I think that much of this discussion deserves a separate thread, though it touches on one of my complaints about medical professionals (and I have complained for decades, mostly to my family, as they are a captive audience). Most medical professionals I have encountered, including my HS and college classmates who became doctors, do not typically use critical reasoning skills. (Not to say that they don’t possess such skills, just that they are underused.)
I know I’ll get ripped apart for that opinion, but realize it is just that - an opinion. Doctors seem to be very good at memorization, and can run down their checklists of questions when assessing a patient. I realize that it makes sense to start there, as most maladies fit a condition on the checklist,. However, when symptoms fall outside of the checklist, or you start asking questions - very reasonable questions given the situation - you get dismissed because you are not a medical professional. I saw it on these forums when COVID hit - people asking reasonable questions, then being told to keep quiet because they weren’t in medicine.
All of this is a long way to say that while organic chemistry might not be used by most doctors, there is a reason behind courses that require critical thinking skills. I am an engineer, though I rarely use any math beyond basic elementary school arithmetic. However, development and use of critical thinking skills is important in assessing situations that fall a little outside of the norm.
And what about English courses that require literary analysis and formal essays? Schools require those courses because they help develop critical thinking, not because an employer is going to require an essay on Pride and Prejudice.
The so-called weed out courses typically require critical thinking. For that reason, I vote for such courses to remain.
You have a point. Critical thinking skills and a broad education/experience are important to development of every individual in any profession.
But that level of importance is unique to each individual and to each profession.
However, there are many people (e.g. Steven Jobs, Bill Gates, John D Rockefeller, Abraham Lincoln,
George Washington) who did great things or made great contributions to our society with a relative paucity of formal education.
I do appreciate a lot of what I learned in college because I feel more rounded .But I am merely being honest that I feel that in retrospect (after 30 years) my college education has not been useful in day to day activities in my profession. With regard to my college courses, I am much more appreciative of my elective classes than the medical school pre-requisites that I took. If I could do it over again, I would have rather taken more electives than pre-requisite courses (which were fewer than they are now.) Those electives help remind me that there is large world outside of medicine and that knowledge and those experiences give me better balance in my life.
What was really transformative for me was my experience during my residency and fellowship where I worked with very experienced seniors residents and attendings. I learned a lot by watching them deal with tough cases as well how they dealt with all types of patients. I learned critical thinking skills as it relates to the practice of medicine from them. I also learned how empathy for others is important to every patient encounter and that everyone has a voice. I also appreciated how they actively helped guide me and mentor me. Every day, I try to emulate my role models and IMO they had a much more lasting impact in my career and how I approach my craft on a daily basis.
This basically sums up my everything I have to say - which is just a personal opinion from an older physician. I don’t feel like debating my opinion any longer. As a humble physician, I would never consider debating what skills or education are important to a lawyer, engineer, or businessperson because I don’t have their perspective or have ever sat in their shoes.
Every single student I know who has it is applying to medical school has been a scribe. I’m in a medical field and know a lot of pre-meds and medical students. It is great for learning medical terminology and shadowing.
However, every single one of them also thinks they are doing something unique that will get the attention of medical schools. As someone who works for a medical school, it does not. It checks a box.
Med schools in countries that admit directly after high school, have two or three pre-clinical years in which those sciences are being taught. And yes, there are exams at the end and not everyone makes it through to clinicals.
The quality of the teaching may vary from country to country and from institution to institution. But there is no reason whatsoever that whether the name on on the building where those preclinical science classes are taking place is “college” or “med school” should have any bearing on that.
I haven’t been able to read all these comments, because there are just too many, but I do have an opinion on teaching. As a past student and now parent, I see the positive benefit and the increased learning, when the educator’s goal is to make sure their students understand and progress. All teachers could benefit from having a “leave no man behind” attitude, otherwise they are just acting as proctors and the students are teaching themselves. There is no reason why a great number of students have to pay extra for tutors, if the teaching is lacking. This just creates a false story, that most kids get it, just a third are stupid…it is more likely the third could not afford the tutor, dollar or time-wise.
Remember that movie about the Californian math teacher who got his whole class As on some exam, only for the exam board to say they must have cheated? He was just a good teacher (and man)!
There is another math teacher from Wales in the UK, where it wasn’t expected that the population would have done as well as his class did. Again, an awesome teacher.
So, if a good number of students are struggling, that has to say something about your methods.
Well, none of them needed to pay extra for tutors, because help was available via office hours. But from previous statements, it sounds like the struggling students didn’t attend those either. The students that did attend were already doing fine in the class.
It may be a nice slogan but how do you do that if some students in the class are vastly unprepared/underprepared relative to others in the same class? Do you lower the standard for the whole class? Do you reduce the pace of the course and cover less material? Or perhaps these students just aren’t ready to take the same class?
The only way to ensure this is either strictly control quality as students are entering the university – non holistic admissions with an entrance exam, or control access to classes one at a time where the professor decides on a case by case basis whether a kid is prepared to take the course. Neither are popular.
I think that may be an admirable approach when dealing with the mandatory public education of children. However, when adults are voluntarily choosing to spend their time and money in an activity, I would not expect the class to cater to the unwilling or incapable. There were other options for students; no one forced them to enroll in this course.
Oh people above,
Excuse me, as I thought we were talking about education and good teaching practice. I didn’t realize it was all the kids’ fault for thinking they should, 1, know everything already and 2, teach themselves or find a tutor.
Of course kids should go to class and get extra help, if the professor is offering some. If it was stated that the kids didn’t do that in the articles posted above, then please cut and paste because I do not have subscriptions for NYT or WSJ or all these paywall journals.
Supposedly, AOs are so great at knowing who will fit in their schools, that I’d be very surprised if those chosen weren’t just perfectly right for their classes.
The central premise with which we disagree is that these young adults eager to be doctors are no longer “kids”. If one wants to make it to medical school, one needs to show maturity and personal responsibility in the college years.
Not everyone said that. Plenty of users, either here or on other sites, said there was more than enough blame to spread around. Which seems, to me, a more measured response on an internet message board than the outlier opinion that the students were entirely at fault or that the instructor was entirely at fault or that NYU was entirely at fault. It’s easy to make such judgement when not knowing all the facts (which none of us do). But it being easy does not make it right.
If we are talking general education, I agree that that a base level of knowledge and skills should be taught and expected for every student and a greater onus should be on the teacher and school system, but how do you feel about “tracking” students where they are placed in classes with students of comparable skill levels from elementary schools? It is one thing to leave no one behind. It is another to teach to the lowest common denominator. Or worse yet, create lower standards and expectations, so that administrators can declare “victory” with no substance.
