<p>They don't "require it", but I'd be surprised to hear that (for example) UCSF had any acceptances from students without a bachelor's degree. Graduating in three years is another story entirely, of course.</p>
<p>(UCSF, however, has a very high percentage of non-trads, people who were not premeds as undergrads and move to medical school after several years in another career.)</p>
<p>"They don't "require it", but I'd be surprised to hear that (for example) UCSF had any acceptances from students without a bachelor's degree. Graduating in three years is another story entirely, of course."</p>
<p>What do you mean by "graduating in three years is another story?" What is the difference?</p>
<p>UCSF will accept applications from people who have completed the equivalent of three years of university (90 semester units). Those people however have not completed enough credits to actually receive a Bachelor's degree (usually at least 120 units).</p>
<p>On the other hand, some people do have enough credits to receive a Bachelor's degree and graduate, after only three years. They might have taken classes over the summer, or entered the university with credits from AP/IB courses. These people would be considered "equal" with people that completed a Bachelor's degree in 4 years, whereas the people without a Bachelor's degree would likely be at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm the wrong one here, but undergrad for me was awesome and the people sitting next to me at graduation (that were done in 4) all agreed it was not the happy day all the grandparents and relatives were making it out to be. I do know that there are people who don't like being in school and want to be done with it as soon as possible, but if you are going on to grad school, then technically that's not you.</p>
<p>I didn't set out to make any one feel bad about applying early, I just don't understand the basic logic unless there are very specific individual reasons one might have for not liking undergrad. And while I know the ends justify the means, I don't think that prevents me from disliking the means and how they make me feel. Like feeling guilty for doing anything that isn't studying, or causing me to essentially have lost 3 months b/c the week before a science exam is 8+ hours a day in the library</p>
<p>As for the "battle of brains" the problem the US has in this fight is not with the individuals going on to college and staying there, but in the way our k-12 education system is set up. Preventing vast swaths of youths from getting that far, failure to encourage achievement in math and science, and inequality even within school districts are the greater problems.</p>
<p>I guess I'll leave it as this, if you want to apply early and you have reasons that work for you - great. It's just not what I would have done nor what I would reccomend.</p>
<p>Bigmedred, for me I am very eager to go to medical school. While I do enjoy my undergrad years, I would much more wanted to go to medical school and learn more "applied" information. I know upper division classes in undergrad are pretty "applied" and you are basically going to study the same content in the first two years of medical school, but after those first two years it's going to be information that I really WANT to learn. Not that what I am learning right now is not interesting, but medical school is a step closer to something you can apply your knowledge to.</p>
<p>Btw, as for taking the MCAT, as of January 2007 the MCAT will be offered in a computerized format 22 times/year, so finding a time to take it won't be a problem (though students will be limited to no more than 3 tests per year)</p>
<p>Arahopee,</p>
<p>It is good to remember that you can't apply what you've learned until you've actually learned it, which is why you have more general (foundational) classes first. Can't discuss bacterial infection without cell membranes, and can't discuss those without organic chemistry.</p>
<p>BDM,</p>
<p>I realize that...of course you need a foundation...but what I am saying is that I will already be taking those classes and why not go to medical school a little earlier. I guess my situation is a little bit different though (for those who are confused)</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for the "battle of brains" the problem the US has in this fight is not with the individuals going on to college and staying there, but in the way our k-12 education system is set up. Preventing vast swaths of youths from getting that far, failure to encourage achievement in math and science, and inequality even within school districts are the greater problems.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I would say that it is all tied together and has to do with culture.</p>
<p>The fact is, sadly, the US has a strong anti-intellectual streak. In many Asian countries, those who study hard and perform well academically are feted. In the US, not so much. Studying is often times considered to be "not cool" and Americans who study hard have to constantly fend off accusations of nerdism and geekhood. This is especially so for Americans who are good at math and science. Let's be honest. There are a lot of Americans in K-12 who are just not serious about studying. They simply don't want to learn anything. That's because their parents and the culture have not taught them that learning is good. </p>
<p>You would think that this might end when you look at the college ranks. But it doesn't. Look at even the best universities in America and you will see plenty of students who are clearly not serious about their studies. They spend more time drinking and partying than they do studying. A lot of them don't really want to be there, but are there only because their parents want them to be there, or because they saw all their friends going to college, or because they inherently understand that they need a college degree to get a good job, or whatever it is. But they don't REALLY want to learn anything. </p>
<p>As a case in point, just look at our political leadership. George W. Bush has freely admitted that he basically was a drunk fratboy during his years at Yale. Even today, he laughs at his poor grades and poor work ethic while he was a college student. But John Kerry is no better. Kerry actually got a WORSE GPA at Yale than Bush did, and ended up with 5 D's at Yale, compared to 1 D for Bush. Kerry has freely admitted that he was more interested in flying airplanes than he was in studying. </p>
<p>Hence, the point is that one of the biggest problems that the US has is simple attitudes towards education. The sad fact is, a lot of American students, whether in K-12 or in college, are just not interested in studying hard, and American society does not really respect academic achievement. China and India have millions of students who are studying extremely hard in order the win the war of globalization. But in the US, there are too many kids who don't have good attitudes towards education. What the US needs, more than anything else, is a change in attitude to emphasize the fact that education really is something that you should want. Otherwise, you are going to continue to have all these students lolly-gagging around, doing as little as possible to get by, and just generally being extremely lazy.</p>
<p>Sakky,
Totally agree with your post and I would add that the attitude you describe regarding learning and education also carries over into the work force. I believe many of the problems you describe are based on the present sense of entitlement many have in this nation.</p>
<p>Sakky,
So what exactly is it that we are missing in America? It sure isn't doctors, lawyers, or business professionals. Do you mean we are lacking in engineers and research scientists? This can largely be attributed to the fact that engineers and research scientists need to put in a ton of effort, and yet do not get the same rewards in return (salary wise), especially when compared to your humanities-majoring lawyers and business professionals, rather than lack of desire to learn in the science and mathematics fields.</p>
<p>Actually, we are short on doctors, by most econometric analyses. This is an intentional decision on the part of the AAMC, though.</p>
<p>Yeah there is predicted to be quite a big shortage of docs in the years to come due to Baby Boomers. Yet medical schools don't want to take more people, funny isn't it.</p>
<p>It's hard to change nearly two decades worth of thinking. The AMA and the AAMC had been saying that there would be an abundance of doctors for a long, long time. It was something like 25 years between the opening of a new medical school when Florida State opened up in the late, late 90's or early 2000's. They are supposedly going to open up two new medical schools (at FAU and FIU) in the next 5-6 years I think I saw somewhere.</p>
<p>I know that my own school is going to be increasing class size by probably 25%, maybe even 33% in the next two years b/c they are building a brand new building for the College of Medicine. Should be interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to many measures, there is a shortage of physicians; some other measures indicate only a maldistribution of physicians in specialties and geographic regions. Some individual medical schools and the states of Florida and Oregon have active plans to increase medical school training capacity. See the article at <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/site/free/prsc0508.htm%5B/url%5D">www.ama-assn.org/amednews/site/free/prsc0508.htm</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Florida's and Oregon's efforts follow the Assn. of American Medical Colleges' recommendation for a 15% increase in medical school enrollment to meet projected demands for physicians. Some say a 30% increase may be needed, and most who are for this expansion also support lifting the cap on Medicare payments for medical residencies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
So what exactly is it that we are missing in America? It sure isn't doctors, lawyers, or business professionals.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I would say that we are certainly lacking doctors and anybody else in the health-care professions (nurses, pharmacists, physicians' assistants, etc.) . And from a simple, bone-dry economic analysis, we are lacking anything in which the salary is high. After all, basic economics dictates that high salaries are a signal of scarcity. The reason why doctors, lawyers, and businessmen make high salaries is because people want to hire them and utilize their skills If nobody wanted to utilize their skills, then they wouldn't be getting high salaries. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you mean we are lacking in engineers and research scientists? This can largely be attributed to the fact that engineers and research scientists need to put in a ton of effort, and yet do not get the same rewards in return (salary wise), especially when compared to your humanities-majoring lawyers and business professionals, rather than lack of desire to learn in the science and mathematics fields.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is EXACTLY what I am talking about, and I think what should happen is that engineering and science programs should reform themselves so as to remove some of the more draconian and reactionary aspects of their programs. Such as weeding. Such as heartless grading. </p>
<p>What you are actually getting at is that you are saying that it's a matter of incentives. I completely agree, but that just reinforces my point, which is that if the country really wants more scientists and engineers (and not just more lawyers and businessmen), then the country will have to provide more incentives. We have to change the incentive system.</p>
<p>As a case in point, there are plenty of kids in extremely poor neighborhoods who don't want to study. On the other hand, many of them spend hours and hours playing sports or singing/rapping. That's because these kids see that sports or rapping is the way out of the ghetto. The problem with that, of course, is that only a tiny fraction of those kids will ever become professional athletes or big-time entertainers, leaving the vast majority of those kids without marketable skills. If we want to change this to help more of these kids out of the ghetto, then we will need to change the incentive system. Similarly, if the country decides that it is truly in the national interest to have a strong engineering/science core, then it will need to change the incentive system to encourage more Americans to study engineering/science. Whether that means vastly increasing R&D spending (through tax incentives or large government engineering projects like the space program, etc.) which will create more science/engineering jobs, or simply outright paying students to study science/engineering (i.e. providing student loan forgiveness to those who graduate with degrees in science/engineering, or a system of scholarships to the best science/engineering students, or other related proposals), the idea is to encourage more Americans to study these subjects. </p>
<p>Another idea is for public universities to simply shut down some of its humanities programs and redirect that funding to create more science and engineering programs. Keep in mind that most public schools started off life as engineering, agricultural, and mining schools, and thus were founded with the express intent of creating graduates who would be trained in the skills that the government deemed to be in the public interest. Thus the government can say that that we want to direct state subsidies and policy to direct education in the national interest. You are free to study what you want, but you are not free to study under a state subsidy. Maybe a radical notion would be that science and engineering students could get more of a state subsidy than the humanities students would (especially those humanities majors which are notoriously easy), with the intent being that this would cause more students to switch from studying easy humanities to engineering. Let's face it. Right now, many state schools are effectively subsidizing laziness - lazy students who are just lollygagging around in easy classes in easy majors and who aren't doing anything, like Johnny Lechner. </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Lechner%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Lechner</a></p>
<p>What I would propose is that this 'laziness' be taxed through fewer (or no) state subsidies. This would be no different from the sin taxes currently imposed on tobacco and alcohol to discourage people from smoking or drinking. It is through these mechanisms by which you can shape national incentives.</p>
<p>Now, if the country decides that it isn't really in the national interest to create more engineers and scientists, then that's fine too. But then you shouldn't be surprised to see fewer and fewer Americans studying these fields and as a result, the US will become more and more dependent on foreign countries for technical and scientific expertise. If the US decides that it just wants to be a nation of businessmen and lawyers, then so be it.</p>