Hard sciences and MCAT are the gauntlets that pre-med students have to pass before going to medical school, right? I mean doesn't it make sense that doctors should know these kinds of stuff?
Apparently not - at least for a small group of students who get admitted into medical school without the passing the hard stuff (and here's the kicker: they perform just as well as those who had to pass the rigorous science requirements):
The program promises slots to about 35 undergraduates a year if they study humanities or social sciences instead of the traditional pre-medical school curriculum and maintain a 3.5 grade-point average.
For decades, the medical profession has debated whether pre-med courses and admission tests produce doctors who know their alkyl halides but lack the sense of mission and interpersonal skills to become well-rounded, caring, inquisitive healers.
That debate is being rekindled by a study published on Thursday in Academic Medicine, the journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Conducted by the Mount Sinai program’s founder, Dr. Nathan Kase, and the medical school’s dean for medical education, Dr. David Muller, the peer-reviewed study compared outcomes for 85 students in the Humanities and Medicine Program with those of 606 traditionally prepared classmates from the graduating classes of 2004 through 2009, and found that their academic performance in medical school was equivalent.
Their job is science based - not doing science.
If you want to lose all faith in your current doctor - ask him/her to explain how whatever drug they're prescribing you works at a molecular level.
Hell, have them spell "molecular".
A good doctor is good at two things: pattern recognition and memorization (oh, and paper shuffling - so three things).
A computer database and a trained monkey would do a MUCH better job.