A-Stark Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 The licencing exams are there for a reason, including proof of competency. When you read the MCCQE Part 1, I suspect you'll wonder whether it was testing anything other than language comprehension (and even then...) let alone competency. Anyway, Mac used to have the highest LMCC failure rates in the country, but I not think this has been routinely true for a long time. I think requiring some basic science background is reasonable for med school, and for schools that require the MCAT but not prerequisites, such a background is still needed either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 The majority of Canadian schools have science Reqs or evaluate science through the BS and PS of the MCAT. Mac is the only one that does not evaluate ANY science. True although the majority of schools have almost as much arts prerequisites as science. In both cases those prereqs are pretty meager at best. TO and their 9/9/9/N (with an 8 allowed as well) isn't exactly reaching for the upper bounds of things for example. Also the MCAT which is probably the most researched tool in the entire process of medical applications in the world contains about 1/2 arts and 1/2 science. That is really the most compelling things to me - I get worried when people stray too far away from a centralized few on things. Medicine is a science, Medicine is an art - it pretty much always has been. I believe that even more now having gone through medical school than ever. Is VR a direct correlator to end performance as a doctor? - the studies have only shown that it is related to test performance mostly, which is not exactly the same thing. It would make sense to me that VR would be closest linked to testing as some have argued it is the closed part of the test to IQ (which is one reason they argue it harder to raise your score in VR than any other section), and interpreting test questions well is a VR related skill. On that relates well to the bed side is a hard thing to exactly measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 When you read the MCCQE Part 1, I suspect you'll wonder whether it was testing anything other than language comprehension (and even then...) let alone competency. . Ha - it really is such a random test Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 If you take a look at the TOP 5 medical schools in the world according to QS, they are:1. Harvard-Requires science prerequisites (As do 99% of all other American MD schools) 2. Oxford- For graduate entry requires a degree in one of the following areas: anatomy, biochemistry etc. see full list here: http://www.medsci.ox.ac.uk/study/medicine/accelerated/prospectus/how-to-apply/qualifying-degrees-for-the-graduate-entry-medical-course NOTE: All are science degrees 3. Cambridge- A levels or IB- Equiv to first year chem, physics, bio etc. 4. Standford- Biology, Chehmsiry, Physics- Full year 5. Yale- Bio chem, orgo, physics The top 5 medical programs in the world require a SCIENCE background one way or another. Medicine is a science based discipline; hence, only logical that you would need a science background before entering. Mac is not the highest ranked school in Canada/world for a reason. Furthermore, please dont argue that Mac is amazing because the created MMI and PBL. These are both amazing things, but have nothing to do with prerequisites to a program. The worlds top trained physicians come from schools with science backgrounds. An arts major who has never taken a science course in their degree should NOT enter medicine. There are always exceptions and some people may be able to scrape by. As to becoming anything more than a fam doc, that is another question. Where are you in your training? Are you in medical school yet? No offense but it's a little bit naive to hold basic science courses on such a pedestal. How much physics or chemistry do you think you need to comprehend what is taught in medical school? Anything that is taught is so basic that those basic scientific concepts are included in the lesson. Also it's interesting that you mention the top trained physicians came from schools with science prereqs- what evidence do you have for that? What are you basing that on? Also the comments about how you could "barely scrape by" and be a family doctor vs. a specialist were interesting. Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangbangbang Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Where are you in your training? Are you in medical school yet? No offense but it's a little bit naive to hold basic science courses on such a pedestal. How much physics or chemistry do you think you need to comprehend what is taught in medical school? Anything that is taught is so basic that those basic scientific concepts are included in the lesson. Also it's interesting that you mention the top trained physicians came from schools with science prereqs- what evidence do you have for that? What are you basing that on? Also the comments about how you could "barely scrape by" and be a family doctor vs. a specialist were interesting. Care to elaborate? I am currently completing a PhD in pure mathematics as part of the U of T MD/PhD program. I can say for a fact that my quantitative reasoning skills have come in handy a LOT! In my opinion, someone who can get an A+ in discrete math and algorithm analysis is more suited for medicine than someone that can write fluffy thoughts on an essay. Furthermore, ALL top researchers at my school (U of T) come from a science background. I am not just making up facts on the spot, I ****in know what I am talking about. Also, not to sound rude, but you will not see an artsy person with an arts major becoming a top reasearcher is such fields as pathology, genetics, and rads. Arts students will def have more empathy and will likely choose a specialty with more patient contact. Name one world class researcher in a pure MEDICAL field that has a pure arts background; it's next to none. @nurtritionrunner Psychology and social sciences is not what I am talking about and last I checked no psychologists are trying to find the cure to cancer. Pure MEDICAL science is what I am talking about, not social sciences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tournesol Posted June 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Man oh man I log off for like 24 hours and this is what this thread becomes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lactic Folly Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 last I checked no psychologists are trying to find the cure to cancer. Pure MEDICAL science is what I am talking about, not social sciences. Are you trying to rank the relative worth of different fields of research? Is there a link between psychology and cancer? http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress Should we be working more on CT screening for lung cancer, or interventions to stop people from starting smoking or to help them to quit (which would involve principles of health psychology of course)? I think you underestimate the value of interdisciplinary work in achieving progress in a field. As an aside, I previously read a study (don't have the reference offhand) that did not find that medical students with an arts background were more empathetic than those with a science background; however, there was some trend among arts students to choose psychiatry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lactic Folly Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 Man oh man I log off for like 24 hours and this is what this thread becomes... lol. Sorry tournesol. Back to your question... do you know what the reason is for your previous average performance in the physical sciences? Do you perhaps not have the strongest foundation in your earlier studies? Might be worth going back and reviewing basic concepts so that everything is solid before you progress to higher level topics. If you have good self-learning ability, I think that you can cover the MCAT material if you give yourself enough time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NutritionRunner Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 @nurtritionrunner Psychology and social sciences is not what I am talking about and last I checked no psychologists are trying to find the cure to cancer. Pure MEDICAL science is what I am talking about, not social sciences. The social determinants of health play a major role in disease outcomes, therefore research examining these types of issues ARE, in fact, MEDICAL research! If you don't think that there are psychologists and social scientists examining different types of cancer, and how various factors affect cancer outcomes in patients, then I don't know what to say. That type of research is just as important as the research into the physiological causes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-Stark Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 I am currently completing a PhD in pure mathematics as part of the U of T MD/PhD program. I can say for a fact that my quantitative reasoning skills have come in handy a LOT! In my opinion, someone who can get an A+ in discrete math and algorithm analysis is more suited for medicine than someone that can write fluffy thoughts on an essay. Furthermore, ALL top researchers at my school (U of T) come from a science background. I am not just making up facts on the spot, I ****in know what I am talking about. Also, not to sound rude, but you will not see an artsy person with an arts major becoming a top reasearcher is such fields as pathology, genetics, and rads. Arts students will def have more empathy and will likely choose a specialty with more patient contact. Name one world class researcher in a pure MEDICAL field that has a pure arts background; it's next to none. I find it rather incredible that you are aware of the undergraduate backgrounds of "ALL" top researchers at UofT. I do know one guy with an architecture (applied arts, I suppose) background who matched to radiology this year. But he's not quite a researcher (top or otherwise) yet so I guess it's an unworthy point. Oh, and by the way... pure mathematics is about as divorced from anything applied or empirical as you can get. I'm sure there are some applications here and there, but as someone with an applied math and statistics background, I found stuff like graph theory and groups interesting but far too removed from empirical phenomena. At the same time, I also have an honours BA in political science. The idea that people in social science sit around writing "fluffy" papers is so laughable I don't even know where to start. A high degree of rigour and drive is required, and I still don't know any type of work that is more difficult to stay on track with than essay writing. For that matter, even first-year English tends to require considerable reading and attention to detail. Discrete math and algorithm analysis are much better preparation for future computer scientists than physicians. Not that it's irrelevant, but I can't say I've used any of my inference or analysis classes in medicine either. In any case, I'd suggest you jettison the smug superiority and arrogance. Why, even I got into the Stats PhD program at UofT! @nurtritionrunnerPsychology and social sciences is not what I am talking about and last I checked no psychologists are trying to find the cure to cancer. Pure MEDICAL science is what I am talking about, not social sciences. Find the "cure to cancer"? This is just a lay term which presupposes to existence of some Holy Grail treatment that will cure all tumours in all circumstances without any significant morbidity. It's a complete fantasy. Do you know nothing about oncology or something? We already cure cancer everyday, and treatment will always involve some combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. Or do you think that only researchers involved in cancer research are of value? We'd do a lot better on health outcomes if we more effectively tackled systemic poverty and low incomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted June 7, 2013 Report Share Posted June 7, 2013 I never said that Mac wasn't producing competent physicians. Any school around the world can train a competent physician (Carib, Ireland etc.). As for producing the BEST OVERALL physicians. People often forget, medicine is not only clinical. I believe that Mac would produce excellent clinical physicians. Then we look to another HUGE side of medicine: research. Research is the backbone of every clinician; without research, medicine would not continue to adapt. New viruses, diseases, pathogens, illnesses are developed every year. Without research, medicine would be stuck in the dark ages and know one would be cured. I can say for a fact that an arts student with no science undergrad background is NOT going to turn into a cutting edge researcher. Research is very specific and is pure SCIENCE. Mac may be producing good clinical physicians, but when looking at the research side of medicine, the no science background does not help. Moreover, I don't know any cutting edge researchers that came from an Arts undergrad having never taken a science course prior to entering medicine. Name One; they dont exist. This is a little overly focused on research isn't it? I mean you are a phd/md - and your world revolves around advancing the science and that is good. I have a masters degree in artificial intelligence so we even overlap in some areas of understanding and I agree that advancement is extremely important. Still you represent an extreme minority of doctors - most of which do no research at all. Clinical medicine after all it most of what is done. and it is pretty hard to find anyone that didn't do a single science course, just like it is extremely hard to find someone who did absolutely no humanities either if for no other reason as the breath requirements in most degrees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviathan Posted June 8, 2013 Report Share Posted June 8, 2013 I am currently completing a PhD in pure mathematics as part of the U of T MD/PhD program. I can say for a fact that my quantitative reasoning skills have come in handy a LOT! In my opinion, someone who can get an A+ in discrete math and algorithm analysis is more suited for medicine than someone that can write fluffy thoughts on an essay. Furthermore, ALL top researchers at my school (U of T) come from a science background. I am not just making up facts on the spot, I ****in know what I am talking about. Also, not to sound rude, but you will not see an artsy person with an arts major becoming a top reasearcher is such fields as pathology, genetics, and rads. Arts students will def have more empathy and will likely choose a specialty with more patient contact. Name one world class researcher in a pure MEDICAL field that has a pure arts background; it's next to none. @nurtritionrunner Psychology and social sciences is not what I am talking about and last I checked no psychologists are trying to find the cure to cancer. Pure MEDICAL science is what I am talking about, not social sciences. Most physicians aren't involved in research, and I agree that a background in sciences is helpful for those who want to do so. For clinical medicine, which I thought the discussion was about, I think it's mostly irrelevant whether you have that background. Medical school itself and then residency provide you with all the foundation knowledge needed to become a good physician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddyhello85 Posted June 8, 2013 Report Share Posted June 8, 2013 ... realized my post was irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.