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.

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.

As far as Physical Chemistry is concerned, I loved every minute of it. But then I was a chemistry major.

Organic was useless in pre-med, and should be replaced with two semesters of biochemistry.

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 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