w_robin Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 And like a few of you have pointed out already, you can have a doctor with absolutely NO compassion or personality deliver you a cancer diagnosis and leave the room three minutes later. It's not my cup of tea. I think doctors need to have compassion.... they need a personality, and those are things you can't learn in an MCAT prep course. I'd still rather have a doctor without personality that really knows what he/she's doing than one that's really caring but doesn't know his/her stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSJ Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I think that using the science parts of the MCAT has merit. Ultimately though, I think it needs to be used as a cutoff. The fact is, not everyone has the mindset to study science and as much as we like to say that it can be "learned" this isnt always the case. I'm sure 90% of people can learn it but there are some people that just find the concepts and way to thinking difficult. While excelling at those sections may not ultimately predict who will become the best physicians, they provide insight in one's ability to understand science, problem solve and critically evaluate scientific literature. These are important aspects of medicine and in my opinion, should be considered. But honestly, if schools that dont require those sections can produce out good doctors, who am I to criticize? I'm sure they have a reason behind what they do and I'm sure its been well thought out. Its a matter of the school's philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkourParkour Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 The review below aggregates some information on the correlation between medical school/licensing exam performance and MCAT section scores. From the table in the middle of the review, it shows that BS correlates the most to success on the first stage licensing examination (whether MCCQE I or USMLE Step 1) but VR has a somewhat better predictive ability when applied to clinical skills exam scores. I'm pretty certain this paper is a big factor for why Calgary chooses to look at only BS and VR. http://internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon%20et%20al%20(2007)%20Acad%20Med.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markov79 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 The review below aggregates some information on the correlation between medical school/licensing exam performance and MCAT section scores. From the table in the middle of the review, it shows that BS correlates the most to success on the first stage licensing examination (whether MCCQE I or USMLE Step 1) but VR has a somewhat better predictive ability when applied to clinical skills exam scores. I'm pretty certain this paper is a big factor for why Calgary chooses to look at only BS and VR. http://internationalgme.org/Resources/Pubs/Donnon%20et%20al%20(2007)%20Acad%20Med.pdf kind of makes you wonder what the point of the test is. then again, they're revamping it. i'd like to see the results of the same study done for the new scores. but i still wonder if there's a better way to evaluate applicants than that test... i guess that's the point of the rest of the application process. but then what does the mcat test that the rest of someone's application wouldn't tell the adcoms? maybe it's a supplementary metric, i guess? i'd be interested in hearing the thoughts, as long as we can keep the thread somewhat on topic... i'm sure it's been discussed before. but whatevs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skarletstarlet Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I'd still rather have a doctor without personality that really knows what he/she's doing than one that's really caring but doesn't know his/her stuff. Having a personality doesn't mean that a doctor doesn't know his or her stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holiday1001 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 sometimes I think everything turns into a cockfight in this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markov79 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 it does, LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aryastark Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 sometimes I think everything turns into a cockfight in this forum Its not usually too bad on the Mac ones... but I've run into strange/ aggressive stuff on some of the other forums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holiday1001 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I like our facebook group better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skarletstarlet Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 lol I wish we had a facebook group. If there isn't one already, I can set one up (for Sept 2013 hopefuls) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinkles Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 lol I wish we had a facebook group. If there isn't one already, I can set one up (for Sept 2013 hopefuls) I would join! wo0t! lets get it going for 2013! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 sometimes I think everything turns into a cockfight in this forum Mac peeps (noticed it with Calgary a bit too) tend to get defensive because a lot of people tend to diss Mac as a school and curriculum. I notice this trend more with Mac than any other school on these forums. Not sure why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holiday1001 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Mac peeps (noticed it with Calgary a bit too) tend to get defensive because a lot of people tend to diss Mac as a school and curriculum. I notice this trend more with Mac than any other school on these forums. Not sure why. mostly from know-it-all premeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 mostly from know-it-all premeds Actually no. It seems to come from those who are current medical students. Interesting, I've seen you use this phrase twice now since you gained your acceptance. Ego growing a little bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outlaw Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Mac peeps (noticed it with Calgary a bit too) tend to get defensive because a lot of people tend to diss Mac as a school and curriculum. I notice this trend more with Mac than any other school on these forums. Not sure why. I don't think anybody was getting defensive. You asked a legitimate question and I think it was answered in a reasonable fashion. If anyone was getting defensive here, it was you. Also, not saying it happened here, but if you go into the Mac/Calgary forum and start questioning the education of their incoming classes, of course they aren't going to like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I don't think anybody was getting defensive. You asked a legitimate question and I think it was answered in a reasonable fashion. If anyone was getting defensive here, it was you. Also, not saying it happened here, but if you go into the Mac/Calgary forum and start questioning the education of their incoming classes, of course they aren't going to like that. Perhaps you're right but no one was willing to debate the question that was posed and instead threw up smoke screen replies to skirt what was meant to be a genuine question worthy of debatable merit. The question was asked in this thread because of the number replies from people that either only wrote the VR portion of the MCAT or are intending to use that as their strategy. No one was questioning the education of anyone as they got into medical school so that demonstrates a level of educational achievement in itself. What was questioned is whether anyone felt it concerning that Mac doesn't require demonstrable knowledge of some basic science. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanillabear Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 sometimes I think everything turns into a cockfight in this forum Indeed. People are often really touchy on this forum. That being said, I don't think anyone was being particularly defensive...until the accusation actually came up lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinkles Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I get what you are saying aaronjw, and I do see it a bit as 'concering'...and I am someone who would fall into the 'no sciences' category. I sometimes freak out and think WHAT AM I DOING!?! lol but then I realize, hey, Mac MUST know that there are a bunch of people like this applying (and accepting them)...they must know that they can do it...right? Because thinking about it logically....Mac is a school that experiments a lot. Now imagine if you, as the MAC Adcom see that in the past 10 years we let in...like say....100 students who had NO science background and of them only 2 went on to become 'successful' (not sure how to measure that)...or only 50% matched in CARMS or something else crazy like that...Im SURE they would change their requirements. I mean what school would risk getting 'no matches' if they see its all coming from a 'certain group' of people? If you saw that like the 10 people that didnt match this year ALL came from a similar non science background then you would move towards not accepting these people so as to not ruin your stats right? so as a no sciences person that is planning on applying to Mac thats my two cents. I sometimes freak out and think what if I get in and cant handle it (though to be fair im sure lots of science degree students get such fears too ) but then I tell myself....out of the thousands of applications they get (Mac gets the most right?) They clearly would only pick those who they KNOW will do well. So if it works then it works right? I think they would know best and if they think we can do it then why question it? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinkles Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I should add that I am finishing my degree in December and plan on taking a bunch of science courses inthe winter term. If I get it I will probably spend at least a month or two of the summer cramming too (and then take a month off to do nothing before med school starts *ahhh wishful thiking* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanillabear Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 How about this... A desire to become a doctor is VERY LIKELY to be associated with an interest for science. That's not to say that the individual will have coursework in science, but the INTEREST would likely mean they've done some experimenting and tasting of the scientific field - be it reading things on the internet, etc. Considering that pretty much anyone has access to learning materials through the internet, the selection criteria has to include other things that will define not only being a GOOD doctor but being a GREAT doctor. It isn't as dichotomous as 1) Great clinical skills, no science OR 2) Genius in science, no clinical skills... if you have the opportunity to get the best of both worlds with someone that has great clinical skills AND a passion for learning science then you're off to a good start. IMO, that's the thought process behind the selection criteria. It's almost understood that anyone applying to medicine understands that you need to know SCIENCE to become a doctor. It is, however, just one of the many components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outlaw Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Perhaps you're right but no one was willing to debate the question that was posed and instead threw up smoke screen replies to skirt what was meant to be a genuine question worthy of debatable merit. The question was asked in this thread because of the number replies from people that either only wrote the VR portion of the MCAT or are intending to use that as their strategy. No one was questioning the education of anyone as they got into medical school so that demonstrates a level of educational achievement in itself. What was questioned is whether anyone felt it concerning that Mac doesn't require demonstrable knowledge of some basic science. That's all. So when everybody from the Mac forum (mainly med students) doesn't think it's a problem, they're are getting defensive? I think it's a good question to ask but it was adequately answered. I don't know why you're upset when people don't think it's a big issue and I don't know how you could possibly expect a different answer from the Mac forum. It seems to me like you're just trying to pick a fight. This pretty much answers everything: In all truth this is a fair point to be made (albeit the delivery of said point was a bit rough). However, I think the reason that Mac and NOSM do not require any pre-req undergraduate courses in the basic sciences is because they expect you to learn what basic science is required in pre-clerkship. At Mac, the PBL system works wonders for this. If you know that you are particularly weak in physiology for example, you can dedicate more time to studying it. Yes, if you've already had 3-4 years training in the basic sciences you probably have an advantage when it comes to several cases. The bottom line however is that you need only know enough basic sciences to lay a solid foundation upon which you build your clinical skills. And I think what Mac/NOSM are getting at by removing pre-reqs is that they are confident in their MD curriculum to ensure that all their students attain a solid enough training in basic sciences regardless of educational background Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broom Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 How about this... A desire to become a doctor is VERY LIKELY to be associated with an interest for science. That's not to say that the individual will have coursework in science, but the INTEREST would likely mean they've done some experimenting and tasting of the scientific field - be it reading things on the internet, etc. Considering that pretty much anyone has access to learning materials through the internet, the selection criteria has to include other things that will define not only being a GOOD doctor but being a GREAT doctor. It isn't as dichotomous as 1) Great clinical skills, no science OR 2) Genius in science, no clinical skills... if you have the opportunity to get the best of both worlds with someone that has great clinical skills AND a passion for learning science then you're off to a good start. IMO, that's the thought process behind the selection criteria. It's almost understood that anyone applying to medicine understands that you need to know SCIENCE to become a doctor. It is, however, just one of the many components. So here's what I am wondering, and I hope that someone from McMaster can answer this. I do agree that you can learn the sciences at any point, whether before or during medical school. It might be slightly harder, but science is not impossible. However, I see an education in science as more than just learning facts — science students are taught the scientific method. They are taught how to experiment and what are the tenets of good science. They are taught how to compute and understand statistics and how to read and analyze scientific literature As a physician, your education does not end at the end of your residency. The nature of science is dynamic, and it is likely that many fields of medicine will drastically change by the time people in our generation will retire. During this time, it is mostly the physician's responsibility to read new information and to remain up-to-date. My concern is that I don't know if McMaster truly teaches these tenets science (how to analyze new information, understand statistics, know what constitutes for a good placebo, etc.) or instead just focuses on teaching current knowledge of health, disease, and the human body. I think medical students should have a good understanding of both. Now, I honestly don't know if McMaster teaches the tenets of science, but I fear that they gloss over these crucial facts. I would really like to be proven wrong. The reason this is so important to me is the growing movement of alternative medicine. We need physicians who will be willing and able to read and understand the latest research in medicine and know which treatments are effective and which ones are not. It is very easy to read press releases and concentrate on p values when reading articles, but it takes some knowledge of how science is conducted to properly wade through enough scientific journal articles to properly evaluate new treatments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broom Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 Also, I don't know if all science undergraduate degrees or other medical schools teach these facts. I think there should be a larger emphasis on this in all science-based programs. Because having an 'interest' in science could mean getting 'scientific' information from the newspaper, and it is my hope that no physician does this — but this is perhaps an optimistic view. I know this was a very long message, but I really hope that my main point is understood: an education in science is much more than just the learning of the 'facts' of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinkles Posted June 24, 2012 Report Share Posted June 24, 2012 if I understood you correctly what you are trying to say is that doctors need 'critical reading' skills and the ability to read a scientific article and fully comprehend the 'essence' of it. Right? well is that not EXACTLY what the VR part of the MCAT tests? I think that you think that it is ONLY the science majors that are taught this skill in undergrad when in reality everyone (or almost everyone) is taught this in every field...In fact I think the social sciences allow you to do it and learn it more....the science majors aren't big on essays but the social sciences are and I can tell you as a 4th year student in this field...I have probably written about 100 papers or so the past few years and the majority require you to 'learn something new', ESPECIALLY in the upper years. Its assumed that you have a 'general idea' of the field and that you will build and learn from there. Its constantly about going out and finding something new...In my last year (4th) every single class was like this and it required me to go and learn about something I knew nothing about (sometimes things I had never heard of!). This required me to go and educate myself on the basics of the field I was studying, then doing a LOT of research and reading through many different 'peer-reviewed and academic' papers and writing an essay on it. This requires you to not only read an article but to synthesize and analyze it to understand what the 'key ideas' are. So I think this is done in most fields. I find it funny that you would think this would be a 'bad' side....because Its actually one of the reasons I *want* to go to Mac....they allow you time to learn on your own....which after these past few years of researching and analyzing articles and the such I'm really good at it! Hope that answered your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikki dale Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 kind of makes you wonder what the point of the test is. then again, they're revamping it. i'd like to see the results of the same study done for the new scores. but i still wonder if there's a better way to evaluate applicants than that test... i guess that's the point of the rest of the application process. but then what does the mcat test that the rest of someone's application wouldn't tell the adcoms? maybe it's a supplementary metric, i guess? i'd be interested in hearing the thoughts, as long as we can keep the thread somewhat on topic... i'm sure it's been discussed before. but whatevs. the MCAT is a standardized measure. so that would be the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.