<p>There’s a lot of misinformation here. I think this new program is interesting, so I did some research. The point of the program is not to eliminate science requirements, but to change them. And the point certainly isn’t to get students to study Mandarin instead of science (the article is misleading). It’s an expansion of Mount Sinai’s existing HumEd early acceptance program. Mount Sinai’s data on this long-standing program indicate that there is no difference in medical school readiness or performance between HumEds and traditional applicants, so it’s not like this new FlexMed program will create a class full of unprepared students.</p>
<p>It does look like the USMLE step 1 scores are a touch lower (221 vs 227) but even if we are talking about 1 school, I think it’d be best to look at some published data, no? [Challenging</a> Traditional Premedical Requirements as Predictor… : Academic Medicine](<a href=“http://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2010/08000/Challenging_Traditional_Premedical_Requirements_as.26.aspx]Challenging”>Challenging Traditional Premedical Requirements as Predictor... : Academic Medicine)</p>
<p>FWIW, nwcrazy is saying exactly what most academics say about med students. My department and the speakers that get brought in from outside constantly make fun of the med students and pre-meds and complain about how everything they (/I) learn is so watered down. Quite frankly the advanced courses at Brown were far more scientifically challenging than anything I did during the first 2 years.</p>
<p>But I keep hearing that being a premed is hard only because of the students in it, not because of the course being scientifically challenging. It may also be because of the grading policy and “gunnerrhea” characteristics of the pool of students. I heard of some horror story that in some large first year classes, the overworked TA would like take many points from your test if you do not use the exactly same words that happen to be used in the textbook. The teaching/grading part could be that bad in these huge classes – that is the reason why I said premeds tend to suffer enough, especially in their very first super-sized introductory classes.</p>
<p>There is some annecdotal evidence that if a premed does not do that well in his sGPA, it is most likely because of their less than ideal grades in his introductory science classes, which has nothing to do with their “deep” learning in sciences.</p>
<p>I think DS knows several students who are on the research track (i.e., PhD program.) He probbaly knows in general what is like on that track. Heck, one of them, after having been a postdocs for more than 5 years and being unsatisfied with the prospect of that career path, jumped the track to pursue the MD program/track. You could claim he had wasted his valuable science research experiences accumulated in his PhD candidate and postdocs years.</p>
<p>I totally agree with mom2collegekids. While I want a doctor with some social and communications skills, it’s more important that he or she have a good foundation in basic science. And as a taxpayer, I don’t want to fund loans for kids who are accepted to med school, then quit because they find out they don’t have an aptitude for medicine after all. They should be filtered at the undergraduate level, and the best way to do this is to require some hard science courses.</p>
<p>Massmomm, I’m not sure if you went to med school (or, if so, when you went), but college science classes these days are not particularly useful for a career in medicine. They’re even less useful as an indication of whether or not medical school is the right choice for a student (I mean, come on - orgo, physics, and gen chem are not representative of what doctors do day to day). As I’ve said, Mount Sinai has run and studied this program for quite some time. This step is just an expansion of what’s been done, and what has been shown to work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You could say the same for many other careers as well. The classes and the degree are often the ticket to enter a career. That is all. As an example, for i-banking, they mostly want those who could learn fast after they are on the job and are willing to work till they drop. They could not care less about what you have learned in college.</p>
<p>Because there are many tests to take in the medicine career, it may be meaningful to ask this question: What college classes and/or the standard test could be useful to locate those applicants who will more likely pass these tests? (unless you eliminate these tests like STEP-1, etc., as well, claiming that these tests are also not relevant to become a competent doctor.)</p>
<p>I suspect that the point of requiring the premeds to take these “tough” (tough to get the good grade, not tough because of the level of its science exposure) prereq classes is to make sure that these students have the intelligence, capability and endurance to do well enough to pass the long list of tests like STEP-1, etc.</p>
<p>My DS considered applying to the Mt Sinai HumEd program, but there was a problem. He loves Sciences. He also loves PolySci and Humanities, debate, politics, etc. and is a really good listener/communicator. He knew he’d be excluded from Mt Sinai’s program because he wasn’t just taking humanities courses. Too bad. I know someone who did that just to get into the program.</p>
<p>Just to clarify to those who think Mt Sinai is elminating traditional science courses: once accepted, they require students to take their Orgo course in the summer after their sophomore year.</p>
<p>But the applicants accepted will already have proved themselves. They’ll have top SAT scores and high school grades, as well as top grades in their freshman year of college (I’m pretty sure they’ll have to take either a year of bio or a year of chem to apply).</p>
<p>Again, there’s no need to speculate on what effect this program will be, since the data already exists. It’s just an extension of the HumEd program, which is extremely hard to get into (the HumEd students are incredibly smart and talented). The admissions requirements may have changed, but high hurdles weren’t eliminated. I didn’t get into the HumEd program my sophomore year of college (and I had high test scores and grades in high school, and over a 4.0 my freshman year of college), and I ended up at a top med school anyway. Those FlexMed applicants that get in will surely be equally intelligent as the current HumEds.</p>
<p>Yes nwc, as I dry my tears, I will take your advice and ignore your fatuous remarks. Even among the vacuous world of uninformed opinions, yours stands out. You are an expert on the “typical” physician, although you clearly know zero about the practice of medicine. That said, I’d suggest Mr. Goodwrench for your next physical-it’s just a trade school, after all, and aren’t trade schools pretty much all the same?</p>
<p>The human body isn’t vaguely similar to an automobile, although I’m sure that many a physician has wished to be able to shut off the engine, pop the hood, and take some time looking around inside. If it were as easy as you claim, Apple would have invented an app and there would be no need for physicians. But I digress; your previous posts have stated that the only smart people are engineers and scientists, and you happen to be an ….engineer and a scientist.
I’m always amazed that threads like this bring out the I’m smarter than any physician because I took P-Chem crowd, which ignores the essence of medicine: it is both an art and a science. The doc with the best bedside manner without any basis in science will be a disaster in patient care; the doc with no bedside manner but plenty of science smarts will either be unsympathetic or too married to scientific formulas-or both-to do the patient much good. Try creating a differential diagnosis on a 30 year old seemingly healthy female with no remarkable medical history who presents at the ER with convulsions and you don’t know why. There’s no mathematical formula to attach; no slide rule or calculator into which the numbers can be entered-because there’s no mathematical formula. The attending needs to get a family history, social history, and medical history-all in short order-while recognizing that these can be notoriously unreliable. So the science comes to play-lab tests are ordered, and I’d concede the attending probably has no idea which chemical compounds are being used in specific tests. If the attending is any good, though, he/she knows what the results ought to mean-ought being the operative word, as a specific test result in most cases is meaningless outside the context of that specific patient. And often the results of tests are incomplete or even contradictory. There’s no set formula; a talented physician then looks deeper, embracing the art that is medicine. This may include the very definition of genius, in being required to hold two very opposite conclusions in his/her head at the same time. This may include more of a social set of skills, in reviewing and exploring the patient histories further, in meeting the family, in consulting with other physicians, for the purpose of exploring all possible solutions.
In my lifetime there have been tremendous breakthroughs in the treatment of illnesses ranging from cancer to depression. Any competent physician understands his/her responsibility to understand the science behind these breakthroughs, as with each success may come other complications. A good example are SSRIs; first hailed as a major breakthrough, then criticized for both anticipated and unanticipated side-effects, there is no question these drugs offer a weapon against depression-but at what cost? This is the sort of taxing ambiguity physicians must address daily.
Probably the best example of the art and the science of medicine is in the treatment of substance abuse. If people were automobiles, it would be simple to determine why that person has a substance abuse problem and then “fix” that problem. But human beings are complicated and messy; there’s no one size fits all answer, so a wide variety of treatment modalities often have to be utilized. And often nothing works at first, second, or third try. If it were only logic and science, the answer will be self-evident. When it comes to people, the problems are often intractable and patient specific. The person-not a machine-has to be treated.
And I’d suggest that this is what this new program is exploring-the treatment of the person. I can’t say how effective it will be, but I will note that it does not appear to stray too far from ensuring basic science requirements. It appears to be an effort to recognize that patients are human and not machines. To ignore the art that is medicine is to create a parlous state for the patient.</p>
<p>^Bravo!!!</p>
<p>Great post, jalfred. I enjoyed reading it.</p>
<p>“The most science physicians were exposed to were as undergrads”
-What? Spanish or Mandarin is enough to understand the scientific processes within human body? Well, I definitely would not visit physician who is treating patients based on his knowledge of French, I can speak English as most others and if they happen not to, then there are many problems for them, besides visiting docs, so the harder it is for them, the faster they realize that learning English is a must while living in the USA or you will miss out on many aspects of life.<br>
On the other hand, knowing science is not all the MD needs, just like ANY job out there. If you think that software developer ONLY needs to know computers and computer languages and some other technical things, YOU ARE VERY FAR from knowing what they do. The same goes for engeneers, and yes, even scientists themselves. NOBODY is working by themselves and they have to connect to groups outside of their team member, and, yes, many contacts are international. This includes not only languages (hopefully actually there is an agreement about certain language being used in certain business / company), but understanding differences in culture, understanding the differences in dealing with customers vs. vendors (just as one example, they are numerous). Technically superior people who do not posses certain human skills are out, period, nobody can work with them. This also might involve life / death situations, considering many engineering applications as well as computer software as well as hardware.
NOBODY is required to just know science or posses certain technical skills as superior as they might be. Without knowing how to interact with other humans no job could be succesfully completed. MD are not exceptions, yes, they cannot treat just a desease, they are dealing with the human being. It might sound too casual, but patient is an MD’s customer who as ANY CUSTOMER require utmost respect, and this side is forgotten very much. In many places, they say: “if customer asked you to jump”, your answer is “How high?”, possible or impossible you do not care if you want to continue to be in business, which means to keep your customer base and continue adding new customers. Do physicians think this way? They have to think thei way much more than the rest of us. Yes, MD is treating a person, not only her deseases.</p>
<p>A friend of my daughter’s has been accepted into the Humanities program at Mt. Sinai and she considers him the smartest person she’s ever met, a true deep thinker. Perhaps more than anything this is Mt. Sinai’s way of getting best the best students locked down early.</p>
<p>I haven’t looked into this beyond the article, but already it sounds like a terrible idea to me. I wouldn’t feel comfortable going to a doctor that went through this program. As I see it cutting affirmative action would be a better way to get more Mandarin speakers while ensuring that matriculates have a thorough education in the sciences.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t feel comfortable” seeing a graduate of Mount Sinai?? 
:D</p>
<p>I can not stress enough the importance of having a strong science background for medical school and for a career in medicine. The volume of material students learn in medical school and the 28+ credits per semester they have to take doesn’t allow for the student to “try to figure out” organic or inorganic chemistry. The pre-med courses provide you familiarity with the basic tools to understand the science. But your life experiences, extracurricular activities and personality will help you succeed with interacting with your patients. I had the opportunity to attend medical school with some non science majors (humanities, liberal arts, music, etc.). And they struggled. To my knowledge some had to repeat a year, dropped out, or languished at the bottom of my class. I am being honest! Those students excelled in the wards with handling day to day responsibilities. But their knowledge base continued to lag their cohorts. As for the MCATs and GPAs, they were completely irrelevant once classes started. It didn’t matter how accomplish the students were in college or where they attended college. They fell into a new bell curve in medical school.</p>
<p>As a non-science major, I can attest to the facts frugaldoctor alluded to: (1) The preclinical years are harder; (2) I performed very well in my clinical responsibilities, but (3) my knowledge base continues to lag behind my peers.</p>
<p>With that said, I disagree with the conclusion I think he’s reaching. Something like 35% of medical students were non-science majors. And the stuff that matters – clinical responsibility – goes fine, or perhaps a bit better for us. The other stuff is important in grading, but not so much so that it can’t be overcome.</p>
<p>given that many schools are pass/fail except in the clinical years, you could make the case that a non science major will be better off if what you two are saying is true.</p>
<p>I think the only issue being a non science major poses is that the learning/evaluation is often very different from medical school. Being tested is very different from writing papers, engineering or computer science projects/exams are very different from med school exams too. That’s totally different though from saying someone needs a strong foundation in organic chemistry.</p>
<p>Again, let’s actually look at what their program allows students to skip and compare it to me (one data point I know, but just want to throw this out there.)</p>
<p>Orgo no longer required (I got a C in orgo 1 and a B in orgo 2)
One semester instead of two for physics (so instead of an A and a B I would just have an A)
One semester of math instead of two (instead of AP credit and A in calc 2) I would have taken no math. I took stats as a summer course which is currently not required but honestly should be (as it is in their new program)
One year of lab sciences instead of 3 - even as an MD/PhD, I can 100% say that my independent research was far more important in my development than any lab class I took. You can see the difference in med school, even with everyone doing traditional pre-med, the kids who don’t have extensive research experience just had no idea what was going on when looking at FACS data or trying to look at blood slides on a microscope.</p>
<p>Does having a strong foundation in the sciences help in med school? Of course. Do the current pre-med requirements provide a strong foundation in the sciences? No. In medical school I would say the courses that helped me the most were biochem (which is required by some, but not all), genetics (not required), physiology (not required), endocrinology (not required), immunology (not required), cell biology (not required), emerging microbial pathogens (not required), comparative biology of the vertebrates (not required). Thanks to those courses, not orgo, physics, and chemistry, was I able to score in the top 15-20% of my class on exams usually and top 10-15% on USMLE.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree with this, and have found the same to be true for me too–that is, that the upper-level science courses were much more useful than the intro level ones. But since this is the case for at least me and you, doesn’t that support the point that many here are trying to make–that a strong background in science is important for med school, and going beyond the prereqs is de facto required? Toss Mike (a remarkably bright dude in my opinion), who was a non-science major and recognizes how a better understanding of science likely would have positively contributed to his preclinical knowledge base, into the mix and I think you have a pretty nice argument that a strong science background serves you well in med school.</p>
<p>I don’t know how (or if) more/better science knowledge translates to the hospital floor, assuming both people have adequate/good social and people skills. (And it’s another topic altogether, but I think it’s unfair to conclude that people with good science knowledge also have poor social/people skills. I know plenty of bright students who have good science knowledge and good social/people skills. Heck, I might even be one of them 
)</p>
<p>^ I presume bluedevilmike covered the science classes as required by AAMC? So where is the gap in training - not taking even more science classes?</p>