Interesting..

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
1

<p>So I went to a UCSF workshop the other day and came across something interesting. I asked if the undergrad institution one goes to matters. And more specifically, whether an A at Berkeley for example is considered the same as an A at San Jose State. Her response, " I get these types of questions a lot, and the answer is yes, they would be considered the same". She goes on to say that the only possible difference is that when regarding letter of recommendations, the professor at Berkeley can say, " so and so student placed #/600". Whereas the professor at San Jose State can say " so and so student placed #/30. </p>

<p>But doesn't that contradict her statement that the school one goes to doesn't mater? For example, I think we can all agree that it is much more difficult to place in the top 60 at Cal than the top 3 at San Jose State. Such situations makes me wonder where do they get their logic from. Or whether they use common sense at all.</p>

<p>Moreover, she stated that one can chose whatever major they wish as long as they have fulfilled the science prerequisites, BMCP. Not only does this completely disregard the salient fact some majors nearly always have an overall lower gpa average relative to other majors in the same school, but also contradicts a previous statement that she had made. Her previous statement was that they do recognize when students are loading up on "fluff courses". But can't one say that an art major is just a conglomeration of "fluff courses" taken throughout 4yrs? </p>

<p>Just putting this out there.</p>

2

<p>1.) Her logic is dictated more by what she's allowed to say than by what actually makes sense. She is responding rationally to your queries even if what she's saying is not completely consistent.
2.) She is telling you that the Berkeley student is in a more impressive pool for size reasons.
3.) Haven't we had this conversation before? Several times? Major doesn't matter after grades and MCAT scores have come in. So if physics majors have lower GPAs than English majors, that doesn't harm either group.</p>

3

<p>
[quote]
Not only does this completely disregard the salient fact some majors nearly always have an overall lower gpa average relative to other majors in the same school

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not according to AAMC data. Average GPA of applicants and matriculants are similar across all majors.</p>

4

<p>
[quote]
Not according to AAMC data. Average GPA of applicants and matriculants are similar across all majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That doesn't take into account of the fact that a lot people drop out of the premed track after having their records marred with bad grades. Thus they don't even apply. And where do these bad grades come from? I suspect that it results from a overly heavy science courseload typical of a science or engineering major.</p>

5

<p>And how would that be a concern to med school adcoms? The people who do apply have similar GPA's across majors. The science GPA's are within 0.1 of each other. The MCAT scores are similar as well. So, why should a science major with a 3.4 science GPA and a 30 MCAT get extra consideration over a humanities major with a 3.4 science GPA and a 30 MCAT? The humanities majors who make it to the application round prove that they are as capable in science courses as science majors. In addition, because humanities courses tend to involve more discussion and writing, humanities majors usually have superior communication skills as well. You don't need to be able to split an atom or do triple integrals to be a good physician. You do need to be able to form a coherent discussion and to be able to convey yourself well in writing. Guess who wins between an English major and an asocial science major?</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
Guess who wins between an English major and an asocial science major?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why should ones' personality be determined by their choice of major? I think it depends more on how one spends their free time. I know business majors that spend all their spare time working. And I know physics majors that party all weekend. Now who is more personable? </p>

<p>
[quote]
So, why should a science major with a 3.4 science GPA and a 30 MCAT get extra consideration over a humanities major with a 3.4 science GPA and a 30 MCAT? The humanities majors who make it to the application round prove that they are as capable in science courses as science majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the science major is just plain harder. Not just in amount of deep thinking, but also in time consuming technicalities, such as labs. A science major will have to take much more of these courses than a humanities major. Sure you can say the MCAT shows that they have the same scientific reasoning skills and that the science major overdid it. But the MCAT tests for scentific reasoning skills. Not the difficulty(e.g competition, harsh grading etc.) of the curriculum they faced. Besides, we all know that plenty of high scorers do external preparation via tutors, kaplan you name it. And a lot of the material on the MCAT has nothing to do with what they learned in college. A humanities major can outscore a science major by going through significant external preperation. </p>

<p>Moreover, the science major with the same MCAT score will have to face harsh grading and competition all the way through, hence resulting in a lower gpa. So they have to study harder just make up disparity. Also as mentioned before, they have to slave away in labs. Giving them less time to study in order to do well in classes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And how would that be a concern to med school adcoms?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It shouldn't. Because they were all weeded out. They didn't even have a chance. At least the humanities major still has a chance with that easy 4.0 they earned. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You don't need to be able to split an atom or do triple integrals to be a good physician.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You still need to address that splitting atoms and doing triple integrals is harder than memorizing a bunch of facts just to regurgitate on a humanities exam.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
You still need to address that splitting atoms and doing triple integrals is harder than memorizing a bunch of facts just to regurgitate on a humanities exam.

[/quote]
Clearly somebody has yet to take a humanities course. I'm not going to deny that they're graded more lightly, but your characterization is inverted.</p>

<p>And... um. I certainly don't want any of my classmates splitting atoms. At least not while I'm on campus with them.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
Why should ones' personality be determined by their choice of major?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>umm...because people tend to choose majors/career paths that suit their personality? Personality determines major to some extent, not the other way around.</p>

<p>Actually, what I was talking about was not personality but rather SKILLS. Whether you are a great conversationalist or writer to begin with, you will become better as you write essays and participate in discussions. Humanities courses develop those skills and those skills are important to being a physician.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because the science major is just plain harder. Not just in amount of deep thinking, but also in time consuming technicalities, such as labs. A science major will have to take much more of these courses than a humanities major.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>More work perhaps. But, if all that extra work is irrelevant to med school, then why should an adcom care? Harder? That's a matter of opinion. Some of the science majors I know would not cut it in an upper level English or history course. Studies have shown that science majors perform slightly better in the first two years of med school (the basic science years) but that nonscience majors perform better in the 2nd two years. Overall, there has been no evidence that shows science majors perform better in med school as a result of taking all those extra science courses. So, again, I ask you: Why should a med school adcom care if someone took 15 science courses as an undergrad as opposed to 6? There's no evidence that shows the person who took 15 will perform better on the MCAT nor evidence that shows the person who took 15 will perform better throughout med school nor evidence that shows the person who took 15 will be a better physician. YOU chose to major in science. YOU chose to spend your college career taking science courses. Why are you b*tching about it now? No one forced you to.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It shouldn't. Because they were all weeded out. They didn't even have a chance. At least the humanities major still has a chance with that easy 4.0 they earned.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As you even admitted, it is of no concern to the adcom that 400 bio majors were weeded out and only 20 English majors were weeded out. They only care about the ones that get through and could possibly end up in their med school. And those English and bio majors that get through have similar performance in science courses and on the MCAT. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You still need to address that splitting atoms and doing triple integrals is harder than memorizing a bunch of facts just to regurgitate on a humanities exam.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who cares?! The humanities major didn't need to spend all that time splitting atoms so she went out to volunteer at a hospital and read to the blind. That's what the adcom would care about. Splitting atoms is impressive but not necessary for being a good physician. The adcom isn't there to make sure that the people who work the hardest during college are rewarded. Their mission is to choose the applicants who would make the best physicians.</p>

<p>BTW: What you described is bio...</p>

<p>If nothing else, I would choose the English major just for the sake of diversity. I say this as someone who is Asian, a bio major, and from California. I know that I have to work extra hard to prove to med schools that I would be an asset to their school. At the same time, I appreciate being surrounded by classmates who have diverse interests, majored in diverse subjects, and who have come from diverse backgrounds.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
YOU chose to major in science. YOU chose to spend your college career taking science courses. Why are you b*tching about it now? No one forced you to.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please lets not resort to ad hominem assertions. For your information, I chose to major in mathematics. I did so as to avoid all the ridiculous labs. I just view it as anti-intellectual grunt work. Also, I chose to major in math in order to avoid all those gunners in the hard science and engineering disiplines. After all, I need to be practical and getting good grades is a practical thing. Because it doesn't matter what courses I take. All that matters is that I get good grades right? </p>

<p>
[quote]
And those English and bio majors that get through have similar performance in science courses and on the MCAT.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>similar performance yes. But what about the people that didn't make it through? I still argue that while many of them still have similar grades in lower div BMCP and MCAT scores, the science major will ocassionally get screwed over by difficult upper division classes. Consider this scenario, a english major and a physics major with similar scores and similar grades in lower division science courses ceteris paribus. But then the physics major starts getting Bs and Cs when he takes quantum mechanics and analytical mechanics(obviously no cake walk there.) When the adcom looks at both, he/she says, "oh the english major has .2 higher gpa, I think we'll grant him an interview" and the physics majors app gets tossed in the trash. Basically the physics major gets penalized for taking hard courses. </p>

<p>
[quote]
. The adcom isn't there to make sure that the people who work the hardest during college are rewarded.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, then that would be unfair wouldn't it? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Their mission is to choose the applicants who would make the best physicians.

[/quote]
<br>

[quote]
Studies have shown that science majors perform slightly better in the first two years of med school (the basic science years) but that nonscience majors perform better in the 2nd two years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Correlation is not causation. To make a good analysis, we have to look at how good the US medical system was before there was a emphasis on non-science vs after. Actually this gets me thinking about how ridiculous and perhaps detrimental med-school admission is in the US. The U.S medical system, despite all its emphasis on liberal arts education, is not the most efficient in the world <a href="http://www.jhu.edu/%7Egazette/2004/10may04/10health.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2004/10may04/10health.html&lt;/a> . In fact Japan, in which entrance is based on objective measures such as entrance examinations, fosters better healthcare than the US does. Clearly we are doing something wrong. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If nothing else, I would choose the English major just for the sake of diversity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What does diversity have to do with the quality of healthcare? Not only is it unfair to chose a applicant ceteris paribus based on the notion of diversity, but perhaps its inefficient as well. The US clearly does not have the best education, scientists, engineers, doctors etc. Why? Because of all the emphasis on subjective measures.</p>

10

<p>How odd. You explicitly say, "correlation is not causation" and just two sentences later begin the exact same fallacy.

[quote]
Correlation is not causation. ... The U.S medical system, despite all its emphasis on liberal arts education, is not the most efficient in the world ... Why? Because of all the emphasis on subjective measures.

[/quote]
</p>

11

<p>I've never said that there was a correlation between subjectivity and pernicious effects. I'm saying that subjectivity causes pernicious effects.</p>

12

<p>That's my point exactly. You argue that it's a cause, and yet the only evidence you provide is a correlation. Seriously.</p>

13

<p>Actually, I like the med school admissions system. In my opinion, the problem with the US healthcare system lies not in how we choose our med school students but in many other factors (a subject for another debate perhaps). And our healthcare problems certainly are not due solely to the US healthcare system. We could have the exact same system as Canada and those European countries and we still would not achieve the same life expectancy. Why? Because we're too damn fat. Socialized healthcare proponents ignore the fact that we eat too many hamburgers and live sendentary lifestyles when pushing their agenda. They use the "Country X has socialized healthcare and a 80 year life execptancy. US doesn't have socialized healthcare and has a 75 year life expectancy. So, the US should get socialized healthcare" argument. Classic confusion b/w correlation and causation.</p>

<p>Speaking of correlation and causation, I never said that a humanities major's coursework led to superior performance in the clinical years (although I do believe the skills they gain will help them when they're a MD). However, the fact remains humanities majors when averaged over the entire 4 years perform just as well as science majors. Whether it's due to their personality or their coursework, it doesn't matter. To an adcom, all that matters is that a 3.6 humanities major is likely to perform as well as a 3.6 engineering major in the 4 years of med school. Therefore, there's no reason to accept the engineering major solely based on his major.</p>

<p>Clearly, you're not as big a fan of diversity as I am. I personally feel that, in the multicultural US, it is very important to be culturally competent. It doesn't matter how sound you are technically if you cannot relate to the patient and earn their trust. Cultural competency can come from learning Spanish or from taking anthropology in college or from being around classmates of different backgrounds. You don't feel any of that is important. I will respect your opinion. But, I disagree.</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
Well, then that would be unfair wouldn't it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It depends on your definition of fairness. In a perfect world, those who work the hardest will become the best physicians. In our imperfect world, it doesn't work out that way. Different people are born with different intelligences, different personalities, and into different socioeconomic backgrounds. So, some have to work harder than others. For example, I'm a pretty shy person so I have to work a little harder during interviews (and probably when I'm a physician) than someone who is naturally outgoing. </p>

<p>In the end, when you're on the operating table or you have your pants down in the front of the doctor, would you rather have a doctor who does his job the best or the doctor who's had to work the hardest and scrap and claw his way through med school? I'd rather have the first one.</p>

15

<p>In fact, since biology majors underperform humanities majors in the second two years (assuming NCG is right), then it seems clear to me that admissions committees excessively favor science majors.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
In the end, when you're on the operating table or you have your pants down in the front of the doctor, would you rather have a doctor who does his job the best or the doctor who's had to work the hardest and scrap and claw his way through med school? I'd rather have the first one

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Usually those that are the best in their field work the hardest. Look at Issac Newton, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Robert Oppenhimer, John Nash etc.
These people are at the top of their field and they also work the hardest. The same applies to doctors.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, since biology majors underperform humanities majors in the second two years (assuming NCG is right), then it seems clear to me that admissions committees excessively favor science majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, Biology is the weakest of all the science majors. As NCG said, its nothing but rote memorization and regurgitation. If you want a real major that focuses on logic and critical reasoning, look at EECS or physics.</p>

17

<p>...meaning you think the clinical years are more important than the basic science years, BDM? I'd agree and I think residency directors would probably value clerkship grades over basic science grades.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
'd agree and I think residency directors would probably value clerkship grades over basic science grades.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then why penalize students who take a hard science course, like quantum mechanics, but end up with less than satisfactory grades? This is especially strange since quantum isn't even required by medschools.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Well, Biology is the weakest of all the science majors. As NCG said, its nothing but rote memorization and regurgitation.

[/quote]

Definitely not true. Biology is a lot of memorization, but logic and critical thinking are, at least in my opinion, vital to doing really well in it. It might not be "logical" in a quantitative sense, but there are certainly logical correlations and conclusions to be drawn when studying biology.</p>

<p>If I'd relied on rote memorization alone to get through the bio courses I've taken over the past two years, I would have gotten Cs or Bs in at least 3 of them instead of As.</p>

20

<p>1.) Clerkship years are definitely more important than book years, and most medical schools in fact weight their grades to reflect this difference. (67% of my grades come in my third year.)</p>

<p>2.) S14 continues to rely on poor argumentation. For one thing, unless he knows Nash, etc. personally -- as well as every other mathematician from that era -- it's a ridiculous claim. (Besides which, Nash spent so much time in psychiatric treatment that I'm sure he was not, over the sum total of his years, the hardest worker.) Nash was naturally gifted and well-educated, which combine with hard work to produce results. He does qualify this with the word "usually," which is good, but at the same time he then returns to his original argument.</p>

<p>Hard work is one of several possible inputs, but the output is what we need to be concerned about. And third-year grades are a direct measure of that. A baseball player can be as fast and strong as anybody else, but if he cannot get on base, he is not a good baseball player. Similarly, an electrical engineer can be as smart and hardworking as anybody else, but if he does not perform well during the third year, he is not a good medical student.</p>

<p>3.) And S14 is also taking a rhetorical device (my use of "biology") and reducing it to the absurd. NCG's claim is that non-science students outperform their science major peers during the third year. My claim is that if that's true, it logically follows that non-science majors are being disproportionately disfavored during the admissions process. Perhaps I should have anticipated that he would take me too literally and not used an example.</p>