Did You Go Into Medicine For The Money

[older]

I agree that we have severe problems in our education here. From my perspective (as a math/science teacher) I've seen a lot of dumbing down of the mathematics curriculum to the point that universities have had to slide back and teach more highschool curriculum...however I'd like to point out two things:

 

First, the IB program is not that much more advanced than our curriculum. The so called High Level courses certainly are, but in reality a small percentage of students (internationally) actually take that, the majority take Standard Level. Standard Level doesn't go into that much more depth than our courses with regards to most subjects. Math for instance, we stop just before Integration, but SL does that for about a month or two.

 

However most people going to SL wind up forgetting that stuff anyway, anecdotally, and need to be re-taught. The real advantage of IB is its consistency - the breadth and depth of certain courses depends entirely on the teacher in this system. Frankly (having a masters in math) I'd likely teach calculus exactly like the IB class anyway, with the exception of integration as that's not in the curriculum, so my hands would be tied. I'd hold my kids to a high standard, work damn hard to get them there, and expect them to work hard or be left behind. Unfortunately, many teachers don't share that mindset.

 

So are there problems with our curriculum? Certainly, it's getting dumbed down annually. Seriously, I encourage everyone to drop into their old high school and stop into their favourite (science/math) class...you'll probably notice the way it's taught has changed.

 

The thing I wish to express is that IB isn't actually so great either, by comparison.

 

-----------------

 

The second thing I want to talk about is reviewing content in first year. This happens almost everywhere, any time schools amalgamate, due to a lack of standardization as I mentioned above. Whether it's here or in another country, teachers will always review content in the first year of middle school (if it exists), high school, university, college, etc. It's to bring everyone up to speed and make sure there's a level playing field. By second semester, the standard is typically raised a lot.

 

The notable exception to this are the very high population countries (Japan, India, China, etc.) because things are just so competitive due to sheer volume, that they can afford people failing out. And people work their asses off to avoid failing out as that's the expectation. However I don't think this is a pro/con of the education system itself, and is more a societal norm in those places. Those countries typically produce people who work hard, while we produce people who are entitled...however they very rarely produce creative people (for better or for worse). Would you then say, their schooling is superior or inferior? At lower levels we're outperformed like crazy (indeed, for international math day some of my students went head-to-head against China, grade 10s, were obliterated by Chinese grade 3s...except for the kid in my class who came from China, who dominated everyone), but at higher levels we gain significant grounds.

 

It's hard not to go off on our education system (as I certainly see countless flaws with it), but you really have to think about what you're criticizing. This first year review for example, might seem like a waste of time...but tell that to those poor guys in India who happen to fail out and become shunned for the rest of their life. I bet they'd turn around and say our system was better.

 

Thank you for really good insights and perspective. You  are right on the mark by saying that the real advantage of IB (or any program based on well defined curriculum and objective assessment)  is its consistency.  And that in the current system, the breadth and depth of certain courses depends entirely on the teacher. That's why there are fundamental differences in knowledge of teh Ontario HS graduates. "Better" schools (those acedemically oriented, whether private or public) provide definitely better education than others.

 

And you are right about educational systems such like China that produce hard working achievers, but do not necessarily promote creativity. However, as a math teacher, you could probably comment about math curriculum for this province - in search for creativity, it seem to abandon requirements for acquiring fundamental skills, starting with mulltiplication tables. Or maybe it is, again, at the discretion of a teacher?

[older]

Can you provide any actual evidence of this?

 

Yes. Flexner Report.

Here is the historical perspective that I posted some time ago on a different thread.

 

"Many aspects of the present-day American medical education system stem from the Flexner Report, a study of medical education in the United States and Canada published in 1910. When Flexner researched his report, many American medical schools were "proprietary" small trade schools owned by one or more doctors, unaffiliated with a college or university, and run to make a profit. A degree was typically awarded after only two years of study. Laboratory work and dissection were not necessarily required. Many of the instructors were local doctors whose own training left something to be desired. The regulation of the medical profession by state governments was minimal or nonexistent.

 

Flexner was the child of German immigrants, and had studied and traveled in Europe. He was well aware that one could not practice medicine in Europe without an extensive specialized university education. In effect, Flexner demanded that American medical education conform to prevailing practices in Europe.

 

Flexner was also aware that European secondary schooling was way ahead comparing to American, and thus believed that admission to a medical school in North America should require, at minimum, a high school diploma plus at least two years of college or university study, primarily devoted to basic science. Very few medical schools in the US and Canada required this from applicants. But by 1920, it became a requirement in 92 percent of U.S. medical schools". 

 

One would think that this requirement, justified by the state of education in the beginning of the 20^th century, should not be applicable 100 years later. Interestingly, instead of being scaled back, the original “bridging” requirements lurched forward to first require full science degree as a prerequisite for medicine, and later, bizarrely, any degree. 

 

However, it is true that the US and Canada never accomplished uniform secondary education, which remains inconsistent between states, provinces and individual schools. Bridging requirements for medicine will therefore hold on.

 

[ralk]

Yes. Flexner Report.

Here is the historical perspective that I posted some time ago on a different thread.

 

"Many aspects of the present-day American medical education system stem from the Flexner Report, a study of medical education in the United States and Canada published in 1910. When Flexner researched his report, many American medical schools were "proprietary" small trade schools owned by one or more doctors, unaffiliated with a college or university, and run to make a profit. A degree was typically awarded after only two years of study. Laboratory work and dissection were not necessarily required. Many of the instructors were local doctors whose own training left something to be desired. The regulation of the medical profession by state governments was minimal or nonexistent.

 

Flexner was the child of German immigrants, and had studied and traveled in Europe. He was well aware that one could not practice medicine in Europe without an extensive specialized university education. In effect, Flexner demanded that American medical education conform to prevailing practices in Europe.

 

Flexner was also aware that European secondary schooling was way ahead comparing to American, and thus believed that admission to a medical school in North America should require, at minimum, a high school diploma plus at least two years of college or university study, primarily devoted to basic science. Very few medical schools in the US and Canada required this from applicants. But by 1920, it became a requirement in 92 percent of U.S. medical schools". 

 

One would think that this requirement, justified by the state of education in the beginning of the 20^th century, should not be applicable 100 years later. Interestingly, instead of being scaled back, the original “bridging” requirements lurched forward to first require full science degree as a prerequisite for medicine, and later, bizarrely, any degree. 

 

However, it is true that the US and Canada never accomplished uniform secondary education, which remains inconsistent between states, provinces and individual schools. Bridging requirements for medicine will therefore hold on.

 

 

You're right that arguments from 100 years ago shouldn't be applicable now - however, it would be a mistake to assume that our current system is entirely or predominantly based on those arguments made 100 years ago.

 

European countries extended their medical education, just as was done here. If you go to a 3-year school after 3 years of undergrad (or Queen's direct-entry program), a Canadian can get an MD just as soon after completing high school as someone in the UK can. The absolute requirements at many schools is only a single year more of post-secondary education. The functional requirements tend towards a full degree, but only due to the high competitiveness for medical school admissions.

 

Education in NA may have been worse than in European countries 100 years ago, but that's hardly evidence that they are now, particularly since those European countries extended the time their students spent in post-secondary education before becoming a physician to roughly match what happens in North America. The fact that they do it within the context of medical training while here that additional training is done outside a medical degree does not, in any way reflect on the quality or consistency of education in Canada or the US.

 

Do you have any direct evidence showing relatively lower quality of secondary education system in Canada? Ideally something that came up since the turn of the millennium?

[NLengr]

Yes. Flexner Report.

Here is the historical perspective that I posted some time ago on a different thread.

 

"Many aspects of the present-day American medical education system stem from the Flexner Report, a study of medical education in the United States and Canada published in 1910. When Flexner researched his report, many American medical schools were "proprietary" small trade schools owned by one or more doctors, unaffiliated with a college or university, and run to make a profit. A degree was typically awarded after only two years of study. Laboratory work and dissection were not necessarily required. Many of the instructors were local doctors whose own training left something to be desired. The regulation of the medical profession by state governments was minimal or nonexistent.

 

Flexner was the child of German immigrants, and had studied and traveled in Europe. He was well aware that one could not practice medicine in Europe without an extensive specialized university education. In effect, Flexner demanded that American medical education conform to prevailing practices in Europe.

 

Flexner was also aware that European secondary schooling was way ahead comparing to American, and thus believed that admission to a medical school in North America should require, at minimum, a high school diploma plus at least two years of college or university study, primarily devoted to basic science. Very few medical schools in the US and Canada required this from applicants. But by 1920, it became a requirement in 92 percent of U.S. medical schools".

 

One would think that this requirement, justified by the state of education in the beginning of the 20^th century, should not be applicable 100 years later. Interestingly, instead of being scaled back, the original “bridging” requirements lurched forward to first require full science degree as a prerequisite for medicine, and later, bizarrely, any degree.

 

However, it is true that the US and Canada never accomplished uniform secondary education, which remains inconsistent between states, provinces and individual schools. Bridging requirements for medicine will therefore hold on.

 

So you are basing your assertion on a report that's over a century old? I'm sorry, that does not back up your assertions toward modern day secondary education in North America. Do you have a modern document?

[older]

So you are basing your assertion on a report that's over a century old? I'm sorry, that does not back up your assertions toward modern day secondary education in North America. Do you have a modern document?

 

 

 

Do you have any direct evidence showing relatively lower quality of secondary education system in Canada? Ideally something that came up since the turn of the millennium?

 

Now you are making it a different discussion entirely.

 

I did not quote Flexner report as an argument about quality of current Canadian education -  I answered your question on the subject why the old world med education system has been based on secondary education while US/Canadian system was set up to require supplementary education prior to entry to medical program. As you can see, this was because of then-inferior secondary education here. Sometimes you need to get historical perspective to understand how the world evolves.

 

The issue is, US/Canadian med education system never changed -  it still requires supplementary education prior to entry to med school. Why?  It may very well be, as you suggest, to deal with "competitiveness".  This "competitiveness"  is now snowballing into doing masters and second degrees - all in the name of the best candidate selection? Medicine is competitive everywhere - and other countries manage it very well withouit forcing people to take additional degrees. And if "competitiveness" is not the reason, than what is?  I still don't see  a compelling reason to require a degree (which could be a music degree!) as a med school prerequisite.

 

As the secondary education improved, the trend should be towards removing unnecessary pre-requirements instead of adding to them.  Let's hope that Queen's example is a step in the right direction and will be soon followed by other med schools (3yrs of sciences + 3 clinical years basically mimics European model).  I would not argue, though,  in favor of med school entry straight from high school. There is just too much inconsistency in secondary education, especially in Ontario.

[MathToMed]

Thank you for really good insights and perspective. You  are right on the mark by saying that the real advantage of IB (or any program based on well defined curriculum and objective assessment)  is its consistency.  And that in the current system, the breadth and depth of certain courses depends entirely on the teacher. That's why there are fundamental differences in knowledge of teh Ontario HS graduates. "Better" schools (those acedemically oriented, whether private or public) provide definitely better education than others.

 

And you are right about educational systems such like China that produce hard working achievers, but do not necessarily promote creativity. However, as a math teacher, you could probably comment about math curriculum for this province - in search for creativity, it seem to abandon requirements for acquiring fundamental skills, starting with mulltiplication tables. Or maybe it is, again, at the discretion of a teacher?

 

Unfortunately not, this is something that many teachers (at least at the highschool level) are outraged by. It's frustrating to try and teach a class in grade 9, when the students simply do not have the skills needed and are operating at, frankly, a grade 3-6 level.

 

For the purpose of this post, note that Math/Science are taught and learned similarly... so the ideas I discuss here about math are relevant to our discussion about pre-med education.

 

Ultimately teachers must bow to the curriculum, if something isn't technically in there, I'm free to teach it but not allowed to test it. Unfortunately in practice, you can't learn say, multiplication tables, without drill work and that would be against the rules. Another issue this is touching upon however, is that there are almost no "math teachers" teaching elementary school. Indeed, in my particular schoolboard, there is only one person teaching elementary school who has their Honours/Specialist qualifications and they work as a math coach for other teachers, as opposed to teaching directly. It kind of makes sense, there's very little incentive (besides specifically wanting to work with young kids) for them to, math teachers tend to like their subject and would want to teach higher grades. There's also a large gender gap remaining in mathematics, it's one of the only university programs still dominated by men, and frankly, I wouldn't risk working in an elementary school as a male. Our society's obsession with pedophilia makes it very uncomfortable for legit male role models to work with our young kids...a single accusation, even completely baseless, can ruin your career. That's a whole other discussion, but my point is that all of these factors reduce the number of primary school math teachers.

 

This ultimately results in very poor mathematics education up to grade 8, on average, as the schools are filled with teachers sporting humanities degrees (I do not mean to insult humanities here, simply saying they typically know very little math). So (typically) our most impressionable youth is being taught math by teachers who don't know math, and by the time they hit high school they're way behind where they should be. Multiplication tables are one such sad byproduct of this.

 

---------------

 

Regarding abandoning skillsets in the search of creativity - I had actually been accepted to do my M. Ed. degree a few years back discussing this very idea as my research thesis (I ultimately declined as I didn't see the value, already having a masters, which didn't help me get a teaching job anyway). I'll give a quick summary of what I would have talked about here, I find it fascinating, though it's kind of off-topic (my apologies). There are two "forms" in which mathematics manifests itself in the classroom:

 

Procedural Fluency - mastery of skills/rote memorization of problems that appear frequently ("Follow-through")

Conceptual Mastery - the ability to make inferences/see the big picture based on a thorough understanding of why things occur ("Intuition")

 

To be a math researcher, one must possess both skills...however one always dominated in every person I've met, and so I would conclude it does in at least the vast majority of individuals. Either the creative process, or the rigorous proof aspect. Myself, I generated a lot of ideas but was often unable to prove them true without assistance (even though they frequently wound up being true). I had the intuition but I didn't have as much follow-through.

 

In the 1970s, a brilliant math educator named Skemp wrote an academic paper about this. Unfortunately, his message was misunderstood. He actually wished to comment on the fact that neither was superior (indeed, he referenced data in which students with only procedural fluency outperformed those with higher order thinking skills at mundane calculation speed/accuracy. Grade 10 students had completed grade 10 math problems faster than people possessing PhDs, and this was referenced in the paper. While conceptual mastery is of course needed for things like design or creating something new). Hence we need to create opportunities for both students. Not everyone is going to be a mathematician, some will just need basic, every day mathematics, so the good educator should be mindful of that fact. Moreover, we should be mindful of our own tendencies - I'm typically a very high-brained math person who obsesses over things like proper form, and understanding every little piece of theory. This works well for high achievers, but for the lower-mid tier of math student, it would be largely ineffective. I would hence consciously make an effort to do things a bit more procedurally every now and then, so I can reach everyone in the classroom at least some of the time.

 

This is my personal interpretation of the message in that article. However my theory is that the ministry read this paper and came to the wrong conclusion - Conceptual mastery is better. They began to remove all semblances of rote memorization from the curriculum: no multiplication tables, no drill sheets. Instead they began to put in nothing but conceptual mastery style questions. Instead of asking a student with 8 divided by 4 is, they'll try to rephrase the question so they can somehow come to the conclusion.

 

Unfortunately as I mentioned, in elementary school most people are not math people...hence they are not from the conceptual mastery camp! They're frequently the kind of people who got through math by "plugging and chugging" and just memorizing how to do problems so they can regurgitate it on the test/exam. So our kids are largely procedural fluency type, and they're being taught conceptual mastery by teachers that are in the procedural fluency camp themselves.

 

That is unfortunately, where the confusion / poor math results come from. I'm almost certain.

 

------------------

 

That being said, I still feel our teaching quality gets crapped on unfairly (in an ideal sense at least). Many places in the world as I mentioned, only teach procedural fluency, and that's why there's almost no creativity in some other parts of the world (at least in math/sciences). They want quick calculations and accurate problem solving for real world problems. This meets the demand of many jobs extremely well as I mentioned, those that only need those particular skills.

 

Much of the world looks to Canada, especially Ontario, as an education pioneer. The biggest example is our treatment of Special Education (indeed if you're interested, we're pioneering some amazing initiatives here, like "Inclusive Classrooms" in our Catholic school boards are showing promising results... whereas in other parts of the world the standard treatment of special needs is to simply not teach them anything), but in general teachers trained in Canada are loved basically anywhere else in the world (except Finland...man that's one perfect system). It's because we not only teach, but we reflect on our teaching, like I've done in this post. The unfortunate reality though, is that we're often powerless to do anything about it.

 

Should we teach the multiplication tables in school? Absolutely, and I can probably convince just about any teacher of that fact if I tried to. However I still have no power over what kids know when they enter my classroom in grade 9.

 

EDIT - as a note specifically to you older, my better half's last PD Day session was all about consistency in grading and education...so it's something that teachers are well aware of as an issue. It's all about the execution however, no one knows how to fix it, in practice, because it depends on every single cog in the machine! Especially those older teachers who refuse to change what they're doing because they've done it that way for 20 years. I believe that in 10-15 years, when the old generation of teachers fully retires, education will improve. Indeed 10-15 years ago, we had teachers in school from the prior generation, who didn't even have a high school education.

[ralk]

Now you are making it a different discussion entirely.

 

I did not quote Flexner report as an argument about quality of current Canadian education -  I answered your question on the subject why the old world med education system has been based on secondary education while US/Canadian system was set up to require supplementary education prior to entry to medical program. As you can see, this was because of then-inferior secondary education here. Sometimes you need to get historical perspective to understand how the world evolves.

 

The issue is, US/Canadian med education system never changed -  it still requires supplementary education prior to entry to med school. Why?  It may very well be, as you suggest, to deal with "competitiveness".  This "competitiveness"  is now snowballing into doing masters and second degrees - all in the name of the best candidate selection? Medicine is competitive everywhere - and other countries manage it very well withouit forcing people to take additional degrees. And if "competitiveness" is not the reason, than what is?  I still don't see  a compelling reason to require a degree (which could be a music degree!) as a med school prerequisite.

 

As the secondary education improved, the trend should be towards removing unnecessary pre-requirements instead of adding to them.  Let's hope that Queen's example is a step in the right direction and will be soon followed by other med schools (3yrs of sciences + 3 clinical years basically mimics European model).  I would not argue, though,  in favor of med school entry straight from high school. There is just too much inconsistency in secondary education, especially in Ontario.

 

Well, the current state of medical education was the topic, so I don't see how the discussion is any different than it was before, aside from the detour into history which was something you brought up.

 

In any case, the historical reasons for the difference in structures of medical education systems here vs abroad doesn't negate NLengr's original point that the two systems are different and comparisons between the two systems should consider those differences. That's a point you've now side-stepped without addressing.

 

I brought up competitiveness merely to point out that the actual requirements in medical education aren't actually much different in North America compared to Europe. Not many schools actually require a full, four-year degree (Western's the only one that comes immediately to mind). Higher competitiveness means that it's more common for applicants to go beyond the requirements, but don't mistake pressures on applicants for evidence of intentional, intrinsically higher requirements from medical schools, whether due to flaws in secondary education or any other reason.

 

Along those lines, you quoted my question but didn't answer it. What evidence do you have that there is a lower or inconsistent quality of education here in Canada relative to other countries? Again, the main data I can find, data which I provided, indicates that student performance at the secondary education level is higher and more uniform in Canada than in the majority of other major developed countries, particularly the large economies of Europe.

[older]

Well, the current state of medical education was the topic, so I don't see how the discussion is any different than it was before, aside from the detour into history which was something you brought up.

 

In any case, the historical reasons for the difference in structures of medical education systems here vs abroad doesn't negate NLengr's original point that the two systems are different and comparisons between the two systems should consider those differences. That's a point you've now side-stepped without addressing.

 

I brought up competitiveness merely to point out that the actual requirements in medical education aren't actually much different in North America compared to Europe. Not many schools actually require a full, four-year degree (Western's the only one that comes immediately to mind). Higher competitiveness means that it's more common for applicants to go beyond the requirements, but don't mistake pressures on applicants for evidence of intentional, intrinsically higher requirements from medical schools, whether due to flaws in secondary education or any other reason.

 

Along those lines, you quoted my question but didn't answer it. What evidence do you have that there is a lower or inconsistent quality of education here in Canada relative to other countries? Again, the main data I can find, data which I provided, indicates that student performance at the secondary education level is higher and more uniform in Canada than in the majority of other major developed countries, particularly the large economies of Europe.

 

 

The actual question I was answering was this:

 

ralk, on 08 Apr 2015 - 9:46 PM, said:

European med school and North american med school are set up completely differently (6 vs 4 years for one thing) so you can't really use direct entry in Europe as evidence of superior secondary education.

 

older, on 02 Apr 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

They are set differently for a reason, one of them being that North American secondary education system was not considered good enough to be sufficient for med school.

 NLengr, on 04 Apr 2015 - 4:12 PM, said:

Can you provide any actual evidence of this?

 

older, on 07 Apr 2015 - 1:05 PM, said:

Yes. Flexner Report.

Here is the historical perspective that I posted some time ago on a different thread.

 

 

I don't thik I left anything  unaswered?

 

With regards to the current state of education, I cited OESD data, not Flexner report.  Canada comes in decent 13 place. But that's Canada as a whole.  There are big differences between provinces. One of the essential differences is that not all provinces (and most notably, not Ontario) have standardized assessment. And some schools have better programs than others - many  private schools with enriched academic programs, and some public schools, e.g. those with IB program. As one poster here (a math teacher) commented few posts back, a lot depends on the school and on teachers. That's how there are significant differences in the level and quality of preparation for post-secondary education. I call it inconsistent - very. Compare it to, for example, UK, where HS students take comprehensive exams for General Cerificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), and then, 2 years later,  a General Certification of Education on Advanced Level (A levels). I consider that system better than the Canadian melee, but that's my opinion.

 

With regards to competitivenes, you are correct that not many med schools actually require a full, four-year degree (on paper). But how many people got in without actually having a degree?  And why some people take two? or masters or PhD?  Just for their own pleasure, or to be more competitive?

 

Medicine is competitive everywhere, whether because of the "infatuation with being a doctor" or for a simple reason of having fulfilling and rewarding career (see thread about 'wrong' reasons for going to medicine on this Forum).  The point is that in Europe, med schools Admissions can fully rely on secondary education when assessing candidate's academic ability and performance. Here in Canada, any selection system based on high school average would be inherently unfair. And not only that - many people with "95 average" would not be able to cope with medicine course - I mean those not so few people whose average drops from 90's to 60' in the first year of University.

(Note that I am talking about adcademics only, beside that European med schools have similar criteria like here: entrance test similar to MCAT, PS,  interviews).

 

My point is this: European med education system is based on solid, comprehensive and consistent secordary school education, upon which the med program (consisting of applied science for 2-3 yrs and then 3-yr clinicals) can be succesfully built. No need for useless degrees, 2nd degrees, no "undergradue burnouts" when fighting for fraction of GPA, etc.  In my view, that system is simpler, more fair, more logical and more efficient.  

[makingfetchhappen]

If you want to send your kids to private school, that's your prerogative. Other people might think that it is a waste of money, but you can spend how you like!

Personally, I really hate the idea of sending my kids there. I would like my children (when I have them) to be around people from all walks of life. Sure, this can happen outside of school, but when you are a child, school is kind of your life. 

If quality of education was an issue, I might change my mind. But, as you stated, the issue is only inconsistency. I would just put the time in to make sure the school was up to my standards, and voila! 

I do have friends who went to some of the most expensive private schools in the country who are the farthest thing from spoiled brats. But, they do lack a lot of the experiences that I had growing up. I just really don't want my kids to be sheltered...

[ralk]

The actual question I was answering was this:

 

ralk, on 08 Apr 2015 - 9:46 PM, said:

European med school and North american med school are set up completely differently (6 vs 4 years for one thing) so you can't really use direct entry in Europe as evidence of superior secondary education.

 

older, on 02 Apr 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

They are set differently for a reason, one of them being that North American secondary education system was not considered good enough to be sufficient for med school.

 NLengr, on 04 Apr 2015 - 4:12 PM, said:

Can you provide any actual evidence of this?

 

older, on 07 Apr 2015 - 1:05 PM, said:

Yes. Flexner Report.

Here is the historical perspective that I posted some time ago on a different thread.

 

 

I don't thik I left anything  unaswered?

 

With regards to the current state of education, I cited OESD data, not Flexner report.  Canada comes in decent 13 place. But that's Canada as a whole.  There are big differences between provinces. One of the essential differences is that not all provinces (and most notably, not Ontario) have standardized assessment. And some schools have better programs than others - many  private schools with enriched academic programs, and some public schools, e.g. those with IB program. As one poster here (a math teacher) commented few posts back, a lot depends on the school and on teachers. That's how there are significant differences in the level and quality of preparation for post-secondary education. I call it inconsistent - very. Compare it to, for example, UK, where HS students take comprehensive exams for General Cerificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), and then, 2 years later,  a General Certification of Education on Advanced Level (A levels). I consider that system better than the Canadian melee, but that's my opinion.

 

With regards to competitivenes, you are correct that not many med schools actually require a full, four-year degree (on paper). But how many people got in without actually having a degree?  And why some people take two? or masters or PhD?  Just for their own pleasure, or to be more competitive?

 

Medicine is competitive everywhere, whether because of the "infatuation with being a doctor" or for a simple reason of having fulfilling and rewarding career (see thread about 'wrong' reasons for going to medicine on this Forum).  The point is that in Europe, med schools Admissions can fully rely on secondary education when assessing candidate's academic ability and performance. Here in Canada, any selection system based on high school average would be inherently unfair. And not only that - many people with "95 average" would not be able to cope with medicine course - I mean those not so few people whose average drops from 90's to 60' in the first year of University.

(Note that I am talking about adcademics only, beside that European med schools have similar criteria like here: entrance test similar to MCAT, PS,  interviews).

 

My point is this: European med education system is based on solid, comprehensive and consistent secordary school education, upon which the med program (consisting of applied science for 2-3 yrs and then 3-yr clinicals) can be succesfully built. No need for useless degrees, 2nd degrees, no "undergradue burnouts" when fighting for fraction of GPA, etc.  In my view, that system is simpler, more fair, more logical and more efficient.  

 

Yeah, the OECD data shows Canada as 13th, ahead of most developed countries including the UK. Regions ahead of Canada in those rankings are predominantly east Asian countries or cities, including Macao, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. You can also look at the OECD data for variability in performance within a country, which shows Canada as having more consistent performance than major European countries, including the UK. You're extolling their amazing system, but we're ahead of them on standardized metrics.

 

Your entire position is based on this premise of poor quality of our secondary education, yet the data contradicts that assessment. There's also a very circular nature to you argument - you use our requirement for post-secondary education before medical school as evidence of a poor secondary education system, then argue we have to have post-secondary education before medical school because of the poor quality of our secondary education. Without some outside evidence of the UK system's superiority, you've presented a classic logical fallacy.

[older]

Yeah, the OECD data shows Canada as 13th, ahead of most developed countries including the UK. Regions ahead of Canada in those rankings are predominantly east Asian countries or cities, including Macao, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. You can also look at the OECD data for variability in performance within a country, which shows Canada as having more consistent performance than major European countries, including the UK. You're extolling their amazing system, but we're ahead of them on standardized metrics.

 

Your entire position is based on this premise of poor quality of our secondary education, yet the data contradicts that assessment. There's also a very circular nature to you argument - you use our requirement for post-secondary education before medical school as evidence of a poor secondary education system, then argue we have to have post-secondary education before medical school because of the poor quality of our secondary education. Without some outside evidence of the UK system's superiority, you've presented a classic logical fallacy.

 

 

You totally missed my point why I consider Canadian secondary education system inferior - because of its INCONSISTENCY. And where there is inconsistency, quality is in question. Average numbers do not present true picture.  I don't want to repeat myself in justification for this opinion, it's all in the previous post. 

 

I am not using our requirement for post-secondary education before medical school as "evidence" of a poor secondary education system now. I posted historical information to explain why our system has been set up that way 100 years ago. And I am wondering why it is still that way, and whether the inconsistency of secondary education has something to do with it.  I don't have an answer  - do you? If everything is just fine, why do we need that "bridging" years?  Can you justify the need for  prerequistes other than secodary education (with approppriate science content) prior to entering med school, if secondary education is as good as you say?

 

UK is just an example, but none of European countries has a pre-requisite other than high school.  

[older]

If you want to send your kids to private school, that's your prerogative. Other people might think that it is a waste of money, but you can spend how you like!

 

Personally, I really hate the idea of sending my kids there. I would like my children (when I have them) to be around people from all walks of life. Sure, this can happen outside of school, but when you are a child, school is kind of your life. 

 

If quality of education was an issue, I might change my mind. But, as you stated, the issue is only inconsistency. I would just put the time in to make sure the school was up to my standards, and voila! 

 

I do have friends who went to some of the most expensive private schools in the country who are the farthest thing from spoiled brats. But, they do lack a lot of the experiences that I had growing up. I just really don't want my kids to be sheltered...

 

Funny that you think that private schools do not have people from all walks of life. Suburban private schools are full of immigrant children from not-so-wealthy families.

 

And yes, I would send my kids to private school if I see distinct advantages (academic and others) of doing so. Othervise, no. "Private" is not a magic word.

[ralk]

You totally missed my point why I consider Canadian secondary education system inferior - because of its INCONSISTENCY. Average numbers do not present true picture.  I don't want to repeat myself in justification for this opinion, it's all in the above post. 

 

I didn't miss that point, I've addressed it multiple times, including in the post you're quoting. The difference between low-end performance and high-end performance is better in Canada than it is in the UK. Put simply, educational outcomes are MORE consistent in Canada than in the UK. I don't want to repeat myself either, yet I'm doing it over and over again. Please read what I write before dismissing it.

[older]

I didn't miss that point, I've addressed it multiple times, including in the post you're quoting. The difference between low-end performance and high-end performance is better in Canada than it is in the UK. Put simply, educational outcomes are MORE consistent in Canada than in the UK. I don't want to repeat myself either, yet I'm doing it over and over again. Please read what I write before dismissing it.

 

The variance limit (difference between low-end performance and high-end performance) is only one of the  indicators - you would have to look at the distribution. The more telling story than OECD data is performance of our HS grads at the University. There you see huge differences, largely depending on which school they come from.

[ralk]

The variance limit (difference between low-end performance and high-end performance) is only one of the  indicators - you would have to look at the distribution. The more telling story than OECD data is performance of our HS grads at the University. There you see huge differences, largely depending on which school they come from.

 

If you have that University-level data, please share it. I can't find anything on that, from the OECD or otherwise.

 

The data I've been able to find shows Canada having a higher overall level of performance, including on the margins of the distribution, a more narrow distribution of scores, in addition to lower correlations between socioeconomic status and student performance.

 

There is certainly a fair deal of variation between provinces and within provinces, but that doesn't mean variability relative to other countries - particularly the UK - is greater, which is what you're arguing. You've had multiple opportunities to back up your opinions with data. Please, put your money where your mouth is.

[amichel]

Funny that you think that private schools do not have people from all walks of life. Suburban private schools are full of immigrant children from not-so-wealthy families.

 

And yes, I would send my kids to private school if I see distinct advantages (academic and others) of doing so. Othervise, no. "Private" is not a magic word.

Where in the world do not so wealthy families get 20 000 per year per kid? Also, if you think you see distinct academic advantages, you'd be wrong, sorry. There just isn't a difference that can't be accounted for by SES differences. The only advantage I really see is networking, and high school kids (never mind elementary) don't really need to network. Spend half the money on tutors and music lessons and your kids will be much better off.

 

For me personally, I could never do it. Putting kids in private school takes money away from the public system (funding is per kid), which makes the public system worse, which (eventually, not now, as I've pointed out) means that some kids won't have the opportunity for a decent education because of the circumstances they were born into. And that's just wrong.

[Jaybird]

For me personally, I could never do it. Putting kids in private school takes money away from the public system (funding is per kid), which makes the public system worse, which (eventually, not now, as I've pointed out) means that some kids won't have the opportunity for a decent education because of the circumstances they were born into. And that's just wrong.

 

The rebuttal being, if you're willing to sacrifice your children on the altar of principles, how good of a parent are you really?

[amichel]

The rebuttal being, if you're willing to sacrifice your children on the altar of principles, how good of a parent are you really?

No, because if people continue to support the public system, it's no sacrifice at all to have your kids in public school.

 

Honestly though, the public schools would have to be dangerous (like in some places in the states) before I'd take my kids out. Barring that, I'd make up any deficits (and I really don't think there are any at this point in time) with tutors and such.

[aaronjw]

^^ and welcome to the new topic of morality and ethics. Soon to be arriving to the discussion will be Bentham, Mill, Kant, Locke, and Rawls lol

[Falling]

lol rawls

[makingfetchhappen]

The rebuttal being, if you're willing to sacrifice your children on the altar of principles, how good of a parent are you really?

You could argue that willingness to sacrifice your children is a virtue (see Genesis 22:2-8).

[amichel]

^^ and welcome to the new topic of morality and ethics. Soon to be arriving to the discussion will be Bentham, Mill, Kant, Locke, and Rawls lol

 

Sorry. Didn't mean to get to serious. Just a topic I feel passionately about as someone who has a fairly extensive background in education (although I didn't do an undergraduate in it) and is interested in peds

(education is a determinant of health people!!)

[aaronjw]

Lol I was just bringing a side of whimsy and smart-ass to the thread. Nothing serious

[amichel]

Lol I was just bringing a side of whimsy and smart-ass to the thread. Nothing serious

Fair enough.

[older]

If you have that University-level data, please share it. I can't find anything on that, from the OECD or otherwise.

 

The data I've been able to find shows Canada having a higher overall level of performance, including on the margins of the distribution, a more narrow distribution of scores, in addition to lower correlations between socioeconomic status and student performance.

 

There is certainly a fair deal of variation between provinces and within provinces, but that doesn't mean variability relative to other countries - particularly the UK - is greater, which is what you're arguing. You've had multiple opportunities to back up your opinions with data. Please, put your money where your mouth is.

 

I don't have statistically-significant data - only from one school that keeps track. But there is large anegdotal evidence - grades dropping from 90' to 60' in 1st year for some kids but not others (not everything can be explained by drinking and partying) is quite a common occurence. Next, TAs from UofT whom I know, and who teach 100 level, complaining about incredible gaps in knowledge  of some of 1st year students, who must have had 85+ average to get to UofT Science in the  first place. Most importantly to me, my own observations.

 

I concede it might not be enough to influence your opinion, but it's good enough for me to form my own.

 

UK is just an example, but generally EU system of education is more uniform, and everybody has some kind of standardized assessement. Some do better than others, but at least you know where you stand when students enter university. Here, it is all over the place.