Is a B.S. in nursing frowned upon by medical schools adcomm?

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
41

<p>How would organic chemisry for nurses (whatever course number that is?) at Emory University compare to the pre-med organic chemistry course at SomeSmallStateUwithanaveragestudentSATof1000 University?</p>

<p>I betcha the Emory nurses would score higher on both the MCAT and Graduate Record Exam Chemistry sections.</p>

<p>Yet, per your paradigm, the SmallState applcant would have an overwhelming advantage because the Emory nurses would be dismissed out of hand. </p>

<p>You are saying you do not want the smartest hardest working students but rather students who fit a dated and unrealistic paradigm; “the gentleman professional”. </p>

<p>I do not deny you have that power. I am suggesting it is being applied in a tyrannical and unresonable manner.</p>

<p>Life is unfair.</p>

42

<p>BigG: The reality is that both those applicants would probably be rejected.</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>I notice that at my child’s school, children of new immigrants tend to choose majors that are more vocational-oriented, at least, more science research oriented. My child also observed that most students in science classes seem to be from public high schools. Kids from private high school also work very hard, but they work hard on more varieties of “liberal art” disciplines – Classics, Religious Study, Philosophy, etc, instead of sciences, sciences, and more sciences.</p>

<p>I do not claim that to be a good doctor, the student should be a hardcore science major. Actually, I believe the opposite is true (unless you want to go to a top research medical school or MD/PhD.) That is the reason why SOME people would believe that tech schools like Harvey Mudd, Caltech may not be good for premed. These schools educate you to be a good engineer or scientist. They serve different purposes.</p>

<p>The motivation for these students whose parents have been in this country for only one or two generations is likely that they do not feel “secure” when they major in “Folklore and Mythology.” Some of them are expected to make their own living right after they are graduated from college if they can not get into A medical school. They may be overly concerned about their backup plan. By overly worrying about their backup plan, it may not do them good if they are premed – because they tend to be not well-rounded.</p>

<p>My child has many friends who are doing nothing but research outside of the school work. They may even think joining clubs will jeapardize their future, i.e., wasting their valuable time that can be put into good use for building their “resume” for a science track work (in case they do not get into any medical school). This is because it is their belief that the research experience is very important to their career, just in case they fail to get into a medical school. These studenmts will never major in anything that does not have the perceceived “immediate utility” in their majors, even if they actually like one of these majors. (Their children or grandchildren may major in these :-))</p>

<p>Well, I agree with BDM that “both those applicants would probably be rejected.”</p>

44

<p>Although this thread has turnt into med students/ (post-premeds) with high credibility status on CC vs. Big G, I have to admit many of Big G’s remarks are very valid.</p>

<p>Med schools do not select for the hardest work, most intellectually inclined students (they might want to, but they do a poor job doing so at least). Med schools don’t compensate you for doing a lot of intellectual work in harder, more theoretical courses, in more grade deflated majors (engineering?..), more grade-deflated schools (caltech?). </p>

<p>“That is the reason why SOME people would believe that tech schools like Harvey Mudd, Caltech may not be good for premed. These schools educate you to be a good engineer or scientist. They serve different purposes.”</p>

<p>Since when was thinking analytically like a scientist bad for a doctor? That’s sth liberal-artsy I would say at least. Learning to think critically is of absolute importance. It’s probably not what you know that will help you in med school, but what you can figure out (after all, most of the factual information you learn as an undergrad won’t be applicable to med school. The reasoning abilities are always useful).</p>

<p>However, students from the big tech’s center (MIT, Caltech, Harvey Mudd, Berkeley…) suffer, not because they can’t think, but because they GPA’s aren’t inflated.</p>

<p>Please, I find it hypocritic claim to look for the best and brightest, those who have the brains to think critically/analytically, when the major criteria of importance is GPA/MCAT. </p>

<p>A student who cheated himself out of an education by taking grade-inflated courses in underwaterbasket-weaving major with a 3.8 GPA and who is a much poorer problem solver than a Caltech Engineer with a 3.0 GPA will still have a much better chance of getting in at least 1 med school. It’s a number game, regardless of how rosy/reasonable people paint it.</p>

45

<p>

Again, I don’t understand why we keep painting false dilemmas. Both students would be rejected.</p>

46

<p>How can you be sure? One at least gave himself a fighting chance till the interview. I was talking about probabilities, not about certainties.</p>

<p>Secondly, I was saying he was a “poorer problem solver” than the caltech engineer. I bet most med school students are also poorer problem solvers than Caltech-educated engineers.</p>

47

<p>No, because a student who actually majored in “basket-weaving” would be an obviously ridiculous candidate.</p>

48

<p>It wasn’t meant to be taken literally. Just to stand for a major lacking rigor (like what is claimed for nursing and vocational majors).</p>

49

<p>In response to your edit of post #46: if he’s that much worse a problem solver, the MCAT will demonstrate a noticeable gap.</p>

<p>Re #48: What representations did you have in mind? Communications, marketing, etc. would be extremely problematic.</p>

50

<p>I was thinking about having the “easy way out.” Many premeds will shy (rightfully) from difficult courses, often more interesting courses, to get high grades. As many people know, many humanities courses are more grade-inflated, and will help you tremendously for your MCAT (english is still the language in which the MCAT is taken isn’t it? :D). You aren’t likely to improve your problem-solving skills, by taking lighter courses.</p>

<p>If med schools truly prioritized the best and brightest, they should reward academic risk-taking. And NO, I don’t think 1 yr of organic chemistry is called “academic risk-taking.” Maybe, it’s because my standards are higher, but I don’t think Organic chemistry will be the worst of my problems in college (I was more thinking about quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, classical mechanics as "academic risk-taking)</p>

51

<p>1.) Engineers and other “problem-solving” majors are notorious for struggling through medical school because they try to take the same approach. Medical school doesn’t rely on quantitative problem solving; bluntly, it relies on regurgitation.</p>

<p>2.) English helps with the MCAT. That should tell you that despite being challenging, English majors nonetheless do a lot of critical analysis. There’s a reason the MCAT is entirely a verbal reasoning test – because that’s what medical schools have found is important.</p>

<p>2b.) If critical thinking skills are indeed measurably different, you’ll see gaps on the MCAT between various majors. And that helps medical schools screen amongst them.</p>

<p>3.) Everybody takes the premedical prerequisites, and those are the courses that are most scrutinized.</p>

<p>4.) If there’s a flaw in the system, it’s that the very high-level science courses are discouraged; things like advanced physics or chemistry. I can see this criticism.</p>

<p>5.) Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with the dilemma at hand, which is in regards to whether discrimination against vocational majors is a farce or is grounded in a legitimate discussion of the liberal arts curriculum. Needing to pay MORE attention to extremely advanced coursework doesn’t imply we should pay LESS attention to screening out vocational coursework.</p>

52

<p>I was pointing out it was hypocritic to claim the need to weed out vocational majors, when so little effort is spent weeding out those who find the “easy way out.”</p>

<ol>
<li>English does a lot of critical analysis… but you don’t need that much to get an A, especially when 50% of the class gets it.</li>
</ol>

<p>The MCAT is not a perfect test. Just like the SAT sucks for HS (and why top colleges rightfully scoff top SAT scores for other things like IMO, IPhO, USAMO etc…). Med schools probably should learn to move on also, instead of clinging to a flawed system.</p>

<ol>
<li>It’s also a question of work ethic. Secondly, Sb who thinks critically can regurgitate, but the converse is much rarer.</li>
</ol>

<p>I mean, there are plusses to the system. Valueing EC’s, experience, maturity etc… However, there so many flaws to it that there’s no reason to act conservative.</p>

53

<p>Am I not being clear? I am emphasizing that there ARE indeed plenty of screening out mechanisms.</p>

54

<p>I’ll have to disagree that children of immigrants (who sometimes have been here for less than a decade) are not well-rounded. I know three such girls who are all in science-related fields and attend excellent schools ( for pre-med, nursing and chemistry). THey have the most diverse interests, ranging from tango and theatre to languages, philosophy, religion… Their parents made it quite clear to them that every educated individual should know another language and be able to speak about literature, arts or politics, but pointed out that it doesn’t change the fact that they need to get a profession which could give them financial independence.</p>

<p>I know children who rebelled and went their own way. I know those who obeyed. Both accomplished a lot.</p>

55

<p>BDM, everyone takes the requirements, but some can take it differently. Some take the more difficult physics version (engineers), some take 2-3 science courses (which are more grade-deflated) at the same time, some take 1 course at a time… If you don’t account for that, the range of abilities of a 4.0 can cover is very wide.</p>

56

<p>The real problem is lack of space. The medical profession has failed its societal duty by limiting access to the profession. Hence we have foreign docs instead of US trained physicians in many areas.</p>

<p>Is anyone going to claim that foreign doctors are subjected to a competitive application process like US pre-meds? </p>

<p>Does anyone consider foreign doctor’s training to be as good as US medical training? If so why don’t we make US medical training a 5 or 6 year ubdergraduate major?</p>

57

<p>

Except that the MCAT really does measure future success in medical school and on the USMLE or, for osteopathic schools, the COMLEX.
<a href=“http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2009/June/Kent420.pdf[/url]”>http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2009/June/Kent420.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
[The</a> Predictive Validity of the MCAT for Medical School Perfo… : Academic Medicine](<a href=“Academic Medicine”>Academic Medicine)
[Undergraduate</a> Institutional MCAT Scores as Predictors of USM… : Academic Medicine](<a href=“Academic Medicine”>Academic Medicine)
[Relation</a> Between Variables of Preadmission, Medical School Performance, and COMLEX-USA Levels 1 and 2 Performance – Dixon 104 (8): 332 – Journal of the American Osteopathic Association](<a href=“http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/104/8/332]Relation”>http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/104/8/332)</p>

58

<p>

</p>

<p>It is probably true that a doctor may not need the knowledge that is learned by taking the engineering version of Physics.</p>

<p>Although my child took the engineering version of physics, he did not see anything wrong for others who choose to take the algebra-based version of physics. Granted, he is fully aware that those who take the lower-track version of physics can possibly allocate more times for their other pre-med classes (e.g., orgo in his case), he just could not allow himself to take that version of physics (because he might be bored to death and potentially did even worse on it because of the boredom.)</p>

<p>Depending on how you look at it, some may say that there may be a little bit “unfair” factor in this, but who says the world is a fair place?! Also, more importantly, as indicated by the contents of the physics portion of the MCAT test, medical schools may not particularly appreciate the extra efforts that you spend on mastering a more high level physics (or P-Chem, or advanced organic chemistry, etc.) Those courses are for SCIENTISTS or future researchers, not necessarily needed for an MD. – Well somewhat ironically, isn’t it true that like 80-90% of premeds claim that they have research experiences on their CV?</p>

59

<p>1.) At heart, organic chemistry is organic chemistry. Biology is biology. And at my university, engineering physics was much lighter and softer than premed physics. (I took the easiest set of all: physics-major physics.) Variation in course timing is fairly minimal; you need 10 science courses in your first two or three years. Majors don’t really diverge until junior/senior year, by which point most of the prereqs are over.</p>

<p>2.) And all this is beside the point. When medical schools admit probably around 10% of students who enter college as premeds, there is plenty of room to reject lots of people. And they do a pretty good job of screening them out already.</p>

<p>3.) Finally, there’s still the MCAT; there’s still screening for obvious joke majors; there’s still interviews and essays to determine basic speaking/writing coherence; there’s scrutinizing of coursework (when they know what it means); there’s letters of recommendation; there’s extracurricular experience.</p>

<p>4.) You continue trying to have it both ways. If you want schools to pay more attention to coursework and less to grades, well and good – feel free to start a new thread. But that would cause them to pay MORE attention to the differences in a nursing curriculum, not less.</p>

<p>5.) BigG: Don’t forget, our nursing shortage is much more acute than our physician shortage.</p>

60

<p>In response to edits in post #52:
–Well if English builds critical analysis and the kids are doing fine on the MCAT and (apparently) fine in medical school, who cares how many of them get A’s? The screening process is evidently working. College is not purely a screening mechanism; it should also be a place to build skills. And if that’s what’s happening as seen on the MCAT (where English majors score higher than biology) and in premedical prerequisites (where they evidently perform up to par), then who cares?</p>

<p>–For all the flaws in the MCAT, flaws in grades – even in top-level courses – are much worse. And thanks to GS for the links.</p>

<p>–It is simply wrong to assert that top-level colleges overlook the SAT. They rely on other metrics as well, of course… just as medical schools do.</p>

<p>–I can’t even tell what the rest of your post says from that point forward.</p>