The Widening Gap Between Med Students and "Normal People"

[UCSBMed1]

I always find it so amusing that the grad students/PhDs/engineers jump to attack med school and medicine in general because they feel they have such knowledge of medicine and what you need to know to be a good doctor.

Take it from someone who is actually in medical school and is removed from his pre-clinical years, I can tell you that there is much, much, more to medical school and medicine in general than rote memorization. Sure there is a lot of that, but if you can't process it, recall it, and know when to use your knowledge and training when certain situations arise you will be a sh*tty doctor--trust me, I've seen 'em.

Sure, medicine is not math-intensive--it doesn't have to be. The body doesn't work with calculus and such. But you do have to know when X and Y come up, and the patient has pattern A to their lab values, you need to know how to interpret that...something that doesn't sound too far removed from what a practicing engineer does everyday. He/she uses math to solve his problems, the physician uses his extensive knowledge of how the body works or what an abnormal lab result/physical finding/radiologic image means to answer theirs. Both quite difficult.

Please don't turn this into a pissing contest between engineering and medicine--both provide immense service to society and both are quite needed. I just hope it isn't a jealousy issue as medicine (with law) are often regarded as two of the most prestigious fields to go into.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[joe6102]

I'm generalizing, but your anecdote is solid evidence

As an engineering/premed major, I saw both sides. Engineering undergrad was tough, maybe tougher than premed, but most engineers don't go to graduate school. I agree, there is not much difference between undergraduate engineering and premed students. I also agree that the engineering classes are as tough (some are tougher) than premed classes.
But the differences arise when medical schools pick the best and the brightest premeds and train them for 7+ years before they become licensed.

"It is rare to find a premed who couldn't handle engineering and dropped out, but there are plenty of engineers who dropped out of premed."

Now you are generalizing. It is like any field where people don't always drop out because they couldn't handle the work. A friend of mine dropped the idea of medical school because she wanted to pursue acting. She did well in all of her pre-med courses.

I dropped out of an astronomy program because I couldn't handle dealing with heights.

It is impossible to be doing well in engineering and not pre-med. The pre-req's for engineering are more difficult. As I said before, pre-meds take non-calculus based physics and some don't do well in it. They still get in to med school. But, an engineer needs to be able to do physics beyond calculus based physics. Think of it this way: Many of the pre-med courses can be used as preparation courses for engineering because they are less intense.

 

[almost_there]

I've taught physics and math. In my classes, I've had many pre-med students and those that were in the life sciences. Each year I've had students including pre-meds, struggling with math and NON CALCULUS based physics. Many of these students have gained entrance to med school. But, they were in no way capable of gaining entrance into a masters program in any of the physical sciences. And they admitted it too. If non-calculus based is a pure struggle, how will one survive having to take calculus based physics as a pre-req for any of these math intensive programs. In these physical science programs, the physics and math will get much much harder than CALCULUS BASED PHYSICS. So, there are students in medicine whom are not even capable of applying to these physical science programs because they had to much difficulty with math and physics at the non-calculus based levels. There is no way that they would be prepared to take the physics and math GRE subject exams. And you need to do well in these exams to get in to the grad programs.

Argh -- note again my argument about intelligence not being measured on a single axis. Ability in math/physics does not translate to ability in life sciences/ medicine does not translate to ability in english/history.

On a side note, I've always felt that it would be actually harder to teach and learn non-calc based physics than it is to learn and teach calc-based physics, just because it would be really hard to understand how concepts are related without calculus.

Also, I've found that a strong component of how hard/easy a subject is often depends more on how well the teacher teaches the class and explains the concepts than on the subject matter...

If you say that people in medicine are smarter because of the competition to get in, than my statement holds true: clinical psychologists are smarter than MDs and other doctorate people because it is much more difficult to get in to a clinical psych program.

My point was not an assertion that med students are smarter than engineers or anyone else, or the converse. It is simply that using the minimum THRESHOLD of necessary intelligence for a field does not say anything about the actual mean, median, or distribution of intelligence of people in that field. I was postulating a scenario by which med students, despite having an "easier" profession, may have a higher mean intelligence than people in a "harder" profession, by mechanism of tighter selection within a large pool of people. Your clinical psychology argument may or may not hold, because it is not only the number of spots available, it is also the pool of people who are interested in these positions. If the same number of people were interested in clinical psychology PhDs as medical school, and there were fewer spots available, then yes, it would make sense that these clinical psych PhD students, on average, are more accomplished/talented/intelligent than medical school students.

 

[earthdoc]

I always find it so amusing that the grad students/PhDs/engineers jump to attack med school and medicine in general because they feel they have such knowledge of medicine and what you need to know to be a good doctor.

Take it from someone who is actually in medical school and is removed from his pre-clinical years, I can tell you that there is much, much, more to medical school and medicine in general than rote memorization. Sure there is a lot of that, but if you can't process it, recall it, and know when to use your knowledge and training when certain situations arise you will be a sh*tty doctor--trust me, I've seen 'em.

Sure, medicine is not math-intensive--it doesn't have to be. The body doesn't work with calculus and such. But you do have to know when X and Y come up, and the patient has pattern A to their lab values, you need to know how to interpret that...something that doesn't sound too far removed from what a practicing engineer does everyday. He/she uses math to solve his problems, the physician uses his extensive knowledge of how the body works or what an abnormal lab result/physical finding/radiologic image means to answer theirs. Both quite difficult.

Please don't turn this into a pissing contest between engineering and medicine--both provide immense service to society and both are quite needed. I just hope it isn't a jealousy issue as medicine (with law) are often regarded as two of the most prestigious fields to go into.

As I said earlier I have a phd and am almost finished with med school.

Most on this thread are stating that most doctors can be engineers, physicists, etc. Also some on this thread are stating that most engineers, physicists are not able to become docs. But, as pointed out earlier, these fields are different. You don't need to be good at math to be a doctor. But, you need to be good at math for programs in the physical sciences. So, IF you are a pre-med that is not good at math, physics, etc, you wouldn't attempt programs in the physical sciences because it would be too difficult.

It is almost like people in medicine feel that most doctors have the ability to do everything. But, that is not so. I thought that way as an ugrad. But, after grad school and almost being done with med school I can see differently. At least in my med school, I have met physicians that do not feel the way many of you people do. I had one professor in family practice admit that some physics programs are harder to get into than medicine. And he is speaking from his son's experience.

Engineering and medicine are very different fields. Because you are in one, it doesn't mean that you can or can't be in the other.

This maybe off on a tangent: There is no such a thing as an easy field. All fields require different talents coming from different parts of the brain. You could have great spatial ability to be in science and really lack ability to be in journalism/psychology/english lit. This person might be great in medicine and biology and terrible at philosophy courses. We can also say this is true for life sciences and the physical sciences. As stated above, engineering and medicine require different talents. So, we can't say that most engineers are smarter and able to become doctors. We can't say that doctors are not smarter and unable to become physicists.

 

[earthdoc]

In my last sentence I meant to say this: we can't make generalizations by stating that the average engineer can or can't become a doctor or that he/she is any less intelligent. Nor can we ass u me that the average doctor can or cannot be a physicist. After all, they both require different talents.

 

[8744]

In my last sentence I meant to say this: we can't make generalizations by stating that the average engineer can or can't become a doctor or that he/she is any less intelligent. Nor can we ass u me that the average doctor can or cannot be a physicist. After all, they both require different talents.

Hey, I was an average engineer and now I'm an average doctor.

Please stop using "he/she" or its bastard cousin "s/he." Jesus. Do you have to be PC all the time? Write "he" or "she" but pick one and end it.

 

[beetlerum]

I had one professor in family practice admit that some physics programs are harder to get into than medicine. And he is speaking from his son's experience.

Isn't it patently obvious that top physics programs take much more intelligence to get into than medical school? I can't believe this would even be open for dispute. And don't give me bull about it being a different intelligence. Probably every single person in MIT physics would have the intelligence to become a doctor.

The average MCAT for med students is like a 32. This is not a group of geniuses. Yes, they are fairly intelligent on the whole, and there are some really smart ones. But that's it.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

I always find it so amusing that the grad students/PhDs/engineers jump to attack med school and medicine in general because they feel they have such knowledge of medicine and what you need to know to be a good doctor.

Take it from someone who is actually in medical school and is removed from his pre-clinical years, I can tell you that there is much, much, more to medical school and medicine in general than rote memorization. Sure there is a lot of that, but if you can't process it, recall it, and know when to use your knowledge and training when certain situations arise you will be a sh*tty doctor--trust me, I've seen 'em.

Sure, medicine is not math-intensive--it doesn't have to be. The body doesn't work with calculus and such. But you do have to know when X and Y come up, and the patient has pattern A to their lab values, you need to know how to interpret that...something that doesn't sound too far removed from what a practicing engineer does everyday. He/she uses math to solve his problems, the physician uses his extensive knowledge of how the body works or what an abnormal lab result/physical finding/radiologic image means to answer theirs. Both quite difficult.

Please don't turn this into a pissing contest between engineering and medicine--both provide immense service to society and both are quite needed. I just hope it isn't a jealousy issue as medicine (with law) are often regarded as two of the most prestigious fields to go into.

Great post.

 

[earthdoc]

I just realized that there are fields in the sciences where one does have to be good at more than one subject. Some of my former colleagues were biological oceanographers. These people had to be great at math, physics, chem, and biology. To get in to an oceanography program, you need to do well in high level math, chem and physics. Biology is obvious if you are selecting biological oceanography as your focus of study.

Dr. Weebs,

You really don't get it do you. Are you actually a doctor. Do you have a reading disability?

I have taught many pre-meds that had to much of a difficult time with Calculus and some even algebra. Some of these pre-meds never passed calculus or even lower level math. This happened even with an incredible amount of effort and tutoring. In the past, I have even given some of these people C's when they deserved worse. So, for these people calculus based physics would have been more than a nightmare. I guess you can't handle it when you hear that people in medicine can't do everything. Tell me how can a pre-med student or any student who struggled with calculus get in and complete a masters program in math or physics.

By the way, there is a thread on SDN about struggling through mathematics. There were many pre-meds that contributed to this discussion because quite a few found math to be difficult. So, don't tell me that the majority of docs are good at the subject. In my med school class, I have many people admitting that they are not good enough to complete an ugrad program in math. Let alone a masters or phd.

Well, your insecurity is really showing. It is people like you that are afraid to give credit were credit is due. Many on this forum were bashing the physical sciences. I was simply defending my former profession and hard work against people like you.

 

[beetlerum]

Isn't it patently obvious that your comparison is flawed and stupid to begin with? A "top" physics program. Neat. Why don't we compare Eastern Central ****-ville's physics program with Wash U.'s medical school and Harvard's neurosurgery program? Fair comparison, right? Is that really the best you could come up with? This thread is ridiculous.

Uh, did you read the post I was responding to? It was about a "surprising" admission that "some physics programs are harder to get into than medical school." I naturally took "some" to refer to top programs. My point was that this should go without saying.

 

[almost_there]

You really don't get it do you. Are you actually a doctor. Do you have a reading disability?

I have taught many pre-meds that had to much of a difficult time with Calculus and some even algebra. Some of these pre-meds never passed calculus even with an incredible amount of effort and tutoring. In the past, I have even given some of these people C's when they deserved worse. So, for these people calculus based physics would have been more than a nightmare. I guess you can't handle it when you hear that people in medicine can't do everything.

You are the one stating that doctors are the smartest people
Your insecurity is really showing. It is people like you that are afraid to give credit were credit is due. Many on this forum were bashing the physical sciences. I was simply defending my former profession and hard work against people like you.

I don't think that that is his opinion, nor the opinion of very many people on these boards (see below). I think you're defending yourself too hard against an imaginary opposition. Sure, there are some people who do believe doctors >> everyone else, but I don't think there are that many of them. I certainly don't hold that opinion.

None of them are "smarter" than MD's. Period. It's a stupid argument to begin with. Intelligence is multi-faceted and is very hard to measure across multiple high-level careers. There is the kind of brilliance that a PhD might have, where they can creatively invent something nobody's ever thought of, or create a cure for some horrible disease, etc. etc. Or, they research in a VERY focused area, but in more detail than any single person on the planet would understand. That requires brilliance. A good PhD is brilliant. They are the top of the top of the top in their field, and they are the experts at what they study. MD's are for the most part, incredibly intelligent people as well.

BTW, ad hominem attacks (attacking the arguer rather than the argument) don't usually bode well for civilized debate.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

I just realized that there are fields in the sciences where one does have to be good at more than one subject. Some of my former colleagues were biological oceanographers. These people had to be great at math, physics, chem, and biology. To get in to an oceanography program, you need to do well in high level math, chem and physics. Biology is obvious if you are selecting biological oceanography as your focus of study.

Dr. Weebs,

You really don't get it do you. Are you actually a doctor. Do you have a reading disability?

I have taught many pre-meds that had to much of a difficult time with Calculus and some even algebra. Some of these pre-meds never passed calculus even with an incredible amount of effort and tutoring. In the past, I have even given some of these people C's when they deserved worse. So, for these people calculus based physics would have been more than a nightmare. I guess you can't handle it when you hear that people in medicine can't do everything.

You are the one stating that doctors are the smartest people and capable of doing anything and everything. Well, your insecurity is really showing. It is people like you that are afraid to give credit were credit is due. Many on this forum were bashing the physical sciences. I was simply defending my former profession and hard work against people like you.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't get it. First of all, I never stated that doctors are the smartest people and are capable of doing anything and everything. Please back up those types of assumptions with quotes, thanks.

I'll do that for you, since you are too incompetent to do it yourself:

"A good PhD is brilliant. They are the top of the top of the top in their field, and they are the experts at what they study. MD's are for the most part, incredibly intelligent people as well."

"Why can't we just accept that very high-level degrees such as MD's and PhD's require a good deal of intelligence, albeit maybe different types? Can't we just leave it at that?"

Looks like you're the one with a reading disability.

My point was mainly to defend from people prior in this thread who said anyone in college can be a doctor if they work hard enough. They are being way too PC and just flat out wrong. I also was defending MD's from people like you, who say that we can't do calculus. As for your story about pre-meds and calculus... what a joke. ANECDOTAL evidence about PRE-meds. Give me a break. Are you really that stupid? They were exactly that: Pre-meds. I had about 50 friends in college who were all "pre-meds" at the beginning. Know how many are in medical school now? Just me. So, your example of "pre-meds" doing poorly in calculus is a terrible example, that very poorly represents actual medical students and doctors. You want to see what anecdotal evidence looks like on the other side of this topic? I'm not even a brilliant MD candidate (merely average), and I did calculus when I was 16 for a full year of college credit and got A's. There is always anecdotal evidence both ways. I've met my share of idiot engineers who could never understand ochem or anatomy. Some MD's may not be able to do calculus either. Big woop for both of those. I've also never bashed hard sciences, so there is no need to defend yourself from "people like me". I think they have their place in this world just like medicine does and I stated that I think they are brilliant people (as I said earlier, if you knew how to read.) Looks like you're the one with the insecurities. You're so insecure that you're putting words into my mouth for me.

Summary of this post: Learn how to read, don't make assumptions, use quotes to back up your ****-talk, hard science and medicine can co-exist peacefully (and they need to), you're smart (even though you can't read), i'm smart, we're all smart, einstein was smarter, stop arguing about it, this thread is stupid. Peace.

 

[almost_there]

As for requirements. It's pretty SIMPLE. To get into medical school, first you need to go to undergraduate school. Only about 25% of people actually get a college degree. Then you need a 3.6+ GPA and a 30+ MCAT. That's a top 20% college student right there. Not to mention, to get to college they needed to be an above average high school student. So, if you start at high school, which almost EVERYONE goes to (this thread has been way too focused on college, and shows just how out of touch we are with the average person), about 10% of those students would be able to do the initial academic requirements to get into medical school. I graduated with a 3.8 GPA, got a 33 on my MCAT (Top 10% in the country), have tons of EC's, am a confident personable charming guy... and I got into 2 medical schools out of 12. All it takes is hard work? America has become so PC its just ridiculous. I'm going to move to Britain.

No one ever said that getting into medicine was easy, or simple. Just that it is possible for most people to do, with a lot of hard work. You need to do well in college (which, btw, is not necessary 3.6+ and MCAT 30+), which for many people is hard, not because they don't have the intelligence necessary, but because of bad study habits/lack of foundations/lack of focus/lack of motivation. Much of this can be traced to the same problems in high school. I firmly believe that most people can become doctors, but the amount of time and effort necessary will vary widely.

Also, it's a fallacy that you need a 3.6+ GPA, 30+ MCAT. Look at the AAMC distribution of medical school matriculants. The most recent AVERAGE is 3.63 (SD .28), MCAT 30.2, which means that with a high likelihood, ~50% of MATRICULANTS had below the stats you stated as your minimum. Note that these are also allopathic schools, not including osteopathic, which is also "getting into medicine".

 

[Dr. V]

I just realized that there are fields in the sciences where one does have to be good at more than one subject. Some of my former colleagues were biological oceanographers. These people had to be great at math, physics, chem, and biology. To get in to an oceanography program, you need to do well in high level math, chem and physics. Biology is obvious if you are selecting biological oceanography as your focus of study.

Dr. Weebs,

You really don't get it do you. Are you actually a doctor. Do you have a reading disability?

I have taught many pre-meds that had to much of a difficult time with Calculus and some even algebra. Some of these pre-meds never passed calculus or even lower level math. This happened even with an incredible amount of effort and tutoring. In the past, I have even given some of these people C's when they deserved worse. So, for these people calculus based physics would have been more than a nightmare. I guess you can't handle it when you hear that people in medicine can't do everything. Tell me how can a pre-med student or any student who struggled with calculus get in and complete a masters program in math or physics.

By the way, there is a thread on SDN about struggling through mathematics. There were many pre-meds that contributed to this discussion because quite a few found math to be difficult. So, don't tell me that the majority of docs are good at the subject. In my med school class, I have many people admitting that they are not good enough to complete an ugrad program in math. Let alone a masters or phd.

Well, your insecurity is really showing. It is people like you that are afraid to give credit were credit is due. Many on this forum were bashing the physical sciences. I was simply defending my former profession and hard work against people like you.

Who was bashing the physical sciences? Nobody even mentioned them until the ultra sensitive PC police reared their heads. My point this entire time was to hilight a pitfall that can happen to any medical student due to being saturated by a false idea propagated by the PC police and to get them to thinking about solutions before it happened. I answered this post in a thread designated toward that audience and meant absolutely no harm or ill will toward anyone. As a matter of fact my origional response even cautioned about feeling superior or smug with the reality that we are nerds and therefore would promptly fall off any high horse we attempted to get on.

The biggest problem with this thread is the PC and some posters unwillingness to compare apples to apples. Pre-meds are NOT med students and the great majority of them never will be. That's just a fact of life. It was rare when I was applying for med school that a school did not require calculus as an admission pre rec so those that did so poorly in calculus likely never got into med school. If they did they were stellar in everything else. Outliers are just that, outliers.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

No one ever said that getting into medicine was easy, or simple. Just that it is possible for most people to do, with a lot of hard work. You need to do well in college (which, btw, is not necessary 3.6+ and MCAT 30+), which for many people is hard, not because they don't have the intelligence necessary, but because of bad study habits/lack of foundations/lack of focus/lack of motivation. Much of this can be traced to the same problems in high school. I firmly believe that most people can become doctors, but the amount of time and effort necessary will vary widely.

Also, it's a fallacy that you need a 3.6+ GPA, 30+ MCAT. Look at the AAMC distribution of medical school matriculants. The most recent AVERAGE is 3.63 (SD .28), MCAT 30.2, which means that with a high likelihood, ~50% of MATRICULANTS had below the stats you stated as your minimum. Note that these are also allopathic schools, not including osteopathic, which is also "getting into medicine".

I see your point on the "average", and it is well taken. Maybe the minimum is more like 3.4 and a 28-29 by your logic. Definitely more attainable than what I said, and I stand corrected.

Let's get back to another use of the word "average". The "average" person, by NO MEANS could get a 3.4 in pre-med and a 29 on the MCAT. NO WAY. The average COLLEGE student, maybe, but definitely definitely not the average person. This is what I mean when people are either a.) being way too PC, or b.) are way out of touch with what an "average" person is. Just wait until you get into patient care. You will see what the "average" person is, everyday.

"I firmly believe that most people can become doctors, but the amount of time and effort necessary will vary widely."

"Most" people could become doctors? Wow, that is a scary thought. You don't have to be a genius to become a doctor, but PLEASE... I know plenty of people with even above-average intelligence who couldn't hack it in pre-med. Not to mention medical school. One of my friends just graduated with a doctorate in physical therapy. She's a decently smart girl, and a very organized student. Know what she did before physical therapy school? Pre-med. Out of my pre-med friends, she was the last one standing, and realized she just wasn't going to make it. She is a typical "pre-med" student. She's not stupid, she's not even average, she's an intelligent person with decent work-ethic and she was just too far down off the bubble. I had a friend in college, who I would say was of very average intelligence for a college student. He worked harder than anyone i've ever seen. He spent 16hrs a day on pre-med undergrad. At school by 6am to study, class, study, eat, study, didn't even get back to his apartment until 11pm only to sleep and repeat the next day. The guy was a machine. The most he could pull was a 3.3 and he finally went into nursing. He never would've made it through medical school even if he had gotten in. He will make an excellent nurse, and I have the utmost respect for him. My point here with this anecdotal evidence, is that these people aren't even the average.

The average person is the guy who works at the gas station, mcdonalds, does landscaping, drives trucks, picks up garbage, answers phones, sells cars, cuts hair, files paperwork, draws blood, does vital signs and wipes butts (that's me!), cleans the hospital, transports patients, is an +insert medical term here+ tech, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. To avoid assumption (like earthdoc did earlier), I will say that all of those jobs are respectable in their own way. As a society we need all of those jobs for everything to work. Doctors are in no way better than truck drivers. That said, the average person would be a terrible doctor. I will re-iterate, doctors are not geniuses, they are not God, they are not better than PhD's or engineers... but please, do NOT tell me that "most" people (which, if you want to get technical would include even people of below average intelligence) could become doctors.

 

[beetlerum]

Who was bashing the physical sciences? Nobody even mentioned them until the ultra sensitive PC police reared their heads. My point this entire time was to hilight a pitfall that can happen to any medical student due to being saturated by a false idea propagated by the PC police and to get them to thinking about solutions before it happened. I answered this post in a thread designated toward that audience and meant absolutely no harm or ill will toward anyone. As a matter of fact my origional response even cautioned about feeling superior or smug with the reality that we are nerds and therefore would promptly fall off any high horse we attempted to get on.

The biggest problem with this thread is the PC and some posters unwillingness to compare apples to apples. Pre-meds are NOT med students and the great majority of them never will be. That's just a fact of life. It was rare when I was applying for med school that a school did not require calculus as an admission pre rec so those that did so poorly in calculus likely never got into med school. If they did they were stellar in everything else. Outliers are just that, outliers.

In my experience, most premeds drop it because they realize they don't want to be doctors, or because they don't work hard. You really don't think that a majority of college students could get a 3.6 in bio and a 30 on the MCAT if they worked for that?

Sometimes, it seems that doctors think everyone wants to be a doctor. Everyone comes into college premed or prelaw because those are the obvious careers you know about in high school. Then you realize there are other options.

Edit: Calculus as a prereq at most schools? When was this?

 

[jocg27]

I believe that all these posts have shown is that the years of training needed to become any educated professional forces people into a very rigid, ordered, and hierarchical way of looking at the world. There are doctors who would not be able to handle advanced math courses. There are engineers who easily understand physics concepts very few people in the world can wrap their minds around, but may have a hard time with the biology of medicine.

Now for the fun part...

There are both doctors and engineers who would be completely lost in, say, an English course. I know plenty of people who rocked physics and/or bio on the MCAT, and the VERBAL section was the one that brought their score down. Are they smarter or dumber than a Nobel prize winning novelist with little chance of ever understanding the science we understand and use daily? There are doctors and engineers, believe it or not, who wouldn't be able to handle the huge amounts of text and writing and subtle nuances of studying law. Who's smartest in this set? Some people understand finance and and business world in ways doctors and engineers could never hope to approach. Who's smarter there? I could go on forever...

Who cares? Doctors fix people, engineers design stuff, writers create stories, mechanics fix cars, lawyers steal money (ooOOOoOoooOhhh), entrepreneurs build companies. Everyone has their place, and without any one of them our world would be pretty different. The world is a complex place, and we need all kinds of people with all kinds of knowledge to make it work - people with a specialized understanding of medicine, physics, human emotion, politics, language and whatever else. Doing your job well whatever it may be, understanding it in and out, all the intricacies and details, rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, and knowing how to use all that knowledge when faced with new problems is what makes intelligence.

I know lots of people get all out of shape about any kind of idea of multiple intelligences or different types of intelligences.

I don't care.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

I believe that all these posts have shown is that the years of training needed to become any educated professional forces people into a very rigid, ordered, and hierarchical way of looking at the world. There are doctors who would not be able to handle advanced math courses. There are engineers who easily understand physics concepts very few people in the world can wrap their minds around, but may have a hard time with the biology of medicine.

Now for the fun part...

There are both doctors and engineers who would be completely lost in, say, an English course. I know plenty of people who rocked physics and/or bio on the MCAT, and the VERBAL section was the one that brought their score down. Are they smarter or dumber than a Nobel prize winning novelist with little chance of ever understanding the science we understand and use daily? There are doctors and engineers, believe it or not, who wouldn't be able to handle the huge amounts of text and writing and subtle nuances of studying law. Who's smartest in this set? Some people understand finance and and business world in ways doctors and engineers could never hope to approach. Who's smarter there? I could go on forever...

Who cares? Doctors fix people, engineers design stuff, writers create stories, mechanics fix cars, lawyers steal money (ooOOOoOoooOhhh), entrepreneurs build companies. Everyone has their place, and without any one of them our world would be pretty different. The world is a complex place, and we need all kinds of people with all kinds of knowledge to make it work - people with a specialized understanding of medicine, physics, human emotion, politics, language and whatever else. Doing your job well whatever it may be, understanding it in and out, all the intricacies and details, rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions, and knowing how to use all that knowledge when faced with new problems is what makes intelligence.

I know lots of people get all out of shape about any kind of idea of multiple intelligences or different types of intelligences.

I don't care.

Well said.

 

[want2beadoc]

I'll throw in my anecdote. I'm not in medical school yet, I'll be starting this fall. I received my B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (+PM). For me, my pre-med courses were much easier than my engineering courses.

They are very different courses though. A person that is good at one can very easily be bad at another. Memorization is important for courses like Vertebrate Anatomy, but the math is more important for courses like Heat Transfer. That being said: not all engineers can be doctors, not all doctors can be engineers. I would hazard to guess that the majority in either group could crossover though. They are some attributes a good doctor would lack that would make him a terrible engineer (not being able to understand calculus) and there would be attributes a good engineer would lack that would make him a terrible doctor (poor communication or memorization skills).

And the comment about the body not being about calculus has never taken a Biomechanics course. *sarcasm*
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1334588&blobtype=pdf

 

[almost_there]

I see your point on the "average", and it is well taken. Maybe the minimum is more like 3.4 and a 28-29 by your logic. Definitely more attainable than what I said, and I stand corrected.

Let's get back to another use of the word "average". The "average" person, by NO MEANS could get a 3.4 in pre-med and a 29 on the MCAT. NO WAY. The average COLLEGE student, maybe, but definitely definitely not the average person. This is what I mean when people are either a.) being way too PC, or b.) are way out of touch with what an "average" person is. Just wait until you get into patient care. You will see what the "average" person is, everyday.

I understand your point. I've worked in the emergency room, in the business world, unloading trucks, etc., and I understand what you mean by the "average" person out there. I also agree that most of these people will never fulfill the qualifications necessary to get into med school, etc..

However, what I disagree with is what is possible for these people. I assert that the difference between the "average" person and the "average" med school bound student has very little to do with inherent intelligence, and more with what that person has done and experienced in their life. For most med-school bound students, they've trained their whole lives (through family or self-motivation) to concentrate on academics, structure their thoughts, learn how to memorize, think critically and logically, listen (and ask questions) in class, and generally how to learn. For most "average" people, I will assert that they did not spend nearly the same amount of time/discipline in mastering these skills, and this ends up being reflected in their grades, thinking, conversation, and future outlook.

A simple example: my foreign-born and raised cousin was applying for a job which required her to be able to type 35 wpm. She was just under, hence didn't get the job. Out of curiosity, I tested my own typing speed, which was over 100 wpm. So does this mean that I am better at typing than my cousin? Yes and no. English is my native language, and I've been typing since elementary school. I've probably typed 1000x the amount that she has. If she had had the same amount of typing experience as I have, I'm sure that she could type just as fast.

What this model concludes is that it is possible for an "average" person to gain the skills necessary to do well in college and get into medical school. However, this may entail many years of gaining the reading, thinking, and learning, and studying skills that you and I take for granted.

At the end of the day, I think that what we typically label "intelligence" has far more to do with our upbringing and experiences than anything we are born with.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

I understand your point. I've worked in the emergency room, in the business world, unloading trucks, etc., and I understand what you mean by the "average" person out there. I also agree that most of these people will never fulfill the qualifications necessary to get into med school, etc..

However, what I disagree with is what is possible for these people. I assert that the difference between the "average" person and the "average" med school bound student has very little to do with inherent intelligence, and more with what that person has done and experienced in their life. For most med-school bound students, they've trained their whole lives (through family or self-motivation) to concentrate on academics, structure their thoughts, learn how to memorize, think critically and logically, listen (and ask questions) in class, and generally how to learn. For most "average" people, I will assert that they did not spend nearly the same amount of time/discipline in mastering these skills, and this ends up being reflected in their grades, thinking, conversation, and future outlook.

A simple example: my foreign-born and raised cousin was applying for a job which required her to be able to type 35 wpm. She was just under, hence didn't get the job. Out of curiosity, I tested my own typing speed, which was over 100 wpm. So does this mean that I am better at typing than my cousin? Yes and no. English is my native language, and I've been typing since elementary school. I've probably typed 1000x the amount that she has. If she had had the same amount of typing experience as I have, I'm sure that she could type just as fast.

What this model concludes is that it is possible for an "average" person to gain the skills necessary to do well in college and get into medical school. However, this may entail many years of gaining the reading, thinking, and learning, and studying skills that you and I take for granted.

At the end of the day, I think that what we typically label "intelligence" has far more to do with our upbringing and experiences than anything we are born with.

I think you have a point, and I agree with you somewhat. Nature vs. nurture will always haunt us, and is usually unprovable either way. There is usually a happy medium. However, I will use myself as an example for my point of view.

By the age of 3 I could read simple books, had taught myself how to ride a bike, and had a vocabulary larger than most 5-6 year olds. My parents, shocked, put me into school early, and I then scored in the top 1% of the country in standardized testing for my grade. I was in the talented and gifted program my entire time in school, did college calculus at the age of 16, etc. I could've graduated high school at 16 with a year's worth of college credit, and then college by 18-19. I chose not to, so that I could feel normal and graduate with my friends, etc. None of that was because I was pushed to work hard, most of it came pretty naturally. I didn't really have to work hard until I got to advanced science classes in college such as micro, or mol. gen., or ochem, etc. I am not trying to brag here, not at all. Most people I know, don't know any of these things about me, and I rarely ever talk about it. When people tell me they think I'm smart, I brush it off and start talking about sports and my favorite beer. However, I use myself as this example, because I am pretty positive that you will find in medical school, I am not the "talented and gifted" student anymore. In medical school, I will be average. People like me will be the norm, and there will be people that could blow my story away. It's one of the things I am really looking forward to in medical school. I've already shared anecdotal evidence about the "average person" trying to get into medical school. I used to tutor those people and study with those people. Even the ones who tried very very hard, even got a 3.4-3.5 GPA by working 12hrs a day on school, ended up getting stymied by the MCAT. Ya, they took it multiple times too. Granted, there are plenty of docs out there who could never get into a top physics program, I would be willing to bet that almost all of them have above average intelligence. No matter how much someone "practices" or "tries", ingesting the amount of complex information taught in medical school, and then knowing how to use it at the right time, requires some natural mental ability that the average person just simply does not have.

However, I do agree that somebody who is maybe only slightly above average intelligence, but is a very hard working, focused person, could make it into medical school. But, if they had to work that hard to get into med school, med school is only going to be that much more challenging for them. Believe it or not, there are people every year who flunk out of med school.

My bottom line opinion is that people need to stop being so PC. Let's be real here. Some people are born smarter than others. It's just a fact of life.

 

[earthdoc]

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't get it. First of all, I never stated that doctors are the smartest people and are capable of doing anything and everything. Please back up those types of assumptions with quotes, thanks.

I'll do that for you, since you are too incompetent to do it yourself:





Looks like you're the one with a reading disability.

My point was mainly to defend from people prior in this thread who said anyone in college can be a doctor if they work hard enough. They are being way too PC and just flat out wrong. I also was defending MD's from people like you, who say that we can't do calculus. As for your story about pre-meds and calculus... what a joke. ANECDOTAL evidence about PRE-meds. Give me a break. Are you really that stupid? They were exactly that: Pre-meds. I had about 50 friends in college who were all "pre-meds" at the beginning. Know how many are in medical school now? Just me. So, your example of "pre-meds" doing poorly in calculus is a terrible example, that very poorly represents actual medical students and doctors. You want to see what anecdotal evidence looks like on the other side of this topic? I'm not even a brilliant MD candidate (merely average), and I did calculus when I was 16 for a full year of college credit and got A's. There is always anecdotal evidence both ways. I've met my share of idiot engineers who could never understand ochem or anatomy. Some MD's may not be able to do calculus either. Big woop for both of those. I've also never bashed hard sciences, so there is no need to defend yourself from "people like me". I think they have their place in this world just like medicine does and I stated that I think they are brilliant people (as I said earlier, if you knew how to read.) Looks like you're the one with the insecurities. You're so insecure that you're putting words into my mouth for me.

Summary of this post: Learn how to read, don't make assumptions, use quotes to back up your ****-talk, hard science and medicine can co-exist peacefully (and they need to), you're smart (even though you can't read), i'm smart, we're all smart, einstein was smarter, stop arguing about it, this thread is stupid. Peace.

I taught math and physics for over 12 years. I have evidence of pre-meds/meds struggling through math. Now, I NEVER SAID that all med people couldn't do calc. But, those with difficulty would find it impossible to get in to a math intensive grad program. That is just plain common sense. Now, you may be good at math, but that doesn't mean that the majority of people in med school are. It really shouldn't matter; medicine is not math intensive.

 

[earthdoc]

"They are very different courses though. A person that is good at one can very easily be bad at another. Memorization is important for courses like Vertebrate Anatomy, but the math is more important for courses like Heat Transfer. That being said: not all engineers can be doctors, not all doctors can be engineers. I would hazard to guess that the majority in either group could crossover though. They are some attributes a good doctor would lack that would make him a terrible engineer (not being able to understand calculus) and there would be attributes a good engineer would lack that would make him a terrible doctor (poor communication or memorization skills)."

Yes, I agree. I've even mentioned this in my other post.

I stated that no field is considered easy because we all have different strengths and weaknesses. A person with good spatial ability and poor writing skills would probably do well in math and science and find philosophy/journalism/psychology and other similar courses to be very difficult. Visa Versa. Some people are lucky and do well in everything.

 

[earthdoc]

I notice something interesting on these threads: many posters lump ugrad physical science (especially engineering) programs with math intensive grad programs. This is not logical because these two groups are at different levels of education. Obviously, the courses are much harder at the grad level. The expectations are much higher.

Also, in ugrad programs in engineering/math/physics/chem one can get by without doing really well. This has happened before. But, in grad school, you must do better than just passing. At this level, people get weeded out. I would say especially at the phd level. I say this because there were some students that held masters degrees and got kicked out of doctorate programs because they weren't creative enough to go any further.

 

[Dr. V]

In my experience, most premeds drop it because they realize they don't want to be doctors, or because they don't work hard. You really don't think that a majority of college students could get a 3.6 in bio and a 30 on the MCAT if they worked for that?

Sometimes, it seems that doctors think everyone wants to be a doctor. Everyone comes into college premed or prelaw because those are the obvious careers you know about in high school. Then you realize there are other options.

Edit: Calculus as a prereq at most schools? When was this?

To answer your first question, no absolutely not. If I remember correctly the average GPA of college graduates is 3.01 according to a link provided earlier in this thread. Add that to the broad coverage in subject matter of the MCAT and no, I do not think the average college student can achieve both no matter how hard they try. Pay attention, the key word is average. Those same average college grads could never get into most of the Phd programs either. That doesn't mean they aren't very intelligent nor does it mean they won't be great in their chosen field. That just means that the admission requirements are higher than most can achieve.

As to your last question, calculus was a prereq at a great many med schools when I was applying in 2002 (at least in the Southeast anyway). So much so that my undergrad required all pre professional Biology or Chemistry majors to have taken it. It was a requirement because they were expecting it to become universial.

 

[QofQuimica]

This is an interesting thread; I just finished reading through all of it. It kind of got off-track from the OP's original question, which I think was a valid one, and something that we all need to consider as professionals. Even other educated people who are not educated in the same field cannot always communicate easily with us. I would like to share a couple of anecdotes:

My father is a GP who has been practicing for nearly 40 years. One time when I was at his office, I was talking to a drug rep. In the course of the conversation, I was shocked to learn that the drug rep, who sold anti-retroviral drugs, did not know what a retrovirus was. When I told my dad about this later, he looked at me and said, "Q, I don't know what a retrovirus is, either."

I just finished my Ph.D. in organic chemistry. At one point when my reactions were not going well, I called my mom, who did not go to college or ever study chemistry, to vent. She wanted to know why the reactions weren't working. Well, I knew what the problem was, but how the h*** do you explain a problem with your molecules being too polar to extract out of the aqueous phase to someone who doesn't know what polarity or extraction is? I told my mom to think of a bottle of oil and vinegar salad dressing. My compounds were in the vinegar, and I wanted them to go into the oil, but they weren't doing it. So she said to me, "Why not?" And all I could tell her is that some molecules like being in vinegar while others like being in oil, and mine just liked being in the vinegar better.

The points of these stories are the following:

1) We are all very specialized already, even as students, let alone beyond. Even now, I can't attend an organic polymer chemistry talk and comprehend it all, because I don't know how to interpret CD spectra and the other techniques they use that synthetic organic people don't use. Likewise, my dad, who does not know what a retrovirus is, can rattle off all of the current drugs being used in cocktails to treat HIV+ patients. He doesn't know what a protease inhibitor or a reverse transcriptase inhibitor DOES, but he knows which ones to use. Me, well, I could go on about the life cycle of HIV, but I don't know any anti-HIV drugs besides AZT. It's just a completely different kind of training and specialization.

2) Explaining technical issues to laypeople is not easy, and it requires effort and practice to do it accurately and non-condescendingly. My dissertation projects all have nicknames based on the analogies that I used to explain them to my mom. Also, just because someone is not educated does not mean that they are not intelligent enough to grasp the concept you are trying to get across if you put it in terms that they understand. My mom once commented to me that she appreciated me trying to explain my work to her and not making her feel bad for asking stupid questions. I told her that although it wasn't always easy for me to come up with examples or words that I could use to explain things to her, I never thought her questions were stupid. In fact, she has a better conceptual grasp of my dissertation work than many of my pre-med undergraduate students who have completed two years of chemistry classes do.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thought-provoking thread.

 

[almost_there]

I think you have a point, and I agree with you somewhat. Nature vs. nurture will always haunt us, and is usually unprovable either way. There is usually a happy medium. However, I will use myself as an example for my point of view.

By the age of 3 I could read simple books, had taught myself how to ride a bike, and had a vocabulary larger than most 5-6 year olds. My parents, shocked, put me into school early, and I then scored in the top 1% of the country in standardized testing for my grade. I was in the talented and gifted program my entire time in school, did college calculus at the age of 16, etc. I could've graduated high school at 16 with a year's worth of college credit, and then college by 18-19. I chose not to, so that I could feel normal and graduate with my friends, etc. None of that was because I was pushed to work hard, most of it came pretty naturally. I didn't really have to work hard until I got to advanced science classes in college such as micro, or mol. gen., or ochem, etc. I am not trying to brag here, not at all. Most people I know, don't know any of these things about me, and I rarely ever talk about it. When people tell me they think I'm smart, I brush it off and start talking about sports and my favorite beer. However, I use myself as this example, because I am pretty positive that you will find in medical school, I am not the "talented and gifted" student anymore. In medical school, I will be average. People like me will be the norm, and there will be people that could blow my story away. It's one of the things I am really looking forward to in medical school. I've already shared anecdotal evidence about the "average person" trying to get into medical school. I used to tutor those people and study with those people. Even the ones who tried very very hard, even got a 3.4-3.5 GPA by working 12hrs a day on school, ended up getting stymied by the MCAT. Ya, they took it multiple times too. Granted, there are plenty of docs out there who could never get into a top physics program, I would be willing to bet that almost all of them have above average intelligence. No matter how much someone "practices" or "tries", ingesting the amount of complex information taught in medical school, and then knowing how to use it at the right time, requires some natural mental ability that the average person just simply does not have.

However, I do agree that somebody who is maybe only slightly above average intelligence, but is a very hard working, focused person, could make it into medical school. But, if they had to work that hard to get into med school, med school is only going to be that much more challenging for them. Believe it or not, there are people every year who flunk out of med school.

My bottom line opinion is that people need to stop being so PC. Let's be real here. Some people are born smarter than others. It's just a fact of life.

I personally don't hold this view because of PCness. Rather, if one of these "average" people asked me if they could become a doctor, I would say,"You absolutely can. But it's going to take a TON of discipline, hard work, and sacrifice." I would help paint the road ahead for them, and urge them to start slow and easy, taking a class or two to see if they're willing and able to put in the work necessary to get to that goal.

Sure, there is variability in intelligence and talent at birth. But I don't think we are able to determine, except very very grossly, differences in genetic intelligence in individuals.

I pasted the article several posts back, but no one seems to have read it. Let me highlight some of the most interesting bits:

"A Star is Made"

...Their work, compiled in the "Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," a 900-page academic book that will be published next month, makes a rather startling assertion: the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers — whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming — are nearly always made, not born. And yes, practice does make perfect. These may be the sort of clichés that parents are fond of whispering to their children. But these particular clichés just happen to be true.

Ericsson's research suggests a third cliché as well: when it comes to choosing a life path, you should do what you love — because if you don't love it, you are unlikely to work hard enough to get very good. Most people naturally don't like to do things they aren't "good" at. So they often give up, telling themselves they simply don't possess the talent for math or skiing or the violin. But what they really lack is the desire to be good and to undertake the deliberate practice that would make them better.

"I think the most general claim here," Ericsson says of his work, "is that a lot of people believe there are some inherent limits they were born with. But there is surprisingly little hard evidence that anyone could attain any kind of exceptional performance without spending a lot of time perfecting it." This is not to say that all people have equal potential. Michael Jordan, even if he hadn't spent countless hours in the gym, would still have been a better basketball player than most of us. But without those hours in the gym, he would never have become the player he was."... [article continues]

 

[UCSBMed1]

Why do people decide they have to make it a priority to put the medical field in their place? PhD's, engineers, clinical psychologists... the list goes on and on. None of them are "smarter" than MD's. Period. It's a stupid argument to begin with. Intelligence is multi-faceted and is very hard to measure across multiple high-level careers. There is the kind of brilliance that a PhD might have, where they can creatively invent something nobody's ever thought of, or create a cure for some horrible disease, etc. etc. Or, they research in a VERY focused area, but in more detail than any single person on the planet would understand. That requires brilliance. A good PhD is brilliant. They are the top of the top of the top in their field, and they are the experts at what they study. MD's are for the most part, incredibly intelligent people as well. Look at what they have to do:

Remember every bone (not to mention fossas, notches, etc.), muscle, nerve, blood vessel, organ, hormone, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. x100 in the body, and know how and why they all work. Oh yea, and know thousands of possible diseases related to them, multiple treatments for each disease, hundreds of drugs and their pharmacology, their side effects, their drug interactions. They must use deductive reasoning and criticial thinking to put it all together, to solve the puzzle of someone's diagnosis, all the while taking into account culture, economic factors, dignity, etc. etc.. Oh wait, I forgot, only PhD's think. MD's also juggle 10 things at once, make people feel cared for, coordinate hospital staff, make enormous life-changing decisions for others, make enormous life-changing decisions in an emergency with no time to think. Yep, you are correct. I would want any person with "reasonable intelligence" to do this job. Give me a BREAK.



Calling an MD a glorified mechanic is pretty insulting. If that's true, then PhD's are nothing but glorified lab rat nerds who can't score chicks. Just completely idiotic.



Many MD's think PhD's are pretty stupid when it comes to things like understanding people. That is a VERY important form of intelligence too. Intelligence isn't just sitting at a computer figuring out science. Looks like those "many" PhD's are a lot stupider than they give themselves credit for.

As for requirements. It's pretty SIMPLE. To get into medical school, first you need to go to undergraduate school. Only about 25% of people actually get a college degree. Then you need a 3.6+ GPA and a 30+ MCAT. That's a top 20% college student right there. Not to mention, to get to college they needed to be an above average high school student. So, if you start at high school, which almost EVERYONE goes to (this thread has been way too focused on college, and shows just how out of touch we are with the average person), about 10% of those students would be able to do the initial academic requirements to get into medical school. I graduated with a 3.8 GPA, got a 33 on my MCAT (Top 10% in the country), have tons of EC's, am a confident personable charming guy... and I got into 2 medical schools out of 12. All it takes is hard work? America has become so PC its just ridiculous. I'm going to move to Britain.

Why can't we just accept that very high-level degrees such as MD's and PhD's require a good deal of intelligence, albeit maybe different types? Can't we just leave it at that? I have seen this discussion so many times on SDN it makes me sick. It's almost ALWAYS some PhD, or SO of a PhD trying to say that they are so much smarter than MD's, or that their schooling is so much harder. Are PhD's upset that MD's make more money? Are they upset that there is a positive social stereotype attached to doctors?

May I remind you all, this thread started with someone saying their SO didn't understand a nerdy comment about the cerebellum. It has now turned into PhD/Engineer vs. MD. STUPID.

Couldn't have said it better myself, brotha!

 

[earthdoc]

"My point was mainly to defend from people prior in this thread who said anyone in college can be a doctor if they work hard enough. They are being way too PC and just flat out wrong. I also was defending MD's from people like you, who say that we can't do calculus. As for your story about pre-meds and calculus... what a joke. ANECDOTAL evidence about PRE-meds. Give me a break. Are you really that stupid? They were exactly that: Pre-meds. I had about 50 friends in college who were all "pre-meds" at the beginning. Know how many are in medical school now? Just me."

And not everyone in college can obtain a phd.

I have had people in my med school state that they didn't do well enough in math to try and attempt a doctorate in any of these programs.

HERE IS ANOTHER THING: JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO CALCULUS, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU COULD DO A DOCTORATE PROGRAM IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES. Pal, Calculus is just the beginning.

I also did pre-professional advising for students in a pre-med program. (Where I taught we had a new pre-health professions program.) Not everyone drops the "pre-med" thing because they couldn't handle it. Some left with very good science gpa's. Ive had students drop from pre-med because of various reasons. Some chose to go to vet school, grad school, or just found other interests. Some drop out of school and come back later when the time is right for them.

 

[earthdoc]

As far as the average college student goes, remember grades don't always reflect intelligence and ability. Many average college students have redeemed themselves and have gotten in to med school. Some have completed post-bac programs. Some have just taken courses to prove themselves. It is hard work, but it has been done by a lot of people.

 

[8744]

...Many average college students have redeemed themselves and have gotten in to med school...

Poor choice of words.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

"My point was mainly to defend from people prior in this thread who said anyone in college can be a doctor if they work hard enough. They are being way too PC and just flat out wrong. I also was defending MD's from people like you, who say that we can't do calculus. As for your story about pre-meds and calculus... what a joke. ANECDOTAL evidence about PRE-meds. Give me a break. Are you really that stupid? They were exactly that: Pre-meds. I had about 50 friends in college who were all "pre-meds" at the beginning. Know how many are in medical school now? Just me."

And not everyone in college can obtain a phd.

I have had people in my med school state that they didn't do well enough in math to try and attempt a doctorate in any of these programs.

HERE IS ANOTHER THING: JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DO CALCULUS, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU COULD DO A DOCTORATE PROGRAM IN THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES. Pal, Calculus is just the beginning.

I also did pre-professional advising for students in a pre-med program. (Where I taught we had a new pre-health professions program.) Not everyone drops the "pre-med" thing because they couldn't handle it. Some left with very good science gpa's. Ive had students drop from pre-med because of various reasons. Some chose to go to vet school, grad school, or just found other interests. Some drop out of school and come back later when the time is right for them.

Umm.. I never said I could do a physics PhD. Never made that claim at all. Looks like you're way off again, Earthdoc, and you never cease to make yourself look even stupider with the way you reply to my posts. I never said anyone in college could obtain a PhD either. Your point about some MD's not being able to hack it in high level math is taken, and you've re-iterated it about 10-thousand times. We get it. Some doctors aren't good at math. I've already made the counterpoint that some PhD's don't have what it takes to be a doctor. Both require their own special set of skills, intelligence, and personality types. Your point about some pre-meds leaving with good GPA's is also taken. It's a good point. The same can be made about PhD candidates. My point is that there are examples and counterexamples on both sides. You seem to think I am trying to compete with PhD's. PhD's are not the ones under attack in this thread, MD's are. People have been saying anyone can become a doctor, doctors suck at math, engineering is harder, bla bla bla. So, I am simply making counterpoints. All of these fields are highly respectable and require a lot of intelligence and hard work. They are also different in many ways. It's apples and oranges, and its a STUPID comparison. I am not competing with PhD's. I never have been in my entire line of posts. You are defending PhD's from an imaginary attack. I sense some pretty big underlying insecurities. Like I said earlier, learn how to read, and back up your assumptions with quotes.

You are not helping PhD's with your posts here. If you're their representative, I feel very sorry for them. Oh, and I'm not your "pal". I would never associate myself with someone as narrow-minded and illiterate as you are.

 

[QofQuimica]

Will you guys both please stop attacking one another??? This thread is going to wind up getting sent to the lounge if it continues on like this. And FWIW, earthdoc, I have to agree with all of the posters who said that you are attacking a straw man. No one is saying that getting a PhD is easy, or that we aren't as smart as MDs, or that absolutely anyone could earn one. Maybe the problem is that *I* can't read well enough to comprehend the vitriol being directed against me as a physical science PhD, but be that as it may, I'm just not seeing it.

 

[earthdoc]

Umm.. I never said I could do a physics PhD. Never made that claim at all. Looks like you're way off again, Earthdoc, and you never cease to make yourself look even stupider with the way you reply to my posts. I never said anyone in college could obtain a PhD either. Your point about some MD's not being able to hack it in high level math is taken, and you've re-iterated it about 10-thousand times. We get it. Some doctors aren't good at math. I've already made the counterpoint that some PhD's don't have what it takes to be a doctor. Both require their own special set of skills, intelligence, and personality types. Your point about some pre-meds leaving with good GPA's is also taken. It's a good point. The same can be made about PhD candidates. My point is that there are examples and counterexamples on both sides. You seem to think I am trying to compete with PhD's. PhD's are not the ones under attack in this thread, MD's are. People have been saying anyone can become a doctor, doctors suck at math, engineering is harder, bla bla bla. So, I am simply making counterpoints. All of these fields are highly respectable and require a lot of intelligence and hard work. They are also different in many ways. It's apples and oranges, and its a STUPID comparison. I am not competing with PhD's. I never have been in my entire line of posts. You are defending PhD's from an imaginary attack. I sense some pretty big underlying insecurities. Like I said earlier, learn how to read, and back up your assumptions with quotes.

You are not helping PhD's with your posts here. If you're their representative, I feel very sorry for them. Oh, and I'm not your "pal". I would never associate myself with someone as narrow-minded and illiterate as you are.

I am tired of repeating myself. I've never said that doctors suck at math. You are putting words in my mouth.

I've also said that there is no field that is easy. People have different strengths and talents. I've said this in two posts: some students with great spatial ability and poor writing skills MAY excel in the sciences and not in courses like english lit and other intensive writing courses. Those having strengths in debate and writing and weaknesses in spatial abiltiy, MAY end up pursuing non-scientific disciplines.

I've also said that engineers are not geniuses. You can be great at these math and science courses and have the most difficulty writing a paper for English Lit. I remember one engineering student that couldn't understand her history textbooks. The skills for these two fields come from different parts of the brain.

This is to everyone else reading: I don't know why so many people want to debate intelligence or try to make assumptions on who can do what. We are not experts in this area. This is one of the specialties of neuropsychology and educational psychology. And even experts in these areas have been proven wrong by students wanting to challenge themselves.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

I am tired of repeating myself. I've never said that doctors suck at math. You are putting words in my mouth.

I've also said that there is no field that is easy. People have different strengths and talents. I've said this in two posts: some students with great spatial ability and poor writing skills MAY excel in the sciences and not in courses like english lit and other intensive writing courses. Those having strengths in debate and writing and weaknesses in spatial abiltiy, MAY end up pursuing non-scientific disciplines.

I've also said that engineers are not geniuses. You can be great at these math and science courses and have the most difficulty writing a paper for English Lit. I remember one engineering student that couldn't understand her history textbooks. The skills for these two fields come from different parts of the brain.

This is to everyone else reading: I don't know why so many people want to debate intelligence or try to make assumptions on who can do what. We are not experts in this area. This is one of the specialties of neuropsychology and educational psychology. And even experts in these areas have been proven wrong by students wanting to challenge themselves.

About time you talked some sense, instead of telling me in all capital letters "calculus is only the beginning pal", claiming you have to defend yourself from "people like me" from things I never said, and just acting like an idiot in general. I sincerely hope this is your last post. You waffle more than Al Gore...

 

[smkoepke]

i think you also have to take into account strengths and weaknesses. Some people are going to be far more interested in language or math and won't have the interest or talent for the natural sciences and vice versa. Also you have to look at the fact that a lot of people had no desire or motivation to get better grades because they had no interest at the time in going to grad school (medical or otherwise). There are plenty of people who did poorly in undergrad and later decided to try to go to grad school and made top grades when they retook classes or took post bach classes. I just don't think it is always, or even mostly, ability that causes a lot of college students to make poor grades. I think it is mainly motivation.

 

[Dr. Weebs]

i think you also have to take into account strengths and weaknesses. Some people are going to be far more interested in language or math and won't have the interest or talent for the natural sciences and vice versa. Also you have to look at the fact that a lot of people had no desire or motivation to get better grades because they had no interest at the time in going to grad school (medical or otherwise). There are plenty of people who did poorly in undergrad and later decided to try to go to grad school and made top grades when they retook classes or took post bach classes. I just don't think it is always, or even mostly, ability that causes a lot of college students to make poor grades. I think it is mainly motivation.

hehe.. I'm done in this thread. Was nice having some spirited debate

 

[THP]

I think the only interesting debate left for this thread is the point almost_there is making. (earthdoc is an idiot who should just be ignored). Whether or not an "average" college student can make it into and through medical school by sheer hard work. I am undecided.

My gut feeling is that the answer is no because of time constraints. The vast amount of information that has to be assimilated in such a short time requires a certain innate ability that can't be overcome with hard work due simply to the amount of time you have to do it.

Also the articles almost_there posted basically stated that people will only work hard at things they are good at. Doesn't this mean that if you are good at academically oriented things (ie of higher intelligence) you will put forth the necessary effort and if you are not (ie lower intelligence) you won't even bother trying. The observation becomes moot.

 

[dbhvt]

I'm just glad earthdoc finally learned how to put things in forum quotes.

 

[Dunce]

My gut feeling is that the answer is no because of time constraints. The vast amount of information that has to be assimilated in such a short time requires a certain innate ability that can't be overcome with hard work due simply to the amount of time you have to do it.

well said.

And speaking of time constraints, it has taken me all damn day to leaf through this thread. You people are certainly dedicated to some spirited arguments
I'm going back to hang out with my friend. His name is QBank. adios

 

[almost_there]

Also the articles almost_there posted basically stated that people will only work hard at things they are good at. Doesn't this mean that if you are good at academically oriented things (ie of higher intelligence) you will put forth the necessary effort and if you are not (ie lower intelligence) you won't even bother trying. The observation becomes moot.

I assume you are getting this from the following:

Ericsson's research suggests a third cliché as well: when it comes to choosing a life path, you should do what you love — because if you don't love it, you are unlikely to work hard enough to get very good. Most people naturally don't like to do things they aren't "good" at. So they often give up, telling themselves they simply don't possess the talent for math or skiing or the violin. But what they really lack is the desire to be good and to undertake the deliberate practice that would make them better.

Note that "good" is in quotes. What makes someone believe that they aren't "good" at something? Many things. The subconscious bias that boys are better at math/science/logic, and girls are better at literature/arts, leading to the teacher preferentially "seeing" when boys succeed at math/science/logic, and also "seeing" when girls do not do well. The attendent praise/criticism can easily convince little boys and girls that they are "good" or "not good" at something, and thus avoid or concentrate on those subjects in their future.

Another great example -- the Meyerhoff Scholars Program at University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Instead of the traditional methods of teaching science, they have an innovative curriculum and methods of learning that give startling results. Some of the highlights:

- 86% graduate with science/engineering degrees, double the percentage of those who declined the program and went elsewhere for school
- 9 out of 10 of the science/engineering graduates went on to graduate/professional school, with a significant portion earning MDs, PhDs, or both
- likelihood of going to graduate school was 5.3 times the likelihood for their peer group (people who declined the program)
- more than half of the students in the program are black

(I got this from another great nytimes article: "Why American College Students Hate Science") :
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/opinion/25thu4.html?ex=1148961600&en=2793a431ef05c3c8&ei=5087

Just two paragraphs from it:

Science education in this country faces two serious problems. The first is that too few Americans perform at the highest level in science, compared with our competitors abroad. The second problem is that large numbers of aspiring science majors, perhaps as many as half, are turned off by unimaginative teaching and migrate to other disciplines before graduating.

The science establishment explains these defections as part of a natural "weeding out" — a view flatly rejected by U.M.B.C. and a few other campuses where administrators are getting top performance from students who would ordinarily have become demoralized and jumped ship.

 

[WildcatDMD]

I think the only interesting debate left for this thread is the point almost_there is making. (earthdoc is an idiot who should just be ignored). Whether or not an "average" college student can make it into and through medical school by sheer hard work. I am undecided.

My gut feeling is that the answer is no because of time constraints. The vast amount of information that has to be assimilated in such a short time requires a certain innate ability that can't be overcome with hard work due simply to the amount of time you have to do it.

Give me a break, are you telling me the people at the bottom of your class are not idiots? I fail to believe that. Maybe it's just dental school, but the bottom 20% are not people i'd trust my teeth with, much less my life. I'm sure it's similar. I have friends in medical school, and I promise they are not mental powerhouses.

 

[Dr. V]

Give me a break, are you telling me the people at the bottom of your class are not idiots? I fail to believe that. Maybe it's just dental school, but the bottom 20% are not people i'd trust my teeth with, much less my life. I'm sure it's similar. I have friends in medical school, and I promise they are not mental powerhouses.

I don't know about dental school but no, the people at the bottom of my class in medical school were very intelligent and will do well as physicians. I would trust them to take care of myself or my family in their chosen field.

That may be because the selection criteria are arguably tougher than needed to be a good doc, I don't know.

 

[THP]

I assume you are getting this from the following:



Note that "good" is in quotes. What makes someone believe that they aren't "good" at something? Many things. The subconscious bias that boys are better at math/science/logic, and girls are better at literature/arts, leading to the teacher preferentially "seeing" when boys succeed at math/science/logic, and also "seeing" when girls do not do well. The attendent praise/criticism can easily convince little boys and girls that they are "good" or "not good" at something, and thus avoid or concentrate on those subjects in their future.
:

How do you know they actually are just not good at it and there are significant innate differences?

 

[THP]

I assume you are getting this from the following:



Note that "good" is in quotes. What makes someone believe that they aren't "good" at something? Many things. The subconscious bias that boys are better at math/science/logic, and girls are better at literature/arts, leading to the teacher preferentially "seeing" when boys succeed at math/science/logic, and also "seeing" when girls do not do well. The attendent praise/criticism can easily convince little boys and girls that they are "good" or "not good" at something, and thus avoid or concentrate on those subjects in their future.
:

How do you know they actually are just not good at it and there are significant innate differences? It seems like a chicken and egg type of scenario.

 

[THP]

Give me a break, are you telling me the people at the bottom of your class are not idiots? I fail to believe that. Maybe it's just dental school, but the bottom 20% are not people i'd trust my teeth with, much less my life. I'm sure it's similar. I have friends in medical school, and I promise they are not mental powerhouses.

There are a few classmates of mine I wouldn't necessarily want taking care of my family, but it is not because they are not intelligent or intellectually capable.

 

[almost_there]

How do you know they actually are just not good at it and there are significant innate differences? It seems like a chicken and egg type of scenario.

A few suggestive pieces of evidence among many:

- women in Norway (or was it some other Scandinavian country?) are "better" at math/science than men, both in objective terms (exam results) and subjectively perceived in society. If in one country science(men) > science(women), and in another science(women) > science (men), genetic factors are probably not the main cause, unless there is a significant biological difference between the two populations (very unlikely, IMO).
- given different educations, people from the same pool of people (accepted Meyerhoff scholars at UMBC) have very different outcomes with respect to getting a degree in the sciences (2x as likely if they went to UMBC) and continuing in graduate studies (5.3x as likely if they went to UMBC). (see previously cited article, which refers to a study recently published in Science) The majority of these students are underrepresented minorities (black) in science.

Add this to previous studies that show low teacher expectations depress academic performance (especially with respect to race).

While I DO believe that there are innate differences in ability between people, I think that other factors play such a large role that we can't really distinguish (except, perhaps, very grossly) what differences in perceived "intelligence" (grades, grammar, speaking ability, learning speed) are due to innate differences in ability vs. simply differences in quantity of deliberate practice and development of those skills.

 

[kate_g]

Calling an MD a glorified mechanic is pretty insulting. If that's true, then PhD's are nothing but glorified lab rat nerds who can't score chicks. Just completely idiotic.
...
Many MD's think PhD's are pretty stupid when it comes to things like understanding people. That is a VERY important form of intelligence too. Intelligence isn't just sitting at a computer figuring out science. Looks like those "many" PhD's are a lot stupider than they give themselves credit for.

Perhaps the irony in my post was lost on other readers, too.

In your quote of my post you conveniently cut out the section in which I said that my whole point was that there's nothing special about PhDs, or MDs, or any other super-selected group of smart people, versus any other super-selected group of smart people. I'd guess that pretty much all MDs think they're smarter than pretty much everyone else in the world. Same is true for science PhDs. Same is true for JDs. Same is most certainly true for philosophy PhDs. But the thing is, they're all correct, because the population of the world is very large, and "most people" are not nearly as intelligent as anyone in those groups. I was making the point that doctors have a tendency to believe that "everyone else" includes all the PhDs, JDs, etc. *And* that PhDs believe "everyone else" includes doctors and JDs, and so on. And on that count, they're *all* wrong.

I'm now sorry I said anything, because that line of conversation was already way off from the OP, and clearly spurred on some people with axes to grind (on both sides). But I object to being misquoted (or maybe just misunderstood) and felt obligated to reiterate without the distraction of irony.