Hard school- any disadvantage?

Pre-Med & Medical School Pre-Med Topics
41

<p>“and then decide they don’t want to be doctors?”</p>

<p>No one forces them to stay in that path. Many medical school students in France who have survived the weed out premed years change to pharmacy instead. And they do so successfully.</p>

<p>“they don’t have a liberal arts education to serve as the foundation.” So why not elevate the level of the liberal art education in the US (the science need some improvements also…) Most of the “liberal art” courses considered university level in the US are covered in HS in Europe.</p>

42

<p>1.) I think there’s plenty of kids who would prefer to be in a non-science field entirely, and pharmacy’s not exactly going to fit the bill. What do the kids do if they want to go into law? Economics? Football?</p>

<p>2.) What, they don’t “track” pharmacists?</p>

43

<p>“What do the kids do if they want to go into law? Economics? Football?”</p>

<p>Just like for those in the US who change majors. They have to take again the courses they didn’t take. Any changes in decision involves some sacrifice. But at least, the sacrifice is smaller, since many who don’t have what it takes will fail right in the beginning (no one prohibits them to try again if they are really dedicated).</p>

<p>You have to realize that even in the US, changing fields is not as easy as you seem to assume. You still have to make up for the courses you didn’t take (which is the same as in EU). For example, my father got his PhD in mathematics. He was interested in CS, so he took the courses in CS he didn’t know, and got his BS degree in 1 yr.</p>

<ol>
<li> Premed and prepharm are very similar in terms of prerequisites (basic chemistry, biology, physiology, calc etc…)</li>
</ol>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll take it. It’s still better than the status quo. Like I said, the status quo ain’t that good.</p>

45

<p>1.) Changing fields at age 20, while you’re still in college, is VERY easy. You walk over to your registrar and fill out a piece of paper. Changing fields post-degree, of course, isn’t all that easy – but…</p>

<p>2.) American degrees are still very powerful and flexible. Many of my classmates majored in history, worked in consulting, or totally non-science fields, and are now in medical school. Me? I’m an economics major, a pre-law student, a research assistant in health policy, and a medical student.</p>

<p>That kind of flexibility wouldn’t be possible if I’d gotten locked in at age 18 and lacked the breadth to jump in interdisciplinary fashion.</p>

<p>Again – obviously there’s a large deadweight loss in our system, promulgated mostly by students who ought to know better. But we have advantages, too.</p>

46

<p>Most Asian countries weed out pre-meds at the college entrance level by only taking the high scoring test takers. Grades are not important although tests usually cover what was taught in high school math and sciences. Such a system may be more “efficient” according to some on this thread as those students who do not qualify can move on with their life and choose another area. However, this system would weigh against late bloomers or people who decide later to pursue medicine. Often those in the latter group tend te be the most motivated and certainly have had a wider range of life experiences. These people would have been weeded out in both the Asian and European systems. Harold Varmus, a recent NIH director and Nobel prize winner, was pursuing a Ph.D. in medieval literature when he decided to apply to medical school. He would not have been able to enter medical school in either the Asian or European systems. I had a frank talk with a Japanese faculty member recently who was responsible for his medical school’s curriculum and education. He decried the lack of maturity and commitment by many of the students since they had to choose their career at 17. Also, he empasized that good test-takers do not necessarily make good doctors, and admired our more “wholistic” and “open” approach to medical school admissions. He felt our system ultimately trained the best physicians. Whether this is at great cost to those who do not get admitted is hard to say. There is some time and opportunity cost but it is not insurmountable. It will depend upon what these people do with their lives instead of medicine-it is hard to measure. All of us will face some disappointments in our lives, whether it be medical school admissions or some other professional or personal loss. What we do in response to that disappointment or loss, is important.</p>

47

<p>“That kind of flexibility wouldn’t be possible if I’d gotten locked in at age 18 and lacked the breadth to jump in interdisciplinary fashion.”</p>

<p>Once again, you have to understand they don’t get “locked.” Changing fields is easy because you actually took a bunch of courses as a cushion to change to economics. If the hypothetical premed who was “locked” changed fields, he would have to simply take the courses he didn’t take before. Which is understandable. This would take as much time as you did to get a BA in econmics and be a premed and go to medical school (total 4 yrs). </p>

<p>Now let me clarify this. A “locked premed” who changes field at the begining of his graduate medical education actually has only 2 yrs wasted (his 2 premed yrs). Sometimes, it is even 1.5 yrs since EU medical school education starts earlier. Let’s take your scenario. You decide to change field after having tasted the first medical courses at your medical school. You decide to take a CHemE degree. You have wasted 3.5 yrs, since your ONLY chemistry/physics would be freshman chemistry/physics and orgo chem. Early exposition to medical school will help you give a better idea of your capabilities.</p>

<p>"He would not have been able to enter medical school in either the Asian or European systems. " False. As long as he was the work ethic to begin again his first premed college year, he can.</p>

<p>“they had to choose their career at 17.” Just as people choose college majors, there is nothing wrong with choosing to be a premed or choosing to get into medical school. No one obliges you to stay.</p>

48

<p>“That kind of flexibility wouldn’t be possible if I’d gotten locked in at age 18 and lacked the breadth to jump in interdisciplinary fashion”</p>

<p>THe bureaucracy in the US actually is a burden to “jump in the interdisciplinary manner” You still have to take the courses to get paper credits of what you didn’t take. It’s just the same in EU. If you need 60 credit hours in CS to get a degree in CS, and you got none of those courses because you got an economics degree, then you are bound to take all those 60 hrs courses (those courses are CS courses only, not math etc…) THis thing works the same everywhere, not just in the US.</p>

49

<p>Now to give everyone a fair view of the situation:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>the US holistic system favors late specialization so that you have a few yrs to decide what you want to do. I think those yrs are a waste of time and money that could be spent doing sth useful if we elevate HS level classes.</p></li>
<li><p>EU system promotes early specialization while providing very high level secondary education. As a side note, the HS system in EU is ENORMOUSLY more well rounded than the secondary education in the US. WHich is why US college students have to make that up in college (at the cost of thousands of dollars). I can testify to this since I experienced both systems. By far, the EU education championed critical thinking skills over speed, maturity over technical skills, and writing skills over “bubbling” or “scantron” skills. I never used a scantron before going to the USA.</p></li>
</ol>

50

<p>Now, let me replace theoretical reasoning with empirical evidence:</p>

<p>I know a math major from Vietnam who went to france. He actually had a GRADUATE degree before going to france. He changed his mind, and decided to become a doctor. He took the first premed year, and retook it to progress. He failed every single year he took. His medical school education (premed&med) took a total of 12 yrs, as opposed to the standard 6 yrs. He graduated with no debt, since all his education was free. He didn’t know how to speak/read french when he came. He is now a successful physician in Paris, with a great reputation.</p>

<p>Could he have done the same in the US? I doubt it. Without knowing to speak english, how on earth was he going to pass the MCAT, which is reputed to be one of the hardest english based standardized test? How will he pay the thousands of dollars to do a postbac program? Even native english speakers fail the MCAT test. Even if he had survived, he would have had 200-300K in debts before going to residency if he took 12 yrs to graduate.</p>

<p>"admired our more “wholistic” and “open” approach to medical school admissions. " In france, at least, med school admission is a kind of open admission. As long as you graduate from high school, you are technically “admitted.” The weed out process occurs after.</p>

<p>On the other hand, a medical school student in the US more “locked in” since he has a huge debt after 1-2 yr of medical school. He has to stay to get his MD, and become a doctor to pay that debt.</p>

51

<p>1.) First, you seem to be arguing that our high schools need to get their act together. Fine, whatever. I don’t think anybody supports worse high schools.</p>

<p>2.) Given that we have the HS system we have, though, it’s a little irrelevant to argue this.</p>

<p>3.) There’s still an age question. Even given the same background education, “tracking” an eighteen year old – as opposed to a 22 year old – might still cause a lot of difficulties when they end up in a path they don’t like. We have an eighteen year old in our medical school class, and I’m not sure how reliable I would find her in crunch time. Remember, 17 year olds are still living at home with their parents. You really want to track them straight out of home?</p>

<p>As painful as the deadweight losses are from premeds who can’t get into medical school, medical education is expensive. It’s a LOT worse when you have a medical student who drops out.</p>

<p>(Or when one takes 12 years to finish it.)</p>

<p>4.) Once again, you completely misunderstand what I mean. I **specifically **pointed out that it’s easier to jump tracks as a twenty-year old here in the States. You walk over to your registrar’s office, change your major from economics to computer science.</p>

<p>Obviously post-track jumps are always going to be difficult – like dropping out of medical school to try to become an engineer. But a system which tracks kids at an older age has the advantage of giving them a couple of halfway-independent years to explore and experiment.</p>

<p>Too, how does the non-science track work? If I wanted to drop out of medical school today and go to law school instead, there’s no extra coursework I need, because I graduated with a broad arts and sciences college education* and have all the foundation law schools ask for. I could similarly apply for a job on Wall Street, which – again – I could get, since I have the foundation they need.</p>

<p>5.) Congratulations on four posts in a row. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.</p>

<p>And it’s presumptuous to post your own arguments and label them “a fair view” for “everyone.”</p>

<p>6.) Look, I readily concede that a broader system has dead-weight losses. Easily. And sakky’s certainly right that more open information would reduce this, and I’m all for that – not least because I think admissions processes in general need to be more transparent.</p>

<p>But you’re coming on here and arguing that the American system has zero advantage to it. That’s just not a reasonable position to take. In the sports world, you’d be referred to as a “homer”. It’s not a nice term.</p>

<p>(PS: Nothing is free. The only question is, who pays?)</p>

52

<p>“But you’re coming on here and arguing that the American system has zero advantage to it” </p>

<p>I never said that. A medical education that syphons in billions of dollars should at least have some advantage. But this system could be immensely improved, considering how rich it is.</p>

<p>Sorry, I don’t know what a homer is. I will not try to find out, but I don’t like your way of insinuations. BTW, I don’t try to insult anyone. You are. </p>

<p>presumptuous to post your own arguments and label them “a fair view” for “everyone.”</p>

<p>I didn’t try to sound presumptuous. I was concerned that sb might be lost in so many posts. I just wanted to do a recap. Also, I couldn’t edit the older post because they way I posted sporadically.</p>

<p>“halfway-independent years to explore and experiment”</p>

<p>I really liked this idea. However, for economically disadvantaged person, the money invested in those years is a large waste and does not compensate the benefit.</p>

53

<p>Okay. So what’s the advantage to a system that delays tracking?</p>

54

<p>“Okay. So what’s the advantage to a system that delays tracking?”</p>

<p>Allows undecided persons to seek sth they truly want to do. However, I do think that it’s not worth it to spend so much money just to “explore” different subjects until you suddenly come with an epiphany (if it ever comes) that you would truly want to pursue a particular career.</p>

55

<p>How does one pick a field in France?</p>

56

<p>Watson and Crick,
Your Vietnamese friend actually illustrates the problem with the French system. It took him 12 years to get his degree. That is a lot of wasted time. What if he did not complete his program? It would have been an even greater waste of time. While I admire the open access of public institutions in Europe, it can, in some cases, create perpetual students. In the U.S., students try to complete their degrees as quickly as possible, even those in work-study programs. Your friend could have gone to medical school in the U.S. He probably would have had to work and acquire the requisite language skills, and then apply. I am confident (although I do not have the data) that the U.S. has more medical students over the age of 30 than Europe or Asia. I have reviewed medical school applications from former teachers, social workers, public health administrators, investment bankers, Ph.Ds. journalists, peace corps workers, nurses, medical secretaries, even stay at home moms who have decided to enter medical school. I believe our holistic system allows a broader entry of talent. These people still had the stats but also showed commitment to medicine and had a different life experience than most entering 17 year olds.</p>

57

<p>“How does one pick a field in France?”</p>

<p>You register at a college with proof of high school graduation. Then choose a field (you have to complete forms etc…). You directly start with courses only in your field. If you “survive” the courses, you can continue on with higher level courses.</p>

<p>For engineering, pharmacy and medecine, it is different. To become an engineer, you have to take 2 yrs of ‘pre-engineering’ where you study only physical sciences and math (the other subjects are studied minimally). THen there is a exam at the “Grande Ecole” where the top students are accepted, and it’s another 3 yrs of engineering school (you end up with the equivalent of a MS).</p>

<p>For medecine/pharmacy, it’s also survival of the fittest.</p>

<p>pmyen,
“What if he did not complete his program?” </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Most people who failed so many times as he did would not have the courage to complete the program anyway. He is an extreme case. 99% would have abandoned right after 2nd yr if they failed so many times.</p></li>
<li><p>“That is a lot of wasted time”
I don’t see why it is wasted, considering he learnt the skills to become a doctor. Do you suggest he could have skipped those years and still practice medecine? I think that there is an academic standard all doctors should have, and that skipping without meeting that standard is not a good idea.</p></li>
<li><p>“the U.S. has more medical students over the age of 30 than Europe or Asia”</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I also believe this, but I think it has more to do with the drive of American people than with the system. You have to realize that not everyone can pay the thousands of dollars to go back to school, and still be successful. Americans succeed DESPITE the sytem, not because of it.</p>

<p>Of course, I think that empirically, the US system seems to do a good job in terms of diversity in medical school study body. However, the data showing that US doctors are the greatest users of drugs, those who divorce the most, those who die youngest is undeniable. I think it is related to the pressure of medical debt and harsh medical system (80-100hrs work/week is pretty crazy in my opinion). Those things are less pervasive in EU.</p>

58

<p>Here’s another point I want to address. BDM and BRM said themselves that the medical admission process is very random. pmyen, you might disagree with this as an admission officer, but I take it from the standpoint of a premed. This randomness is what promotes stress in the premed population. I have never heard about people applying to more than 20 schools until I went to the US. Not only is the premed process time consuming in the US, it is also expensive. Each application cost around $100 dollars. The time spent on those applications (which is quite substantial) could be spent on other things more useful. On mdapplicants, there was a PhD graduate who had to suffer the ordeal of postbac program, and who had to send 50+ applications to get accepted only at 1 school (he also had very few interviews or secondary applications). This is just because his undergraduate GPA (not even his graduate GPA) was below standard. THis kind of system is a hindrance to those who return to school, since academic achievements 10 yrs before may affect you at the moment of application. He luckily was admitted to only 1 school, but what if he was rejected at all of them?</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<p>I think one way to deal with this problem is for US med-schools to provide undergraduate credit for med-school classes. Hence, in a theoretical US system where you enter med-school right out of high school and you then find out you don’t like it, you can drop out and transfer to a regular school and use your med-school classes as transfer credits. Or maybe the med-school itself can award you a bachelor’s degree.</p>

<p>Lest you think this idea is crazy, I would point out that the UCSF Medical School actually has a mechanism to award bachelor’s degrees to those (rare) incoming medical students who don’t have such degrees. So if UCSF Med School can award bachelor’s degrees, it seems to me that other med school can too, or at least can make their coursework transferrable. </p>

<p>"Students who enter the School of Medicine without a bachelor’s degree may receive a bachelor of science degree in medical sciences after satisfactorily completing the first three terms of the curriculum leading to the doctor of medicine degree. "</p>

<p>[UCSF</a> School of Medicine - Admissions](<a href=“http://www.medschool.ucsf.edu/admissions/apply/gettingstarted.aspx#started_ca_pref]UCSF”>http://www.medschool.ucsf.edu/admissions/apply/gettingstarted.aspx#started_ca_pref)</p>

<p>Also, I think we should bear in mind that not every undergraduate program offers the easy ‘field switchability’ to which you refer. For example, the UCBerkeley College of Engineering has the notorious ‘major trap’ in which, if you are doing poorly in engineering, you may very easily find that you can’t get out of your major because no other major wants to take you. That’s because you basically need at least a 3.0 GPA to switch not only into any of the other constituent colleges at Berkeley, but also within majors in the CoE, and a LOT of Berkeley engineering students have nowhere near a 3.0. Hence, you’re forced to stay in the very engineering major in which you are doing poorly. {It’s quite the Catch-22: that the very people who need to leave the major the most are precisely the ones who are forced to stay.} Similarly, there are many highly specialized colleges in the country that really only offer one undergraduate program of study. If you choose to go to, say, Olin College of Engineering and find out that you don’t really want to be an engineer, you got a big problem, because basically the only thing Olin offers is engineering. Webb Institute, same thing. Same thing is true if you go to Juilliard and then find out that you don’t really want to study the arts. All of these types of schools are basically demanding that prospective students choose want they want to study before they are perhaps mature enough to make such a choice.</p>

60

<p>

How does one make an informed choice?</p>