Originally Posted by nerual

GPs do more than just make diagnoses and send you for tests or referrals.
There are also certain visual cues doctors look for in the patient, not just listening to the symptoms being described. For example, evaluating the energy level and tone of voice of a depressed patient, or noticing a patient is more jumpy than usual, or even looking for other physical symptoms that the patient hasn't noticed or thought important to mention.

Of course. But I don't see why a nurse (perhaps with some extra training, assuming that we're going GP-less) wouldn't pick up on those things. Also, there is a trend towards GPs working in groups, which decreases the likelihood of the strong physician-patient relationships that your point relies on. Supposing a patient goes in 5-6 times a year and only sees the same physician once or twice out of those times (and given the number of other patients each physician sees), I don't think it's reasonable to assume that, in this case, the physician will know the patient well enough to pick up on things that a nurse wouldn't, or even that a quantifiable physical test wouldn't.

In addition, the money saved by cutting the number of GPs per clinic can go towards hiring a greater number of nurses than there were GPs beforehand (as nurses have a much lower salary than GPs); if anything, this would increase the personal interaction between patient and practitioner rather than decrease it.

This doesn't rule out having a supervisory GP or anything of the sort in case something out-of-the-ordinary happens, but even in such a case, it seems that if a nurse couldn't handle it (with access to a well-structured database), it may be something for a specialist to deal with.

Basically, it seems to me like the GP is an archaism from the pre-"information age". Before it was possible to organize medical databases and medical histories effectively and in an easy-to-manage way, the GP was crucial. Now, however, their utility isn't so clear.

Originally Posted by nerual

Knowledge of science/medicine is more important. That's not to say other skills such as communication aren't (I do agree that they matter a lot if you're a doctor), but lacking medical knowledge will cause a lot more damage to your patients than lacking group working skills.

The so called knowledge is what medical school is for. It amazes me that you think LifeSci students are better equipped in this way. You have to understand that no degree is preferred by med schools. That's why music majors and dance majors are considered equally as LifeSci students. If you're degree can give you anything, it's skills. The knowledge is what you go to medical school for.

Also Mac med school employs PBL and many of its teaching methods are very similar to Hth Sci. More and more schools are adopting these self-directed teaching methods so the skills that you learn have lots of value.

I have an 11.7 average, I am in Health Sci,' btw. Is there grade inflation? Possibly. Who cares, study hard, get your 12s, get into med school. med schools will not discriminate those who got into Health Sci' and those who are in Life Sci.'

Originally Posted by nerual

I don't think anyone was saying that communication skills aren't important...but if you have good communication skills and yet can't memorize the symptoms of x disorder, or can't recognize the symptoms in a patient, nobody cares how amazing you are at communicating or working in a group. Knowledge of science/medicine is more important. That's not to say other skills such as communication aren't (I do agree that they matter a lot if you're a doctor), but lacking medical knowledge will cause a lot more damage to your patients than lacking group working skills.

Of course you're right - medical knowledge is more important. But as someone else mentioned, I don't think it's a definite trade-off between medical knowledge and skills.

I think you learn the medical knowledge by attending and succeeding in medical school. You can definitely learn some of the skills as well in medical school and I'm sure many students do.

But I would say that learning these fundamental skills earlier is more helpful than learning some barely related knowledge earlier. This point can be argued either way, I think.

Overall though - I don't think Health Sci's have less "medical knowledge". If they for sure "knew" less than Life Sci then your point, I think, would be more valid. As it stands though, I don't think we can concretely say that Life Science graduates know more about medicine than Health Science graduates do. And even if they did - HSc students would presumably, be able to learn that knowledge and catch up in medical school.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Of course. But I don't see why a nurse (perhaps with some extra training, assuming that we're going GP-less) wouldn't pick up on those things. Also, there is a trend towards GPs working in groups, which decreases the likelihood of the strong physician-patient relationships that your point relies on. Supposing a patient goes in 5-6 times a year and only sees the same physician once or twice out of those times (and given the number of other patients each physician sees), I don't think it's reasonable to assume that, in this case, the physician will know the patient well enough to pick up on things that a nurse wouldn't, or even that a quantifiable physical test wouldn't.

The way I have heard it described, is that 99/100 times the nurse would be able to diagnose the same way a physician would. However that last 1%, when the diagnosis is something strange, unnatural, random, or just unlikely, the nurse would not notice something a physician may notice.
And the reason for that is their training - as you know physicians spend say, 4 years in undergrad, 4 years (or 3 at Mac) in medical school followed by 2-5 years of residency, and often further specializations after that. Accelerated nursing on the other hand is what, 2 years after 2 years of undergrad? Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's not to say nurses aren't useful or anything like that - they're of course essential to the health care system and they have important jobs, but they are simply not trained the way physicians are. They definitely pick things up and can, as mentioned before, do a great job most of the time, but there are occasions where you need that extra training that a physician has that most nurses do not undergo.

EDIT: As an anecdote to add to my first point about knowledge vs skills - my brother is a physician and he barely remembers what he learned in first year of medical school, let alone the science courses he took in undergrad. He has almost no recollection of all the stats, calc, physics, chem, and even a bit of the bio that most Life Sci students take. It didn't help him in the slightest. However all of the skills he obtained back in undergrad and those developed further in medical school have definitely helped him get to where he is now. Just something to ponder.

Originally Posted by nerual

I don't think anyone was saying that communication skills aren't important...but if you have good communication skills and yet can't memorize the symptoms of x disorder, or can't recognize the symptoms in a patient, nobody cares how amazing you are at communicating or working in a group. Knowledge of science/medicine is more important. That's not to say other skills such as communication aren't (I do agree that they matter a lot if you're a doctor), but lacking medical knowledge will cause a lot more damage to your patients than lacking group working skills.

It's not like all of our time is spent developing communication and other misc. skills through group-work. In fact, those skills are built through learning science, not by avoiding it. Cell Biology and Biochemistry are both subjects we cover. The fact that they're inquiry-based classes doesn't diminish the knowledge we obtain through them.

Anatomy courses are also compulsory, are lecture-based, and require a great deal of memorization. In total, I had 12 units of Inquiry-style classes this year. The rest were all lecture-based.

I agree with your last point, but that's what medical school is for, to teach us the knowledge that we need to adequately diagnose and treat patients.

With all that's been said already, I'm not sure I have much to add, but I'd still like to say a little.

My friend and I (both in Life Science) have had this discussion numerous times, about both the Health Science program/faculty, as well as McMaster in general. Firstly, I'm not sure how McMaster manages and allots its finances between faculties, but I think it's safe to say that a huge, huge portion of it goes towards Health Sci – the resources, the library, the classrooms, equipment, etc. are in a much better state than the other faculty buildings. They are also given preference. They have an entire day of SOLAR registrations given to them so that there's less of the annual hair-ripping frustrations that make me question why I came to Mac.

In terms of the program, I totally agree with Kamran. They are doing something right. Beside having better structured programs, they focus on skill improvement and discussion and development of ideas, rather than this strict, institutionalized, learn and regurgitate method of learning which embodies the university experience I know, and which I absolutely hate. This incites in me both jealousy of the teaching method and hate at McMaster.

It honestly seems that little to no effort is put into actual teaching. And by that, I don't mean course structuring. Look a little higher up. I mean teaching, at its core. What is the intuitive way of learning? I'm not saying that I haven't had a good class since I've been at Mac, no – Astronomy 2B03: Big Questions, Life Sci 2A03: Research Methodologies, and Life Sci 2C03: Physiology of Behaviour were three incredibly enjoyable, informative classes (although I got a 5 in the latter). Although they followed this same, structured, regular old delivery method of teaching, they sparked questions and thinking, and incited some good discussion.

I understand that we are at a stage where we're not supposed to be baby-fed everything, but if I wanted to come to university just to have the knowledge available to me, I could have just as easily obtained it accurately and thoroughly from the internet. I am paying thousands of dollars a year; I don't want to have go to class and have a prof read to me a summary of the textbook they're making me buy, make me learn it, and then regurgitate it at the end of the term, and then let that be judgement passed. I want a learning experience. And it seems to me that the Health Sci department is aiming for something close to that.

Well, so much for that tangent on my strong hatred for the current educational system. As for marks, I am not at liberty to make judgement about mark inflation because I have no first hand experience with it. I've heard many times that the Health Sci kids (funny how I use that word so naturally to refer to university students) get higher grades, work less, etc. Maybe, maybe not. All I've heard is hearsay, and although part of me believes it and it frustrates me, I try not to give it any importance or thought.

And attitude. I've only met one Health Sci student since I've been at Mac, and she was incredibly stuck up and bossy. She naturally established herself as leader of our project group and promptly went on to divide the work among the members. But of course, attributing her attitude to her being a Health Sci student would be foolish. So yea, maybe the superiority people see Health Sci students showing may all just be in their mind, making judgement before they have anything to judge on.

That said. I still have a fairly strong resentment towards McMaster and what they're providing for us. Making money seems like their major goal. I know it's naive to think otherwise, but you'd at least think they would try and hide it. But then again, as previously stated, I also have a strong resentment towards to state of education today. Maybe I just hate too many things.

Originally Posted by Alchemist11

The way I have heard it described, is that 99/100 times the nurse would be able to diagnose the same way a physician would. However that last 1%, when the diagnosis is something strange, unnatural, random, or just unlikely, the nurse would not notice something a physician may notice.
And the reason for that is their training - as you know physicians spend say, 4 years in undergrad, 4 years (or 3 at Mac) in medical school followed by 2-5 years of residency, and often further specializations after that. Accelerated nursing on the other hand is what, 2 years after 2 years of undergrad? Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's not to say nurses aren't useful or anything like that - they're of course essential to the health care system and they have important jobs, but they are simply not trained the way physicians are. They definitely pick things up and can, as mentioned before, do a great job most of the time, but there are occasions where you need that extra training that a physician has that most nurses do not undergo.

Sure; as you rightly said, there is some small probability that a nurse will miss something that an ideal GP would pick up. Now a nonideal GP will pick this up some fraction (this may be very small) of the number of times that our ideal GP would. The size of the fraction is what matters, and is what ought to be subjected to empirical testing.

But despite the physician's years of extra training, it does not necessarily follow that the nonideal GP would pick up what the nurse does not, nor even that this GP would pick up a sufficiently high proportion of those things that a nurse would miss, let's call this the "deciding proportion" -- at this point, we can try a simplistic thought experiment: to compare the money spent with the size of the deciding proportion. If the deciding proportion is sufficiently high, then the high price is worth it. Otherwise, there may be better ways to spend.

We also have to keep in mind that many of these unique things that a nurse wouldn't pick up have a higher probability of being something that is picked up by the GP after x number of previous visits regarding the same problem (i.e. x mistaken diagnoses). Given this data, patient history, and a general medical database (and obviously a good set of algorithms) it's not unreasonable to think that a computer could suggest symptoms for a nurse to investigate, and thus act as a sort of substitute for the GP's experience.

Again, this seems like an issue which can only be resolved through empirical testing. But it seems like the social hostility towards non-GP based family medicine is so strong that a meaningful test may be impossible. That's why I think it's mistaken to say that a GP's work cannot be automated, because we've not actually put it to the test.

Originally Posted by Aeria

The so called knowledge is what medical school is for. It amazes me that you think LifeSci students are better equipped in this way. You have to understand that no degree is preferred by med schools. That's why music majors and dance majors are considered equally as LifeSci students. If you're degree can give you anything, it's skills. The knowledge is what you go to medical school for.

Also Mac med school employs PBL and many of its teaching methods are very similar to Hth Sci. More and more schools are adopting these self-directed teaching methods so the skills that you learn have lots of value.

Lol...you assumed a LOT from my post, which wasn't even directly related to health sci.

I do NOT think life sci students are better equipped with knowledge for medical school. Tbh, I think life sci and health sci are very similar in that they are what you make of them. A life sci can take a ton of bird electives and get 12s in them just as easily as a health sci can. I'm the last person who is going to sit here and argue the value of a life sci degree. Same goes for the value of a class in which you make pillows out of t-shirts

Really though, the only thing that makes either degree valuable is what you do that goes along with it--for example, research experience, doing a placement in a hospital (if you want to be a doctor), etc. If you take away the group work and all of the additional resources health scis get, you are pretty much left with life sci, albeit with courses that have a slightly different focus.

You don't have to think life sci is awesome to have serious issues with the health sci program.

Story:
My program is a lot of work. So much work, and so much stress, that multiple people (in different years) have ended up with serious health problems, in some cases requiring visits to the ER. This is something that we have brought to the attention of the department numerous times, in numerous ways, and something that we are actively trying to change. However, we have met resistance from certain faculty members who believe that making the program any less intense will "compromise the integrity of the program".

It's not fair that the program is THAT intense. It's NOT necessary for the integrity of the program. If anything, it lessens it. It's also not fair that people in my program are trying to get into med school too, and are competing with people from health sci (or life sci for that matter).

Now, lots of people from my program have been successful in entering med school. Far more have been accepted than rejected. Someone also got into vet school, which I'd argue is more competitive than med school. It's definitely POSSIBLE to get a 12 average...it's just much much more difficult and uncommon than in a program like health sci. But for those applying to med school, it's extremely frustrating to be competing with people who can achieve higher averages with less effort (whether perceived or real) and have time for many more ECs. Granted, it's not entirely the fault of the BHSc program--they're at one end of the spectrum and chembio is at the other. That doesn't necessarily make one better than the other, they just suck in different ways.

I don't speak for all of chembio. There are definitely people who have not had any negative health effects, and there are people in the program who probably disagree with at least some of what I've said--I don't mean in any way to imply that what I said applies to everyone in the program. However, a SIGNIFICANT proportion of the program (at least, those who just finished 4th year and second term of 3rd year) has lasting health problems as a result of the work involved in the program.

I do believe chembio will give us an advantage in whatever we choose to do after, because we learned how to survive it. But, it disadvantages us in getting into professional schools. I'd much rather be in chembio than health sci or life sci, because I believe this degree is more valuable and I am getting much more out of it than I would in health sci or life sci. I really don't care if anyone in life sci or health sci agrees or disagrees, because it's a personal decision that you need to make for yourself, which program will benefit you more. That said, when I was waiting to hear back from pharmacy school, I was cursing people in easier programs who had an easier time getting higher averages than me

Anyways, in our program you learn communication skills, you learn how to work in groups, and you ALSO learn science. It shouldn't be one or the other (which I think you thought I meant in my post). Your undergrad degree (assuming you're going to med school) should teach you BOTH. Also, plenty of people who have experienced Mac's PBL/self-directed learning are very critical of it. It works for some people, sure. But I don't think Mac does a very good job of selecting people it will work well for during their admissions processes.

There is definitely some level of scientific background necessary to enter most med schools, regardless of your background (MCAT, certain prerequisite courses, etc). If you don't have this knowledge, you will have to catch up, because lets face it, they're not going to start med school off by teaching you what a cell is, what organelles are, etc--at least, I certainly hope not. The more you know, the easier it will be for you.

Originally Posted by Yogurt

I understand that we are at a stage where we're not supposed to be baby-fed everything, but if I wanted to come to university just to have the knowledge available to me, I could have just as easily obtained it accurately and thoroughly from the internet. I am paying thousands of dollars a year; I don't want to have go to class and have a prof read to me a summary of the textbook they're making me buy, make me learn it, and then regurgitate it at the end of the term, and then let that be judgement passed. I want a learning experience. And it seems to me that the Health Sci department is aiming for something close to that.

This is a good point.

However, I think this indicates more a problem of the life science program than an unique benefit of the health science program. Lifesci seems to encourage memorizing over reasoning, which doesn't make sense for any science program -- not just math or physics.

So when you say that you "could have just as easily obtained it ... from the internet", I don't think that ought to be true, although I think it may be true of the lifesci program. For example, while I think that I can now learn pretty much anything I'd like to online, I don't think that I could have done the same before getting through a few years of the math program, nor could I have developed the same logical faculties by simply learning online.

There are bits of reasoning and insight into how science is done that are very difficult to learn without personal contact with scientists themselves, so while one can probably get all the factual information about x biological topic online, I don't think that one can reason like a biologist simply from getting all that information (unless I am overestimating the work of a biologist!)

What always made me mad was the complete inequality in resources per student between BHSc students and BSc students.

And if you want to know what I mean, look into how much money Mac spends on their Christmas Breakfast.

Ima let you guys finish your argument but first, I'd like to say that the Biochem program is the best program of all time.

As gggg stated earlier (in a rather aggressive manner), a lot of people get the impression that life sci program is all about regurgitation of information. I'd like to say that after having taken several biochemistry (2B03/2BB3/2L06) and biology (2b03/2c03 etc) and chemistry (2OA3/2OB3/2P03), I can safely say that each of these courses, although required memorization (c'mon where is memorization TOTALLY absent in science), there was a great deal of emphasis on problem solving/creativity/communication/presentation skills. Especially the biochemistry courses which required students to complete some pretty difficult assignments (e.g. designing a new drug/enzyme inhibitor and justifying its design) that required A LOT of thinking. These biochem courses also had a big PBL group project that was due at the end of the year. AND these courses had a sufficient lecture/test/quiz component of some sort. I should add that many of these tests were not easy and required a great deal of thinking. In fact, looking back at my second year, I'd go as far as saying that the biochem program is at least as good as BHSc simply because we incorporate everything innovative about BHSc (e.g. PBL, groupwork), in addition to benefits of traditional lecture/test based learning (i.e. individual work). Additionally, the professors are fair with the grades and you always get what you deserve, never less and seldom more. Basically, through these examples, it should be clear that not all life sci programs are (1) the same (many specializations within life sci) and (2) prepare its students for a career as a physician just as well as any other program and in the case of the biochem program, I'd say (feel free to slay me for my patriotic spirit) that the biochem program may even prepare me better than a BHSc program

Oh, I also think it's really messed up that anyone here, especially those who aren't in med school, have an opinion on whether non-academic skills are more or less important than the "knowledge" gained from life sci vs. hsci program.

I just wrote this because I got the general feeling from this thread that people think life sci may not prepare you well for med.

However, there are a few things I dislike about the BHSc program, but it's mostly out of jealousy than any sort of personal attack at its students. There are some courses, like HTH SCI 3S03 Communication skills which allow students to pretty much learn how to talk to a patient; this course is limited to BHSc as resources are limited and prioritized. I think that those who are aspiring for med school should not be so frustrated with any apparent inflation that may exist (inflation may change your gpa by like a max. 0.1/4.0 IF YOU'RE SUPER LUCKY) but instead be frustrated with the non-academic factors associated with restricted access to courses like HTH SCI 3S03. I've tried talking to people in the BHSc dept but they say they can't let me in due to resource contraints :( I wish someone could guide me as to who I could to talk to in the Science dept in order to address this issue.

As for grade inflation: (1) a lot of my friends are getting some seemingly* unjustified grade boosts in the health sci stats course where there was a random 3% final mark boost in the health sci stats course simply for this year's average being lower than the previous years' and some curves in HTH SCI 2L03 (anat/phys semester 1) again due to avgs that were historically lower, (2) I have to say that HTH SCI 2J03 (where you pretty much just do yoga/gym for a semester and is pass/fail) is a bit unfair, (3) first year inquiry (don't know code) is a bit of a bird (AS QUOTED FROM MY HEALTH SCI FRIENDS) and (4) they are allowed to take HTH SCI 3H03 in the summer, and count it as a during-the-year credit; this pretty much allows them to take 1 less course during the year... -- should be noted that all these statements were based on what the health scis told me and not based on my personal judgement of the program. However, these inflations do not really bother me because in pretty much all the courses I've taken in the biochem program, work has been proportional to mark and therefore, I have no reason to complain. *I used seemingly as there may have been a reason other than the one mentioned that I was unaware of.

This was longer than I expected... too long to edit, probably LOTS of error, ma bad.

BIOCHEM > OTHER. KK TY.

Originally Posted by Ca$hMonayz

As for grade inflation: (1) a lot of my friends are getting some seemingly* unjustified grade boosts in the health sci stats course where there was a random 3% final mark boost in the health sci stats course simply for this year's average being lower than the previous years' and some curves in HTH SCI 2L03 (anat/phys semester 1) again due to avgs that were historically lower, (2) I have to say that HTH SCI 2J03 (where you pretty much just do yoga/gym for a semester and is pass/fail) is a bit unfair, (3) first year inquiry (don't know code) is a bit of a bird (AS QUOTED FROM MY HEALTH SCI FRIENDS) and (4) they are allowed to take HTH SCI 3H03 in the summer, and count it as a during-the-year credit; this pretty much allows them to take 1 less course during the year... -- should be noted that all these statements were based on what the health scis told me and not based on my personal judgement of the program. However, these inflations do not really bother me because in pretty much all the courses I've taken in the biochem program, work has been proportional to mark and therefore, I have no reason to complain. *I used seemingly as there may have been a reason other than the one mentioned that I was unaware of.

I never took first-year Inquiry, nor have I completed 3H03 so I can't really comment but as for Stats and Anatomy:

There was a change in the marks for Stats. It was really horribly taught, and PBL didn't work at all for that class. I don't know the official reasoning for the changes, nor do I think we'll ever get access to that information, but it was similar to a curve in any other class and appropriate in my opinion.

There was more to HTH SCI 2J03 than just doing that stuff, albeit not anything overly rigorous, but that's why it's pass/fail. It was meant to show us some different perspectives into health and it did, but there was no mark associated with it for that reason. I can't speak for everyone, but I would've rather taken a course in which I received a mark (or had I known about the course in advance, I would've overloaded). So while you're right, it was a pass/fail class, there wasn't any benefit to only having 4 grades that semester.

There was a change to the grades in Anatomy and, like you said, it was because the marks were historically low (thats what they said in class iirc). The bell-ringer didn't go well for a lot of people, and although they never commented on it (or maybe I just forgot), it's my opinion that the lack of a midterm bell-ringer (there was one in past years) was likely the reason. This change applied to all sections of the course (not just BHSc).

Originally Posted by L_Blankfein

I have an 11.7 average, I am in Health Sci,' btw. Is there grade inflation? Possibly. Who cares, study hard, get your 12s, get into med school. med schools will not discriminate those who got into Health Sci' and those who are in Life Sci.'

You're the CEO of Goldman Sachs and can't figure out that GPA is a factor in admissions? They absolutely will discriminate.

Originally Posted by Ca$hMonayz

As for grade inflation: (1) a lot of my friends are getting some seemingly* unjustified grade boosts in the health sci stats course where there was a random 3% final mark boost in the health sci stats course simply for this year's average being lower than the previous years' and some curves in HTH SCI 2L03 (anat/phys semester 1) again due to avgs that were historically lower, (2) I have to say that HTH SCI 2J03 (where you pretty much just do yoga/gym for a semester and is pass/fail) is a bit unfair, (3) first year inquiry (don't know code) is a bit of a bird (AS QUOTED FROM MY HEALTH SCI FRIENDS) and (4) they are allowed to take HTH SCI 3H03 in the summer, and count it as a during-the-year credit; this pretty much allows them to take 1 less course during the year... -- should be noted that all these statements were based on what the health scis told me and not based on my personal judgement of the program. However, these inflations do not really bother me because in pretty much all the courses I've taken in the biochem program, work has been proportional to mark and therefore, I have no reason to complain. *I used seemingly as there may have been a reason other than the one mentioned that I was unaware of.

Re: HTH SCI 2J03 - Having a pass/fail course is actually detrimental to most health sci students (since 99% are aiming for grad/professional school) because a pass/fail course is typically not included in your GPA. So instead you have one less course to include in your cumulative GPA and less of a buffer if you happen to do poorly in another course that semester. I wish I received an actual mark for that course because I also happened to take orgo that semester and sure could've used another mark to help me out.

Re: HTH SCI 3H03 - You're allowed to START your inquiry project the summer between 2nd and 3rd year but I don't know anyone who actually finished it before September. It's a research project, realistically you won't be able to finish it within 4 months. Especially if it's a lab project (which is the case for many students), the first 1-2 months are spent just learning how to do basic things like cell culture, Westerns, PCR, etc. I started mine in September and worked on it until August of the next year.

2J03 is pass/fail??? Really??? Why don't I ever read the fine print???????