Slashdot Log In
Should Organic Chemistry Be a Premed Requirement?
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Sep 18, 2008 04:54 PM
from the both-ways-with-extra-snow dept.
from the both-ways-with-extra-snow dept.
1-quack-4-malpractice writes "For the second time, the Wall Street Journal health blog has questioned whether premed students should be forced to suffer through organic chemistry. Dozens of doctors weighed in with comments, and many of them seem to think that the wry subject is an almost useless rite of passage. Wired Science points out that there are not enough doctors who do research in addition to seeing patients, and they are the ones who benefit most from a thorough grounding in basic sciences like organic chemistry."
Related Stories
Submission: Should Organic Chemistry be a Premed Requirement? by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Classic problem. (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of the classic joke:
A college physics professor was explaining a concept to his class when a pre-med student interrupted him.
"Why do we have to learn this stuff?" he blurted out.
"To save lives," the professor responded before continuing the lecture.
A few minutes later the student spoke up again. "Wait-- how does physics save lives?"
The professor responded. "By keeping idiots out of medical school."
Re:Classic problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Classic problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
In my experience, the kinds of people who succeeded in orgo were the ones who were LEAST likely to keep their minds open and actually think for themselves. Orgo can be and is most commonly (by premeds) passed purely by massive brute force memorization. It can also be done by having great intuition and scientific insight, but that is not necessary at all. The premeds suffer through the lab portion of orgo but not the test+lecture portion because the lab portion can't be memorized! The kids who do well in lab are the future researchers and scientists... not the future doctors.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On a funny note, my dad always ranted about the professor who tossed him out of his DDS defense (he was an MD already at the time) for being unable to answer an organic chemistry question "that every undergrad should know"
Re:Classic problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the real question should be: "Is this Organic Chem RELEVANT to the job of being a ______? (insert career)" I'm an electrical engineer, and I had to take Organic Chem. Why?!?!? My job consists of wires, resistors, and gate arrays... not a single protein or amino in sight.
I can understand taking basic Chem 101 or Physics 101 or History 101 to gain an understanding of these subjects, but I don't see any value in taking any higher-level courses unless those courses have actual use for that person's future job as an Engineer or Doctor. I consider my time spent in Organic Chemistry a complete waste of money (approximately $3000 of tuition).
(Of course that may be the point - a college is a business after all - any chance to gain more money out of the customers' wallets, even if that means requiring not-needed classes.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He said Organic Chem not plain old Chemistry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That just might be a simplification...maybe. In most of those cases if the guys at Q had thought of and tested X they would not have failed.
Even as engineers, living, eating and breathing the subject matter, things get overlooked. Particularly when we're solving a hard problem, solve the hard problem and go get drunk, but do not step back and thing about the big picture. Particularly when you're on a schedule, particularly when you are projected managed to death, particularly when your job has been divide a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Our EEs actually just take a semester of gen chem. I think the same applies to some of the others like Mechanical, Aero, and Construction engineering. I haven't taken any electronics courses but I can't really see where that would come in handy for you. So I second your motion of shenanigans.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the purpose of an undergraduate university education is not to get a person a job, it's to help them become *educated* and able to explore many things to depths beyond a casual survey of fields. Of course, actually being *educated* (as opposed to just getting a degree) does help in many, many ways with jobs, but it's not really the point.
If you want a degree to get a job, that's what grad school is for. You have the rest of your life to become narrow, why make it happen sooner?
Re:Classic problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying I think it's a *bad* idea for doctors to think like scientists.... but they don't. (speaking as a scientist who took classes with premeds)
Our current system for picking/grooming future doctors almost always selects for the least scientifically-minded students--science is the opposite of memorization, but the students who memorize the best are the ones who get into the best med schools.
MD-PhDs are very very different from regular MDs.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose... but you aren't being very scientific in your analysis of the situation; seeing as how you are using anecdotes as evidence. That being said, if knowing and understanding organic chemistry is not a fundamental part of doctoring then it is a waste of time and money going through the process of studying it.
People will quickly forget much of what they have learned if they don't constantly re-enforce their memories. For this reason I am also dubious as to the fact that Engineers and IT people often h
Thinking like scientists... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that the brute force approach will get A grades in o-chem, but don't you think that maybe our doctors ought to learn how to think like scientists?
Hell, yes! They should think like scientists, but they don't. A majority of physicians in the US approve of teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolutionary theory, after all.
Further educational devolution (no pun intended) for doctors will not serve any good purpose. Ever looked at the prescribing information for a drug? How in the world is a doctor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2005 survey:
The majority of all doctors (78%) accept evolution rather than reject it.
Half of the doctors (50%) believe that schools should be allowed (but not required) to teach intelligent design.
That doesn't look like a majority supporting ID to me. And the question doesn't even provide context for interpreting the answer (i.e., it wasn't phrased as "should ID be taught as science", so presumably some of these people are thinking it could be taught as religion, etc.).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, whatever. Either way, less scientific education is clearly not what's called for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's okay, a lot of medical school is massive brute force memorization too. (Anatomy comes to mind in particular, but it's hardly the only one.) It's a useful ability for doctors to have.
(Me, I was premed until I discovered how easy computer science was and switched my major.)
Well, not. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's okay, a lot of medical school is massive brute force memorization too. (Anatomy comes to mind in particular, but it's hardly the only one.)
No. It's only that massive amount of idiot are hanging around med schools and prefer brute force methods instead of trying to put their brains to more efficient use. ... is a sign that lots of students are stupid ... is a sign that the teaching system is broken and doesn't present the data the way they should.
To take your example of Anatomy, most of the naming is just describing in latin/greek from where to where a structure is connected (the muscle attached to the sternum, the mastoid process and the clavicle is simply called sternocleidomastoid muscle). Most of the nerve connexion start to make sense once you start looking a little bit at embryology. Nature *does* make sense. A weird sense (as nature isn't intelligently designed as much as having evolved through emergent systems). But nonetheless makes sense.
The fact that countless student are too brain dead to notice it and prefer stupidly learning everything by heart...
-
-
but doesn't mean that medical school is necessarily brute force memorization. For the record, I never brute force memorized anything in my medical studies and still managed to get my medical degree.
If anything, some basis in organic chemistry, physics and other hard science (and even more : statistics), are *vitally necessary* to help the doctor acquire a good scientific critical sense.
Otherwise, they would quickly buy into any snake oil marketed by efficient charlatans even if it blatantly violated several laws of physics or chemistry that they should have understood (but only brute force memorized them instead).
Disclamer: I have a medical degree, and had worked as anatomy teaching assistant, among others. Had also plenty of time to develop computing skills thank to not loosing my time by brute-memorizing stuff stupidly.
Parent
Re:Classic problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
During my undergraduate career I worked for the Chemistry department . . . I feel a lot better knowing that a good share of the more inept ones got filtered out . . .
Plus, the majors need some one to pull down the bottom of the curve.
Parent
Re:Classic problem. (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing is funnier than the truth. During my undergraduate career I worked for the Chemistry department and it was my job to watch some of these hopeless pre-med students suffer through o-chem lab. Needless to say, I feel a lot better knowing that a good share of the more inept ones got filtered out so early on in the game.
See, I think these people are asking the wrong question. The question isn't whether pre-meds should suffer through orgo - the question is whether chemistry majors should have to suffer the whiny, grade-grubbing pre-meds who slow the class down and turn it into a brainless, memorization-based weed-out class.
My degree's in chemistry, and the classes got a lot more fun and interesting once the pre-meds got shunted off into the "lite" track of classes like P-chem. We could have actual discussions about concepts for a change.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude. I'm an upper-level comp sci major, and I can tell you that 87% of everything in computer science does not use calculus. The real weed-out math that determines if you can hack Computer Science is discrete mathematics: predicate calculus, set theory, functions and relations, graph theory, formal languages, and theory of computation.
Which are all, coincidentally, taught at my uni in a single course at the 200 level. Some moron decided to let all the code monkeys get to second year before getting the c
Re:Classic problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
The "idiots" just cheat or do whatever they have to, to get that degree.
It stops nothing. Seriously, how many times have you gone to a Doctor and said to yourself, "This guy is an idiot."?
I've had a doctor diagnose a broken rib as pancreatitis, spent over $10k paying for doctors to diagnose a problem that I eventually figured out MYSELF with just some research on the Web(verified by 2 other doctors afterwards) and had a doctor misdiagnose a problem, then make it worse by prescribing something that exacerbated the problem.
If an idiot REALLY wants to be a doctor, he will become a doctor.
A more stringent oversight system would be more useful.
Parent
Exactly: weed out is definitely GOOD (Score:5, Insightful)
I go to the University of Florida right now. We're decent for a public school, and our medical program is actually pretty good. Some prereqs apply to Premed and all of the Engineering majors, so when I started here I had some classes with premeds.
For example, Calc 1 was extremely difficult. Plus, the rude teacher (one of the course coordinator's bitches) was bad at his job. With outside tutoring, I managed to scrape by. I think Calc is important for most majors, even premed, so this might not be the best example. However, the class shrunk as the year went on. Doing Calculus was difficult, but I can only assume less difficult than being a full time, life saving doctor. It's a good thing that these people got weeded out. Plus, it taught people like me to work harder to actually make it.
What am I trying to get to with all this rambling? I think difficult weed outs are good for the earlier part of your college career. Most premeds won't use Organic. But, they need to prove they can work hard towards a difficult subject early on. Otherwise, the resources go to waste. And as an added benefit, the people who do make it by these weed outs usually gain work ethic from the experience.
Parent
Re:Exactly: weed out is definitely GOOD (Score:5, Insightful)
As an chemist (pharmaceutical development, so mostly analytical on small organic molecules) who sat through many an o-chem class with pre-meds, I am of course biased towards the subject, one of the most useful things I have ever learned. That being said, while I will argue for the importance of organic chemistry to medical professionals, it seems clear to me, from what I heard in my education and from what I see from the comments here, that the lessons o-chem can impart are not being absorbed.
Organic chemistry is the basis of pharmacology. Organic chemistry is the basis of molecular biology. From the future doctor's point of view, that should make it required reading. Do you want to know what makes some drugs orally active and others parenteral only? Do you want to know why one drug has a thousand times the activity, or a thousand times the metabolic clearance, of another drug in the same class? Do you wish to know the mechanisms underlying lipid storage disorders, protein misfolding, or genetic mutation? Is it conceivable you might ever want to develop pharmaceuticals alongside your old /. pal reverseengineer? Organic chemistry lays the groundwork for all of these things. I don't think it's asking too much for doctors who plan on treating diseases based on proteins, DNA, and sugars to know the basic chemistry of amino acids, nucleotides, and carbohydrates, as well as a basic notion of the reaction mechanisms. There's a sweet spot of knowledge here: I don't care if my physician can tell me the products of the Hell-Volhard-Zelinsky reaction, but knowing the difference between an aldose and a ketose would be helpful.
Here's the rub: the mechanisms are really the key to knowing o-chem. Unfortunately, it wasn't until my third semester of orgo, when it was up to orgo for the people who genuinely enjoyed it, that I really saw this. If you know what the electrons will do, and why they will do it, you understand organic reactions, and you don't need to memorize everything. This is where I think organic chemistry education is really falling short. At my alma mater, in particular, there are two levels that most chemistry courses are taught at. Being a chemistry nerd, I took the accelerated track all the way (adv. p-chem was like chewing glass). Only the most ambitious and self-confident pre-meds followed this track; the rest followed the regular sequence.
The problem with the way "normal" organic chemistry is taught to pre-meds is that in order to "make it easier," it tends to get abstracted into meaninglessness. Pre-meds in orgo are often like Searle's Chinese room: they can give you the right answers, but they don't understand them. The whole thing's backwards: advanced organic students are taught the basics, the essence, the very point of organic chem while basic students suffer with their fat deck of flashcards and wonder if a C is going to keep them out of Hopkins.
If I were to fix this, I would keep o-chem a requirement for pre-meds, but it would be a quarter-length course at most, or folded into the start of a decent biochemistry course. It would focus hard on functional groups found in biological molecules- amines and carbonyl compounds especially- and discussion of the physiological consequences of reactions. More time drawing arrows showing electron flow. More time learning about equilibrium and kinetics. No time spent memorizing different ways to do electrophilic aromatic substitution reactions. What I want physicians to really know about benzene is that it is poisonous.
Parent
Re:Exactly: weed out is definitely GOOD (Score:5, Interesting)
To expand on your point:
o-chem is vitally important for medical students for the same reason basic electrical engineering classes on basic circuit design is important to us computer people. Sure, all I do is write software all day, and haven't had to touch a transistor in a long time. But knowing at least the basic theory of how the computer works has helped invaluably in some important cases.
Both doctoring and code-monkeying are applied fields, grounded in results instead of theory, but knowing at least the basis for the theory can let you apply your real-world technique in a lot more interesting ways.
I fear the doctor that just treats pills like some sort of magic black box as they don't understand any of the chemistry involved.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I took calculus (I, II, III as well as differential equatinons) since I was a bio-engineering major instead of doing the typical biology route and it was a weed-out class. It was more of a weed-out course for incoming freshman engineering majors who weren't willing to go to classes at 8 am sharp and do a bunch of problem sets than it was anybody else. If they bounced lazy pre-meds in the process, that was a bonus in the administration's eyes. Generally the pre-med set took AP calc AB and BC and didn't take
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This whole debate is rather silly. The blog quotes the academic dean of Harvard's med school as saying the second semester of organic chem should be more medically oriented. He didn't say organic chem should be eliminated. Others may say that but they must be very misinformed.
Organic chemistry is the foundation for biochemistry, just as general chemistry is the foundation for organic chemistry. The typical medical school or biological sciences grad school pathway is:
general chem
orgo
biochem
Increasingly,
Higher Math not needed for CS (Score:5, Funny)
For working in that army of Java and .NET developers that drives the industry, do you really need to understand anything beyond basic algebra? Why burden CS students with silly classes when they won't even need to know what an integral is? I think it's a scam perpetrated by the academic industry to force us to pay for more credits and more books.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What it comes
Re:Higher Math not needed for CS (Score:5, Insightful)
Your missing the point. Even though you may go through your life not using all the math you have learned the point is Math helps you sharpen your problem solving skills which is 99% of what a CS student will use.
I've heard this before. It seems to be an urban legend because I have never seen any evidence that Math improves problem solving skills (outside of the field of Mathematics of course) but I've heard many people make that claim. Calculus, for example, may be good for understanding how to maintain a certain speed behind a car while driving in the fog on a curved road, but most people can develop this skill better by actually taking driving lessons. As with a lot of posts here you make your point but don't back it up with any evidence. I wish people who were studying the sciences would be more scientific and logical in their arguments.
Parent
Re:Higher Math not needed for CS (Score:4, Insightful)
Satire? Of course not; why burden CS students with silly classes on English or Literature when they won't even need to know what a metaphor is?
Parent
Are you kidding?? (Score:4, Insightful)
...it should be a highschool requirement.
What the hell is happening to our education?
Re:Are you kidding?? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're a medical doctor, and you think organic chem isn't required, you should have become an RN.
Parent
costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Medical costs have been growing at a far far faster rate than inflation. Clearly, demand for doctors is outstripping supply by a lot. We really need to lower the artifical barriers to entry to practicing medicine, such as unnecessary classwork.
And before you jump up and down screaming "I want only the best of the best to be doctors!" I should remind you that many people don't have access to any doctors at all, and a B-student doctor is just as capable as an A-student doctor at determining whether your sore throat needs further medical care.
We just plain need more doctors.
Re:costs (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:costs (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with PAs and NPS (at least, from what I see as an outsider) is that the barriers to entry are still quite high, but not with a correspondingly high "payoff."
Doctors make obscene amounts of money, while those working below them seem to have a hard time just scraping by...
A popular perception, but let's see what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. Mean Annual earnings:
Family Physician: $137,119
Physician Assistant: $74,980
Registered Nurse: $57,280
Sure, the doctor makes more than the PA or RN, but not "obscene amounts" more, and arguably well within a range corresponding to a higher level of responsibility. I'll also argue that even the lowest wage on that list is hardly "scraping by".
To head off a possible counter-point, a surgeon makes significantly more on average ($282,504 with >1 yr experience) but also has a massively higher level of responsibility and liability. When PA's and nurses have similar responsibility and especially similar liability to physicians, then they should get similar pay. Until then, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Parent
It's a weed-out course... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's not Orgo, it'll be something else. Gotta have something that separates the unwashed masses from those with some chance of making med-school. And, as chemistry courses go, it's more a memorization than a "physics/math" course and so more applicable to the kind(s) of things covered in med school (from what I can tell).
The fact that it can toast "real" chem majors caught in the crossfire can be dealt with (and was, in my case).
Insane that not all require it (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end, an MD with organic is like the difference between CS vs. MIS. MIS teaches the current tech. It gives somebody a CURRENT job. CS teaches principles to allow that person to adopt and change and get future jobs. An MD with Organic Chem will adopt better to knew methods and new diseases (think prions which were unknown in the industry just 25 years ).
Re:Insane that not all require it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is precisely my argument in favor of forcing medical students to learn ochem. If you don't understand this stuff, you really shouldn't be prescribing drugs. We understand fairly little (or nothing) about the way many drugs work as it is. To not have some idea at least about how they will interact is simple incompetence through ignorance.
On the other hand, as the sibling AC comment [slashdot.org] points out, most doctors are just going to prescribe whatever their sales rep is pushing that month. It is a sad reality of patent-protected medicines that when a drug is no longer covered by patent, a new drug will be pushed to the patients both directly and through unscrupulous physicians even if the new drug is less effective than the old one - which is often the case.
As others have pointed out [slashdot.org] the future is most likely to include more medical practitioners, and fewer actual doctors. This is probably for the best - I think we've all received incompetent medical care in the USA; for most of us it is probably the norm. I know that is the case for me.
Incidentally, I am not a "computer scientist", yet I am able to learn new skills. I wouldn't hire me for any kind of substantial programming job or anything, but this is really more about a mindset than anything else. Then again, I know far more about the inner workings of the computer than the average "tech" (whatever the hell that means) and that does help quite a bit.
Parent
O-Chem as primer (Score:5, Insightful)
It ISN'T a requirement. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a doctor who couldn't pass organic chemistry. We call them "nurse practitioners". Sure, they aren't formal doctors, but they'll see me.
Here are some great follow-up examples:
Why on earth should engineering majors study optics, when so few will work with optics?
Why should a computer science major study operating systems, when scant few of them will actually work on an operating system?
Why should English majors study poetry, when so few will become poets?
Why should Business majors study economics, when so few will actually become economists?
Why should a home owner buy fire detectors, when so few will have their house burn down?
Why should people buy the Journal, when it publishes such stupid crap?
Regarding basic science Ed (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing the basic science behind professions should be a basic requirement of all university curricula. It is one of the things that separate trade schools from universities.
Some might say that it gives an additional burden because it might not be applicable directly to the actual job. But it serves two increasingly important purposes: it teaches you to think, and it gives you the ontological foundations for incorporating more knowledge.
I can only speak from my CS knowledge, but having studied Calculus and Algebra on my first year have truly opened up my mind and helped me become a better programmer, not just a computer scientist.
Calculus is essential because it's something that most people in related fields need to apply, and the CS curriculum should be designed so that one can interoperate with physicist, chemists, and engineers who have a need to apply their equations with computers.
Algebra completely changed the way I think about every logical construct, helped defined concepts that abstract away numbers, types, and classes, and presented me with some extremely difficult problems for which there was no other recourse than to brighten up and study and practice until one gets it. Forcing one to think and study beyond what one was used to in High School is a necessity.
In later years I was able to understand functional programming, abstract data types and numerical methods much more easily than if I hadn't; your mind clicks and relates all these concepts to each other and your learning accelerates exponentially.
So sure, if you're just a Java drone you don't need this. But Java drones are not true software engineers or computer scientists, and what's worse, they don't really know because they never managed to get into the depth of knowledge the subjects can get.
Take Type Theory and functional programming, for example. Very few people get to learn this in detail, and while you may never apply it fully professionally, the knowledge it brings helps you to define mental frameworks where proof of properties for objects, abstraction away from implementation, and modelling become significantly easier. Or numerical methods; chances are if you haven't taken a class on numerical methods - where you get pounded with rigorous proofs, arduous excercises, and loads of theory on computation, linear algebra, matrixes and such - you'll never really be capable of pulling off complex math problems without introducing slight calculation errors.
In the same vein, if you have the basics of organic chemistry, understanding how cetain medicines and biological processes work become significantly easier as you can get a feel of how that works on a fundamental level. I don't think that's exactly what keeps people from becoming doctors(something tells me it's got to do with being tens of thousands of dollars in debt by the time you graduate). I mean, if you suffer so much from just one course that it prevents you from continuing another 6 years of education, you never really had it in you to keep going, right?
first hand experience (Score:4, Insightful)
As a PhD in the research dpt of an academic hospital, I can tell you that such classes are really beneficial. Not in the least so that MDs finally understand what they are working with. Make no mistake: Doctors generally have no clue *why* for instance a lymphe node has swollen, or even what many antibiotics actually do. This complete lack of mechanistical insight in disease and cures by MDs has boggled my mind since I came here (and I have to teach them lab skills). Some background info on their actual work is no luxury.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on where the MDs received their education and training. In the US, MDs go through rigorous training during and after medical school where basic sciences and clinical sciences are aggressively taught and integrated.
Not all people are made from the same cloth and not all doctors are going to be the best and the brightest.
Terrible title / summary (Score:3, Insightful)
The second semester of O chem is mostly synthesis which is useless to physicians.
of course (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't about the course content. To be an effective doctor you don't need to remember how to synthesize carbonyls. Find me a clinical physician who can take me through the steps of glycolysis. Organic chemistry is a gauntlet. It's an incredibly difficult subject that doesn't smile kindly on rote memorization. Rather, a complete understanding and application of knowledge, often in seemingly-unfamiliar settings, is required to excel in the course. Yeah, some people made hundreds of flash cards, and some of them probably did well. But the longitudinal thinking that one has to go through to really shine in ochem is also needed in medicine.
Also, especially at Cal, classes like ochem are needed to pare down the pre-med pool. The merits of "weeding" kids out can be discussed, but there's no doubt that ochem is good at that.
biochemistry is more useful (Score:4, Informative)
IAABP (I am a biology professor).
IMHO O-chem as it is taught by most chemistry departments is completely useless for pre-med students. There ought to be a lower level biochemistry course in its stead as a pre-req for pre-meds. Most MDs will NEVER have to worry about organic synthesis and crap like that; they WILL need to worry about metabolic pathways and enzymatic reactions.
Re:biochemistry is more useful (Score:4, Informative)
IAACP (I am a chemistry professor).
IMO, you need organic chemistry to understand biochemistry. Now, extensive synthesis and all of that "crap"? No. But a one semester "intro to organic" followed by at least two semesters of biochem is what should be required. You can't build a pyramid starting at the top. You need a foundation.
Parent
Useless course. (Score:3, Interesting)
IAAD (I Am A Doctor), and organic chemistry has less to do with the practice of medicine than general physics. (Really. Try understanding the limitations of an MRI machine without some physics background.)
I say get rid of organic chemistry and add in a requirement for something in the humanities, a year of a language, or something else that may actually come up when dealing with patients.
Or better yet, a year of economics, as physicians are notoriously bad at things dealing with money. I would suggest business management for a year, but is that even available as an undergraduate course?
If it makes them more of a generalist, then yes... (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that more and more, doctors (like engineers, administrators, etc) are becoming specialists, rather than generalists.
Unfortunately, this sometimes has the effect of giving the specialist tunnel vision. ie - they only see things from the perspective of their specialty. They tend to ignore the sometimes obvious things that a generalist would notice.
There are definitely reasons for becoming a specialist, but being a generalist, and having the broadest based education that you can has a lot to offer as well.