4 ms·

Countries that do that usually have med school programs that last longer than 4 years. US med schools would have to add in all the required classes from undergr

Countries that do that usually have med school programs that last longer than 4 years. US med schools would have to add in all the required classes from undergrad. Then you have to take into account that you the US doesn’t have a national high school curriculum, so the first 2 years of undergrad are essentially just getting everyone in the same page. You’d likely be looking at a 6-7 year program with a much higher failure rate. It’s not a clear cut win and it would take a huge amount of coordination and effort.

watwut 3y ago
Sure longer then 4 years ans still shorter in total and still the whole higher part of it is on point rather then random. They don't have 7 years long programs.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  There are countries with 7 year programs. 5 or 6 is more common. But some of those require an extra internship year before residency (which may be optional). But you’re forgetting the part where the US doesn’t have a national high school curriculum. So a direct high school to medschool pipeline in the US would definitely include a year or 2 of general education.
  - ghufran_syed 3y ago
    why do you think general education is necessary? went to med school directly from high school in england, and loved the fact I didn't have to waste time and money on “general education” - I can read and I know what a library is, I don't need a university to spoon feed me “general education”
    - sarchertech 3y ago
      You could say the exact same about high school in general. Where you end general education is a tradeoff. You could say 12 year olds can read, so why not let them go be apprentice electricians or whatever. However, what I or you think is irrelevant. America in general has decided that general education is a requirement for anyone who is college educated. Every undergraduate professional degree requires general education. Pharmacists, accountants, engineers, teachers, actuaries etc...
      - watwut 3y ago
        The other ones are finished with their learning years faster and can move on into jobs. With doctors, unnecessary additional years hurt them more then others and also it makes whole medical system more expensive. So yes, there is a difference. The situation is worst with doctors.
        sarchertech 3y ago
        2 additional years of general education is 2 extra years whether total training time is 4 years or 10 years. There’s no non-linear effect that I’m aware of that makes a 33% increase from 6 to 8 years somehow much more expensive or more painful than a 100% increase from 2 to 4. All of the other profession degrees provide public services and so pass the costs of general education directly to the public. In many cases like with pharmacists and physical therapists, it’s directly affecting the medical system. Also take a look at the percentage of medical costs that go to doctors. It’s a small percentage. Speeding their training up by 2 years isn’t going to make much of a dent. In fact if you move to 6 year med school it might actuality make their education more expensive overall because med school is much more expensive per year than an undergraduate degree.
  - watwut 3y ago
    The whole point would be to skip the "general education" part and teach directly useful parts. You can even have an entry test for what you expect students to know, that will create a common baseline.
    - sarchertech 3y ago
      We don't have a national curriculumn. If you start requiring college level general education from high school students, you're biasing selection against kids whose schools can't or won't provide those classes. There's no way to force local schools to change without a major overhaul of our entire system. We don't do that in the United States for any other undergraduate professional degrees. Engineers, accountants, pharmacists, nurses, teachers etc... all require college level general education. Eliminating that is not realistic.
      - watwut 3y ago
        It is already heavily biased and there are no high schools that don't provide basic chemistry or biology. It is really not that it would be impossible, it is just that you don't want to change the status quo.
        sarchertech 3y ago
        In the vast majority of high schools biology and chemistry aren’t remotely comparable to the college lab based classes. High school English isn’t generally equivalent to college English. High school history isn’t equivalent etc… General education for doctors also includes calc based physics, so you need calculus as well. Do you think people want to go to a doctor that has a less broad education than their accountant so they can save 3% on their medical bills? Why don’t we do an experiment? A new medical classification—MDWL (medical doctor without letters). MDWLs go directly out of high school to a 6 year med school where all the fluff has been cut out. No history, no general chemistry, biology, physics, calculus, English, art history, political science, literature, sociology, psychology, foreign language, business etc… Then let people choose whether they want to save $10 on an office visit to go the MDWL. Physicians salaries btw represent about 8% of medical costs. So even if we did manage to cut medical education from 8 to 6 years we’re talking maybe saving 2%. That 2% would be eaten up by rising administrative costs, and most of those the cost savings would likely be taken by private equity. Not passed on to the consumer.
ThinkBeat 3y ago
Nearly all countries I know about have some system where only the best of the best from high school are admitted into the program. The criteria can be different but usually some permutation of the grade point average from high school. Competition to make it into the program if fierce. A couple of countries I know about¹ start off with a much larger set of students expecting a large. number will drop out early. You still need high points from high school, but it might be a better solution than just the top of the top grades. ¹ Thirty years ago. I am old.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  All else being equal I think it makes more sense to let people go through an undergraduate degree first as opposed to combining that with med school. I think it’s better to have discrete units: 1. you have more people who just never make it into med school but still have an accredited undergraduate degree vs more people failing out of med school after taking out loans. 2. You don’t need to know you want to be a doctor at 16 or 17 years old. 3. Med school is much more expensive than undergrad on average, so even if it takes longer, it’s still likely going to be cheaper. Sure med schools could make the first few years cheaper, but they won’t unless forced. 4. It makes it more likely that doctors socialize with non-doctors and get a chance to pursue non-medical interests. One of the biggest complaints about doctors is that they lack empathy—taking people directly from high school and ensuring that they pretty much only socialize with other doctors for 8-10 years definitely isn’t going to help that.

watwut 3y ago

Sure longer then 4 years ans still shorter in total and still the whole higher part of it is on point rather then random. They don't have 7 years long programs.

sarchertech 3y ago
There are countries with 7 year programs. 5 or 6 is more common. But some of those require an extra internship year before residency (which may be optional). But you’re forgetting the part where the US doesn’t have a national high school curriculum. So a direct high school to medschool pipeline in the US would definitely include a year or 2 of general education.
- ghufran_syed 3y ago
  why do you think general education is necessary? went to med school directly from high school in england, and loved the fact I didn't have to waste time and money on “general education” - I can read and I know what a library is, I don't need a university to spoon feed me “general education”
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    You could say the exact same about high school in general. Where you end general education is a tradeoff. You could say 12 year olds can read, so why not let them go be apprentice electricians or whatever. However, what I or you think is irrelevant. America in general has decided that general education is a requirement for anyone who is college educated. Every undergraduate professional degree requires general education. Pharmacists, accountants, engineers, teachers, actuaries etc...
    - watwut 3y ago
      The other ones are finished with their learning years faster and can move on into jobs. With doctors, unnecessary additional years hurt them more then others and also it makes whole medical system more expensive. So yes, there is a difference. The situation is worst with doctors.
      - sarchertech 3y ago
        2 additional years of general education is 2 extra years whether total training time is 4 years or 10 years. There’s no non-linear effect that I’m aware of that makes a 33% increase from 6 to 8 years somehow much more expensive or more painful than a 100% increase from 2 to 4. All of the other profession degrees provide public services and so pass the costs of general education directly to the public. In many cases like with pharmacists and physical therapists, it’s directly affecting the medical system. Also take a look at the percentage of medical costs that go to doctors. It’s a small percentage. Speeding their training up by 2 years isn’t going to make much of a dent. In fact if you move to 6 year med school it might actuality make their education more expensive overall because med school is much more expensive per year than an undergraduate degree.
- watwut 3y ago
  The whole point would be to skip the "general education" part and teach directly useful parts. You can even have an entry test for what you expect students to know, that will create a common baseline.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    We don't have a national curriculumn. If you start requiring college level general education from high school students, you're biasing selection against kids whose schools can't or won't provide those classes. There's no way to force local schools to change without a major overhaul of our entire system. We don't do that in the United States for any other undergraduate professional degrees. Engineers, accountants, pharmacists, nurses, teachers etc... all require college level general education. Eliminating that is not realistic.
    - watwut 3y ago
      It is already heavily biased and there are no high schools that don't provide basic chemistry or biology. It is really not that it would be impossible, it is just that you don't want to change the status quo.
      - sarchertech 3y ago
        In the vast majority of high schools biology and chemistry aren’t remotely comparable to the college lab based classes. High school English isn’t generally equivalent to college English. High school history isn’t equivalent etc… General education for doctors also includes calc based physics, so you need calculus as well. Do you think people want to go to a doctor that has a less broad education than their accountant so they can save 3% on their medical bills? Why don’t we do an experiment? A new medical classification—MDWL (medical doctor without letters). MDWLs go directly out of high school to a 6 year med school where all the fluff has been cut out. No history, no general chemistry, biology, physics, calculus, English, art history, political science, literature, sociology, psychology, foreign language, business etc… Then let people choose whether they want to save $10 on an office visit to go the MDWL. Physicians salaries btw represent about 8% of medical costs. So even if we did manage to cut medical education from 8 to 6 years we’re talking maybe saving 2%. That 2% would be eaten up by rising administrative costs, and most of those the cost savings would likely be taken by private equity. Not passed on to the consumer.

ThinkBeat 3y ago

Nearly all countries I know about have some system where only the best of the best from high school are admitted into the program. The criteria can be different but usually some permutation of the grade point average from high school. Competition to make it into the program if fierce. A couple of countries I know about¹ start off with a much larger set of students expecting a large. number will drop out early. You still need high points from high school, but it might be a better solution than just the top of the top grades. ¹ Thirty years ago. I am old.

sarchertech 3y ago
All else being equal I think it makes more sense to let people go through an undergraduate degree first as opposed to combining that with med school. I think it’s better to have discrete units: 1. you have more people who just never make it into med school but still have an accredited undergraduate degree vs more people failing out of med school after taking out loans. 2. You don’t need to know you want to be a doctor at 16 or 17 years old. 3. Med school is much more expensive than undergrad on average, so even if it takes longer, it’s still likely going to be cheaper. Sure med schools could make the first few years cheaper, but they won’t unless forced. 4. It makes it more likely that doctors socialize with non-doctors and get a chance to pursue non-medical interests. One of the biggest complaints about doctors is that they lack empathy—taking people directly from high school and ensuring that they pretty much only socialize with other doctors for 8-10 years definitely isn’t going to help that.