Do pre-meds really need it?
Technically, no. But the rigor of the course and discipline needed to pass is itself a weeding out process for those considering medical school. If they can’t pass organic chemistry, it is unlikely they will develop the studying skills needed for medicine.
So, I’m for organic chemistry staying as a pre-requisite.
Related posts:
- Business and medicine
- Woefully unprepared
- Getting into medical school redux
- Grading medical students, pass-fail or letter grades?
- Should you choose internal medicine or family practice?
- Personalized medicine
- Are doctors finding the physical exam useless and obsolete?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 11 comments }
In my college, the primary weeder was general chemistry, not organic. They prided the high medical school acceptance rate at that (unnamed but most selective) school and were merciless in weeding at the outset. Organic was not difficult for its survivors. The only other killer course was Physical Chemistry, which only tormented Chemistry majors.
I think Organic is valuable, more so than general chemistry, so I don’t think it should be eliminated.
I may not have used any “actual” organic chemistry in med school, but I developed the skill to visualize and manipulate 3D structures (like the human body) by learning to picture and rotate molecules in orgo. Invaluable.
personally I think it would be useful to replace some of the organic chem with analytical to better inform students about the processes and limitations of some diagnostic tests
I don’t understand why courses can’t be designed to be both rigorous AND relevant
Maybe, I don’t know, stats training would be useful?
http://opa.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=1561
I was a chemistry major. I can say categorically that physical chemistry was hands down the hardest class I have ever taken, any where, ever, ever, ever. Organic was no cake wake either. But is certainly teaches you how to study.
Also a past chem/bio major, phys chem sucks but is interesting. Orgo for premeds should be only one semester, biochem 1 and 2 should be mandatory. Also, I found social sciences to be more important than much of my basic sci classes. They should have some sort of clinical electives for undergrads, would weed a bunch out. My school hired a retired NS to teach neuro anatomy and phys with clinical cases to upperclassmen and gradstudents. Most important/interesting class I took in college. It made me want to be a doctor.
I think organic chemistry is relevant in and of itself, but can probably be pared down to one semester. As for the rigors it posed, I personally don’t think it requires intense study skills. I was able to coast through it, barely studying, whereas some of my classmates killed themselves for B’s.
I think a hybrid Organic I + Biochem I combination would be more relevant. Much beyond that and you’re getting more detailed than is warranted. Such classes do exist, and they can be quite rigorous, not to mention relevant.
I don’t see the fascination with chemistry for pre-meds, really. It makes more sense for pharmacy types, particularly as they will study more pharmacology and medicinal chemistry than any MD, so I say keep it for them, forget it for the pre-meds.
I have similar feelings about requiring a whole year of physics. (There’s no need.)
There are other classes that are more relevant to health professionals: macroeconomics, health care economics, rigorous statistics, and a wider variety of liberal art-sy type (”fluff”) courses.
I think they should make human gross anatomy required to get your PhD in chemistry. It helps to “develop” the necessary “study skills” to be a chemist.
Organic was useless in pre-med, and should be replaced with two semesters of biochemistry.
I thought you had to have a basic 2 semester course in Organic Chemistry prior to taking General Biochemistry.
As far as Physical Chemistry is concerned, I loved every minute of it. But then I was a chemistry major.
And people wonder why doctors seem so disconnected from reality…
Where is the logic in requiring a course or course material because it helps “weeds” people out? How about teaching stuff actually needed in school, rather than using the learning process as a “weeding out” tool? Shouldn’t testing and interviews do the weeding out and school be for, well, gee, learning?
Using this impeccable logic, one could argue for teaching structural engineering, since it is also rigorous, or polar calculus, or plasma cosmology. In other words, its spurious, illogical reasoning at its best.
I must disagree with much of the above.
I would have endorsed all of the above 20 years ago, but not now. I went to medical school, and then entered psychiatry when it was still primarily about psychotherapy. Keeping up with a changing field at any deeper level than memorizing drug dosages has often called on basic, usually fuzzy, familiarity with basic organic structures and reaction types. It is probably the basic terminology and processes more than the more detailed facts learned in biochemistry that have stuck with me just enough to keep reading the lit and provide a structure into which to put the expanding biochemical basis of the field.
I think that it is very important that we retain the basic model of physicians as grounded in basic science first, as over the 40 or more years of a physicians career, we do not know where future developments will require him to go with his knowledge.
Otherwise we are just technicians who have memorized protocols, and must memorize them all over again every few years (usually unaware to what degree the science has been corrupted by self-interest).
I did indeed spend a lot of time learning what I never have and never will use–but they told me at the time that they had no way of knowing which part of it was the 90% waste and which the 10% gold and I think that is true.
I think it is part of the larger struggle of whether we are going to be in charge of our own house in the future or not.
The logical extreme of the other position is that we should just learn the clinical procedures that we use. Psychologists in my state, who are trained in general academic non-medical settings, with no grounding in the biological or natural sciences, are now legally allowed to prescribe drugs after a series of weekend classes. They just follow the directions. Is that the level we want to descend to? Who would write the protocols? Who would be the core group of clinical researchers who bridged the basic science work of the PhD’s and community physicians? Where would they come from?
BTW, I had no problems fitting a stats elective into my undergraduate preparation. The requirements for medical school are simple enough that no one can complain that meeting the few requirements cut them out broadening their base with other relevant studies. A biochem degree curriculum, with a few hours beyond the required, allowed time for humanities, 2 foreign languages, accounting, social sciences, a little engineering, extracurricular activities (by far the best part!) and plenty of beer.
I think one of the glories of American medicine is that we almost all are college graduates and I think it shows in a superiority of American Medicine in both technical leadership but also in non-techincal competence and ethics of our practicioners compared to most of the rest of the world–where docs are just tradesmen buyer beware.
Comments on this entry are closed.