Emergency!
scut monkey
Loc: Michigan
Registered on 04-22-04
|
07-30-10 09:28 AM - Post#69720
I'm sure many of you have or will seen articles about a recent research paper published in Academic Medicine. This study compared a cohort of students at Mount Sinai who did not complete the traditional pre-med curriculum (no organic chem or physics) and were encouraged to pursue a broad liberal arts education, against a cohort of traditionally prepared medical students. In general, there were no significant differences between the two groups in academic performance.
You can read the full article at:
Challenging Traditional Premedical Requirements as Predictors of Success in Medical School
Obviously, I don't think that the pre-med requirements are likely to change any time soon, but it is encouraging. There's WAY too much profit made off of MCAT and MCAT preparation materials for it to go by the wayside without a fight.
THE Ohio State University College of Medicine c/o 2010
|
|
|
|
gonnif
Loc: New York
Registered on 10-09-02
|
Re: "Pre-med" curricula does not produce more successful medical students
08-01-10 11:23 AM - Post#69757
In response to Emergency!
The medical and premedical education industry is a well-entrenched beast. It is now growing on the premedical side with something like a 130 formal post-bacc programs, over a dozen new medical schools in the past 5 years, and double-digit increase in seats at existing medical schools. The large test-prep companies are getting larger and the many smaller ones are popping up. approximately 60,000 individuals applied to medical school last year. Using that number as a guideline, and assuming 4 or 5 "cohorts" inline behind them, some 300,000 to 500,000 individuals make up this market segment.
This is an industry that will be hard to break
|
Matt1986
Registered on 02-26-10
|
Re: "Pre-med" curricula does not produce more successful medical students
08-02-10 01:11 PM - Post#69775
In response to gonnif
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/nyregion/3 0medsc...
Like most things, the answer is probably in the middle.
|
dfmcleod
Loc: "Minneapolis, MN"
Registered on 03-26-02
|
Re: Pre-med curricula does not produce more successful medical students
08-12-10 03:39 PM - Post#69942
In response to Matt1986
In reviewing the U of Minnesota's pre-med requirements I noticed that Physics, Organic chemistry, Biochem, etc. are all absent. All that is required is 1 semester (or quarter) of General Bio, 1 semester (or quarter) of General Chem, and then 4 additional semesters/quarters of other life sciences. But no hard requirement of organic chem, physics, calculus, etc.
I found this interesting. Note that they still require the MCAT.
|
Dazed
Loc: Columbus
Registered on 08-13-07
|
Re: Pre-med curricula does not produce more successful medical students
08-12-10 06:51 PM - Post#69947
In response to dfmcleod
In reviewing the U of Minnesota's pre-med requirements I noticed that Physics, Organic chemistry, Biochem, etc. are all absent. All that is required is 1 semester (or quarter) of General Bio, 1 semester (or quarter) of General Chem, and then 4 additional semesters/quarters of other life sciences. But no hard requirement of organic chem, physics, calculus, etc.
I found this interesting. Note that they still require the MCAT.
In the words of a professor at the U with whom I had had this discussion, the U of MN's requirements are 'disingenuous'. They will not list OChem as a requirement making it seem that qualifying for application is easy.
However they will list Biochemistry or a higher level (3xxx) course as a requirement. Well guess what, when you go to fulfill that requirement, the course will have OChem as a requirement and you won't be allowed to get by that.
So by listing the higher classes as pre-reqs, the U's requirements are actually more than the standard undergrad science pre-reqs.
On a side note, OSU will be requiring Anatomy as a pre-req starting next year.
Stay hungry. Stay foolish.
Disclaimer for my economically challenged and legal-happy friends:
Any posts by me that are interpreted as advice or recommendations, are based solely on my academic experience and observations, and not a guarantee of successful results on the reader's part. They should be used with due diligence, and at assumed risk, with no responsibility on my behalf. |
|
|
|
|
