<p>Today I was at the UCLA Medical School and the University of Minnesota Medical School website and they each had this to say about taking a course in human anatomy, respectively.</p>
<p>UCLA: "Courses overlapping in subject matter (e.g. human anatomy) with those in the school of medicine are not recommended."</p>
<p>UMN: "While courses such as .Anatomy...are not required as pre-Med pre-requisites, they are recommended because they are very helpful as background for the coursework in Medical School."</p>
<p>I was wondering.........why the contradiction? Does this all depends on the philosophy of the school or what because I presume that the gross anatomy course in med school is pretty much universal across the states. What do you think?</p>
<p>I find it interesting that UCLA would say that. I don't see any reason that students shouldn't immerse themselves in a subject such as human anatomy as early as possible.</p>
<p>1) med school anatomy is going to be orders of magnitude more detailed than an undergrad anatomy.</p>
<p>2) teaching of anatomy courses often takes on the personality of the department head - it's a very personal sort of style and some may take offense to other styles. This may explain UCLA's stance</p>
<p>3) from personal experience - don't take anatomy 2nd semester senior year then get accepted to medical school the last week of january - all motivation goes right out the window. Hardest "Pass" I've ever had to earn...</p>
<p>Taking human anatomy as an undergrad is akin to majoring in health sciences. Most medical schools would rather see courses of study that encourage analytical thinking and excellence in a serious discipline.</p>
<p>As BRM has noted, med school anatomy will be much more detailed than any undergrad course.</p>