Hacker News Reader

Comment by kohanz | Hacker News Reader

> For example, I think in India a woman can finish medical school at age 23, whereas in the U.S. it would be age 26

Do they emerge with the same level of training & experience? Difficult to do an apples-to-apples comparison.

The first four years in the US is actually not in medical school. Basically you'll need the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in biological sciences to go to medical school. Most students do 4-yr college and then med. A total of 8 years. Then residency and on and on. If the biological sciences requirement is simply folded into a five year course that's the Indian model. MBBS - Bachelor of science and Bachelor of medicine.

It's really bizarre the way that pre-professional undergraduate programs in the US work. Pre-med is basically a smorgasbord of random stuff, with a slight inclination towards biology and chemistry, although from my remembrances with premed classmates, they didn't take a whole lot more sciences than the general requirements mandated. Pre-law is even worse, with people taking the most generic possible collection of liberal arts classes, usually ending up with Econ or History almost by default.

There's some perverse incentives to take less-demanding courseloads, in order to boost your GPA for graduate school admissions, and expend most of your efforts training for the MCATs or LSATs.

If you actually wanted to produce medical professionals in an efficient way, there is no way that you would do it in the way that this currently works in the US.

On a different tack, you finished with "If you actually wanted to produce medical professionals in an efficient way, there is no way that you would do it in the way that this currently works in the US."

That is quite true. In the early 1900s the US medical system was revamped specifically to make it harder for people to become doctors. This included making a college education a prerequisite. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...

Only recently have new medical schools been built, after a hiatus of decades. Most of these are still going through accreditation.

Even with more schools, the residency requirement results in the 'jaws of death'. https://physiciansnews.com/2013/02/14/this-chart-is-scaring-...

It's a bit unfair to center the blame on (liberal arts) universities for the degree programs they offer to pre-med students when it's the medical school accreditation program which makes the requirement, and does so to make an inefficient system.

If you want an efficient system, look to Cuba. ELAM has 20,000 students.

Why do we prefer to send troops to other countries instead of medical doctors?

Your description "random stuff" is what in the US is considered a "well-rounded education."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/w... (picked mostly arbitrarily from a DDG search for 'well-rounded education') states the usual reasons for that approach.

For example, is the goal only 'to produce medical professionals in an efficient way'? Or does education also include 'acquiring general knowledge' and 'training in citizenship' (quoting that link).

There's also a complaint about 'what Duke University professor and interdisciplinary-studies expert Cathy Davidson describes as "the duck, duck, goose model."'

I had an odd exchange once, over lunch at a UK research site with mostly European graduate students. I found out that I knew more about European history than the others. My education in the US included a European history course, while most of the Europeans had specialized in science since they were teenagers.

Not that that knowledge has really proved useful ... but then again, neither has my training in quantum mechanics.

It's a luxury, and a remnant of outdated conceptions of what the purpose of university education is. As much as some hate reality, and wish for some never-existent golden age of well-rounded liberal arts education, people engage in higher education because it is the gateway to a career, and as such, what they really want is relevant vocational training, which, outside of a few rare disciplines (engineering, namely) they rarely get, and instead faff around with trivialities for most of four years, at a toll of 35-60k per year.

Outdated, out-shmated. The concept of a university has changed enough times that whatever "new" view is in vogue now is a repeat of what came before. Once upon a time universities were a place to get relevant vocational training as a cleric, doctor, administrator, and a handful of other fields.

The advice you give - "it is the gateway to a career" - has rather large built-in flaw.

The student loan industry, and the increasingly profit-oriented universities, have basically looked at the overall earnings difference of getting a degree and exclaimed "I want me some of that!"

Young adults who start life $30,000 in debt, for that is the current average outstanding student loan balance per borrower, make for a more compliant wage slave.

Your complaint does not seem to be about universities, but rather concerns the lack of a respected vocational training path. Since you appear to understand the historical context of what 'well-rounded' is supposed to mean, I think your use of 'bizarre' was facetious.

Moreover, you have changed what you are talking about. In your previous comment you were focused on students who "take less-demanding courseloads, in order to boost your GPA for graduate school admissions, and expend most of your efforts training for the MCATs or LSATs." Most people who attend a 4-year college as 'a gateway to a career' do not plan on additional post-college education. As such, they do not have the perverse inventive you described.

In India, medical school is 5 years. In the US it is 4 years. Beyond that, I do not know. I will note, however, that when Indian doctors move to the US, do their USMLE and try to get into a residency program, they do not do any special training to "catch up".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com