10 ms·

I place enormous value on my undergrad training in chemistry before going on to med school. Impossible to prove but I do think the deeper your foundation in li

I place enormous value on my undergrad training in chemistry before going on to med school. Impossible to prove but I do think the deeper your foundation in life sciences the better your ability to adapt to new medicines, procedures, & other advances in medicine. Speaking as a urologist. Edit: the pre med prereqs are a good start. But I value the skills & concepts from the senior level bio/chem classes that I wouldn’t have gotten with a 6 yr track. Something also to be said for the emotional maturity that comes with 4 yrs prior to med school.

TheTruestKyle 6y ago
But not the real world.
asapatient 6y ago
"Impossible to prove..." sure, but that's tautology outside some very constrained problem domains like mathematics. The salient question is cost/benefit. What is the cost in terms of lives and resources of those extra years? Do sufficient benefits obtain? The US is globally known as a great place to get treated for cancers, especially. 5 year survival rates are relatively high - but of course only a fraction of Americans actually have access to the kind of diagnostics and treatments that deliver these outcomes, and only a smaller fraction of those with said access actually pass on significant assets to their heirs. For most, the medical- and death-industrial complex fulfills its primary extractive purpose. I find it deeply ironic that your literally academic perspective ("Something also to be said for the emotional maturity that comes with 4 yrs prior to med school") is so utterly subjective - i.e. about your feelings, NOT data around outcomes. In the OECD, people live longer, on average, in places where less time and money is spent educating physicians. Yes, there are confounding factors - but this is true even controlling for the big ones like obesity
renewiltord 6y ago
Presumably, at a whole society level that would then mean the UK adapts poorer to new procedures than the US. Have you observed things that make you believe that is the case? Not looking for proof of what you say (you say “impossible to prove” after all, and that’s fair) but surely something makes you believe this.

TheTruestKyle 6y ago

But not the real world.

asapatient 6y ago

"Impossible to prove..." sure, but that's tautology outside some very constrained problem domains like mathematics. The salient question is cost/benefit. What is the cost in terms of lives and resources of those extra years? Do sufficient benefits obtain? The US is globally known as a great place to get treated for cancers, especially. 5 year survival rates are relatively high - but of course only a fraction of Americans actually have access to the kind of diagnostics and treatments that deliver these outcomes, and only a smaller fraction of those with said access actually pass on significant assets to their heirs. For most, the medical- and death-industrial complex fulfills its primary extractive purpose. I find it deeply ironic that your literally academic perspective ("Something also to be said for the emotional maturity that comes with 4 yrs prior to med school") is so utterly subjective - i.e. about your feelings, NOT data around outcomes. In the OECD, people live longer, on average, in places where less time and money is spent educating physicians. Yes, there are confounding factors - but this is true even controlling for the big ones like obesity

renewiltord 6y ago

Presumably, at a whole society level that would then mean the UK adapts poorer to new procedures than the US. Have you observed things that make you believe that is the case? Not looking for proof of what you say (you say “impossible to prove” after all, and that’s fair) but surely something makes you believe this.