<p>I am a third year premed applying at this summer for medical school. I am concerned how medical schools will perceive my undergraduate courseload. I have taken roughly 30 courses, 1/3 of which were non-science, 2/3 of which qualify as science courses/labwork. In looking at medical school websites, a lot of schools are vague in their requirements saying something like "a broad liberal education in the humanities is recommended." 3 out of my 10 non-science courses are in health care management and policy (my school has a department for this) and aren't necessarily traditional "humanities". I have taken some econ, anthro, and 2 writing/english courses as well. I will be taking 2 more humanities classes senior year to fullfill the general requirements for my degree. I go to a pretty prestigious school. I haven't taken a great deal of humanties/social science/arts classes because frankly, I am not good at them and more interested in science, as I think a doctor should be. Do you think my courses are sufficient enough to prove I have a strong humanties/social science background? I don't want to look like a science geek</p>
<p>Well, your interview and essays will always be an important component of evaluating your communication skills. Your MCATV might take on extra significance as well.</p>
<p>I would consider it a non-issue.</p>
<p>I think med schools are also accustomed to looking at applicants who have more sciences their first three years than the last year or so. In order to get my pre-med requirements in before MCATs (and so that I could take a semester abroad junior year), my first two years are filled with sciences as is the semester before MCATs. This year is the first year where I've really been able to take many humanities. So my AMCAS has the same split as yours will (specifically 62 hours BCMP and 31 hours all other).</p>
<p>I guess my point is that I doubt that it's going to immediately throw up any red flags.</p>
<p>I agree non-issue in the scheme of things - it, in and of itself, certainly shouldn't be something that's going to keep you out of medical school.</p>
<p>That said, if being a "science geek" prevents you from connecting with people and being able to handle the levels of personal interaction necessary to get through the clinical years of medical school (or at least third year - at least at my school it's possible to almost completely avoid patient contact in the fourth year), then it might throw up red flags that keep could keep you from being admitted (definitely know some people who've bombed ALL their interview). Being a physician is a social profession that deals with a ton of very personal information, and if someone is unable to communicate effectively (I'm not saying this is the case with you at all), then they're probably better off going for a PhD.</p>
<p>
[quote]
then they're probably better off going for a PhD
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The fact to the matter is, most jobs require social skills. Even a person that goes for a PhD would eventually have to take up teaching responsibilites, which require social skills nontheless. And what about engineers? Don't have have to work in cooperative groups to ensure completion of projects? And yet they rank near the top in terms of "geekyness" So I don't think its really fair to single out a "science geek" as socially inept. Sure, they have heavy course loads. But even then, they should still have the time in the week to chill with some friends. Unless, they are going for a triple major in 3 unconnected science disiplines or just study all day due to paranoia, they shouldn't have a problem being social. If there really is a correlation( I doubt that it would be numerically significant) between science majors and social ineptitude, then I have to say that its the person's personality(i.e social ineptitude) that draws them to the science, not the other way around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact to the matter is, most jobs require social skills. Even a person that goes for a PhD would eventually have to take up teaching responsibilites, which require social skills nontheless.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You'd think. But, in reality this doesn't play out. The ability to clearly convey an idea is particularly difficult for some professors in the sciences. And don't even get me started on the postdocs who can't even speak English.</p>
<p>And some social settings (interacting with patients) are much more difficult (i.e. require more skills) than others (interacting with peers and students). So while it's true that professors can't completely lack social skills (e.g. autism), it's still valid to suggest that clinical medicine is a much more socially challenging environment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You'd think. But, in reality this doesn't play out. The ability to clearly convey an idea is particularly difficult for some professors in the sciences. And don't even get me started on the postdocs who can't even speak English.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you see the problem here? While we are in need of professors that teach well, the institutions could care less. All universities care about is a ability do do research. No research, no tenure. Now does this mean it isn't a problem? Of course not. Who would like to spend 5hrs a week in a Bio class if they can just consult their textbooks(textbooks are at least better then bad professors). But of course, its expected that some professors are culled due to student evaluations.( e.g rate my professors). That doesn't really play out in the medical field. Because they enforce communication skills. In all, professors, if they are to be good, should develop social skills.</p>
<p>I don't disagree with what you just wrote. But, all it does is support the notion that, if someone is looking for success and lacking in social skills, they should get a PhD rather than go into medicine.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's still valid to suggest that clinical medicine is a much more socially challenging environment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More challenging than a professors job? Yes sure. But there are still plenty of jobs that are far more socially challenging. To list a few, investment banking, law, any sort of business, politics etc. In all of these jobs, how you present yourself can make or break you. At least in medicine, if you screw up socially, you won't lose your job. You may get less patient satisfaction. You may incur a higher chance of malpractice suits. But you'll still be a doctor.</p>
<p>... okay?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't disagree with what you just wrote. But, all it does is support the notion that, if someone is looking for success and lacking in social skills, they should get a PhD rather than go into medicine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said in the previous post, doctors can't lose their jobs because they socially inept. Just like how a professor can't lose their jobs if they are socially inept. Its only barrier is med-school adcoms. If they get past that, they're golden.</p>
<p>
[quote]
doctors can't lose their jobs because they socially inept.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uh...no. The communication skills of a professor have relatively little effect on his advancement. Not true of physicians. Much of your patient base comes from word of mouth or referrals. Connections are important. If you can't make a patient feel comfortable, you will lose the patient. Not to mention, research has indicated that doctors who are poor communicators and possess poor clinical skills are far more likely to get sued. The med school selection process is only the beginning. Then comes USMLE Step 2. Then comes your evaluations from your clinical rotations. Then comes residency. There will be many many tests of your social skills along the way.</p>
<p>Look BDM. What I'm saying is that for most good jobs out there, social skills are important. But it seems like you are making it to be more exclusive to medicine than it really is. Look, if someone is socially inept, you be right to tell him/her that medicine isn't right for them. But it is equally valid to say that most jobs aren't right for them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Connections are important. If you can't make a patient feel comfortable, you will lose the patient. Not to mention, research has indicated that doctors who are poor communicators and possess poor clinical skills are far more likely to get sued.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But they'll still have a job. Many people don't have the luxury of being socially inept. If an investment banker can't talk to people, then he'll be out of a job.</p>
<p>
[quote]
they're probably better off going for a PhD.
[/quote]
BRM specifically suggested academia. I don't think that was an unfair suggestion. You're the one who brought up Wall St.</p>
<p>I'm with BDM, what exactly is your point? How does the fact that you need social skills in many other professions discount the fact that you need social skills for medicine? It's not like we advised him to go into investment banking or become a talk show host.</p>
<p>i know this may seem like a digression given the nature of the thread, but..</p>
<p>1) are all non-BCPM classes considered "humanities"?</p>
<p>2) how would a science major fit in more humanities classes (other than the required 1 yr of english) and so forth? like would that be through other GE requirements of the college? (ie fine arts, history, language)</p>
<p>thanks guys</p>
<p>1) For the purpose of med school applications, most of your nonscience courses will be considered humanities (social sciences are also okay). </p>
<p>2) There's no reason why the GE courses you take can't be counted as humanities for med school apps (very few med schools actually have formal humanities requirements outside of English). I was able to take 3 English courses, 3 history courses, anthro, asian american studies, sociology, psychology, Spanish, among others as a bio major.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm with BDM, what exactly is your point? How does the fact that you need social skills in many other professions discount the fact that you need social skills for medicine?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I certainly doesn't. I just don't think its really fair to suggest to someone who is socially inept to opt for another job that requires less social skills( but social skills nontheless). We should deal with the problem at hand.
Also, if you looked back to my original post, you'd realize that my main point was that focusing on science cannot make a person socially inept. But you nitpicked one of my minor points.</p>