UQ-Ochsner 2014

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Well, fair enough. Except that students ALWAYS do that - otherwise student governments and societies would exist anywhere, now would they? But even more to the point, it is NOT the job of UQ to prepare its graduates for a FOREIGN medical licensing exam. That would be like whinging that my undegrad institution didn't properly prepare me for the GAMSAT or that a US medical school didn't prepare me for the MCCEE or the COMLEX. Granted, they have taken on the Ochsner cohort so they do have some onus there, which is exactly how we got the resources in place that we did. NB that it is for the Ochsner cohort and not the general UQ cohort specifically because of that difference. You, as a traditional student, are not required to sit the USMLE nor are you expected to go to the US for residency. If you wanted that, you should have been part of the Ochsner cohort. Which is exactly what I - and others - have been advising people.

But the real point is that no matter what, the onus is always on you. And you can whinge about whatever you like. My very good friend is at a med school in Chicago and he got blasted with biochem and pharmacology. To the point where he felt it was a DETRIMENT to his learning medicine and preparation for the USMLE. He had entire exams on the nitty gritty details of the LAC operon which most certainly is NOT useful for the USMLE. He had detailed exams about esoteric pharmacology that do not show up on the USMLE and that you will have to re-learn in clinical years and residency anyways. He felt very much that our distinct freedom from that (he had serious exams every two weeks) which we had was distinctly better and wished he had that. One can say the grass is always greener on the other side. Or one can realize that different people have different learning styles and preferences and that the truly successful capitalize on the (always less than ideal) system they are in.

Or they can just whinge about it and make up numbers and facts along the way.

I'm not one of those people who never shows up to lectures and uses MD notes the entire way and then has the nerve to complain about SOM. I went to every single lecture the first two years and not once looked at student notes or past exams. A medical school's duty is to teach medicine, and UQ does a terrible job at it. Meanwhile we always receive emails from UQ regarding its new 'partnerships' and 'opportunities' which are nothing more than attempts by Australia's 'global medical school' (a true insult to the sanctity of medicine) to funnel as many students out of Australia and into locales worldwide.

The number of medical students in Australia has doubled over the past decade.

And I haven't even brought up the inordinate number of mistakes made by the administration which cannot simply be chalked up to coincidence.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Would you anyone be here able to comment on if it would be detrimental to study the USMLE during clincal years? At Melbourne there is only 1 year of preclinical, so I would be studying for the USMLE during full time clinical studies.

Just something unrelated, but still needing consideration to my final decision, is typically how many teachers are there when you do an elective (not a core rotation) back in the states?

I can't speak to how the clinicals are in Melbourne, or even really UQ, but doing them at Ochsner leaves very little time to study for the USMLE and it is undoubtedly an unwise decision to try and do so if you can avoid it. At UQ the rotations are less intense and require much less time commitment in the hospital so I think it is safe to say that it is much more manageable, but I've heard from some of the traddies who have done it that it is still less than ideal.

If you are really keen on getting back to the States though, I really do think that there is a distinct benefit to being in the Ochsner program. I'll admit a likelihood of unconscious bias here but a classmate of mine just got interviews at Hopkins for general surgery and U Kentucky for a direct entry cardiothoracics program. So the ability to do extremely well is certainly a distinct reality.
 
I'm not one of those people who never shows up to lectures and uses MD notes the entire way and then has the nerve to complain about SOM. I went to every single lecture the first two years and not once looked at student notes or past exams. A medical school's duty is to teach medicine, and UQ does a terrible job at it. Meanwhile we always receive emails from UQ regarding its new 'partnerships' and 'opportunities' which are nothing more than attempts by Australia's 'global medical school' (a true insult to the sanctity of medicine) to funnel as many students out of Australia and into locales worldwide.

The number of medical students in Australia has doubled over the past decade.

And I haven't even brought up the inordinate number of mistakes made by the administration which cannot simply be chalked up to coincidence.

Well then your whinge makes more sense. I stopped going to lecture halfway through year 1. Even if they had been impeccable - i.e. all Hardy Ernst and Terry Tunney all the time - I still would have stopped going. The VOPPs and podcasts are plenty enough (and I did watch/listen to nearly all of them). I did use MD's notes as a rough guide of what I needed to know for UQ and then did my own actual study to learn the material properly and more extensively.

It sounds to me like you are the kind of person that needs more hand holding and spoon feeding. That's perfectly reasonable to want, but the reality is you are whinging because you didn't get the kind of education YOU wanted. I - and the majority of my friends in my year and the year behind - felt plenty fine and a number of us really enjoyed the hands off aspect of the teaching at UQ.

And that is my only real point. If you are the kind of person that just NEEDS to go to lecture and NEEDS brilliant lecturers to help you understand everything, yes you will feel it is quite lacking at UQ and be disappointed. Especially if you can't cope with that reality. If you are like me, then you will simply love the way it is done there and the intellectual freedom allowed both by intent and by unintentional inadequacy.

Which is to say that indeed, there are numerous inadequacies and much room for improvement. I've said that before and never once have said that the lectures and teaching is beyond reproach and absolutely stellar. And improvements are happening, albeit slowly, which is to be expected.

"The number of medical students has doubled..." So? Have you learned so little about how science and evidence works that you don't even realize how completely pointless such a statement is? One needs CONTEXT to make that statement have a point. Context I provided in my previous post, with actual numbers and data, which you (conveniently) completely ignored. I could say "The number of people with lifelong severe disability from stroke has doubled in the last 10 years" and that would also mean nothing. It could mean that we are getting worse at what we do and people are being unnecessarily maimed or it could mean that we have gotten much better and those that would have been dead before are now alive to have a lifelong disability. If you wish to have a rational discussion about the legitimate pros and cons of a program or medical system, then you should stick to using rigorous logic and actual evidence. Otherwise folks like me will be happy to call you out for non-statements like that one.

The inordinate number of mistakes? Yes. I absolutely agree. And it does suck. And certainly needs to be rectified. I've also had about 3 major mistakes and set backs in my application for a California medical license just now. Boy do those guys have an inordinate amount of mistakes. Such is the reality of life and in this case a legitimate complaint and concern. Is it significant enough that I would ditch the program over it? Well, obviously not. Even if I had known *a priori* I would still have gone through with it. Mistakes lead to headaches and annoyances. Which we would all love to have less of. And if you have the ability and option to choose a path that yields the same outcomes but with less such frustrations and annoyances, more power to you. Otherwise, a rational person looks at the whole of it and determines that given the circumstances this is a legitimately recognized negative but not one that outweighs the benefits or compromises the outcomes. And that's the point - I've been subject to those same mistakes and yet here I am looking quite good in my prospects. Same with pretty much everyone I know in the program. There are always outliers but if you focus on those you will be perpetually unhappy.

Which brings me to my last point and very likely the last direct response I will have to you. An "insult to sanctity of medicine"? Really? How incredibly ridiculous you are. Many other adjectives come to mind like pompous, entitled, buffoon, inane, and straw man. It must be nice for you to think yourself* the arbiter of what system defines "the sanctity of medicine" but you'll be sorely disappointed when you leave your fantasy world. Paradigms change, the world changes, and systems change in response. Sometimes for the worse, no doubt. But your implicit claim with that statement is that the globalization of medicine - the notion that medicine is medicine wherever you practice it or learn it and the idea that we can train anywhere to practice anywhere - is an affront to some "sanctity of medicine" is simply asinine. The only "sanctity" of medicine - if there is one - is the use of rigorous logic and scientific evidence to base decisions and offer options for the best possible outcomes for our patients. To imply that the provincial and very geo/ethno centric model of the past is "sanctified" is to be ignorant of reality and an anachronism. And that doesn't even fit in an anachronistic sense - how many truly prestigious universities are all about getting the best minds from around the world and putting them out in other places?

I'm sorry but your rants are simply far off base and nothing more than (very poor) editorializing.

Next time bring data to the table if you want to have anything other than ridicule heaped on you. Your opinions are fine, but not worth much (particularly when you represent them as fact rather than your own narrow and specific opinions).

* Yes, I'm sure that you have some physician acquaintances who mirror your ideas (more likely you mirror theirs) but argument from authority doesn't fly with me either.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Would you anyone be here able to comment on if it would be detrimental to study the USMLE during clincal years? At Melbourne there is only 1 year of preclinical, so I would be studying for the USMLE during full time clinical studies.

Just something unrelated, but still needing consideration to my final decision, is typically how many teachers are there when you do an elective (not a core rotation) back in the states?

Nothing is more important than Step1. So, yes, study for it during your first clinical year. But focus primarily on your clinical learning after year-two.
 
Nothing is more important than Step1. So, yes, study for it during your first clinical year. But focus primarily on your clinical learning after year-two.

I'm going to disagree with you Phloston. Many programs value the Step 2 more than the Step 1. It depends a lot on the particular PD, but to say that NOTHING is more important than the Step 1 is not accurate. Yes, it is very important, no doubt. But there is a guy in my year with interviews at Hopkins for Gen Surg and UK for direct entry cardiothoracics with scores a little lower than mine (242/248).
 
Out of curiosity, are all lectures video recorded and posted online -- making attending lectures non-mandatory?
 
Out of curiosity, are all lectures video recorded and posted online -- making attending lectures non-mandatory?

Not all, but most. Either as a VOPP (Voice Over Power Point) or podcast. I would listen to them at home, at my convenience, at 2x speed. It was vastly more efficient than actually going to the lecture. For me, for example, it saved me 3 hours of my day to cover 3 hours of lectures. I lived in New Farm so it basically took me an hour each way to commute to St. Lucia. Each 1 hour lecture was really only 50 minutes at best because of time to change between lectures and various other delays. So it took a total of 5 hours of my time to get 2h30m of actual lecture. Or I could just listen to them all in 1h15m at home, pausing whenever I needed to or listening to parts over again.

I also believe that no matter how good the lecturer is, it is simply impossible to convey enough information via lecture to be significant compared to how much we need to know anyways. We could spend 40 hours a week with the "best" lecturers and subject topics possible and it STILL would be able to convey a small minority of the information you really need to know. No matter how you slice it, the only way to do well in medical school and not get too burned out is be studying EFFICIENTLY. And let's face it - the old paradigm of lecturing is simply not efficient enough. It is a good augment, but best at 2x speed. With the internet and streaming video and youtube, etc, it is vastly more efficient to spend your time on your own.

The TRUE utility of the lecture is to get you to understand key concepts, fundamental ideas, extremely well. That is quite useful, not doubt. And that is where differences can be had. And I'll agree there were some professors that really weren't very good. But there were some that really were. I could say the exact same about my undergrad institution and so could everyone else I know. I'm just not going to obsess over whether UQ is a little worse than average in something that is rightfully a small part of the actual educational process as it is today. I think it is extremely viable that in the not TOO distant future, most all of this can be done without any sort of traditional university infrastructure - all online. Much more efficiently and cheaply. It would just require more sophisticated means of identity verification and academic dishonesty detection, but it is well within the realm of possibility.

I guess what I am saying is that it really just isn't that big a deal, nor this ridiculously misshapen idea of the "sanctity of medicine." I fully admit that some people can't adequately handle the paradigm shift. This program probably isn't best suited for folks like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It is so much more efficient to listen to lectures online its only a matter of time before the traditional method becomes completely abandoned.
 
Phloston is correct, that in general, Step I is the most important factor for getting an interview in the USA (assuming there are no red flags in the remaining part of the application). After a certain value, however, other factors become much more important after the interview (can we get along with this person, LOR, clerkship grades, publications, extra degrees, etc).

My thoughts on the whole situation for US students getting their degree in Australia is that if you get your MBBS/MD here, it is in your benefit to do internship in Australia and then apply for your US residency during your Australian internship. Yes you will most likely have to repeat internship - but the internships in the two countries are vastly different anyway. You will go from provisional to general registration in Australia, so you always have registration there. After internship, you can take a 6 month RMO job while waiting for Match day, or take some time off. The pay is significantly higher in Australia for trainees, anyway.

I do think it poor form to leave 6 months into your internship if you have agreed to do it here.

Also, while I've read a few threads here about doctor numbers in both countries - I will say that you have to remember that there are very few mid-levels in Australia. > 50% of graduates will become GP's and because getting into a GP is, in general, pretty easy and little if any out of pocket expense, people utilise them more, which means more are needed. I can tell you in the USA, you cannot just call up and get into a GP like you can here in Australia - it rarely happens that way.
 
It is so much more efficient to listen to lectures online its only a matter of time before the traditional method becomes completely abandoned.

Agreed. It is also more efficient for the lecturer, who can record the material at his or her convenience. That will likely boost quality as well since you won't have as many harried professors rushing a lecture.

There will still be a place for smaller group sessions and practicals, but soon enough even that can be done live but still remotely with the same quality as in vivo.
 
Phloston is correct, that in general, Step I is the most important factor for getting an interview in the USA (assuming there are no red flags in the remaining part of the application). After a certain value, however, other factors become much more important after the interview (can we get along with this person, LOR, clerkship grades, publications, extra degrees, etc).

My thoughts on the whole situation for US students getting their degree in Australia is that if you get your MBBS/MD here, it is in your benefit to do internship in Australia and then apply for your US residency during your Australian internship. Yes you will most likely have to repeat internship - but the internships in the two countries are vastly different anyway. You will go from provisional to general registration in Australia, so you always have registration there. After internship, you can take a 6 month RMO job while waiting for Match day, or take some time off. The pay is significantly higher in Australia for trainees, anyway.

I do think it poor form to leave 6 months into your internship if you have agreed to do it here.

Also, while I've read a few threads here about doctor numbers in both countries - I will say that you have to remember that there are very few mid-levels in Australia. > 50% of graduates will become GP's and because getting into a GP is, in general, pretty easy and little if any out of pocket expense, people utilise them more, which means more are needed. I can tell you in the USA, you cannot just call up and get into a GP like you can here in Australia - it rarely happens that way.

Very good points indeed.

I agree that the Step 1 is more or less an arbitrary barrier and that once you meet that it has much less value added as you go up in score. However, it is also true that at a number of programs they consider the Step 2 much more highly and a very good CK score can mitigate a less-than-ideal Step 1 score.

As for doing internship in Aus... it is a persuasive argument. If people are keen to do that, I am all for it. It's certainly not for everyone though and I won't be doing it for a number of reasons. I also agree it is poor form to take the job knowing you will leave in 6 months or less.

And that is a very good point about how few mid-levels there are in Australia compared to the States.

And we all should know that primary/GP care is the single best thing to decrease healthcare costs and improve outcomes in a community. I know many Canadians who are looking to be Aussie GPs. Y'all make it much more attractive to do than we do here. That's almost certainly a good thing.
 
Australia's 'global medical school' (a true insult to the sanctity of medicine) to funnel as many students out of Australia and into locales worldwide.

The first thing I thought about when I saw this was the Illuminati, a global conspiracy to establish new world order. A one world government where a small group of ruling elites control every aspect of our lives and thoughts. "global" medical school? mmmhmmm
 
Well then your whinge makes more sense. I stopped going to lecture halfway through year 1. Even if they had been impeccable - i.e. all Hardy Ernst and Terry Tunney all the time - I still would have stopped going. The VOPPs and podcasts are plenty enough (and I did watch/listen to nearly all of them). I did use MD's notes as a rough guide of what I needed to know for UQ and then did my own actual study to learn the material properly and more extensively.

It sounds to me like you are the kind of person that needs more hand holding and spoon feeding. That's perfectly reasonable to want, but the reality is you are whinging because you didn't get the kind of education YOU wanted. I - and the majority of my friends in my year and the year behind - felt plenty fine and a number of us really enjoyed the hands off aspect of the teaching at UQ.

And that is my only real point. If you are the kind of person that just NEEDS to go to lecture and NEEDS brilliant lecturers to help you understand everything, yes you will feel it is quite lacking at UQ and be disappointed. Especially if you can't cope with that reality. If you are like me, then you will simply love the way it is done there and the intellectual freedom allowed both by intent and by unintentional inadequacy.

Which is to say that indeed, there are numerous inadequacies and much room for improvement. I've said that before and never once have said that the lectures and teaching is beyond reproach and absolutely stellar. And improvements are happening, albeit slowly, which is to be expected.

"The number of medical students has doubled..." So? Have you learned so little about how science and evidence works that you don't even realize how completely pointless such a statement is? One needs CONTEXT to make that statement have a point. Context I provided in my previous post, with actual numbers and data, which you (conveniently) completely ignored. I could say "The number of people with lifelong severe disability from stroke has doubled in the last 10 years" and that would also mean nothing. It could mean that we are getting worse at what we do and people are being unnecessarily maimed or it could mean that we have gotten much better and those that would have been dead before are now alive to have a lifelong disability. If you wish to have a rational discussion about the legitimate pros and cons of a program or medical system, then you should stick to using rigorous logic and actual evidence. Otherwise folks like me will be happy to call you out for non-statements like that one.

The inordinate number of mistakes? Yes. I absolutely agree. And it does suck. And certainly needs to be rectified. I've also had about 3 major mistakes and set backs in my application for a California medical license just now. Boy do those guys have an inordinate amount of mistakes. Such is the reality of life and in this case a legitimate complaint and concern. Is it significant enough that I would ditch the program over it? Well, obviously not. Even if I had known *a priori* I would still have gone through with it. Mistakes lead to headaches and annoyances. Which we would all love to have less of. And if you have the ability and option to choose a path that yields the same outcomes but with less such frustrations and annoyances, more power to you. Otherwise, a rational person looks at the whole of it and determines that given the circumstances this is a legitimately recognized negative but not one that outweighs the benefits or compromises the outcomes. And that's the point - I've been subject to those same mistakes and yet here I am looking quite good in my prospects. Same with pretty much everyone I know in the program. There are always outliers but if you focus on those you will be perpetually unhappy.

Which brings me to my last point and very likely the last direct response I will have to you. An "insult to sanctity of medicine"? Really? How incredibly ridiculous you are. Many other adjectives come to mind like pompous, entitled, buffoon, inane, and straw man. It must be nice for you to think yourself* the arbiter of what system defines "the sanctity of medicine" but you'll be sorely disappointed when you leave your fantasy world. Paradigms change, the world changes, and systems change in response. Sometimes for the worse, no doubt. But your implicit claim with that statement is that the globalization of medicine - the notion that medicine is medicine wherever you practice it or learn it and the idea that we can train anywhere to practice anywhere - is an affront to some "sanctity of medicine" is simply asinine. The only "sanctity" of medicine - if there is one - is the use of rigorous logic and scientific evidence to base decisions and offer options for the best possible outcomes for our patients. To imply that the provincial and very geo/ethno centric model of the past is "sanctified" is to be ignorant of reality and an anachronism. And that doesn't even fit in an anachronistic sense - how many truly prestigious universities are all about getting the best minds from around the world and putting them out in other places?

I'm sorry but your rants are simply far off base and nothing more than (very poor) editorializing.

Next time bring data to the table if you want to have anything other than ridicule heaped on you. Your opinions are fine, but not worth much (particularly when you represent them as fact rather than your own narrow and specific opinions).

* Yes, I'm sure that you have some physician acquaintances who mirror your ideas (more likely you mirror theirs) but argument from authority doesn't fly with me either.

I don't need spoon feeding at all. If I wanted it I would've used MD notes like you and done all the little BS study group sessions where people try to weasle answers out of the students from the year above them, all the while scrambling to memorize the answers to every previous exam they can get their hands upon. I've been trying to approach medical school from an intellectual standpoint, if anything.

I've made three simple points-the school does a terrible job at teaching and also has no integrity when it comes to managing its affairs, and higher education is the largest propagator of corporate fraud.

I suppose we can wait until the end of the year to see if any ochsner student receive an internship in Australia--that was the post I was responding to initially anyways.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The TRUE utility of the lecture is to get you to understand key concepts, fundamental ideas, extremely well. That is quite useful, not doubt. And that is where differences can be had. And I'll agree there were some professors that really weren't very good. But there were some that really were. I could say the exact same about my undergrad institution and so could everyone else I know. I'm just not going to obsess over whether UQ is a little worse than average in something that is rightfully a small part of the actual educational process as it is today. I think it is extremely viable that in the not TOO distant future, most all of this can be done without any sort of traditional university infrastructure - all online. Much more efficiently and cheaply. It would just require more sophisticated means of identity verification and academic dishonesty detection, but it is well within the realm of possibility.

I guess what I am saying is that it really just isn't that big a deal, nor this ridiculously misshapen idea of the "sanctity of medicine." I fully admit that some people can't adequately handle the paradigm shift. This program probably isn't best suited for folks like that.

It's amusing how you pass off your own opinion as proof that making universities all online is a good idea.

Also, your entire notion of 'paradigm shift' translates to nothing more than 'university runs out of money and cuts funding'
 
I don't need spoon feeding at all. If I wanted it I would've used MD notes like you and done all the little BS study group sessions where people try to weasle answers out of the students from the year above them, all the while scrambling to memorize the answers to every previous exam they can get their hands upon. I've been trying to approach medical school from an intellectual standpoint, if anything.

I've made three simple points-the school does a terrible job at teaching and also has no integrity when it comes to managing its affairs, and higher education is the largest propagator of corporate fraud.

I suppose we can wait until the end of the year to see if any ochsner student receive an internship in Australia--that was the post I was responding to initially anyways.

You're always good for a chuckle at least. Somehow the idea that you never looked at MD's notes make your approach so much more intellectual? Please. You do indeed seem very full of yourself (taking into account your previous posts including the rather misogynistic ones). Well, go right on ahead with your intellectual pursuit of medicine.

The school does not do a great job at teaching. I can't say otherwise. I wouldn't characterize it as "terrible" and I also much admit it has gotten better.

I've been party to and seen many examples of it handling affairs with the utmost integrity. I've also seen the opposite. From my experience the former outweighs the latter. Of course, the ones that I have found to complain the most about such things are the ones who themselves don't have their stuff together. Funny how those of us, including myself, who have no problems doing well because we stay on top of our studies, prepare for our USMLE's and do all our paperwork well in advance, and work hard in our clinical rotations seem to have nothing more than the background annoyance and frustration to deal with from time to time.

And if you really feel that way about higher education, you should either get out of it or do something about it. You know, actually something, rather than go on a pity party whinge fest on SDN. Not much else I can say about that one.

As for Ochsner students looking for internship... I think there may be 2 in my group that are even looking. And it doesn't even matter since that's not the point of the program in the first place.
 
It's amusing how you pass off your own opinion as proof that making universities all online is a good idea.

Also, your entire notion of 'paradigm shift' translates to nothing more than 'university runs out of money and cuts funding'

I never said my opinion was proof. I said it was my opinion, and basically made the statement that it IS the current paradigm shift in play. To think otherwise is to have your blinders on. Ever heard of Coursera? And how you can take certain classes online from UCSF and Stanford and others for credit? It captures your signature, fingerprint, and has you develop typing samples so it can characterize your style of typing to verify it is actually you doing the work and you get a certificate of completion for credit from the university. Baby steps, but that is certainly where things are going. Or how about the Khan Academy? You know, the totally online free YouTube service that has won a number of awards and recognition for teaching?

Is it a good idea? Yeah, I think so - as those two examples illustrate nicely. Has that been settled as fact? No, but I think there is good reason to think so. But more importantly, it's happening whether it is a "good idea" or not. Though I know a number of luddites - perhaps yourself included - who will always think it is a bad idea because they can't handle a technological paradigm shift. Sadly, our own profession is probably the worst in this regard. I'm blown away by how many people younger than myself say they simply CAN'T read a text on a laptop or tablet and simply MUST take handwritten notes and hold paper in their hands to study. Or can't efficiently use a basic word processor, let alone cloud based computing and referencing software. Eric Topol wrote a book all about it - The Creative Destruction of Medicine - which to me was rather "no, duh!" but apparently is a huge paradigm shift for the profession. And every time I hear someone whinge about how EMR's suck and paper is soooo much faster, I scream in my head and wish I could make a typing boot camp to force them to go to.

Sorry mate, but you're behind the times and pretty blinkered if you don't see the way technology and connectivity are changing the fundamental nature of education and luddite is an apt descriptor if you think it is a bad idea.
 
You're right, online education is all about it being a 'better mode of delivery' and nothing to do with the fact universities want to make as much money as possible and cut down costs as much as possible. Surely the fact that education and tuition has stayed largely the same for hundreds of years and has only recently completely changed due to a 'paradigm shift' as you call it, conveniently coinciding with a worldwide financial crisis, is proof of your superior way of thinking.

Yes, UQs cutting down of hours and clinical teaching in the first two years was all about the superior nature of VOPPs and not the fact the school was simply too greedy to pay professors and instructors to teach.

The method of teaching that you're backing may be the future, but that doesn't make it right, and you seem unable to understand the basis of any of my stances.

Anyways, good luck to you. I was only posting about my opinion of Ochsner and now that focus has been derailed.
 
You're right, online education is all about it being a 'better mode of delivery' and nothing to do with the fact universities want to make as much money as possible and cut down costs as much as possible. Surely the fact that education and tuition has stayed largely the same for hundreds of years and has only recently completely changed due to a 'paradigm shift' as you call it, conveniently coinciding with a worldwide financial crisis, is proof of your superior way of thinking.

Yes, UQs cutting down of hours and clinical teaching in the first two years was all about the superior nature of VOPPs and not the fact the school was simply too greedy to pay professors and instructors to teach.

The method of teaching that you're backing may be the future, but that doesn't make it right, and you seem unable to understand the basis of any of my stances.

Anyways, good luck to you. I was only posting about my opinion of Ochsner and now that focus has been derailed.

I agree about the costs skyrocketing with regards to tuition. It is just getting to the point of being ridiculous. The doctors we shadowed as pre meds all had sub 30K tuitions with no interest charged during med school. I have seen 10 year old posts on SDN about students whining and moaning about being 120K in debt! Roflmao and that 120K didn't even accrue interest during the first 4 years!! Now most of us are taking out around 80K just for the first year before interest!!

So with that, somewhere in the system greed has to be blame.

But your criticism of online learning is just silly. What difference does it make if I listen to a human being talk in a lecture or if I listen to the same human online? No difference except that I can pause to take better notes, fast forward through non-essential or easy parts, don't have to spend time commuting to lecture. Don't have to stay there for hours just to go back over some of the same material for more hours. It's all about efficiency these days, people today are trying to make the most out of every minute in a day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I agree about the costs skyrocketing with regards to tuition. It is just getting to the point of being ridiculous. The doctors we shadowed as pre meds all had sub 30K tuitions with no interest charged during med school. I have seen 10 year old posts on SDN about students whining and moaning about being 120K in debt! Roflmao and that 120K didn't even accrue interest during the first 4 years!! Now most of us are taking out around 80K just for the first year before interest!!

So with that, somewhere in the system greed has to be blame.

But your criticism of online learning is just silly. What difference does it make if I listen to a human being talk in a lecture or if I listen to the same human online? No difference except that I can pause to take better notes, fast forward through non-essential or easy parts, don't have to spend time commuting to lecture. Don't have to stay there for hours just to go back over some of the same material for more hours. It's all about efficiency these days, people today are trying to make the most out of every minute in a day.

It's the commodification of education that bothers me. Most people in Australia believe education should be free and strongly bemoan the American influence on education e.g. turning it into a corporate enterprise. I don't mind the VOPPs actually, but they should be used as a supplement to lectures and not as a replacement. I actually calculated the value of my tuition in first year and it came up to something like $60+ per each lecture over the course of the year.

I suspect tuition costs aren't a major issue for our friend nybangbros, as he's commuting every day from New Farm to St Lucia.
 
Yea as long as education is going to be free I think everyone should have their own airplane for free.

Just 30-40 years ago state education was free, and now we find it outlandish to even suggest receiving the benefits our parents inherited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There are operating costs and employees to pay in running a university. It has never been 'free'

Janitors don't work for free, teachers don't volunteer, heating and air conditioning, plumbing isn't free.
 
Phloston is correct, that in general, Step I is the most important factor for getting an interview in the USA (assuming there are no red flags in the remaining part of the application). After a certain value, however, other factors become much more important after the interview (can we get along with this person, LOR, clerkship grades, publications, extra degrees, etc).

My thoughts on the whole situation for US students getting their degree in Australia is that if you get your MBBS/MD here, it is in your benefit to do internship in Australia and then apply for your US residency during your Australian internship. Yes you will most likely have to repeat internship - but the internships in the two countries are vastly different anyway. You will go from provisional to general registration in Australia, so you always have registration there. After internship, you can take a 6 month RMO job while waiting for Match day, or take some time off. The pay is significantly higher in Australia for trainees, anyway.

I do think it poor form to leave 6 months into your internship if you have agreed to do it here.

Also, while I've read a few threads here about doctor numbers in both countries - I will say that you have to remember that there are very few mid-levels in Australia. > 50% of graduates will become GP's and because getting into a GP is, in general, pretty easy and little if any out of pocket expense, people utilise them more, which means more are needed. I can tell you in the USA, you cannot just call up and get into a GP like you can here in Australia - it rarely happens that way.

Funny enough, some USA residencies will only accept immediate graduates of medical school, meaning that each additional year as a post-grad can decrease one's chances of a competitive match. It's my take that residencies prefer to "mold" recent graduates as opposed to needing to work to redefine pre-established clinical outlooks.
 
You're right, online education is all about it being a 'better mode of delivery' and nothing to do with the fact universities want to make as much money as possible and cut down costs as much as possible. Surely the fact that education and tuition has stayed largely the same for hundreds of years and has only recently completely changed due to a 'paradigm shift' as you call it, conveniently coinciding with a worldwide financial crisis, is proof of your superior way of thinking.

Yes, UQs cutting down of hours and clinical teaching in the first two years was all about the superior nature of VOPPs and not the fact the school was simply too greedy to pay professors and instructors to teach.

The method of teaching that you're backing may be the future, but that doesn't make it right, and you seem unable to understand the basis of any of my stances.

Anyways, good luck to you. I was only posting about my opinion of Ochsner and now that focus has been derailed.

Yep. Always good for chuckle. I like how you seem to linger on the notion of a worldwide financial crisis rather than oh, you know, the "internet" and high speed portable technology. Yeah, everything was basically the same for hundreds of years. Do you remember how we lived before iPhones and tablets and live streaming TV at your fingertips pretty much anywhere you go? It really wasn't all that long ago.

Does doing so save costs? In a sense, yes. But you seem to think that electronic resources are simply "free" and inherently inferior to the costlier "live" education you seem to think is the only "real" education there is. Well, you're not exactly right on either count. The infrastructue and maintenance plus generation of content is actually pretty costly. And in many ways vastly superior to live lectures, which is noted by at least one other rational person on this thread.

I do understand the basis of your stance - it is rooted in an inability to think beyond what has always been. I see it quite regularly with all these alternative medicine types and the "cowboy" type doctors who think that "clinical judgement" and "experience" always trumps science and evidence. You bluster on about this and that without nary a spot of actual evidence to support your stance (kind of like your rant about the class sizes and number of graduates).

Yes, the new paradigm is not guaranteed to be better, but you'd be pretty silly and provincial to think it CAN'T be better. Anything misapplied will fail. But the use of technology and cloud based computing to make education more efficient is irrefutably better than what we have been doing. Yes, I miss the smell and feel of my books but an e-reader on my tablet is so vastly superior to an actual book it is a no brainer to switch over. And I am filled with a nostalgia about the hallowed halls of education and the honorable traditions of university learning. But it simply is not efficient enough to meet the demands of educating the masses today. Let alone the fact that the new technology and abilities have myriad ways to be VASTLY better than the old models. I mean try learning the embryology of the heart looking at textbooks with 2D images or even 3D representations vs a YouTube video in 3D of the entire process.
 
It's the commodification of education that bothers me. Most people in Australia believe education should be free and strongly bemoan the American influence on education e.g. turning it into a corporate enterprise. I don't mind the VOPPs actually, but they should be used as a supplement to lectures and not as a replacement. I actually calculated the value of my tuition in first year and it came up to something like $60+ per each lecture over the course of the year.

I suspect tuition costs aren't a major issue for our friend nybangbros, as he's commuting every day from New Farm to St Lucia.

I actually tend to agree with you. Scandinavian countries provide free education for its citizens based on the idea that they will contribute more to society. The problem is that this takes active desire to prioritize this sort of spending by the government. Which is exactly where the new paradigm of education comes in. The Khan Academy is free. Coursera is free (with a small fee for their "verified" classes). Hulu is cheap, so is Netflix. The idea that an actual education could be delivered in the same way that I can watch American Horror Story using my $7.99 Hulu subscription is the way to truly democratize education. Because even in Scandinavia there is a hurdle to people getting educated. They have to actually be able to get in and get there. Granted, that is not nearly as big a hurdle as the financial one. But you seem to be advocating that we somehow have an insane amount of universities, infrastructure, lecturers, and all for free. That just doesn't jibe with reality.

As for tuition costs - I have a huge friggin pile of debt just like most everyone else in the program. I don't see what my commute from New Farm has to do with it at all though.
 
The UQ program assesses practically no pharmacology, microbiology, biochemistry, embryology nor biostatistics.

Isn't that a lot to not assess? What does the program actually teach?
 
Isn't that a lot to not assess? What does the program actually teach?
UQ teaches a fair amount of clinical work in Years 1 and 2 and does a pretty good job with Pathology and Physiology.

The school is also really big on teaching 'confidence' to students clinically, with the result that you have a horde of 'confident' med students who have no idea what they are doing but are 100% sure of themselves, in performing incorrectly
 
Qldman is correct here. The UQ program during MS1 and 2 is practically just physio and path, respectively. The coverage of microbiology and the other basic sciences is ostensible at best (i.e., there are a few practicums, but the school doesn't actually follow up and assess you on them, and when 97+% of students aren't forced to learn seemingly boring material, there's no incentive to study it; that's why the external, independent studying aspect is so important to have if you go to UQ).

The clinical aspect during the first two years is satisfactory. At the end of my second year, I would have rationalized that UQ was deficient in teaching the basic sciences because it instead taught above and beyond clinically, but in actuality, apart from the end of first-year elective, if you speak to most medical students in the United States, they get the same breadth of clinical exposure early on as well.

In terms of UQ's program on a scale of 1 to 10 (purely my personal opinion as one who's finishing year 4/6 of the MBBS/PhD):

MS1/2 basic sciences (biochemistry, microbiology, embryology, pharmacology, biostatistics): 1/10 (the most you'll get is a few "FQs" to do in PBL during first-year [e.g., "who wants to talk about the urea cycle next week?"]; this stuff is covered in sporadic lectures, but the school doesn't assess you on it)

MS1/2 anatomy/histology: 2/10 (severely limited dissection time / instruction; student:instructor ratio usually is very high and non-personalized; literally no assessment [although my cohort complained, and apparently the MS1s now have sporadic spotting exams / histologic slide identification, which sounds like a baseline improvement, but I can't comment]; histology pracs were decent at teaching the basics [e.g., cell types] but inadequate at addressing pathology)

MS1/2 physiology: 8/10 (exams during MS1 are practically all physio; Terry Tunny is a phenomenal lecturer/professor)

MS1 elective: 10/10 (you can go anywhere in the world in any specialty you want and have the time of your life; people go to the islands, Africa, wherever; EXCEPT if you're in UQ-O, you have to stay in Australia for your elective [you can still go anywhere in the country though])

MS2 pathology: 6/10 (practicums are good but assessment is cursory; PBL addresses pathophysiological mechanisms well)

MS1/2 clinical coaching: 7/10 (MS1 is all classroom-based; MS2 is in the wards with good real patient exposure; case assignments are satisfactory during MS2; men's/women's health examinations are taught; various pracs [e.g., ophthalmology, cardiac auscultation] throughout)

PhD component (if you choose to go down the MBBS/PhD route): 10/10 (many research institutions with brilliant professors/advisors)

Hope that helps (occasionally I'll choose to write longer responses),
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know what the attrition rate is?

I don't have the numbers offhand, but they are on par with US med schools. For the Ochsner cohort specifically, it was high the first year (4/16, but 2 of them went to the regular program). Since then it has been about 2 people per year.
 
Qldman is correct here. The UQ program during MS1 and 2 is practically just physio and path, respectively. The coverage of microbiology and the other basic sciences is ostensible at best (i.e., there are a few practicums, but the school doesn't actually follow up and assess you on them, and when 97+% of students aren't forced to learn seemingly boring material, there's no incentive to study it; that's why the external, independent studying aspect is so important to have if you go to UQ).

The clinical aspect during the first two years is satisfactory. At the end of my second year, I would have rationalized that UQ was deficient in teaching the basic sciences because it instead taught above and beyond clinically, but in actuality, apart from the end of first-year elective, if you speak to most medical students in the United States, they get the same breadth of clinical exposure early on as well.

In terms of UQ's program on a scale of 1 to 10 (purely my personal opinion as one who's finishing year 4/6 of the MBBS/PhD):

MS1/2 basic sciences (biochemistry, microbiology, embryology, pharmacology, biostatistics): 1/10 (the most you'll get is a few "FQs" to do in PBL during first-year [e.g., "who wants to talk about the urea cycle next week?"]; this stuff is covered in sporadic lectures, but the school doesn't assess you on it)

MS1/2 anatomy/histology: 2/10 (severely limited dissection time / instruction; student:instructor ratio usually is very high and non-personalized; literally no assessment [although my cohort complained, and apparently the MS1s now have sporadic spotting exams / histologic slide identification, which sounds like a baseline improvement, but I can't comment]; histology pracs were decent at teaching the basics [e.g., cell types] but inadequate at addressing pathology)

MS1/2 physiology: 8/10 (exams during MS1 are practically all physio; Terry Tunny is a phenomenal lecturer/professor)

MS1 elective: 10/10 (you can go anywhere in the world in any specialty you want and have the time of your life; people go to the islands, Africa, wherever; EXCEPT if you're in UQ-O, you have to stay in Australia for your elective [you can still go anywhere in the country though])

MS2 pathology: 6/10 (practicums are good but assessment is cursory; PBL addresses pathophysiological mechanisms well)

MS1/2 clinical coaching: 7/10 (MS1 is all classroom-based; MS2 is in the wards with good real patient exposure; case assignments are satisfactory during MS2; men's/women's health examinations are taught; various pracs [e.g., ophthalmology, cardiac auscultation] throughout)

PhD component (if you choose to go down the MBBS/PhD route): 10/10 (many research institutions with brilliant professors/advisors)

Hope that helps (occasionally I'll choose to write longer responses),

Sometimes I feel like you have done a different program than I or many of my classmates did. Same goes for qldman, though he has that added twinge of bitterness tainting things too.

It has been noted here at Ochsner pretty much universally by attendings and residents that we are significantly more impressive than either the Tulane or LSU students. It is regularly commented that we not only have a very solid grasp of the necessary medical science, but are bounds ahead in terms of clinical abilities. Even in comparison to some friends I have at med school in Chicago they feel we get vastly better clinical education than they do. So I will have to disagree with you on your assessment of the clinical training at UQ.

That said, I don't disagree terribly much with the rest. I would not consider basic sciences to be quite as abysmal as a 1/10, but no need to pick nits when I would probably agree it is a 3-4/10. Ditto for the anatomy and histo. I would further argue that the traditional model of dissecting your own cadaver is outdates and horrendously inefficient. {Cue Qldman to wax poetic about the olden days and sanctity of medical education; a chicken in every pot and a cadaver for every med student}. Pretty much every resident I have even casually discussed it with (including today, completely unrelated to these posts) agrees. Digital resources combined with prosected specimens is vastly superior to 30+ hours of a week of butchering a cadaver yourself. That said, I do agree that the teaching of anatomy was still sub-par which has been raised and acknowledged as an issue with the curriculum having undergone and continuing to undergo improvement, targeted very specifically for that and led by surgical professors.

I'd probably give the pathology a better score - 7/10 easily - and definitely got a lot out of the path pracs in 2nd year.
 
Isn't that a lot to not assess? What does the program actually teach?

During my first year I had the same question - I found myself with copious amounts of free time. It worried me and I felt a little panicked like I simply wasn't getting an education, I would be unprepared to be a physician, fail the Step, etc. I called my friend at a med school in Chicago and asked him his take. He felt that for him (and many of his friends and classmates, both at his school and others) surviving med school was a game of managing to get out of doing as much busywork BS as you could. He was passionately clear that he WISHED he could have as much free time as I did, to study relevant material and things that interested him or he felt he was deficient in, rather than being forced to learn pedantic levels of biochem and pharmacology that went well beyond what was needed for the USMLE. This friend of mine is a very good friend and very smart guy and I took our conversation to heart.

Which is why I have said that the UQ program is one where you WILL sink if you aren't self motivated and self directed to a much higher degree than many (if not most) other programs (particularly US ones, but from my understanding even Aussie ones as well). I found the level of freedom in this regard absolutely wonderful and used it to benefit myself greatly. Some people I know used it to party and blow off work. They were typically less than happy when it came time for the USMLE and at their scores.

I will add that the depth of knowledge that Phloston has is also vastly too deep for the USMLE. Yes, because you never know which random pedantically hard question they will throw at you and the higher your score the more each question counts, the easiest way to cover it all is to know it to that depth. And yes, I am all for knowing things to such depth just for the sake of it because I too am a nerd at heart. But unless you are really gunning for a 260-270+ which, IMHO is wonderful and certainly laudable but not at all necessary, you simply do not need that level of pedantic detail. I found there was plenty of time to cover the UQ curriculum, study for the USMLE (much of which dovetails with what you need to know for UQ anyways), help found and run the Ochsner Medical Student Association, travel and have fun, write, read, and learn for fun (I read ~15 books for fun my first year of med), have time for my (now) fiance, and score well on the Step (I got a 242 on my Step 1). A friend of mine put in more time on the USMLE study, but not even remotely as much as Phloston, and managed a 258. Especially at that level, eeking out an extra 10+ points is incredibly hard and, once again IMHO, should be done primarily for yourself if that is what you desire not because you NEED that kind of score to get where you want to in residency. As I've mentioned elsewhere here people with scores on par with mine are interviewing at Hopkins surgery and UK direct-entry CT surgery.

So it is really up to you. You can take the POV of Qldman and feel that some sort of old sanctity of medical education is morally violated because you are left on your own a lot more than many other places and take it personally that not everything is outstanding and become bitter over every mistake and shortcoming you can find or you can take the advice I took from my friend and relish the free time to study to your own desire and level, knowing you will need to be consistently self driven. Not everyone will flourish in such an environment and some people will fail miserably. I've seen both ends of the spectrum but can also see the majority are comfortably right in the middle - a Bell curve just like anything in the universe. Which is why I have always been honest and admonished people to be genuinely self critical about their own desires and capacities. I'm just not a cynic.
 
Thank you all for your replies. I appreciate the thorough responses. I was accepted to UQ-O back in September and still have not decided whether or not to attend.

So it sounds like the old adage "med school is like drinking out of a fire hose" does not apply here? Avoiding the minutiae of certain subjects and focusing on what is needed for the USMLE does sound appealing. However, it's hard me to ascertain whether or not this would be a positive thing as I have no idea how difficult it is to study for the USMLE. I obviously know it's hard. I'm just wondering how difficult it is to prepare for independently. Do UQ-O students spend two years independently studying for it? Is it the complexity of the material or its breadth that make it such a daunting test? I'm not trying to get off topic. I'm just trying to understand the test in the context of one's time at UQ-O. As nybgrus mentions, I'm doing a self critical review right now to see if this is for me.
 
Thank you all for your replies. I appreciate the thorough responses. I was accepted to UQ-O back in September and still have not decided whether or not to attend.

So it sounds like the old adage "med school is like drinking out of a fire hose" does not apply here? Avoiding the minutiae of certain subjects and focusing on what is needed for the USMLE does sound appealing. However, it's hard me to ascertain whether or not this would be a positive thing as I have no idea how difficult it is to study for the USMLE. I obviously know it's hard. I'm just wondering how difficult it is to prepare for independently. Do UQ-O students spend two years independently studying for it? Is it the complexity of the material or its breadth that make it such a daunting test? I'm not trying to get off topic. I'm just trying to understand the test in the context of one's time at UQ-O. As nybgrus mentions, I'm doing a self critical review right now to see if this is for me.

I'm sure others will give you valuable opinions and insights as well (and I mean that seriously - I try and be as objective as possible and discuss realities without imbuing emotion into my writing, but I am still human and biased just like the rest of us).

For many people I know they felt that UQ was like drinking out of a fire hose. For me, I felt the UQ material was more like chugging a big iced tea. And since I really like the material and was REALLY ready to do this, it felt like chugging it on a hot day after a long run. But really I think the distinction is that - depending on your background level of science knowledge and study skills - it is more that UQ doesn't force a fire hose down your throat.

Studying for the USMLE is a marathon. And there are an INSANE number of resources to help guide your study. Practice questions are by far the best single resource and doing many of them (I did about 8,000 or so unique practice questions, Phloston did around 16,000 IIRC) is, IMHO, the cornerstone of adequate Step prep.

As you noted there as issues about breadth and depth. I think that the primary difficulty of the Step is breadth, but I also have a very strong science background coming into med school. You may find both to be an issue if your science background is weak or non-existent. An anecdote: a friend was having trouble studying for the step and asked me for help. I discovered that this friend was trying to memorize G-protein coupled pathways without having any idea that ATP, AMP, and cAMP were all the same molecule with a different number of phosphates reflecting the overall energy state of the cell. It is much harder to memorize random facts (or seemingly random to you) than to understanding an underlying principle to tie together the larger concepts and be able to derive the details. However, a lot of medicine is rote memorization which is why scores like Phloston's are essentially impossible to achieve unless you spend a significant amount of time just rote memorizing piles of information. And boy did he memorize them! (Side note - I find that level of memorization to be much less clinically useful. I can always look up a detail in 5 seconds on my phone. The key is knowing the framework so you can think to look something up in the first place).

Yes, you certainly can study for it completely independently. That is pretty much what I did (and Phloston too, at least I think). However, there is a paradigm in place for guided study with tutorials for UQ-O students beginning in Year 1 and continuing till the end of Year 2. In Year 1 it is Y2 students tutoring and the beginning of the year is focused on the "nuts and bolts" of the exam - what is it like, the format, how questions are asked, how to think about and approach questions, etc. In Year 2 it is 3rd and 4th year students (primarily 4) who have done well on the step tutoring much more specific content (there is still a fair bit of content in Y1). Both Phloston and myself have been tutors for the Y2 students. And of course, there is free access to the question banks and a copy of First Aid which is essentially the Bible, the map, the guidebook for the USMLE.

In short, yes it is very doable and there is as much or as little guidance as you would like along the way, with plenty of resources at your disposal.

The thing is that you can completely ignore the USMLE for your entire two years and do just fine at UQ. And, like some people I know of, get serious shell shock when they actually take the exam. Which is why I said it is a marathon. The best way to eat an elephant is by starting at the tail and working your way forward.
 
Dude I love how you misinterpret whatever I say.

I was trying to give prospective students another perspective on UQ and the medical school experience. You have your opinions and I have mine. I've done very well academically here so I'm not whining about needing to be coddled. I'm simply stating the facts.

If you're cool with going into 300k+ debt for a medical school that does a poor job at teaching and has little regard for its students, then that's your prerogative. Not everyone is focused specifically and solely on the USMLE and some actually consider that the process should be an intellectual journey. Anyone can side-study for the USMLE on their own.
 
Thank you all for your replies. I appreciate the thorough responses. I was accepted to UQ-O back in September and still have not decided whether or not to attend.

So it sounds like the old adage "med school is like drinking out of a fire hose" does not apply here? Avoiding the minutiae of certain subjects and focusing on what is needed for the USMLE does sound appealing. However, it's hard me to ascertain whether or not this would be a positive thing as I have no idea how difficult it is to study for the USMLE. I obviously know it's hard. I'm just wondering how difficult it is to prepare for independently. Do UQ-O students spend two years independently studying for it? Is it the complexity of the material or its breadth that make it such a daunting test? I'm not trying to get off topic. I'm just trying to understand the test in the context of one's time at UQ-O. As nybgrus mentions, I'm doing a self critical review right now to see if this is for me.

You'll need to self-study all of Pharmacology and Biochemistry if you attend UQ, and as I have heard, Pharmacology is one of the biggest components of the USMLE. USMLE is not a difficult test at all. As others have pointed out it is pure rote memorization and very minimal IQ-based, logic reasoning.
 
Dude I love how you misinterpret whatever I say.

I was trying to give prospective students another perspective on UQ and the medical school experience. You have your opinions and I have mine. I've done very well academically here so I'm not whining about needing to be coddled. I'm simply stating the facts.

If you're cool with going into 300k+ debt for a medical school that does a poor job at teaching and has little regard for its students, then that's your prerogative. Not everyone is focused specifically and solely on the USMLE and some actually consider that the process should be an intellectual journey. Anyone can side-study for the USMLE on their own.

Yeah, I get it. You have some sort of romanticized idea of what education, specifically medical education, is supposed to be like. I'm just saying you are a bit removed from reality when you wax faux-nostalgic.

I will agree that 20-30 years ago med school was very tight knit, close, and indeed a different experience. It was probably better in many regards. One of them, however, was not training a lot of physicians since that paradigm was slow, inefficient, and necessitated smaller "batches." I know that this sort of schooling existed - and still does in some places. All I am saying is that you are more complaining about an overall change in how things are done rather than anything truly specific or unique to UQ. For prospects looking at US vs UQ, the distinctions you are stating don't really exist. I have friends in med school here in the US and they share many of the same sentiments you do. If you've noticed I haven't really disagreed with you very much and most of my disagreement is in degree rather than content. But what I have disagreed with is the personal emotion you've imbued into your comments which explicitly and implicitly make it seem as if UQ is particularly egregious in these areas of deficiency. I even pointed out, using actual data, how you make up numbers off the top of your head to support the narrative you are trying to build which is contrary to reality. All I am saying is that UQ is not as bad as you are trying to say it is (at least, how you are coming off). Some very specific areas are worse than others, but on the whole pretty much on par with most average US med schools. Now THAT is indeed mostly opinion, since I don't really have hard data to back that up, but then that sort of data doesn't really exist and it really is highly subjective. What you find as a particularly egregious deficiency I may feel is barely bothersome. And THAT is really my point - you are injecting a lot of subjective experience that paints a highly biased picture. I am attempting my best to be as neutral and fact based as possible and avoid hyperbolic opinionation on highly subjective topics. And I've acknowledged my own inherent and unavoidable bias many times as well.

As for $300+k for poor teaching... talk to the Tulane students. They pay more than we do and I've heard everything from enthusiasm to incessant whinging. And the Tulane students are KNOWN for being PROUD of being lazy and being able to get away with it at their institution. So while you say "If you're cool with going into 300k+ debt for a medical school that does a poor job at teaching and has little regard for its students, then that's your prerogative" I say "If you can find cheaper and better with smaller classes and more attentive staff, then go for it! But good luck finding it AND getting in!"

As for being focused solely on the USMLE... well, we are and we SHOULD be. That's kind of the thing about being a US student looking for a US residency. Especially at UQ, but really anywhere, nobody should be "Side-studying" for the USMLE. It is, unequivocally, the one thing that can utterly destroy your chances at a US residency if you do poorly.

It's not that I am misinterpreting you so much as your own thinking is pretty muddied on it and chock full of emotion based on personal experience.
 
You'll need to self-study all of Pharmacology and Biochemistry if you attend UQ, and as I have heard, Pharmacology is one of the biggest components of the USMLE. USMLE is not a difficult test at all. As others have pointed out it is pure rote memorization and very minimal IQ-based, logic reasoning.

I agree that the exam really isn't that hard to pass. I could have passed it very early in Year 2 myself. But getting a good to great score is indeed difficult. Furthermore, pharmacology is not one of the biggest components of the USMLE. Unequivocally it is pathology and physiology, which UQ actually does a pretty damned decent job of teaching. The pharmacology that is on the USMLE is primarily autonomic system and cardiac pharmacology, along with basic pharmacology principles like dynamics, kinetics, and metabolism. If you learned those cold and absolutely nothing else about pharm, you could easily score in the 240's.

It is also absolutely NOT pure rote memorization. Yes, there is a significant portion of it and inevitably what will get you from a 250 to a 260+ is mostly memorization of a few pedantic facts to pick up those extra questions, but the bulk of the test - and to still manage to do very well - is indeed a of logic, reasoning, and understanding of fundamental concepts. This holds more true for the Step 2 CK. If you actually learn the fundamental principles of medical science - you know, by going on that intellectual journey of yours - you will be able to reason your way through and derive most of the answers to the USMLE. That's what I did. The parts of the exam that have the most pure rote memorization are anatomy and the rare metabolic disorders (glycogen storage diseases, etc) and those are minimally tested on the USMLE. Know your brachial and lumbar plexus, a few particularly interesting places you could get stabbed, and some rough neuroanatomy and you've basically covered 85% of what you need for the Step. In fact, my biggest lament is that I feel like I would have done 10 points better if I had spent more time on pure rote memorization. I barely touched First Aid, with 90% of my time spent with it during the month of intense study prior to the exam. And even then, I simply did not sit down and memorize tables of stuff. I absolutely HATE doing that. My phone can do that sort of stuff much, much better than I ever will. So for me, proportionately little of my study and performance on the Step can be attributed to pure rote memorization.
 
Pharmacology is one of the biggest components of the USMLE. USMLE is not a difficult test at all. As others have pointed out it is pure rote memorization and very minimal IQ-based, logic reasoning.

I had very little pharm on my Step1, and practically no repro or pulm, but I know others, for instance, whose Step1s were "OB/GYN clerkship exams."

As much as some people would like to believe that the Step1 has a "very minimal IQ-based" component, that's unfortunately not the case. I'd say that's the reason I didn't break 270 despite all of my hard work. I don't have an IQ of 160. Let's just deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I had very little pharm on my Step1, and practically no repro or pulm, but I know others, for instance, whose Step1s were "OB/GYN clerkship exams."

As much as some people would like to believe that the Step1 has a "very minimal IQ-based" component, that's unfortunately not the case. I'd say that's the reason I didn't break 270 despite all of my hard work. I don't have an IQ of 160. Let's just deal with it.

I don't think that really disproves my point.

If you took the USMLE right after Year 2 you would pass the exam. If you studied it for 4 weeks nonstop, you were score much higher. The fact you couldn't score any higher than a 270 (whatever that means) have more to do with the massive scope of exam/your particular exam material than any inherent difficulty in the exam.

Whereas if you took an upper level mathematics or physics course it wouldn't really make a difference no matter how much you studied.
 
My 2 cents on the value of education...

We pay for the piece of paper at the end of it. My whole family (except for me, the black sheep) went to ivy league schools, mostly Harvard. My siblings' attitude was that they received a far better education in boarding school than at Harvard, but Harvard gave a particularly sweet piece of paper that opened doors. I went to a very good private ($$$) research uni, but half of my non-elective courses had **** lecturers, particularly in the maths and physical sciences where tutes were often taught by PhD candidates who barely spoke English. The value I got from undergrad was from the research opportunities and a degree that led to a career before medicine.

At any rate, I wouldn't call UQ "greedy". The med school, along with many others here, nearly went broke in the '90s because they had to rely on HECS reimbursement from the federal government (just as the free uni education here didn't work -- it was on course to bankrupt the govt). Then they got permission to become grad programs in order to tap the N. American market. It charges what it can get away with. UQ is still in the red apparently, and like most schools here its endowment is tiny compared to the typical private American uni.

UQ is not a place to come for the best teaching around. It's a place to come for the totality of the experience, for opportunities in the meantime, for the degree at the end, and for some doors to subsequently open.
 
UQs selling point is the fact it happens to be located in Queensland. Not a whole lot else really. I just had another consultant today tell me he was disgusted by the way the school goes about its business.
 
I don't think that really disproves my point.

If you took the USMLE right after Year 2 you would pass the exam. If you studied it for 4 weeks nonstop, you were score much higher. The fact you couldn't score any higher than a 270 (whatever that means) have more to do with the massive scope of exam/your particular exam material than any inherent difficulty in the exam.

Whereas if you took an upper level mathematics or physics course it wouldn't really make a difference no matter how much you studied.

I love how you are giving all kinds of advice about what is on the test and how much of it is memorization vs intellectual questions and you don't even seem to know what a 270 means. The test is out of 280. Phloston's score of 268 (IIRC) is ridiculously, insanely, top half-percentile high. My 242 is very solid, but nothing truly exceptional. Most US seniors get a 225ish (the mean varies by a couple of points each year but is pretty much always right around there). SD is typically 15-17. Most highly competitive US programs have a cutoff (arbitrary and official or not) of 230. Scores in the 240's are typically strong enough to have pretty much all programs at least look at the rest of your application. 250's gives you an extra l'il something and everything higher is just pure gravy.

And I can assure you, that I would trust Phloston's assessment of why he didn't break 270. And it was *not* because of the massive scope of the exam - I can assure you he studied massively and covered the scope.

And, of course, your comment about math and physics is just plain stupid. I can see where you are trying to go with that (that those sorts of things require much more critical intellectual thought to work though problems) but to say that how much you studied won't matter is pure idiocy. But here, an article that distills down some of the data to demonstrate the point. Because the reality is that "talent" is overrated, and it really all does boil down to how much work you put into it. With minor variations in baseline abilities meaning that some people need to put more work into something than others, but the idea that study and hard work (which does not equate to but includes rote memorization) does not matter - particularly in certain fields - is simply flat out wrong. And there is plenty of primary source data to demonstrate that. If I had put in as much time as Phloston I can assure you I would have been scoring in the same range as he did.

I sure hope you don't approach medical practice in the same evidence free, conclusion and narrative driven manner as you do your discussions about medical education. But hey, making assertions based on what you think is the case, chasing conclusions you already have is much easier than doing it the other (right) way and actually looking at data and evidence to form conclusions.
 
UQs selling point is the fact it happens to be located in Queensland. Not a whole lot else really. I just had another consultant today tell me he was disgusted by the way the school goes about its business.

And to tack on to the evidence free rants you like to go on you just keep on chucking in a l'il argument from authority. Not that you'd know or care about informal vs formal logical fallacies to get in the way of reinforcing your already determined conclusion. At least you aren't quite as bad as talking to creationists and anti-vaxxers.
 
Well I actually majored in math and physics. And I have seen the USMLE before (that sample test on the USMLE page of an actual administered exam, and it's not particularly difficult). You seem to take my comments very personally and set out to analyze every statement I make, and don't actually look at the basic logic. We are all agreeing that you need to be intelligent to score well on it, but the point here is that through studying intensely you can score much higher on the USMLE than you can on more IQ-based examinations, in which hard work produces less than does raw intelligence.

And why do you always feel the need to inject your personal scores into here? I don't care what you scored. I'm sure your mother can tell you that you're brilliant. We're not here to get into a pissing contest over who's smarter.

And by the way, there's two other guys on here who have agreed with my statements on the school. Only you seem to think I'm going on some sort of delusional rant about UQ.

'If I had put in as much time as Phloston I can assure you I would have been scoring in the same range as he did. '

Yeah, you just proved my point about the exam. I'd call you an idiot, as is warranted, but that would only cause you to add an extra 5 paragraphs onto your next diatribe.
 
Well I actually majored in math and physics. And I have seen the USMLE before (that sample test on the USMLE page of an actual administered exam, and it's not particularly difficult). You seem to take my comments very personally and set out to analyze every statement I make, and don't actually look at the basic logic. We are all agreeing that you need to be intelligent to score well on it, but the point here is that through studying intensely you can score much higher on the USMLE than you can on more IQ-based examinations, in which hard work produces less than does raw intelligence.

And why do you always feel the need to inject your personal scores into here? I don't care what you scored. I'm sure your mother can tell you that you're brilliant. We're not here to get into a pissing contest over who's smarter.

And by the way, there's two other guys on here who have agreed with my statements on the school. Only you seem to think I'm going on some sort of delusional rant about UQ.

'If I had put in as much time as Phloston I can assure you I would have been scoring in the same range as he did. '

Yeah, you just proved my point about the exam. I'd call you an idiot, as is warranted, but that would only cause you to add an extra 5 paragraphs onto your next diatribe.

My point is you continually make evidence free assertions. Which are not just evidence free, but also factually wrong when one actually looks at the evidence. I don't take it personally. The nice thing about the internet is there are plenty of places to make evidence free assertions. The problem is that you can occasionally run into folks like me who won't let it slide and can (and do) actually reference data. It's not so much in an effort to stick it to you, but to demonstrate rather clearly to other readers that your commentary is simply not very insightful or worth reading because you continually make up things to continue your narrative rather than actually look at data and give as objective an opinion as possible. Which seems to be working, considering how many PM's and emails I get to further elucidate and give references to actual data. Because that is what people looking into this program want to know, not the highly biased opinion of a guy on a whinge fest.

And you continue to do it. There is no such thing as "raw intelligence" - that is a myth perpetuated in popular culture and demonstrably false when looking at data. Yes, there is a baseline level of genetic variation in starting ability and in some cases upper limits involved (as in congenital mental ******ations) but for the overwhelming majority of the population, the difference in scores and outcomes has extremely little to do with innate or "raw" intelligence and everything to do with culture, societal status, and - most importantly - effort.

So yeah, I do think you are on a delusional rant but about education in general and focused on UQ. Delusion, as you should know by now, is defined as holding a belief against evidence. You have purported a few beliefs here that are central to your thesis and your narrative which I have adequately demonstrated are false. Your continued belief in that narrative is, therefore, a delusion. The fact that other people share in your delusion does not validate it - it merely affords you an echo chamber to keep up that delusion.

Your last line clearly demonstrates you have zero desire to actually try and learn or even bother to read anything disconfirming to your own preconceived ideas. My comment about the amount of study does not, in fact, support your point unless you blind yourself to everything else I said surrounding it. Which you have demonstrated you are quite good at.

So feel free to whinge on about your delusions. That's the beauty of the internet. You're just not free to do it without someone like myself heckling you about it is all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Sometimes I feel like you have done a different program than I or many of my classmates did. Same goes for qldman, though he has that added twinge of bitterness tainting things too.

It has been noted here at Ochsner pretty much universally by attendings and residents that we are significantly more impressive than either the Tulane or LSU students. It is regularly commented that we not only have a very solid grasp of the necessary medical science, but are bounds ahead in terms of clinical abilities. Even in comparison to some friends I have at med school in Chicago they feel we get vastly better clinical education than they do. So I will have to disagree with you on your assessment of the clinical training at UQ.

That said, I don't disagree terribly much with the rest. I would not consider basic sciences to be quite as abysmal as a 1/10, but no need to pick nits when I would probably agree it is a 3-4/10. Ditto for the anatomy and histo. I would further argue that the traditional model of dissecting your own cadaver is outdates and horrendously inefficient. {Cue Qldman to wax poetic about the olden days and sanctity of medical education; a chicken in every pot and a cadaver for every med student}. Pretty much every resident I have even casually discussed it with (including today, completely unrelated to these posts) agrees. Digital resources combined with prosected specimens is vastly superior to 30+ hours of a week of butchering a cadaver yourself. That said, I do agree that the teaching of anatomy was still sub-par which has been raised and acknowledged as an issue with the curriculum having undergone and continuing to undergo improvement, targeted very specifically for that and led by surgical professors.

I'd probably give the pathology a better score - 7/10 easily - and definitely got a lot out of the path pracs in 2nd year.

My school is quite strong on anatomy and does full body dissection. I think the awe of dissection wears off after 10 or so sessions and after that it just becomes more of a chore. On top of that we share 4 or 5 to half a body so very often we don't even have the chance to dissect things like the heart as there are just too many people crowded around one table. I personally really like dissection, but I would prefer 2 people or just 1 person to a body, otherwise, so much time is spent just sitting around while other people cut, I could think of much better ways of learning anatomy.
 
Wow, looks like I stepped into some kinda flame war. Spoiler alert: I talk about my opinions about the USMLE below.

I just posted this in the 2013 thread, but figured it's probably more useful here. I just finished my first year at UQ Ochsner, and I'd like to offer my 2 cents to this discussion as someone who has a fair share of criticism about UQ, but can confidently say that it'll turn you into a doctor if that's your goal. It feels like yesterday when I was in your position, scouring SDN to try and figure out whether or not UQ is legit, and to convince myself that everything is going to be great if I come to UQ. Let's be honest: in order to make the investment and take the risk to come halfway around the world to go to med school, you need a bit of "confirmation bias" that it's going to be OK, by which I mean, you need to weigh the evidence that it's good (good QS international rankings, affiliation with Ochsner, etc) more than the evidence that it's bad (they let you in with a 26 MCAT and a 2.8 GPA, it's international, it's expensive, etc).

If you have already decided to come here next year, you can rest assured, UQ IS a legit medical school, and there are a ton of very well-qualified students in my class who love it. Before I came here, I was very curious about how everyone else "ended up" coming to UQ. I have been very pleasantly surprised that Americans in Ochsner are very good students, and usually interesting, well-traveled people. Some of my best friends here are from Ivy League schools (and that is a very popular ad hominem defense of the school that IMHO doesn't say very much about the education, but it seems to matter to a lot of people). To be honest, I am here because I screwed around too much in undergrad, and there are consequences (3.2 GPA, 31Q MCAT, because I know you are curious). But some of my friends are here simply because they had intense family, interpersonal, or health issues during undergrad that caused them to have one bad semester, and in the med school game, that is unfortunately enough to ruin your application, as I imagine some of you have already discovered for yourselves. The current president of the Ochsner Medical Student Association (OMSA) had something like a 39 MCAT, and he was basically just over-confident in his original round of US applications and turned them in late, another big no-no in med school applications, and that's how he ended up here. But he hit the ground running in Australia as an exemplary student doing all sorts of projects and research and never looked back. He writes on this board a lot, so you have probably read his posts above already, but I can vouch for him as a super-solid example of the kind of student UQ can put out, to the extent that you care about an anonymous stranger on the internet's opinion :)

As for the Australian students (some of whom are called "twoosies" because they did a 2-year science degree starting at age 17 and then went right into med school at age 19), they are really the cream of the crop here in Australia. UQ is one of the top med schools in the country (depending on the reference... it usually ranks in the top 4 or 5). It can be a bit infantilizing going to classes with 19 year old Australian colleagues. No one prepared me for that before I came here. Sometimes I question just what the hell I DID learn during my 4 year undergrad degree, because a lot of these kids are SMART. It's humbling, and you just gotta get over it if you come here (easier said than done).

There are a few facilities that I found surprisingly good here. The anatomy lab is actually pretty sweet. It's open most days of the week, so you can come in and take a liver or a heart sample out of a bucket and drill down your anatomy. I've never had trouble dealing with that area. The actual anatomy practical labs are crowded and not entirely useful, but that is more than made up for by how good it is on off-hours (i'm going to get in trouble for telling you this, because it's a bit of a well-guarded secret). There are usually tutors or just well-informed colleagues in the lab who are more than happy to help you out. Before I came here everyone made a huge fuss about whether or not there was a wet cadaver lab. First of all, there is. And about half-way through the year, you can start doing dissections. But more importantly, you will learn VERY quickly that the presence or absence of a wet lab really doesn't make much of a difference to your anatomy education. All you surgery hot shots will have plenty of time to get your hands on some organs at the appropriate time; it's not a very important part of year 1 (1).

However, there are a lot of things about UQ that drive me crazy. For starters, let's be real: no matter what anyone says, you will probably be less competitive in matching to a residency if you come here. That's just how the world works. Doctor's care about pedigree, and so do we. That's why we're asking all these questions about the pedigree of UQ, right? I'm sick of all the misleading "no one will see you differently" rhetoric, because it's not true. But that on its own is not a reason not to come to UQ. We all know that you are considering UQ because things didn't work out in the US (2). If you don't go to med school, you'll have ZERO chance at matching a residency, so don't dwell on residency stats. Your chances at matching after graduating from UQ are still probably better than if you went to the Caribbean, so as far as studying medicine abroad, the only international school that off the top of my head might be slightly better in terms of pedigree is the Columbia-Israel program, but this is all just speculation; I can't really speak too informatively about that, and very few people can. Be aware before you come here of the fact that you are going to get an MBBS degree if you come here before 2015. Everyone tells me it's exactly the same as an MD. I doubt it's the exact same for the same reasons as I've given about residency matching, but from everything I've read and US doctors I've talked to thus far, it is seen by most people as exactly the same (3). Real US doctors are actually the least judgmental people about Australian med school. The most common response I usually get is, "damn, I wish I'd done that!" This whole paragraph could be re-written as the following sentiment: "don't let 'great' be the enemy of 'good'."

In a more general sense, studying at UQ is probably not what you've always dreamed that "Medical School" would be like. UQ is a giant state university (something like 70,000 students in the whole system or so), and there are about 500 1st year medical students. The administration treats you like a statistic. The administration is a huge pain in the ass to deal with, and they are infamously disorganized. They lost a friend's midterm last semester... that level of disorganization (don't worry they found it eventually, and they always sort out the problems sooner or later). I've heard UQ described as "Kafka-esque," and that is spot on from my experience. "Surgical theater of the absurd" is also a decent pun. There are all sorts of bureaucratic annoyances, It was a bit disarming to have to compete for seating in the lecture hall on my first day of classes. It is equally disarming that this leads to a culture of skipping lecture among Ochsner students, a suggestion you will receive from 2nd years when you first get here that I believe ought to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Perhaps the worst part of the medical education here is the practical labs. They are about as crappy as any undergrad lab you've ever had. Microbio is a joke, seriously. Again, I don't think that is a reason not to come here on its own, although it is quite annoying. The annoyance is two-fold. After the obvious annoyance of having to waste our time in these over-stuffed labs, it is also annoying because it shifts the onus of learning microbio to Ochsner students. Because you need to know microbio for the USMLE Step 1.

Ah, the USMLE , aka, "The Boards." If you come here and want to score some friends quickly, read up on the USMLE before you come here, because Ochsner students LOVE to talk about it. Everyone freaks out about it because it is believed that UQ doesn't adequately prepare its students for the USMLE. To be honest, I can't speak intelligently about this subject. There are USMLE tutorials every week put on by second year med students, and they are as good as tutorials can be from 2nd year med students who haven't taken the test themselves who are busier than you are and just learned this stuff the year before... which is to say there is a range in the quality of the sessions. The issue is the universal uncertainty surrounding the USMLE. People who love to speak authoritatively will do so about the USMLE for as long as you're willing to listen, but that doesn't mean that anything they say is veracious. This leads to a bit of "paralysis by analysis" for some people, who spend half the year searching for the "best" way to study without actually doing any studying for the test. "Which review book is the best?" "Have you started Q bank yet?" "Oh, I use Kaplan, it's better." "Oh, I hate the Made Ridiculously Simple series." Everyone has an opinion. The people who are most successful are good at tuning all this banter out, and just picking a resource and sticking with it. My opinion: you can track to Phloston's 30 page confession about how he studied for the USMLE to get such an insanely high score, and it's pretty insane. Pretty much every first year med student I've met has an initial delusion that they are just going to "buckle down" and do what it takes to get such a high score, and most people realize that they really don't feel like putting in that kind of effort. You can be your own judge, but it reminds me of how most pre-meds talk about how ****ty a 30 is on the MCAT before they take it having no clue of how much studying it takes to do really well on that test.

There are some non-medical aspects to the education that are also a huge pain in the ass. We have to take bioethics for the two australian pre-clinical years. But this isn't heady "bioethics" about categorical imperatives and all that (although there is a bit of that); it's Australian bioethics. So you need to learn a bunch of esoteric facts about Australian Law that will never matter to you once you leave Australia. Some of it is a bit interesting, but most of it is just busywork. Frankly, 100% of my friends just crammed last minute for bioethics exams. Everyone did fine (some of us actually got 7s, the UQ equivalent of an A), but it added what felt like an unnecessary amount of stress. The Aboriginal Health class was actually a bit more interesting if you're the type of person who likes anthropology or public health. If you're going to live in Australia for a few years, I think it's important to develop a bit of an understanding of the culture here, and it was interesting, albeit sad, to learn about the colonialism here and its lasting consequences on Aboriginal communities. That being said, some Ochsner students hated that class, and perhaps you will too, but it can be bearable if you see it as a culturally-enriching opportunity.

As for what it's like living in Brisbane, it's a small, but rapidly growing town. If you like sun, you'll love Brisbane. After the brutal (by my standards) summer ends around March, the weather becomes quite temperate for the rest of the year. I personally prefer cloudy days, but I realize I'm an outlier. I love riding the ferry to school. Perhaps because of the weather, people tend to show a lot of skin here. Guys wear short shorts, girls wear short skirts. Perhaps I've just forgotten what it's like to be around 19 year olds. Coffee (a "long black"= an Americano) costs about $3.50-$4.00 for a cup, and beer is about $17 for a six pack. Frankly, you get used to it. I mean, you're planning on dropping like a quarter of a million dollars or something like that on your medical education, nickel-and-diming a few bucks on commodities really shouldn't make or break your decision. It is a bit frustrating that the beach isn't as close as I'd like it to be. I don't have a car here, but I think investing in one, or maybe splitting one with some friends, is a pretty good idea if you want to get out of Brisbane. There are a lot of fun things to do in the surrounding area, and it can be life-affirming to get away from med school stress, if only for an afternoon.

I hope this has added to your appraisal of what UQ is like. I hope I didn't come off as pedantic about anything. Perhaps the biggest thing I learned after a year here is how important it is to be in med school because YOU want to be in med school. It was pretty crushing for me when I didn't get into US schools, and I think I went a bit crazy frantically trying to get to med school at any cost after that. Now that I'm here, I've realized that for me, med school isn't the end all and be all of my life or my ability to help other people. If you want to go to med school because you want to "help" others, I'd recommend doing a bit of soul-searching before you sign up to come all the way to UQ, because whatever factors that led you not to get into US med school in the first place might be telling you that med school isn't right for you. And I think it's important to be OK with that (4).

Good luck with your applications, and feel free to PM me if you have any questions.


footnotes:
1) I personally don't find anything too educational about dissections after you've got the basic understanding of the body. People make a big deal about anatomy and cutting open cadavers because it is the most aesthetically "med schooly" thing you do in year 1, but it's not THAT important. The reason med schools have reduced the amount of anatomy education we do is because the people who write the curriculum had to endure an unnecessary amount of anatomy during year 1 when they were in med school, and they decided to spare us and use the time to focus on physiology more. And to be clear, I'm not taking a side in the "medicine vs. surgery" debate here; I just don't think it's important for anyone to focus on surgical skills during year one.

2) As the saying goes, if it's too good to be true, it's too good to be true. If you are wondering why UQ let you in, you just need to follow the money to understand why they are willing to accept you when US schools might have rejected you. International student fees are a huge boom, and the cost to them of having a few of the unqualified international students drop out is much less than the amount they rake in from us. There is a notorious shortage of residency programs in Australia right now, so they are leveraging Ochsner's clinical resources. In turn, Ochsner is leveraging UQ's substantial research resources. This place is really a research powerhouse. You know how they love to brag how they are one of the top 50 med schools in the world according to QS rankings? A lot of that reputation comes from the component of the ranking calculation that comes from research. If they improved the actual teaching, they'd probably rank higher.

3) There is also a lot of talk about whether or not you will be able to practice in all 50 states if you graduate from UQ. The truth is that if you graduate from the normal 4-year uq medical degree, you can practice in all 50 states. The UQ ochsner program simply has not been evaluated yet, but I think there is strong evidence that it will eventually be OK. Trust me, the uncertainty freaks me out too. The only cup-half-full rationalization I can provide is that as doctors, we'll need to be able to feel comfortable with a bit of uncertainty, right?

4) If you went to Ghana every summer of undergrad to help out in an orphanage and used that experience as the linchpin of your medical school application, are you sure that you're favorite part of that experience was the medical aspect? Maybe you are better suited for international aide? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here; I just personally would have benefited from considering this type of thing before I came to UQ. I spent a lot of energy this year trying to understand why I'm in med school, and I that is energy I could have saved if I would have been more willing to consider another career before I comitted to med school. I understand the pressure that you or your friends and family might put on yourself because of the "prestige" of a medical degree, but that might not be enough to make you content with your time at UQ in the long run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To add one more item in the "positives" column for UQ: After talking extensively with my friends in US med school, I can honestly say that it really doesn't seem like there is a huge difference between what is covered at UQ and at their institutions. Because US schools are heavier with biochem and microbio, it means that UQ has relatively more time for physiology, which they emphasize pretty heavily. Aside from moments of personal ignorance and notwithstanding biochem and microbio, I rarely feel that there are topics that my American friends covered in school that I missed out on at UQ. Actually, if you come here, you'll learn all about H. Pylori, which American schools rarely emphasize.
 
Top