knowing the theory behind everything in the practice of medicine is what separates us from mid levels or nah?

 

[j4pac]

How do you determine whether a patient should receive generic citalopram or Lexapro (escitalopram) if you don't know what an enantiomer is? How can you understand inborn errors of metabolism if you can't explain the relevant metabolic pathway? A basic understanding of orgo is very useful.

Very few doctors will ever use the Friedel-Crafts acylation reaction, however.

You should teach Organic Chemistry...if you were my teacher I may have cared back in the day. 🙂

 

[NickNaylor]

Plus, knowing the theory behind everything in the practice of medicine is what separates us from mid levels or nah?

Apart from paying very quick homage to basic organic chemistry concepts, ochem has very little actual practical use in the day-to-day practice of medicine. Basic gen chem has significantly more relevance than ochem.

 

[Lucca]

I would turn it around and say that social sciences and humanities courses have far more to do with the practice of medicine than most other undergraduate courses. Considering how much of the job is either A) communicating B) contextualizing C) teaching, if you are in such a position and D) dealing with difficult life circumstances I would definitely say that learning how to read and analyze something critically and be able to appreciate large-scale social factors in public health or decision making is incredibly benificial. I would also argue that the humanities have a larger personal impact as well.

But what does my opinion count, I have loved every single class I have taken and have loved physics the most so maybe I am just some nerd. Interestingly enough, Physics and Orgo have been more relevant to my research (in an NIH funded lab) than any other class I have taken in undergrad. Relevant biology can be basically picked up on the fly and the type you need in the lab is generally never taught in undergrad courses. Biology courses generally lack a fundamental approach to understanding the material. Understanding basic physical interactions has been way more helpful for me in Biochem 1 than any amount of knowledge about biological mechanisms.

 

[DermViser]

Because our physician-educators are nice people and want to keep their organic chemist friends employed.

Pretty sure Organic Chemistry professors would be employed regardless - after all Chemical Engineering and Chem major students take their courses as well. Now with this new disastrous MCAT, now Biochemistry, Sociology, and Psychology professors can have their classes filled with insufferable premeds.

 

[DermViser]

How do you determine whether a patient should receive generic citalopram or Lexapro (escitalopram) if you don't know what an enantiomer is? How can you understand inborn errors of metabolism if you can't explain the relevant metabolic pathway? A basic understanding of orgo is very useful.

Very few doctors will ever use the Friedel-Crafts acylation reaction, however.

God I hope you're kidding. Your post is Poe's law. Metabolic pathways is more Biochem anyways.

 

[DermViser]

Physics you don't need at all.

Not true. The physics in medicine is more more applied - maybe at the secondary or tertiary level. No projectile motion calculations. Unless you're calculating the velocity of the vomitus of an infant with pyloric stenosis.

 

[DermViser]

Textbooks are filled with a lot of fun facts and practical uses of organic chemistry in medicine and you keep asking this?

In the other hand, the social sciences and humanities courses are stupid and pointless.

Plus, knowing the theory behind everything in the practice of medicine is what separates us from mid levels or nah?

What separates midlevels and physicians is education at the professional level. Organic Chemistry isn't one of them - mainly bc it's application to medicine is very limited.

 

[W19]

Not true. The physics in medicine is more more applied - maybe at the secondary or tertiary level. No projectile motion calculations. Unless you're calculating the velocity of an infant with pyloric stenosis.

Lol... I have used more general chem and physics than orgo so far... some physics is helpful for cardiac physio.

 

[Drinkingtea]

It's not. It's a concept heavy course more designed to weed out weak students. As a bridge to Biochem, it might be OK, but you don't need to know that crap about R and S forms and stereoisomers, which were the bane of my Orgo experience. Lab was fun.

Most of the stuff in pre-med you will not use again, but at least provides a framework for what you will know. For example, to understand nerve conductance, knowing elements of physiology is helpful. Ditto for basic molecular biology for understanding how some antibiotics work.

Physics you don't need at all.

Physics....T_T

 

[DermViser]

Lol... I have used more general chem and physics than orgo so far... some physics is helpful for cardiac physio.

I should correct my post it's velocity of the vomitus of an infant -- bc in pyloric stenosis the vomiting is projectile in nature. Physics is more applicable in physiology -- lung physiology and CV physiology (turbulent blood flow, etc.)

 

[mehc012]

I would turn it around and say that social sciences and humanities courses have far more to do with the practice of medicine than most other undergraduate courses. Considering how much of the job is either A) communicating B) contextualizing C) teaching, if you are in such a position and D) dealing with difficult life circumstances I would definitely say that learning how to read and analyze something critically and be able to appreciate large-scale social factors in public health or decision making is incredibly benificial.

Whoa, whoa. So just because I study history or english, all of a sudden I am better prepared to communicate or teach? Really?
I would argue that ALL of my science courses did a far better job of teaching me to read and analyze things critically. And appreciating outside factors/confounding variables is practically the basis of experimental reasoning. I did far more reading in my science courses than in my humanities courses, and I don't mean textbooks. I mean research papers, conflicting viewpoints, opinion pieces. Our profs would give us a stack of related papers with conflicting conclusions, and expect us to draw our own conclusion. If we didn't pick up on which had political bias showing through, or which figures were misrepresentative due to the axes/scale used for presentation, and used those as our foundation without support from elsewhere, we'd get hammered in class.

Furthermore, I would be willing to wager that book learning on communication and social psych/factors does jack-all to actually improve interpersonal skills.

I would also argue that the humanities have a larger personal impact as well.

I would strongly contend that this varies incredibly on a person-to-person basis. My humanities classes had pretty much zero personal impact on me, other than making me roll my eyes and decide to never take an English course on literature I actually liked, lest they ruin it for me the way they ruined the impact/enjoyment of the assigned novels (and I looooooovvvveee reading. Seriously, I got in trouble for reading too much frequently as a child).

However, after taking AP chem in HS, I completely changed the way I approached any question. I stopped anthropomorphizing things or centering the view on myself, and rather began to view everything, even outside of science, as a dynamic equilibrium/statistical process. It helped me to put into perspective how little any one particle, process, or person impacts the grand scheme of things. I worry less and question more, and expect fewer absolute certainties out of life. It's great, highly recommend it.

 

[mehc012]

Lol... I have used more general chem and physics than orgo so far... some physics is helpful for cardiac physio.

Actually, for understanding the concepts involved in, say, integrating under the PV loops, you start to see how a basic understanding of calc (not even direct application, just conceptual application) is helpful as well!

 

[Osteoth]

Pretty sure Organic Chemistry professors would be employed regardless - after all Chemical Engineering and Chem major students take their courses as well. Now with this new disastrous MCAT, now Biochemistry, Sociology, and Psychology professors can have their classes filled with insufferable premeds.

Lol at my big state school in California pretty much EVERYONE you meet in Orgo is pre-something....

 

[DermViser]

Lol at my big state school in California pretty much EVERYONE you meet in Orgo is pre-something....

Yes, sadly -- Pre-Med, Pre-Dent, Pre-Pharm, etc. The MCAT could replace Organic Chemistry with Biochemistry, and at least get better results.

 

[mehc012]

Lol at my big state school in California pretty much EVERYONE you meet in Orgo is pre-something....

At mine, most premeds were sort of 'secret' premeds...the vast majority I never knew that they intended to apply to medical school until I saw the facebook update about where they ended up.
The only open ones were the super annoying 'I am special because I want to do medicine and also can I get those 2 points back on the test' folks, which is perhaps why nobody else would advertise their intention...

 

[Lucca]

Whoa, whoa. So just because I study history or english, all of a sudden I am better prepared to communicate or teach? Really?
I would argue that ALL of my science courses did a far better job of teaching me to read and analyze things critically. And appreciating outside factors/confounding variables is practically the basis of experimental reasoning. I did far more reading in my science courses than in my humanities courses, and I don't mean textbooks. I mean research papers, conflicting viewpoints, opinion pieces. Our profs would give us a stack of related papers with conflicting conclusions, and expect us to draw our own conclusion. If we didn't pick up on which had political bias showing through, or which figures were misrepresentative due to the axes/scale used for presentation, and used those as our foundation without support from elsewhere, we'd get hammered in class.

Furthermore, I would be willing to wager that book learning on communication and social psych/factors does jack-all to actually improve interpersonal skills.


I would strongly contend that this varies incredibly on a person-to-person basis. My humanities classes had pretty much zero personal impact on me, other than making me roll my eyes and decide to never take an English course on literature I actually liked, lest they ruin it for me the way they ruined the impact/enjoyment of the assigned novels (and I looooooovvvveee reading. Seriously, I got in trouble for reading too much frequently as a child).

However, after taking AP chem in HS, I completely changed the way I approached any question. I stopped anthropomorphizing things or centering the view on myself, and rather began to view everything, even outside of science, as a dynamic equilibrium/statistical process. It helped me to put into perspective how little any one particle, process, or person impacts the grand scheme of things. I worry less and question more, and expect fewer absolute certainties out of life. It's great, highly recommend it.

Id say this is correct. Humanities courses are not the only way to learn the skills they pretend to teach and the social sciences can be basically learned entirely from a stats/prob course and then reading primary literature (with the exception of economics which has a lot more theory behind it). There is, however, something to be said for small, discussion based humanities courses. You can't get an environment like that in a science course outside of discussing research papers in discussion or going to group meetings if you are involved in either of those things/ your school provides them.

Humanities courses have been very important to me and I feel that my literature, logic and philosophy classes have been more beneficial to me than gen chem or gen bio were in high school/college. To each their own, I think it's highly dependant on how good the lib arts resources at ur uni are.

 

[mehc012]

Id say this is correct. Humanities courses are not the only way to learn the skills they pretend to teach and the social sciences can be basically learned entirely from a stats/prob course and then reading primary literature (with the exception of economics which has a lot more theory behind it). There is, however, something to be said for small, discussion based humanities courses. You can't get an environment like that in a science course outside of discussing research papers in discussion or going to group meetings if you are involved in either of those things/ your school provides them.

Humanities courses have been very important to me and I feel that my literature, logic and philosophy classes have been more beneficial to me than gen chem or gen bio were in high school/college. To each their own, I think it's highly dependant on how good the lib arts resources at ur uni are.

My science courses after freshman fall ranged from 2-10 people...usually around 6 or so. Lectures were very interactive and open to discussion. I had 3 courses which were entirely setup as 2 students tackling primary literature and/or intense problem sets together with the prof. So you CAN get that, you just have to be at a school which supports it.

The chem, though, changed my thinking back in HS, where the classes were all larger with 20-30 students and no discussion really allowed.

I took a fair number of humanities courses (I did go to a lib arts college, after all), but just never saw any benefit whatsoever, and they actuallyI'm fine saying that everyone learns these perspectives/skills best from different courses, but I simply cannot support the initial statement that humanities help more on a personal level or encourage thinking/discussion more. It was that way for you, it wasn't for me...it's a highly variable thing and should be labelled as such.