Has anyone been admitted to UBC without taking most/all of their Strongly Recommended Courses

[HopefulMD786 4]

I just wanted to know if people have been admitted without taking the STRONGLY RECOMMENDED COURSES.

 

I am not in a science degree but a Kinesiology degree so I haven’t taken any of these courses except for Biology and I want to know if that would prevent me from admission or hinder my chances.

 

thanks!

[frenchpress 407]

7 hours ago, HopefulMD786 said:

I just wanted to know if people have been admitted without taking the STRONGLY RECOMMENDED COURSES.

 

I am not in a science degree but a Kinesiology degree so I haven’t taken any of these courses except for Biology and I want to know if that would prevent me from admission or hinder my chances.

 

thanks!

Yes, all the time.  Most people may have at least one or two of the courses, like you, but there are also people with previous degrees in music, art, philosophy, etc. who didn’t take any science and entirely self-studied for the MCAT. The recommendation as I understand it is more intended for your benefit coming into the program than a selection criteria. Although if you have them, I suspect they are looked at as part of determining a general aptitude for science - otherwise there’s only really the MCAT, or other science courses that you may have, to demonstrate this.  

[medisforme 61]

I agree with the above post.  It is more for the benefit of getting a good start to medical school than it is for selection criteria.  On a personal level, I came into medical school from a nursing background, which is really quite devoid of basic science.  I was incredibly overwhelmed during the first 3-4 weeks of medical school as most of the material was relatively new to me, while it was essentially a simple review for most of the students (things like genetics, DNA science, bacterial translocation, cell biology etc...).  However, with a little extra studying i was able to keep afloat and managed just fine.

[Fast_Layne 75]

9 hours ago, medisforme said:

On a personal level, I came into medical school from a nursing background, which is really quite devoid of basic science. 

That's really interesting, I always thought nursing would require a substantial amount of foundational science. What sorts of things did your curriculum cover?

[medisforme 61]

the pre-requisites were bio 12 and chem 12.  The first and second year nursing curriculum consisted of 3 credits of superficial A&P, 3 credits of supercificial path and 1 credit of pharmacology.  No basic science taught.

[frenchpress 407]

On 8/2/2020 at 7:27 PM, Fast_Layne said:

That's really interesting, I always thought nursing would require a substantial amount of foundational science. What sorts of things did your curriculum cover?

Medicine is also pretty devoid of basic science I find, much more so than I expected. While bio chemistry courses were helpful to understand some some physiology and pathophysiology concepts, and there’s some high-school level science behind understanding some concepts, like drug pharmacokinetics or diffusion gradients or acidosis, I have found I don’t rely on much basic science for maybe 98% of my actual day-to-day clinical work. 

Edited August 8, 2020 by frenchpress

[Excel-erate Your Breath 146]

3 hours ago, frenchpress said:

Medicine is also pretty devoid of basic science I find, much more so than I expected. While bio chemistry courses were helpful to understand some some physiology and pathophysiology concepts, and there’s some high-school level science behind understanding some concepts, like drug pharmacokinetics or diffusion gradients or acidosis, I have found I don’t rely on much basic science for maybe 98% of my actual day-to-day clinical work. 

Good to know for those of us coming in from a "non trad" degree background! (i.e. not biochem/biomed)