Interesting..

[student14x]

<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>

<p>And you accuse me of nitpicking minute parts of your argument? Well maybe I should have not used Nash as an example. Basically my main point is that In most cases(I’ve never said all), those that are the best work the most.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>

Basically my main point is that In most cases(I’ve never said all), those that are the best work the most.

And our response is that in the field of medicine, your basic argument (science majors should get admitted at a higher rate because they work harder) is systematically incorrect because non-science majors outperform science majors on their clinical rotations.</p>

[student14x]

<p>Why not? Science majors should be admitted because they work harder. Also your correlation is not enough. We should look at how they perform as doctors. Not as 3rd year med students. Also, I suspect countries with better healthcare tend encourage their premeds learn more science not less. </p>

<p>Besides, you still haven’t addressed my concern on whether it is fair to penalize a student who was interested in quantum but couldn’t hack it and got a C whereas the humanities student got away without a scratch.</p>

[Watson_amp_Crick]

<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.”
-students14x</p>

<p>I don’t want to offend anyone, but as far I know of it, the “academic” part of medecine seems more concerned with “memorizing a bunch of facts” than “splitting atoms” or doing “triple integrals.” I know, it sucks, but that’s the way it has always been, since medecine is a very conservative field. So it is not surprising those humanities memorizers get a certain leeway.</p>

<p>Besides, a doctor probably doesn’t need to be smart in the way a scientist or mathematician is. However, if you are hellbent on valuing intelligence (good scientific reasoning skills, etc…), why don’t you just pursue a PhD? Such a career seems much more appropriate for a person who loves science only as academic subjects.</p>

<p>The moral of the story is, as sakky once pointed out, if you want the best chances for med school, go for it the “easy” way (whatever easy means for you). Medical school most likely not about being a scientist. So the mathematic superhuman understanding is probably not required, not even recommended to be a doctor. I’m sure that med school needs even more of the superhuman memorizer, since the 2 first years are so much based on memorization.</p>

<p>“Also, I suspect countries with better healthcare tend encourage their premeds learn more science not less.”</p>

<p>Agreed And I also agree that despite the wealth devoted to health care in the United States, its system suffers enormous inefficiency BOTH on the output level (delivery of health care, physician skills, and insurance…) and on the input level (med school, premed years etc…). I think the system needs reform, but since medical school is so conservative, I think it’s unlikely any kind of reform is going to happen in the next years.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>1.) 3rd year clerkship grades are the best output metric we have available to us. They are of course flawed. If you have a better one, argue away.</p>

<p>2.) Nobody cares about fairness. What matters is producing the best group of physicians.</p>

[shades_children]

<p>

Why not? Science majors should be admitted because they work harder.

</p>

<p>I personally don’t give a dang how hard my doctor works. I want his work to result in my improved or maintained health. If he can do that while twirling his hair and snapping his bubblegum, great. If he can’t do that despite reading out of Bates and getting a consultation from one of his colleagues, then it’s unacceptable to me.</p>

<p>

Also, I suspect countries with better healthcare tend encourage their premeds learn more science not less.

</p>

<p>I suspect countries with better healthcare tend to encourage their medical students and other healthcare professionals to learn more science not less. You teach your premeds all the science you want - I’ll focus on the people who actually matter in day-to-day healthcare.</p>

<p>

Besides, you still haven’t addressed my concern on whether it is fair to penalize a student who was interested in quantum but couldn’t hack it and got a C whereas the humanities student got away without a scratch.

</p>

<p>I don’t know why you think the study of humanities is worthless and easy-peasy as compared to the study of sciences. The hardest I ever worked in college was for P-chem I, Biophysical Chemistry, English Literature in the 19th Century, and Introduction to Social and Cultural Analysis.</p>

<p>At the very least, you should be interested in the humanities for understanding your patients. The book “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down” is a well-researched example of how medicine cannot be separated from the culture in which it’s practiced. If you refuse to believe that, then you’re going to be the part of the system that failed the little girl in that book.</p>

[Bigredmed]

<p>As one of those ones who apparently took the “easy” and “unfair” route through, I can attest that I’m getting better clinical grades than several of my colleagues who undoubtedly have much greater scientific knowledge than I do. Why?</p>

<p>1) I work with my patients better than they do. My sociology education has opened up my eyes to things going on with my patients that my colleagues are in disbelief that I was able to ascertain. </p>

<p>2) I work with the people evaluating me better. I’m much more ready to admit my knowledge shortcomings and accept teaching points than some of my more science based colleagues.</p>

<p>3) Clinical practice of medicine is far more about pattern recognition than it is about knowing all the science of the pathophysiology and pharmacology mechanisms. For example, very few clinicians will be able to tell you the exact mechanism by which you get ST segment elevation on EKG during an acute MI. But everyone can look at it and tell you that’s what’s going on and what steps need to be taken. And as long as you know the steps to be taken, even without knowing the science, you can care for 90% of all the heart attacks that come through the door. The science is an important base, but it doesn’t matter per se. There are a hundred other examples I can give you that are like this (and this is why experienced nurses are usually good at their jobs…they just don’t know why they do the things they do, but they’ve seen the pattern so many times, they know the next step). I mean, when someone has cholecystitis, what science is there to taking out the gall bladder? Practically zero - it’s not really science to say, well it’s inflamed, maybe the patient will feel better if we take it out… I can diagnose an inflamed gall bladder or appendix (at least if they present somewhat normally) from a mile away. The extent of me having to explain the “science” behind my diagnosis to an attending is in explaining why the psoas sign is positive in appendicitis, and that’s just because the appendix tends to be retroflexed in most people and lies along the psoas muscle, you move the psoas, it moves the inflamed appendix and it hurts. BOOM! Postitive psoas sign.</p>

[student14x]

<p>

At the very least, you should be interested in the humanities for understanding your patients. The book “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down” is a well-researched example of how medicine cannot be separated from the culture in which it’s practiced. If you refuse to believe that, then you’re going to be the part of the system that failed the little girl in that book.
shades_children is online now

</p>

<p>Its absurd to assume that taking humanities courses( or any courses for that matter) could make someone a better person. Does that mean that humanities majors are Gods children and that physicists are the spawn of the devil?</p>

<p>

1.) 3rd year clerkship grades are the best output metric we have available to us. They are of course flawed. If you have a better one, argue away.

</p>

<p>Like Watson&Crick said, there are better ways. Its just that the current system is too damn conservative to change.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>By the way, the four of us who are currently in medical school (who are generally in agreement on this subject) majored in chemistry, biology, economics, and sociology.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>Straw man fallacy. (And then another one by taking to an extreme.) SC isn’t suggesting it makes you a better person. She said it helps build important skills that physicians require.</p>

[student14x]

<p>

SC isn’t suggesting it makes you a better person. She said it helps build important skills that physicians require.

</p>

<p>Well, there are a million ways of doing that. I could go to church, pick up trash, read Dostoyevskys’ novels, tutoring poor children etc. If I want to communicate better, I could just go party all weekend.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>Non-unique. I could similarly self-study biology, chemistry, physics, etc.</p>

[student14x]

<p>

Non-unique. I could similarly self-study biology, chemistry, physics, etc

</p>

<p>True. But you can’t standardize empathy development the same way you can with the hard sciences. Its a matter of practicality. Most people find it more efficient to have science taught to them in the form a lecture. Also that doesn’t address the issue of labs. Moreover, the vast majority of people develop their personalities through interaction with friends through clubs, parties, community service etc. This is something that can’t be taught in a classroom.</p>

[Bigredmed]

<p>I’d argue that while “personality” is a difference maker (I don’t think it’s a good label though - interpersonal skill set is a better descriptor of what I’m going after), there are things the humanities teach you which will make you a better physician. Certainly you can see the utility in being a psych major, can’t you?</p>

<p>Again, though, I’m here to tell you that you’re making far too much out of how important basic science understanding is. I’ve given you examples already of how easy it is to get by without completely understanding medical science. I think it’s even more obvious how little understanding of VESPER theory or molecular orbitals or most (all?) newtonian physics or cladistics or how ecosystems work (or most any other pre-med science you want to bring up) is to being a good physician.</p>

[student14x]

<p>But medical school is difficult is it not? I agree that one may not need to know vesper theory or gravitational potential. But taking hard courses( i.e sciences) can train a person to work hard. The valuable thing about studying complicated theories, is that it requires much mental concentration and perseverance. Something that is invaluable in medical school and life in general. By taking fluff courses where one doesn’t need to study is a detriment to ones’ work ethic. And they could be in for a rude awakening once they’re in medschool. Its kind of like weight lifting. If someone is benching 100 pounds 20 reps everyday. They are unlikely to all of the sudden be expected to bench 150 20 reps everyday because its too much of a jump. Similarly, you don’t expect someone to take advanced calculus after taking basic algebra. Or expect someone to take a 30unit course load having only taken 20units the previous term. Its about difficulty adjustment. One has pace themselves.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>And maybe that’s why science majors do better in the first two (unimportant) years of medical school. But if NCG’s data is right, that doesn’t matter.</p>

[norcalguy]

<p>There’s really no evidence that humanities majors do tremendously worse or are flunking out of med school in the first two years. So, while the basic science years are “hard” the humanities majors who are accepted into med school are up for the task (after all, they did do as well on the MCAT and in science courses as the science majors). The fact they had additional interests outside of science is inconsequential because their undergraduate record showed that when it came time to bear down (as on the MCAT or in orgo), they could do it as well as science majors.</p>

[norcalguy]

<p>I probably should have broken out some sources awhile ago:</p>

<p>Comparison of medical school performances and career plans of students with broad and with science-focused premedical preparation.
Academic Medicine. 67(3):191-6, March 1992. Koenig, J A</p>

<p>

Students were grouped according to undergraduate major, ratio of nonscience-to-science course hours, and extracurricular involvement. After tentatively classifying all individuals who had entered U.S. medical schools in 1981 as having either broad or science-focused preparation, the author compared the two most distinct groups selected from a random sample of the individuals in each classification: 59 individuals constituted the final broadly prepared group, and 73, the science-focused group. The science-focused group attained higher mean scores (p less than .05) on three science sections of the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Part I examination, and the broadly prepared group scored higher on the Behavioral Sciences section (p less than .05). No other significant difference was evident between the groups’ mean scores on the NBME Parts I, II, or III, or in the groups’ rates of experiences of academic difficulty, specialty choice distributions, or percentages of individuals deciding to pursue research careers. The author concludes that this method of classifying students is useful and that the students with less premedical focus in the sciences were able to perform well.

</p>

<p>Science Majors and Nonscience Majors Entering Medical School: Acceptance Rates and Academic Performance.
Sorenson NE., Jackson JR. NACADA Journal, v17 n1 p32-41 Spr 1997</p>

<p>

A comparison of rates of acceptance and performance of undergraduate science and nonscience majors applying to 13 classes (1978-90) of the University of Alabama, Birmingham, medical school found no significant difference in acceptance rates, and no difference on most standard measures of medical school academic performance. Results suggest nonscience majors should not be discouraged from applying to medical school.

</p>

<p>Medical students from natural science and nonscience undergraduate backgrounds. Similar academic performance and residency selection
R. L. Dickman, R. E. Sarnacki, F. T. Schimpfhauser and L. A. Katz, JAMA Vol. 243 No. 24, June 27, 1980</p>

<p>

The majority of matriculating US medical students continue to major in the natural sciences as college undergraduates in the belief that this will enhance their chances of admission to and their performance in medical school. The present study compared the academic performance and residency selection of natural science and nonscience majors in three separate medical school classes at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Statistical analysis of grades in the first two years of medical school, clinical performance in the third year, and part I and part II National Board Medical Examination scores revealed no significant differences across three class replications. Residency selection among graduating seniors was also independent of undergraduate major. It is suggested that admissions committees, premedical advisors, and students reconsider their attitudes about the necessity of concentration in the natural sciences before entering medical school.

</p>

<p>A Liberal Arts Education as Preparation for Medical School: How Is it Valued? How Do Graduates Perform?
Stratton, Terry D.; Elam, Carol L.; Mcgrath, Michael G. Academic Medicine. Research in Medical Education: Proceedings of the Forty-second Annual Conference. 78(10) Supplement:S59-S61, October 2003.

Results. Some admission committee members perceived applicants with liberal arts backgrounds to have certain advantages. These students preferred “discussing issues,” and showed an initial preference for the practice of psychiatry. Despite entering with lower total grade-point average and being less involved in extracurricular activities, they were more likely to receive formal commendation and be elected to Alpha Omega Alpha.

</p>

<p>Science versus Nonscience Undergraduate Studies For Medical School: A Study of Nine Classes.
Yens DP, Stimmel B. Journal of Medical Education, v57 n6 p429-35 Jun 1982

Premedical school achievement data were used to determine whether nonscience preparation in undergraduate study was a handicap in medical school. Nonscience students performed as well as or better than science majors on almost all performance measures.

</p>

[Bigredmed]

<p>Yes medical school is difficult…but it’s still near impossible to fail out of it. And usually people who’ve made it that far, a few bad tests is enough to motivate anyone. Like this guy <points to=“” self=“”>.</points></p>

<p>Again, no one is saying there’s no difference, just that it’s not as important as you’re making it out to be.</p>

[shades_children]

<p>

But taking hard courses( i.e sciences) can train a person to work hard. The valuable thing about studying complicated theories, is that it requires much mental concentration and perseverance. Something that is invaluable in medical school and life in general. By taking fluff courses where one doesn’t need to study is a detriment to ones’ work ethic.

</p>

<p>I agree with everything you’ve said, EXCEPT your insistence that the study of humanities is fluff.</p>

<p>You have no idea how hard humanities majors work. Are you implying that writing a 30 page paper about how global warming will affect infectious disease in Miami, Florida is “fluff” compared to taking the final exam in Organic Chemistry I? Is global warming + infectious disease + people in Miami, FL somehow less complicated than whatever it is we were supposed to learn in Orgo I? I think not.</p>