Should Organic Chemistry Be a Premed Requirement? 567
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."
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.
Re:costs (Score:5, Interesting)
Is o-chem even that hard? (Score:1, Interesting)
Is o-chem all that bad? I was a math major, but I had to suffer through it due to my degree being a Bachelor of Science, so I actually ended up taking both organic and inorganic chemistry.
But even though I managed through it somehow, all I remember was that we played "name that molecule" and had to come up with "characteristic" reactions that were almost all inaccurate to some degree.
Oh well. At least I know why there are numbers and commas at the front of so many molecule names! They tell you where the other bits attach. But as far as it being a good weed-out class, I'm less sure.
There were MUCH harder weed-outs out there, like that incredibly evil numerical analysis class. Everybody thought the guy who scored a 50% was some kind of genius and the professor was sometimes reduced to giving partial credit for essay answers to math questions explaining what I thought I was supposed to do if only I had something better than a vague idea of what the hell I was doing and how to manipulate that stupid equation into something I could take a Taylor expansion of at some point in such a way that you could extract an error term.
Hell, that last paragraph would probably be worth 10% on a test...
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.
Re:Classic problem. (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: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.
Re:costs (Score:2, Interesting)
Just from the attitude displayed in this one post, I am not at all surprised you got passed over twice for medical school. You truly are the person that is expressing himself or herself in this post, and I bet it showed in your AMCAS essays and interviews.
I do know a thing or two about this. But you just need to guess, since I'm AC.
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?
Re:It ISN'T a requirement. (Score:1, Interesting)
"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."
This is the most retarded thing I have ever read. A nurse practitioner is a Nurse with an extended (Masters) degree. They are not doctors and learn a completely different type of medicine (Read Patient Care).
Additionaly, my wife is a nurse (RN) with a 4 year degree. She had to take and pass O-Chem, so your statement makes even less sense.
Re:Classic problem. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Thinking like scientists... (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.).
I wish they taught more fundamentals... (Score:2, Interesting)
The o-chem I took (and I'm a mathematician, so how I ended up with it is a long story) was mostly "name that molecule" and "memorize these reactions."
You're absolutely right about it being abstracted into meaninglessness. I only wish I had a good idea of the fundamentals of how electrons behave, then I wouldn't have memorized (and later forgotten) almost everything I knew about the subject.
I don't think it's nearly as hard as some people make it sound, but that may depend a lot on your ability to memorize information. I can store a LOT of information, but it tends to evaporate all too quickly. So I was able to pass all those tests, but the knowledge didn't last very long at all. Fortunately, I'm no doctor.
On the other hand, I had a great physics course that was a lot more like what you describe. We didn't do fancy equations, we did lots of modeling and we had to prove simple things, like what a frictionless block on a frictionless incline on a frictionless surface would do (slide off... and roll over). I learned more from that than most courses. I wish there were more courses like that. But the whole reason it was like that was because we had a TA who was getting a masters in education who helped the professor shape the course.
You don't find that very often.
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.
Re:Exactly: weed out is definitely GOOD (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 calc in college, or they did the juco route over the summer and transferred the credits in, avoiding the weeder classes at their real school.
The real big pre-med weeding classes at my university were the third semester of general chem (which was just for pre-meds and chem majors), organic I, algebra physics, and cell biology. Cell biology was actually pretty simple if you took biochemistry beforehand, but bio major pre-meds took cell bio sophomore year, while biochem wasn't a required class for pre-meds and was a junior class as you had to pass organic I and II. Biochem is a class that isn't generally required for medical school but definitely should be as basically all of your M1 year *is* biochem. I am very glad that I took it, even though it wasn't the easiest or most enjoyable class in the world.
Re:Classic problem. (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:Exactly: weed out is definitely GOOD (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Classic problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Ah! See, whereas I was stupid enough to take general chemistry as somebody who has no intention of getting an advanced degree in the sciences, but who is just interested in them. I was naïve enough to expect a class that taught concepts. Instead, I got a rigorous boot camp consisting of pages and pages of rote math problems based on nebulous ideas with no practical application (example: "Imagine a universe where the lowest element on the periodic table is helium...").
I spent more hours studying for this one chemistry class than my four other classes combined. I got A's on the other four classes. I got a C in chem. The entire purpose of the class seemed to be to "shake out the whiny, grade-grubbing pre-[whatever]". I went to office hours with my instructor at midterm, concerned that my grade was suffering, and was cautioned in no uncertain terms that I should not entertain the thought of dropping the class, and by no means should I consider re-taking it, because if I re-took it I would get a C again. "We don't just hand out C's to anybody," the instructor told me. "If you're getting a C then you're doing OK." This was the same teacher who announced to the class at Thanksgiving time: "I know a lot of you like to leave town to be with your families during the holidays, but you need to understand, when you're studying chemistry that's really not possible." Seriously. (Hint: I'm 35. My mother's pushing 70. Fuck you.) Result? I have no intention of ever setting foot in the chemistry department again. (I tried o. chem but dropped the class -- it was even worse.)
One less science student in America. Happy now?
I am a doctor who loved organic chemistry (Score:3, Interesting)
But I don't think that it should be a pre-med requirement. I was a physics major, loved math, and found chemistry exciting. However, I look at what a doctor does on a daily basis and realize that I rarely if ever use the skills I learned in organic chemistry. And this isn't just about what a doctor should learn in school - organic chemistry is a major component of the MCAT medical school entry examination.
I've read a lot of the arguments (here and elsewhere) for organic chemistry.
"Doctors need to know the basic science behind what they do" - as a physicist, I realize that undergraduate organic chemistry does not accurately represent the basis for chemical reactions. It certainly gives you a language for lab and industrial synthesis. But until you take at least physical chemistry, the rest is hand-waving. I think that chemistry should be taught to pre-meds, but feel that biochemistry is best matched to actually understanding the way that drugs work, for instance.
"We need a weed out course for all the idiots" - fair enough. But there are many potential weed out courses with equally compelling claims to relevance. Take differential equations, for instance. It's one of the first places in math that you learn how to ask a scientific equation and actually have the skills to construct an appropriate model. And I guarantee you that it would weed out a lot of people. Or physical chemistry - if you really want people to know the basis of chemistry (as chemists see it), you should use the traditional chemistry major weed-out course. Or take an advanced statistics course - much more applicable to the actual accumulation of new knowledge as a doctor. The ability to critically read journal articles is probably the most important scientific skill for most practicing clinicians.
"Doctors need to be more scientific and understand how basic science works" - couldn't agree more. But organic chemistry does not accomplish this. The best way to learn how basic science works is to do basic science. Research in a basic science lab would be an excellent pre-med requirement. Not a class focused on using pre-derived reactions to create a final product. That's just a mathematical proof in another name.
"Organic chemistry is mentally challenging and builds mental rigor" - this is not really true as it's normally taught in the first two semesters. It's mostly an exercise in memorizing individual pieces of a language and then being able to use that language to create a previously unknown sentence. To that end, logic classes are more helpful to form a generalized framework for approaching new problems. And plenty of classes challenge the mind - pick pretty much any math class, any upper level physics class. Heck, being able to critically read a work of literature or critically view a work of art challenges the mind. That's what college is for.
Anyway, pre-medical education is an interesting topic which is currently being debated in medicine. The most recent comprehensive treatment of the subject was in the New England Journal July 17th by Jules Dienstag, head of medical education at Harvard. From personal experience under him, I can say that he is well qualified to help plan for a future where physician-scientists will have to incorporate ever more vast expanses of knowledge in order to treat patients effectively.