<p>
[quote]
However, I and colleagues do not like students with "premed" majors. I would rather have a humanities or language or art major. They will make a better doc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope that there are others that think as you and your colleagues do. My D's applications go into the mail shortly. ;-)</p>
<p>There are a growing number. Doctors are very "boring" as they know nothing but science and medicine. Schools are trying to get well rounded docs again.</p>
<p>However, I and colleagues do not like students with "premed" majors. I would rather have a humanities or language or art major. They will make a better doc.</p>
<p>I haven't been following this thread but I just happened to read this line... unless you can justify such a statement I would not bother making it on any board that is meant to serve as advice for premed students. There is no reason why a humanities major would make a "better" doctor or how majoring in science would be detrimental for gaining admissions to medical school or becoming a good physician.</p>
<p>There is some evidence that non-science majors may be 'better' docs in the sense that they perform ever so slightly better during their clinical years of medical school than science majors, though I suspect this has much, much more to do with the types of people the fields attract rather than their educational background.</p>
<p>There is ZERO evidence that not majoring in a science actually helps you in the medical school admissions process, and to suggest so runs directly counter to the considerable amount of data out there that your major doesn't matter in the least regarding med school admissions (with the exception of health science/premed majors, which are generally harmed).</p>
<p>uvajack.
Justification: I have served on medical school admission committees for 20 some years. That is my belief and it is not an uncommon one among my colleagues. That is not to say that majoring in science is bad (I doubled in biology and chemistry). But if I have two kids with equal applications and one is in science and one is in history, I will choose the history major as they make better "more rounded" docs.</p>
<p>As to reasoning as to why they are more rounded is it is hard to talk molecular biology with everyone - but easier to talk history, polictics etc. Google.</p>
<p>i find it difficult to believe that you have conducted the appropriate legwork to determine if these humanities/social science majors are indeed 'more rounded' or end up being better doctors in any way. Had such research been conducted, we would not be able to make the observation that the relative proportion of students majoring in a given discipline is identical in the applicant and matriculant pools regarding med school admissions, as adcoms would favor those who majored in a discipline that would make them a better doctor. It is also unreasonable to assume that someone who majored in biology is incapable or somehow hindered from relating to patients in terms of discussing things like history or politics, especially at the level likely to be encountered in the physician's office.</p>
<p>Now, I do understand the argument that a broad-based education is good for developing well-rounded doctors. That fact is though, that any college that claims to have a strong commitment to a liberal arts education usually requires students to take courses in a broad range of areas, regardless of major, producing overall very well-rounded graduates. </p>
<p>My issue is more with the fact that you make such a sweeping generalization from a position of authority on a forum dedicated to providing advice to premed students that is quite simply not supported by current data. You also make it sound as though you believe that the non-science major will be better regardless of the medical career path they choose. I find it very difficult to believe, particularly in areas of academic medicine, that non-science majors benefit from their comparatively weak scientific foundation.</p>
<p>phily,
You obviously are not a physician.
The "required" premed science courses gives almost every physician the basis for the required med school science courses. When I was in med school, the med school science courses were the same that the phds in those fields took (ie biochem postgrads took the same). Now the med school courses at almost all schools are "watered down" to what one needs to know in medicine. At some schools, the kids don't even dissect.</p>
<p>You obviously feel that you know the subject (from what back ground nobody knows). Yet you have not read any of the academic papers that float around on the subject. I would suggest you arrange a meeting with the Dean of admissions at your local med school and discuss the topic.</p>
<p>Or maybe look at the changes in "pre med major" at the major universities and see how they have changed in the past 10 years from heavy on the science to more liberal art based. ie pull your head our and look around.</p>
<p>addendum
For the kids looking at premed, my advice (and yes I do have some authority on it) is to do what you enjoy - and do it well.</p>
<p>If you really enjoy chemistry, by all means be a chemistry major. But, it will not help your career in medicine unless you go into research.</p>
<p>But DO NOT take all science courses because you think that it will help your chances of getting in - IT WILL NOT! DO take advantage of college and take Shakespear, World History, Economics, STATISTICS as well as the required courses. If your college has an overseas program, DO IT - that will help your chances. </p>
<p>As for any job interview, you want to stand out from the guy next to you.</p>
<p>I think it rather presumptuous of you to assume I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject, or have not done any background reading on the material, when the fact of the matter is that the current data supports my point, that major doesn't matter, and explicitly refutes yours, that non-science majors are favored. We're not talking about any qualities related to the practice of medicine, which having just gained admission to med school I of course cannot comment on, merely what qualities the admissions people value. Having gone through the process, read a great deal of background on the subject, and successfully gained admission to multiple med schools, I think I AM qualified to give input on what it takes to have success in the process. You, however, are content to bring your own personal preferences to the table, cloak them in the guise of authority, and pass them off as being representative of the admissions process, a stance which is simply not supported by fact.</p>
<p>Question to all with experience applying to med. school. In theory, if undergrad GPA=4.0 and MCAT is reasonable (say, over 30), what other factors come into play when such applicant is compared to others applying to Med. school?</p>
<p>your clincal experience, research, other ECs, letters, personal statement/essays, and of course your interview, all play significant roles, but the relative importance of each will vary from school to school.</p>
<p>MiamiDAP
You need to do something that makes you stand out from the others with 4.0+ GPAs and excellent MCATs. Do something you enjoy that will make the committee pick you, something that will add to the school.</p>
<p>Philly,
I was wrong. You are ? a second year student who was accepted to several different schools. I am only a Professor of Surgery who has been on the admissions committee of several major medical schools and have been part of the committee "closed door" discussions. </p>
<p>I would love to have you in a clinical, it would be loads of fun.</p>
<p>You have also made a good example of the need for well rounded students who can read. You will note that I stated to major in a subject you enjoy and do well in it. One needs to stand out and if the majority of applicants follow your advice philly and are premed/bio majors and another excelled in liberal arts as well as the required premed courses, she will stand out and be accepted.</p>
<p>Again, you miss the point, and I would note have shifted away from your stance of 'you'll be a better doctor because and be more likely to be admitted' to one of 'I claim to hold x y and z position, therefore people should listen to me.' The fact remains that people who apply to med school with a liberal arts background do not 'stand out,' simply because the bulk of applicants have such a background. I will grant you that this has not always been the case, and I'm sure when you applied to med school the students were much more science focused, but it is no longer in any way unusual for english or other humanities majors to apply to medical school, and so they no longer stand out.</p>
<p>The admissions statistics provided by the AAMC support this point, your anecdotal advice flies directly in the face of that evidence. In an online forum such as this, the ability to provide facts is much, much more important than whatever real status one actually has. This is why posters such as sakky, BDM, etc. are so highly valued on this forum, because they support their arguments with facts or are very careful to state when they are making an assumption or supposition. Even though they provide valuable advice, it is never possible for other posters to be 100% sure that they are who they claim to be, and so should be leery of taking any advice that is not well-grounded in fact.</p>
<p>This is my major point. If you want to support your argument, provide facts and figures, not claims of 'behind closed door' experience. The issue of what a student should major in is one of the most frequently asked questions on this forum, and a question that causes many college freshman a great deal of anxiety. In an advice forum like this, it is crucial that suggestions made to students are well-founded in independently verifiable data; saying you're a professor of surgery and this is the way it is is simply not good enough - anyone with a keyboard is able to do the same thing.</p>
<p>The issue is that there are enough disadvantages and advantages to majoring in science/non-science that it's hard to say conclusively which type of major has the upper hand. Sure, adcoms like well-roundedness. But, they also like upper div bio courses. They also like biomedical research. They also like critical thinking skills. These things are harder to demonstrate/do as a non-science major.</p>
<p>Also, keep in mind, most majors consist of just 40-60 credits while you need 120 credits to graduate from most colleges. That leaves ample room for non-science majors to take science courses and vice-versa. I was a bio major but I still look three English courses, three history courses, and courses in sociology, anthropology, Asian-American Studies, Spanish, writing, psychology, etc. And, of course, there are plenty of ways, through extracurriculars, to demonstrate social, leadership, and communication skills. Don't be so narrow-minded as to assume that a science major can't be "well-rounded." One would hope that an adcom member would have more sense than that.</p>
<p>There is no magic bullet for admissions.</p>
<p>Interestingly, in each of his interviews, my son was told that it was really refreshing to see someone who was in their words " NOT another science major who spent their whole undergraduate time doing nothing but studying and resume building." They loved that he played lead guitar in a very popular local band in his college town and that he chose majors he was interested in since he would be studying nothing BUT science for the rest of his academic career.</p>
<p>In every interview he was told by the interviewer that they planned to make a very strong case for him with the Admission committee. He did not receive a single rejection letter and is attending his first choice school.</p>
<p>Independently I was told by a Doctor I met after the admissions period ended who is also an interviewer for two medical schools in Texas that if he had to interview one more science major who never read literature or could not carry on a decent conversation about anything but their research, internships or "lifelong desire to be a Doctor" he was going to scream.</p>
<p>Don't dismiss what Princess'Dad is telling you; the ability to stand out can be a critical determining factor in highly selective schools just as it is at HYPS for undergrad.</p>
<p>Thanks eadad,</p>
<p>Unlike philly's beliefs - current admissions are full of science and premed majors. It is not usual to get an excellent liberal arts major. I don't know where norcal is from, but we did not look at upper level bio. </p>
<p>Yes, when I was at an East Coast Ivy, we wanted our grads to go into academic medicine and we focused on those that that had research into molecular biology, etc in their undergrad years. However, those types of schools are rare. Most medical schools are looking for clinical doctors and the feds are giving $$ for those that are training GP types. The adcoms I have been on their DO NOT look at "resume building". </p>
<p>That is not to say that if you enjoy science and want to go into academic medicine, do do research (I did work with a Noble (Arthur Kornberg) at Stanford in Biiochemistry - but I am in academic med with past NIH grants). DO NOT do it because Philly et al tell you that your chances are increased, because they are not at the schools I am familiar with that train clinical docs.</p>
<p>Nocal, I don't know where you studied, but if you are a chemistry or biology major at most universities and getting the "honors" - you don't have time to take the Shakespear or World History or learn about the war of Northern Aggression. It gets worse once you enter the field (as it does for law, etc)</p>
<p>Association</a> of American Medical Colleges: MSAR Errata 2009-2010</p>
<p>According to the aamc, a full third of accepted applicants majored in a non-science discipline, and nearly half majored in something other than biology/'premed.' Again, the evidence does not support the idea that a non-science major is particularly unusual. Most importantly, if you look at applicants versus accepted students, these percentages hold nearly perfectly, again supporting the idea that schools do not particularly care if you majored in the humanities as opposed to bio or chem.</p>
<p>Regarding research, if you consult the MSAR, at majority of medical schools, the bulk of admitted applicants report having conducted research during undergrad. This does not have to be biomed bench research by any means, but the evidence strongly supports the idea that most med schools look favorably on students having conducted some sort of research during their undergrad years, as it shows true signs of intellectual curiosity.</p>
<p>If I recall correctly, NCG graduated summa cum laude from an incredibly challenging ivy, and I graduated magna at a similar school, again, while fulfilling various liberal arts requirements and classes I took for fun outside of the sciences. This is the norm at liberal arts college and most major research universities. Heck, most med schools have a writing/english requirement. Suggesting that competent science majors don't have time to do much else is the silliest thing you've yet posted.</p>
<p>Oh, and this bio major knows enough history to know that most current southern-biased Civil War scholars refer to it as 'the War Between the States,' no longer the 'War of Northern Aggression' so as to better emphasize the role federalism played in the war.</p>
<p>Speaking as a non-science major who's studied analogous trade-offs pretty extensively and as a medical student, here's my thoughts.</p>
<p>1.) There is no question that in some ways, the process favors non-science applicants. It does seem diverse, in both interviews and essays. How exactly is a biology major supposed to answer "How did you choose your major?" (A question on the Johns Hopkins secondary.) Non-science majors also tend to have relatively higher MCAT scores, if memory serves. This is not surprising, as the MCAT is a reading comprehension test. With more interesting essays/interviews on average, as well as higher average MCAT scores, English majors could potentially use their studies as a major selling point. It is going to be very hard to impress a medical school professor about cancer biology; he likely knows most of what you know. But Shakespeare? You can truly make him think you're a genius.</p>
<p>2.) There is similarly no question that in some ways, being a non-science major disadvantages applicants. There will be a natural skepticism regarding, say, an Art major. Can he handle the workload? Is he interested in medicine? Will he be a good scientist? The relative paucity of advanced science courses, the unfamiliarity of admissions committees with the courses they do take, less-accessible research or less-obviously-relevant research, and the loss of LORs from science seminars all harm non-science applicants. There is also the need to convince people that you have studied useful things. Everybody knows why cancer biology is useful. But Shakespeare? You can talk on and on about Shakespeare and many medical school admissions officers will want to know: "Who cares?"</p>
<p>3.) If I remember correctly, NCG has quoted studies which show that science majors perform slightly better during the first two (unimportant) years of medical school, while their non-science peers surpass them during the second two (important) years. This can be interpreted in two non-mutually-exclusive ways.</p>
<p>a.) First, it shows that non-science majors make excellent candidates.
b.) Second, however, it may be evidence of discrimination against them. Thinking about it from an economics perspective, if non-science majors tend to outperform their science-major peers, it means that the school should probably be admitting the NSM applicants at the border in favor of some of the SM applicants at the border.</p>
<p>4.) The data says that on average, points (1) and (2) balance out. The AAMC data is very clear that most categories of majors have identical admissions rates and very similar GPAs and MCAT scores, on average.</p>
<p>5.) Here's the most important point. (4) is not true for every single person. For example, it is natural for adcoms to wonder: why is an Art Major applying to medical school? A good interview/essay can help mitigate these concerns, but not every Art Major is necessarily a good interviewer/writer. Bad interviewees would likely be better served by a major which would raise fewer questions. Brilliant interviews and essays will actually be a selling point; a clear passion for the intersection of art (say, documentary photo) and medicine is a powerful way to push yourself into somebody's memory and truly impress them. On the other hand, bad interviews and essays will convey the sense that you are without direction, bored, using medicine as a backup plan, picking easier majors as a cop-out, or simply not very organized.</p>
<p>In other words, a non-science major can be hit or miss. Some will benefit from it, some won't. The data says that on average, the two pools cancel out -- but any given student is only in one or the other.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, I took a Medical Economics seminar my senior year. There were four economics major premeds in the class, and only one of us was particularly brilliant (not me). A catalog of our admissions would include, among others, Duke (x2), Baylor (x2), Michigan, WUSTL, UCSF, and Penn -- at the time, all top-ten research institutions. Eight top-ten admissions among four pretty-smart kids isn't a bad ratio.</p>
<p>"According to the aamc, a full third of accepted applicants majored in a non-science discipline, and nearly half majored in something other than biology/'premed". </p>
<p>Note the key word is "accepted", not applied. Thank you Philly for proving my point.</p>
<p>Blue Devil: Nicely written. We recently accepted an Art major (and he was in a minority, possible because not many apply...). His passion was to go into medical graphics and he did do a great interview. But why did you limit yourself to "medical economics" vs regular or micro economics??? But I do applaud you and you reiterate the point that you need to stand out. I am sure that you had some interesting interview conversations on the economics of medicine.</p>
<p>There are also non science majors in research schools. The head of the cath lab at Beth Israel/Harvard and the head of many NIH committess was a psychology major from Stanford who decided her junior year to go into medicine. She was also first or second in her class from Stanford and Stanford Med School. But she also did overseas studies and did social research in a Western City that is still ref today on welfare, etc.</p>
<p>A heart surgeon in Chicago was a liberal arts major and a starting quarterback for a big ten school.</p>
<p>End of argument Philly. you can expouse what you want. I know what is discussed on the committees.</p>
<p>Kids need to do what they want and NOT do a major based on what people from Penn tell them or what some committee feels they should "Premed majors" is probably the worst major in my and my colleagues opinion. You do need to stand out. That can be by being a grandmaster chess player, a quarterback, peace corp, nobel prize researcher, etc. Just remember, you will have a lifetime of medicine - learn something different while you have the chance.</p>
<p>And phily, the "war between the states" was actually used by most confederated, the daughters of the confederacy and the US Marine corp. The war of northern aggression was used by Lee and others to emphasize the South's right to secede, etc. Here is a question for you, did Lincoln really "free the slaves"?</p>
<p>I was an Economics major, no specialization declared. I took one course in Health Economics and one course in Clinical Analysis (the course I mentioned above). My economics major involved many other courses: two each of Macro, Micro; also Metrics, Int'l, Game Theory, and a capstone course in Regulation.</p>