The preliminary recommendations for the next version of the MCAT® exam in 2015

[Freedom]

https://www.aamc.org/initiatives/mr5/preliminary_recommendations/182498/preliminary_recommendations.html

[DeeDoc]

They're idiots

[John007h]

socialsci and humanities majors =/= medicine prodigies

 

Every family physician and surgeon tells me unequivocally that the de-emphasizing of science backgrounds as a requirement for medicine is a major setback hurting the profession.

 

AAMC clearly thinks handicapping science majors and giving more opportunities for socsci/humanities majors is the way to go, which I think is backwards.

 

imo you can teach communication skills.. you can not teach a passion for science in 2 years...

[BillNye]

Not to mention it's going to be a pain for med schools to come up with different regulations and phase old scores out. Either they're going to have to require new-model scores for everyone applying, or for five years deal with two separate sets of cutoffs for tests that are evaluating different skill sets. Is it going to be possible to have a score on the new test that can be made equal with a score on the old test?

 

With this fairly heavy list of cons I'm failing to see a comparable list of pros. I think that med schools who have an interest in candidates with more social science exposure should make that evident in their prerequisite requirements.

[alabaster]

They should just switch to a House based theme. One question, 10 symptoms, endless possibilities!

 

In reality: That's a little ridiculous. I don't think it is a bad idea to phase out a lot of the Newtonian physics stuff. Some more emphasis on pure biology over orgo might be good. Keep VR, keep WS.

[TheBoss]

I'm glad that at least they're taking out the writing sample; studies have shown time and time again that it adds no predictive power to the MCAT with regards to future performance. The US schools phased it out of their criteria a long time ago and I think it's about time it was eliminated completely.

[Sebriz]

I like it. Seems like it would be more fun to study for

[lovestruck]

So more biology (biochem, etc) and now a social/psych section as well as less physics/orgo and no WS?

 

That doesn't sound tooooo bad. Even if you have no background in psych or soc, it's a whole lot easier to teach yourself (and more interesting IMO) then physics or orgo! I also think it's necessary to add it in there. Most schools require some sort of humanities prereq, so it is something that is important to adcoms.

 

I don't think they are trying to push away science majors. I read an article from Harvard saying this will actually push away non-science majors, since now they don't just take intro science courses, but need more advanced courses to cover the higher level of biochem on the test (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/4/11/students-mcat-new-more/).

 

What I don't like is making it 7 hours long. The next longest test is the LSAT which is 4 hours, so that makes the MCAT almost double! I don't see how they are going to split the time up either. Also, what happens to VR? I didn't quite get that.

[nick]

I can't say I'm surprised they're eliminating the writing section. It was the only human part of the exam, and the med school admissions process feels like being fed through a dehumanizing Kafka-esque meat grinder of bureaucratic torture. Oh well, it'll save the AAMC a buck.

 

The WS is important because it's the only reliable example of the applicant's written communication. Applicants are given all the time in the world to write personal statements, and can have others review them or even write them, so it does not demonstrate that a candidate can use words.

[Larrivee]

I can't say I'm surprised they're eliminating the writing section. It was the only human part of the exam, and the med school admissions process feels like being fed through a dehumanizing Kafka-esque meat grinder of bureaucratic torture. Oh well, it'll save the AAMC a buck.

 

The WS is important because it's the only reliable example of the applicant's written communication. Applicants are given all the time in the world to write personal statements, and can have others review them or even write them, so it does not demonstrate that a candidate can use words.

 

Many schools have English prereq's actually, which I believe are much better indicators of a person's ability to write. I agree with them chucking it... it is, in my opinion, meaningless.

 

I think o-chem/biochem, genetics, cell bio, anatomy, and VR should be the main focus. I think that gpa and mcat should be academic evaluators used to cut the applicant pool down to a specific size, and from there on it should be based on MMI interview used to evaluate skills in social sciences/humanities etc. I am too lazy to explain this in detail, but that is my opinion in a nutshell.

[nick]

Many schools have English prereq's actually, which I believe are much better indicators of a person's ability to write. I agree with them chucking it... it is, in my opinion, meaningless.

 

I think o-chem/biochem, genetics, cell bio, anatomy, and VR should be the main focus. I think that gpa and mcat should be academic evaluators used to cut the applicant pool down to a specific size, and from there on it should be based on MMI interview used to evaluate skills in social sciences/humanities etc. I am too lazy to explain this in detail, but that is my opinion in a nutshell.

 

Fair enough; I forgot English classes.

[kylamonkey]

What I don't like is making it 7 hours long. The next longest test is the LSAT which is 4 hours, so that makes the MCAT almost double! I don't see how they are going to split the time up either.

 

I wrote the last sitting of the old paper exam back in 2006 (I wrote it for fun, and look where it got me!) and it took more than 9 hours. It's a test of human endurance, it really is.

 

I'd like to add that I kind of *like* that it's a test of endurance, because we all know that the practice of medicine is too...

[AtomSmasher]

Here's my evaluation of the new MCAT.

 

The good:

 

- No more writing sample. A writing sample, marked SUBJECTIVELY, has no place in a STANDARDIZED test. And since when do doctors need to write persuasive essays? Never. The fact is that scientific writing, and writing to be marked by a bunch of snooty english major hipsters getting paid $12 an hour are two completely different things.

 

The bad:

 

- Less physics, less orgo, more biochem. Physics and orgo were great for weeding out the knuckleheads who simply don't have the cognitive ability to handle concept-based material. Instead, there's going to be more of a focus on biochem and molecular bio, which is going to come down to A) more memorization, therefore less understanding and more high yield tips to be plundered and sold by prep companies.

 

- The new test is 7 hours long, up from 5. Symbolic of the fact that society demands more and more from doctors while giving less and less in return for entitlement reasons ("Everyone has the right to free healthcare!"). Some would argue that healthcare is a universal need, and should therefore be free. Food is also a universal need, does that mean grocery stores should be free? Water is also a universal need, does that mean that water bills should be free? Shelter is also a universal need, does that mean rent should be free? But I digress...

 

- The new social sciences section is where they really fell off the wagon. This decision was based on the counterproductive new fad that our doctors should be more personable people, and the delusional assumption that taking humanities courses makes you more personable. The "logic" behind this makes me want to PUKE.

 

The strategy of the new MCAT will essentially boil down to this: Wait until 2018 when the prep companies have butchered the test for all it's high yield sociology and biochem facts, memorize them, write the test, and enjoy the 10-10-10-10 it will take to meet the bull**** cutoffs the canadian med schools will arbitrarily choose. Except for Mac, which will only require the social sciences section, because nobody there seems to have a clue about real life. Sorry Mac.

 

IMO, there should be a Canadian specific version of the MCAT. There is 3x as much competition for medical school admissions in Canada compared to the US, so the test in Canada should be harder to differentiate between applicants that are Bad vs. Below Average vs. Average vs. Above Average vs. Excellent. The existing MCAT doesn't do this, where in Canada, 9 or below = you suck, 10-11 = about average, 12-15 = pretty good. But the scoring would be done in such a way that the US and Canada MCAT scores are interconvertible.

[lovestruck]

Here's my evaluation of the new MCAT.

 

The good:

 

- No more writing sample. A writing sample, marked SUBJECTIVELY, has no place in a STANDARDIZED test. And since when do doctors need to write persuasive essays? Never. The fact is that scientific writing, and writing to be marked by a bunch of snooty english major hipsters getting paid $12 an hour are two completely different things.

 

The bad:

 

- Less physics, less orgo, more biochem. Physics and orgo were great for weeding out the knuckleheads who simply don't have the cognitive ability to handle concept-based material. Instead, there's going to be more of a focus on biochem and molecular bio, which is going to come down to A) more memorization, therefore less understanding and more high yield tips to be plundered and sold by prep companies.

 

- The new test is 7 hours long, up from 5. Symbolic of the fact that society demands more and more from doctors while giving less and less in return for entitlement reasons ("Everyone has the right to free healthcare!"). Some would argue that healthcare is a universal need, and should therefore be free. Food is also a universal need, does that mean grocery stores should be free? Water is also a universal need, does that mean that water bills should be free? Shelter is also a universal need, does that mean rent should be free? But I digress...

 

- The new social sciences section is where they really fell off the wagon. This decision was based on the counterproductive new fad that our doctors should be more personable people, and the delusional assumption that taking humanities courses makes you more personable. The "logic" behind this makes me want to PUKE.

 

The strategy of the new MCAT will essentially boil down to this: Wait until 2018 when the prep companies have butchered the test for all it's high yield sociology and biochem facts, memorize them, write the test, and enjoy the 10-10-10-10 it will take to meet the bull**** cutoffs the canadian med schools will arbitrarily choose. Except for Mac, which will only require the social sciences section, because nobody there seems to have a clue about real life. Sorry Mac.

 

IMO, there should be a Canadian specific version of the MCAT. There is 3x as much competition for medical school admissions in Canada compared to the US, so the test in Canada should be harder to differentiate between applicants that are Bad vs. Below Average vs. Average vs. Above Average vs. Excellent. The existing MCAT doesn't do this, where in Canada, 9 or below = you suck, 10-11 = about average, 12-15 = pretty good. But the scoring would be done in such a way that the US and Canada MCAT scores are interconvertible.

 

Really....?

 

I think few people would argue with the fact that food, water and shelter is a human right. The idea isn't that it should be FREE but that it should be ATTAINABLE (i.e. in one's country, they should be able to obtain a job that can provide enough income to buy food, water and shelter). I guess those of use that have never bothered with becoming "personable people" read things a little more black and white then others?

 

I also COMPLETELY disagree with your statement about physics and orgo. Are you saying that all people who are not inclined in those subjects are also unable to think critically and don't have the brain power to handle problem solving? Yet another huge overgeneralization on your part. I've met physics/chem majors who can derive and solve concept-based until there hands fall off but couldn't understand the basics of an action potential. I've also met molecular bio majors who memorized all orgo mechanisms instead of learning any of them. I think one's ability to reason and problem solve is based on personal intellect, not on their strength's in physics and chemistry. And if we're being so practical to say that a doctor will never have to write a personal essay, when will a doctor need to know the velocity of a train moving northeast? Or 23234 organic chem reactions?

 

The social sciences sections is what it is. I agree that it most likely won't be helpful in determining the best meds candidate. But I don't think the physical sciences are helpful either. If we're being brutal, the only useful section is verbal since it's the only one that has been found to correlate with meds success.

 

As for the Canadian specific version: what was your MCAT score? Did you get 15/15/15T? Because your new "ratings" scale is so ridiculous that it could only come from someone who aced the MCAT and thinks quite poorly of anyone who scores below a 15. I think there should be a Canadian version that focuses on passages using Canadian not American history, the metric system, etc.

[AtomSmasher]

Really....?

 

I think few people would argue with the fact that food, water and shelter is a human right. The idea isn't that it should be FREE but that it should be ATTAINABLE (i.e. in one's country, they should be able to obtain a job that can provide enough income to buy food, water and shelter). I guess those of use that have never bothered with becoming "personable people" read things a little more black and white then others?

 

I also COMPLETELY disagree with your statement about physics and orgo. Are you saying that all people who are not inclined in those subjects are also unable to think critically and don't have the brain power to handle problem solving? Yet another huge overgeneralization on your part. I've met physics/chem majors who can derive and solve concept-based until there hands fall off but couldn't understand the basics of an action potential. I've also met molecular bio majors who memorized all orgo mechanisms instead of learning any of them. I think one's ability to reason and problem solve is based on personal intellect, not on their strength's in physics and chemistry. And if we're being so practical to say that a doctor will never have to write a personal essay, when will a doctor need to know the velocity of a train moving northeast? Or 23234 organic chem reactions?

 

The social sciences sections is what it is. I agree that it most likely won't be helpful in determining the best meds candidate. But I don't think the physical sciences are helpful either. If we're being brutal, the only useful section is verbal since it's the only one that has been found to correlate with meds success.

 

As for the Canadian specific version: what was your MCAT score? Did you get 15/15/15T? Because your new "ratings" scale is so ridiculous that it could only come from someone who aced the MCAT and thinks quite poorly of anyone who scores below a 15. I think there should be a Canadian version that focuses on passages using Canadian not American history, the metric system, etc.

 

Rights

 

Guess what? You don't have the right to live. You could have a heart attack and die right now. You could step outside and get hit by lightning. You could die in a car accident.

 

First off, given that you don't have the right to live, you also don't have the right to material goods required to live either. Because let's say you for some reason couldn't find any cheap food. Who's going to give you some?

 

Second, this touches on a deeper issue concerning rights. You can't have the right to a positive, you can only have a right a negative. For example, you have the right to NOT be subject to racial discrimination. Why? In order to have a right, there has to be a specific person who violated your right. In this case, it would be your interviewer. If your right gets violated, you can tell that person to stop, and the problem is solved.

 

But let say you do have the right to food. If your "right" was violated, who's fault is it? Society's fault? Now everybody has to be punished, even people who weren't responsible for you not having food in the first place. That's not fair to the people who weren't involved. Which is why you can't have a right for a positive.

 

Third, notwithstanding all of the above, healthcare costs thousands of dollars. Food is cheap, healthcare is not. Even if you did have the right to $3000 per year of food, you don't have the right to $100,000 worth of medical care.

 

MCAT scoring

 

1) Any score above 12 is meaningless. The difference between a 15 and a 14 is 1 question. The difference between a 15 and a 12 is 4 questions. These differences hardly reflect intelligence on the part of the testee. They reflect A) test taking skills and dumb luck. What if you misread a question? This happens to anybody regardless of their intelligence, and is not indicative of future performance. That's why I say that scores above 12 don't reflect higher intelligence, but rather, the factors I just mentioned.

 

2) Given that almost everybody in Canada scores at least 10, that puts you in one of three categories: 10, 11, or 12-15. This isn't enough spread to let the adcoms know who is really good, and who just spent 4 weeks hungover in a princeton review course.

[TheBoss]

Really....?

 

I think few people would argue with the fact that food, water and shelter is a human right. The idea isn't that it should be FREE but that it should be ATTAINABLE (i.e. in one's country, they should be able to obtain a job that can provide enough income to buy food, water and shelter). I guess those of use that have never bothered with becoming "personable people" read things a little more black and white then others?

I also COMPLETELY disagree with your statement about physics and orgo. Are you saying that all people who are not inclined in those subjects are also unable to think critically and don't have the brain power to handle problem solving? Yet another huge overgeneralization on your part.

I think you're being hypocritical here by indirectly insulting atom based on his post, and then accuse him of making overgeneralizations.

I've met physics/chem majors who can derive and solve concept-based until there hands fall off but couldn't understand the basics of an action potential. I've also met molecular bio majors who memorized all orgo mechanisms instead of learning any of them. I think one's ability to reason and problem solve is based on personal intellect, not on their strength's in physics and chemistry. And if we're being so practical to say that a doctor will never have to write a personal essay, when will a doctor need to know the velocity of a train moving northeast? Or 23234 organic chem reactions?

The MCAT I took happened to have a lot of orgo. Almost all of it was conceptual; you couldn't have gotten by from memorizing reactions/mechanisms. I also found this to be the trend in practice tests, which were taken from old MCATs.

[tooty]

since it's a standardized test, it won't be easier or harder. looks like it's a change for the better tho. the new psych/soc section looks pretty fun with its graph interpretations and inductive reasoning.

[tooty]

Rights

 

Guess what? You don't have the right to live. You could have a heart attack and die right now. You could step outside and get hit by lightning. You could die in a car accident.

 

First off, given that you don't have the right to live, you also don't have the right to material goods required to live either. Because let's say you for some reason couldn't find any cheap food. Who's going to give you some?

 

Second, this touches on a deeper issue concerning rights. You can't have the right to a positive, you can only have a right a negative. For example, you have the right to NOT be subject to racial discrimination. Why? In order to have a right, there has to be a specific person who violated your right. In this case, it would be your interviewer. If your right gets violated, you can tell that person to stop, and the problem is solved.

 

But let say you do have the right to food. If your "right" was violated, who's fault is it? Society's fault? Now everybody has to be punished, even people who weren't responsible for you not having food in the first place. That's not fair to the people who weren't involved. Which is why you can't have a right for a positive..

 

i don't think you understand what rights are. according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which is a good one to follow if you're not Kim Jong-il) we actually have the right to life and food. if you disagree, your beef is with the general assembly.

 

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

again, i think psych and social science section is a good addition. "The 22 [MR5] committee members include: medical school deans, admissions, educational affairs, student affairs, and diversity officers, basic and clinical sciences faculty, pre-heath advisors and other baccalaureate faculty, a resident and a medical student." these are members who were directly involved in medical education and i'm sure they didn't take their responsibilities lightly.

 

having gone through preclerkship, i can say that a big part of our curriculum dealt with the psychosocial aspect of healthcare. those who had a background with these subjects had an advantage. unfortunately, these kinds of subjects are more often boring, fluffy, taught poorly, or all of the above, so they get a bad rap.

 

the new section also dips into research methods and biostats, which are tools we need in the practice of evidence-based medicine.

 

so as long as sociology, psychology, humanities, research methods, and biostats are part of MD curriculums across north america, the new section of the MCAT will serve a purpose.

 

now if you're arguing that they shouldn't be part of medical education in the first place, i'd say that's unreasonable as well. it helps to understand the psychology and socio-cultural behavior of the public you're trying to heal. being personable has little to do with this new section. the interview weeds out most of the weirdos.

[AtomSmasher]

i don't think you understand what rights are. according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which is a good one to follow if you're not Kim Jong-il) we actually have the right to life and food. if you disagree, your beef is with the general assembly.

 

again, i think psych and social science section is a good addition. "The 22 [MR5] committee members include: medical school deans, admissions, educational affairs, student affairs, and diversity officers, basic and clinical sciences faculty, pre-heath advisors and other baccalaureate faculty, a resident and a medical student." these are members who were directly involved in medical education and i'm sure they didn't take their responsibilities lightly.

 

having gone through preclerkship, i can say that a big part of our curriculum dealt with the psychosocial aspect of healthcare. those who had a background with these subjects had an advantage. unfortunately, these kinds of subjects are more often boring, fluffy, taught poorly, or all of the above, so they get a bad rap.

 

the new section also dips into research methods and biostats, which are tools we need in the practice of evidence-based medicine.

 

so as long as sociology, psychology, humanities, research methods, and biostats are part of MD curriculums across north america, the new section of the MCAT will serve a purpose.

 

now if you're arguing that they shouldn't be part of medical education in the first place, i'd say that's unreasonable as well. it helps to understand the psychology and socio-cultural behavior of the public you're trying to heal. being personable has little to do with this new section. the interview weeds out most of the weirdos.

 

OK so you want to play hard ball then?

 

Here's the deal with the "right" to food, bro. You are misinterpreting what the charter means. When the charter says that everyone has the right to food, that means that oppressive governments shall not WITHHOLD food from their people (for political reasons, for example). The charter is NOT saying that if someone cannot afford food, then everyone has to pitch in and help them. That would be SOCIALISM. A list of human rights is intended to be politically neutral - it's the "ground rules" that every government, no matter where they lie on the political spectrum, are to follow. The UN wants every government in the world to voluntarily adopt this code of human rights. If this code had political motivations, it would be easier for governments to blow it off, with the justification of the UN just trying to impose their political ideology on the world.

 

Now let's just elaborate on this a bit more. To have a RIGHT to something, there has to be SOMEBODY who can VIOLATE your right. For example, if I punch you in the face, I would be violating your right to physical security. In this case, I would be doing something negative to you, which would violate your rights, because you have the right to NOT have this particular negative thing happen to you. Note that this is a general case. Whenever you have a right, it's a rule that stops someone from doing something NEGATIVE (i.e., something make your life worse) to you.

 

Now, let's imagine the hypothetical situation in a fake DISNEYLAND UNIVERSE where people have the "right" to POSITIVE things (i.e., things that improve their lives). Unfortunately, in a world of limited resources, not everyone can have everything they need. For example in this Disneyland universe, there are 5 children, and 4 lollypops. If they said "Every child has the right to a lollypop," then an impossible situation has been created. Now just replace "child" with "person" and "lollypop" with "$1,000,000 a year worth of medical coverage." [since this is what this debate is ultimately about]. There simply isn't enough money in the system to give everyone free medical care.

 

"Yes, but we can feasibly provide everyone with food in the world! Therefore it's not the same as the medical care thing!?!?!?" you squeal. That would be socialism. A code of human rights cannot, by definition, encompass any particular political ideology. Which is another reason why you cannot have a right to a positive.

 

As for the MCAT, **** it, who cares, it's just typical AAMC bull**** as usual pretending to still be relevant.

 

That's the end of my semi-drunken ramblings.

[<abstract>]

So.. I assume there will be a flood of mcat test takers in 2014 to avoid the change. Will schools accept both versions for say 5 years or will those who did the old version have to do a rewrite?

[apache]

haha, you're right, there are no such thing as human rights, there's actually nothing that's politically neutral, everything is about power... unfortunately, the world disagrees with you, and proclaim that their ideology is a "right", and that's the way it is, i personally think it's a nice thing that people at least, on paper, have the right to food and water... but of course, that's not a right, but most people would argue that they prefer to live in that kind of a world, oppression by majority, get used to it... i think we should legalize drugs, but it's a financially successful enterprise by the government, so they indoctrinate people as to the real facts about most drugs and their effects on society... i'm oppressed by the majority, on some issue or another we all are... i suggest if you want to change the world you avoid medicine, try getting on board with the world bank, bilderberg, or the imf, then you can impose your ideology on the majority

 

OK so you want to play hard ball then?

 

Here's the deal with the "right" to food, bro. You are misinterpreting what the charter means. When the charter says that everyone has the right to food, that means that oppressive governments shall not WITHHOLD food from their people (for political reasons, for example). The charter is NOT saying that if someone cannot afford food, then everyone has to pitch in and help them. That would be SOCIALISM. A list of human rights is intended to be politically neutral - it's the "ground rules" that every government, no matter where they lie on the political spectrum, are to follow. The UN wants every government in the world to voluntarily adopt this code of human rights. If this code had political motivations, it would be easier for governments to blow it off, with the justification of the UN just trying to impose their political ideology on the world.

 

Now let's just elaborate on this a bit more. To have a RIGHT to something, there has to be SOMEBODY who can VIOLATE your right. For example, if I punch you in the face, I would be violating your right to physical security. In this case, I would be doing something negative to you, which would violate your rights, because you have the right to NOT have this particular negative thing happen to you. Note that this is a general case. Whenever you have a right, it's a rule that stops someone from doing something NEGATIVE (i.e., something make your life worse) to you.

 

Now, let's imagine the hypothetical situation in a fake DISNEYLAND UNIVERSE where people have the "right" to POSITIVE things (i.e., things that improve their lives). Unfortunately, in a world of limited resources, not everyone can have everything they need. For example in this Disneyland universe, there are 5 children, and 4 lollypops. If they said "Every child has the right to a lollypop," then an impossible situation has been created. Now just replace "child" with "person" and "lollypop" with "$1,000,000 a year worth of medical coverage." [since this is what this debate is ultimately about]. There simply isn't enough money in the system to give everyone free medical care.

 

"Yes, but we can feasibly provide everyone with food in the world! Therefore it's not the same as the medical care thing!?!?!?" you squeal. That would be socialism. A code of human rights cannot, by definition, encompass any particular political ideology. Which is another reason why you cannot have a right to a positive.

 

As for the MCAT, **** it, who cares, it's just typical AAMC bull**** as usual pretending to still be relevant.

 

That's the end of my semi-drunken ramblings.

[inspiring-curmudgeon]

socialsci and humanities majors =/= medicine prodigies

 

Every family physician and surgeon tells me unequivocally that the de-emphasizing of science backgrounds as a requirement for medicine is a major setback hurting the profession.

 

AAMC clearly thinks handicapping science majors and giving more opportunities for socsci/humanities majors is the way to go, which I think is backwards.

 

imo you can teach communication skills.. you can not teach a passion for science in 2 years...

 

Not only that, but there is a certain drive that you get after doing a couple of years of science. The late nights, the insane exams, and the countless hours of memorization and critical thinking have certainly shaped my study habits and way of thinking, and I feel that it was really conducive to my learning in medical school (so far, at least).

 

When I see the humanities/socialsci grads in my program the majority of them can't take in the volume of information that we're being presented. And a lot of them who can, just study till they feel "they've done enough", which for some people, is 2 hours a day. A huge chunk of them just wrote the MCAT for the verbal reasoning section, so they have absolutely no science background. Couple that with a school that doesn't have exams and a self-directed approach to learning, and it's a recipe for disaster.

 

That being said, there are a few humanities students who really shine, and a couple of science students that fit the model described above. I really do think that moving to a science degree prereq is a good idea, because it will foster a lot of the skills that make a good medical student (from what I've seen, at least).

 

Let's see if anything changes once clerkship starts.

[tooty]

socialsci and humanities majors =/= medicine prodigies

 

Every family physician and surgeon tells me unequivocally that the de-emphasizing of science backgrounds as a requirement for medicine is a major setback hurting the profession.

 

AAMC clearly thinks handicapping science majors and giving more opportunities for socsci/humanities majors is the way to go, which I think is backwards.

 

imo you can teach communication skills.. you can not teach a passion for science in 2 years...

 

Not only that, but there is a certain drive that you get after doing a couple of years of science. The late nights, the insane exams, and the countless hours of memorization and critical thinking have certainly shaped my study habits and way of thinking, and I feel that it was really conducive to my learning in medical school (so far, at least).

 

When I see the humanities/socialsci grads in my program the majority of them can't take in the volume of information that we're being presented. And a lot of them who can, just study till they feel "they've done enough", which for some people, is 2 hours a day. A huge chunk of them just wrote the MCAT for the verbal reasoning section, so they have absolutely no science background. Couple that with a school that doesn't have exams and a self-directed approach to learning, and it's a recipe for disaster.

 

That being said, there are a few humanities students who really shine, and a couple of science students that fit the model described above. I really do think that moving to a science degree prereq is a good idea, because it will foster a lot of the skills that make a good medical student (from what I've seen, at least).

 

Let's see if anything changes once clerkship starts.

 

adding humanities section =\= wanting humanities majors =\= de-emphasizing science

 

the AAMC doesn't want humanities majors. they want well-rounded applicants suited for the practice of medicine. if they replaced the science sections with humanities, you guys have a point. but it looks like they replaced something useless (the WS) with content applicable to the study of medicine, while updating the science sections. if anything, the MCAT will be more demanding.

 

note that the new section has entire passages dedicated to interpreting a study and graph. i would even say that's closer to real medicine than testing your knowledge of capacitance or hybrid orbitals.

[senor_immuno]

Those of you still early on in your pre-med careers might be interested in this article in the NEJM this week. There will be a new version of the MCAT rolling out in 2015 and it will have some interesting changes. Probably the biggest difference for Canadian med schools will be the elimination of the writing sample - long the bane of students applying to Queen's and Western.

 

Most of you can probably get access through your school:

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1110171

[aaronjw]

If only i didnt go to york, i'm sure it would be an interesting read lol