rmorelan Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 you mean one of those program that forces you to actually think? lol ha that was actually why I augmented my science degree with one in arts. I have to blunt here - I learned a lot in my science degree. Tons of knowledge but comparatively rarely did I actually have to think. Really, really think about things. I believe it is awesome if possible to do both but of course that takes a lot of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 Most Canadian medical schools require some courses in biological/physical sciences, which, even at the introductory level, have some labs and bring some appreciation to the scientific method. Even schools that don't require any courses but require the MCAT have their students get some exposure to the scientific method, because the MCAT passages in biological and physical sciences are often written like scientific journal articles. Actually surprised how few programs do require that actually - and when they do require courses how much of the scientific method are you actually learning in first year biology/chemistry or physics? I think very little - it is all simply given knowledge - memorize this or apply these formula. Of course intro arts degree courses are the same Even for the MCAT - sure it is required but most schools now it is only a gross cut off - the VR score is valued higher and that is again from that arts area of the universe. Don't get me wrong - it is possible is some arts programs to miss a lot of the journal reading (fine arts I guess springs to mind). In the upper years of arts degrees you read a lot of published papers and sit around and tear them apart methodically - that basically is what an arts degree IS. Sounds strange but I learned how to criticize in psychology and then applied that skill to biology. I think that is one of the reasons I did very well in the biology side of things. I knew more statistics, more research methodology and designed more experiments than the BSc students - by the end I found the biology exp design courses in the subject so watered down it was kind of silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 Anyone who can get the grades while arguing the merits of thinkers like Rawls, Bentham, Locke, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Mill, etc, etc, etc are likely to do just as well in most science courses. wrapping your brain around these peeps is no walk in the park and I find it hilarious when science-minded people diss the arts types who have to engage the minds of those above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 Anyone who can get the grades while arguing the merits of thinkers like Rawls, Bentham, Locke, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Mill, etc, etc, etc are likely to do just as well in most science courses. wrapping your brain around these peeps is no walk in the park and I find it hilarious when science-minded people diss the arts types who have to engage the minds of those above except for the all the darn memorization - my arts degree taught me to think but not absorb a billion facts from the bottom up. Arts - well at least the ones I was doing - (and computer science for that matter) are extremely top down compared to biology. You learn concepts then you apply them. I remember fitting entire economics courses on a single Q Card (a few new concepts and a few new equations for solving big problems). Can't do that in embryology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted November 6, 2012 Report Share Posted November 6, 2012 except for the all the darn memorization - my arts degree taught me to think but not absorb a billion facts from the bottom up. Arts - well at least the ones I was doing - (and computer science for that matter) are extremely top down compared to biology. You learn concepts then you apply them. I remember fitting entire economics courses on a single Q Card (a few new concepts and a few new equations for solving big problems). Can't do that in embryology lol fair point yet I'd still contend that the person in an arts degree who has to try and understand the BIG picture concepts of life are better equipped to handle science courses vs the other way around. Sometimes I think people around here place way too much importance on their science programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Actually surprised how few programs do require that actually - and when they do require courses how much of the scientific method are you actually learning in first year biology/chemistry or physics? I think very little - it is all simply given knowledge - memorize this or apply these formula. Of course intro arts degree courses are the same Even for the MCAT - sure it is required but most schools now it is only a gross cut off - the VR score is valued higher and that is again from that arts area of the universe. Don't get me wrong - it is possible is some arts programs to miss a lot of the journal reading (fine arts I guess springs to mind). In the upper years of arts degrees you read a lot of published papers and sit around and tear them apart methodically - that basically is what an arts degree IS. Sounds strange but I learned how to criticize in psychology and then applied that skill to biology. I think that is one of the reasons I did very well in the biology side of things. I knew more statistics, more research methodology and designed more experiments than the BSc students - by the end I found the biology exp design courses in the subject so watered down it was kind of silly. When I was in cegep, I didn't feel that memorization was enough. Gen chem requires imagining the atom. Chem of solutions was full of calculations. I don't remember much about Orgo, but it requires thinking. Physics (mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, and Optics), Math (Calculus and Linear Algebra), and Bio weren't courses I found where you can get a good grade if you don't understand why you're doing what you are doing. But I admit everybody is different, I don't know how your basic science courses are built. But I know there are some people who can do well on these courses with only knowing how to apply the concepts. We also had philosophy as a general education course (it was required for everybody doing a DEC). It was a course where you need to use your logic (unless your teacher was too easy). But I felt 3 philo courses was too mch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preppy038 Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 you mean one of those program that forces you to actually think? lol +1 ugrad wasn't satisfactory... in terms of meeting the satisfaction from 'thinking...trying to solve a problem... having several go's at it, and finally gett it' that you typically get from very elaborate math questions. I feel as though some of the biology courses could've been more challenging... which is why i have to agree that a liberal arts degree that pushes your brain to the limit is probably beneficial for you in the long-run as a clinician... also to add... maybe that's why a lot of ivy-league schools give out BAs instead of BScs for subjects such as math, computer science, biochemistry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 +1 ugrad wasn't satisfactory... in terms of meeting the satisfaction from 'thinking...trying to solve a problem... having several go's at it, and finally gett it' that you typically get from very elaborate math questions. I feel as though some of the biology courses could've been more challenging... which is why i have to agree that a liberal arts degree that pushes your brain to the limit is probably beneficial for you in the long-run as a clinician... also to add... maybe that's why a lot of ivy-league schools give out BAs instead of BScs for subjects such as math, computer science, biochemistry... BA for Biochem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmorelan Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 When I was in cegep, I didn't feel that memorization was enough. Gen chem requires imagining the atom. Chem of solutions was full of calculations. I don't remember much about Orgo, but it requires thinking. Physics (mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, and Optics), Math (Calculus and Linear Algebra), and Bio weren't courses I found where you can get a good grade if you don't understand why you're doing what you are doing. But I admit everybody is different, I don't know how your basic science courses are built. But I know there are some people who can do well on these courses with only knowing how to apply the concepts. We also had philosophy as a general education course (it was required for everybody doing a DEC). It was a course where you need to use your logic (unless your teacher was too easy). But I felt 3 philo courses was too mch. Sure those are definitely courses which required more actually out and out thinking Once I got to the core of my biomed program and some of the required chem/physics/math courses fell away it just seemed to me that the senior arts courses were way more thought intensive than the senior biology courses. Now that is just biology - chemistry and physics in the senior levels is a completely different ball game I would suspect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Sure those are definitely courses which required more actually out and out thinking Once I got to the core of my biomed program and some of the required chem/physics/math courses fell away it just seemed to me that the senior arts courses were way more thought intensive than the senior biology courses. Now that is just biology - chemistry and physics in the senior levels is a completely different ball game I would suspect I can't much comment on university-level bio cause I'm not a bio major, only did it in cegep. Yes, I admit, bio can be just memorization, although sometimes compregension is required. Maybe it's just me who find difficulty memorizing something I don't understand. I can comment on math major, since I was majoring in it (I may go back to it once I finish re-doing cegep math), and many students used to hate courses where you need to do proffs. I too had aversion to proofs, but later found that they are not as hard as I though (or they are not that hard for me). I admit cegep math can be done without much understanding the material for some people (which seems to not be the case for me, it's harder to just apply the formulas for me, I can do it, but my brain is curious). But these people who passed cegep math with only knowing how to apply the formula will have a hard time if they major in math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futureGP Posted November 8, 2012 Report Share Posted November 8, 2012 Sure those are definitely courses which required more actually out and out thinking Once I got to the core of my biomed program and some of the required chem/physics/math courses fell away it just seemed to me that the senior arts courses were way more thought intensive than the senior biology courses. Now that is just biology - chemistry and physics in the senior levels is a completely different ball game I would suspect i agree, my senior level courses in 'advanced' biochemistry weren't much 'advanced' at all, im not even gonna touch senior-level physics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinkles Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 Anyone who can get the grades while arguing the merits of thinkers like Rawls, Bentham, Locke, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Mill, etc, etc, etc are likely to do just as well in most science courses. wrapping your brain around these peeps is no walk in the park and I find it hilarious when science-minded people diss the arts types who have to engage the minds of those above omg. yes. and to add.... anyone who can STAND taking the course We had to take a full year History of Political Theory course in second year that looked at all of those people.... Aristotle's reasoning at 8:30 am on a Friday is brutal. And a LOT of people switched degrees because of this course! I personally hateeee philosophy/theory courses but had to struggle through them none the less(probably 6-9 courses on this stuff?)....though some of the courses gave me nothing (Like Rawls. I hate that guy) the others were extremely hard for me to grasp but when I was finally able to wrap my mind around them it REALLY changes the way you think about things and rationalize them. Its actually kind of amazing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaronjw Posted November 14, 2012 Report Share Posted November 14, 2012 omg. yes. and to add.... anyone who can STAND taking the course We had to take a full year History of Political Theory course in second year that looked at all of those people.... Aristotle's reasoning at 8:30 am on a Friday is brutal. And a LOT of people switched degrees because of this course! I personally hateeee philosophy/theory courses but had to struggle through them none the less(probably 6-9 courses on this stuff?)....though some of the courses gave me nothing (Like Rawls. I hate that guy) the others were extremely hard for me to grasp but when I was finally able to wrap my mind around them it REALLY changes the way you think about things and rationalize them. Its actually kind of amazing! I am a HUGE Political and Moral Philosophy buff and there is no one other than Kant who will make you tear your hair our trying to grapple with wtf he is talking about lol. I actually found Rawls to be hugely instrumental in moral and political philosophy. Veil of ignorance (originally theorized by John Harsanyi and made real by Rawls) concept is of great importance as it forces people into a thought experiment to take themselves out of the equation and design a society that's just when you can't make an argument from your own perspective. I love them all and I feel good about myself when I begin to think of problems from their perspective as a means to analyze why I think a certain way, whether that's the right way and what other approaches could be considered. Kant's view's on moral reasoning and lying is quite profound. Critique of Pure Reason is one of my fav peaces of literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.