Re:75% of med students are on antidepressants, stimulants, o...
by treis on Saturday January 05, 2019 @10:51PM
(#18836455)
>From what I can tell in this exchange is that you have an innate distrust of credentialing, because you think because there is some excess therefore the entire system is wasteful. I’d argue that this is the DunningKruger effect in action.
>And claiming that 20% of cellular bio is unnecessary is a silly metric when in the US 70% is passing... I don’t think that logical conclusion applies.
You're saying that you don't know 20% of cellular biology that they teach in med school. You are a practicing radiologist. Therefore, 20% of the cellular biology they teach is not necessary to be a radiologist.
I have certifications in my field. Developer, Senior Developer, and Lead Developer. If I were to retake the tests, I'd get a 100% on the Developer and Senior one without studying for a minute. Those are good tests. They reflect what you need to know to be effective. The Lead one isn't. I'd probably not pass if I took it today even though I've worked several years as a lead developer since I passed it. So despite actually working in the field and becoming a better developer I'd do worse on the test. That means it is a bad test.
So when you say that the overwhelming majority "wouldn't do as well as they did after many weeks of dedicated study" that makes it a bad test. It means that a good chunk of it is meaningless hoop jumping irrelevant to practicing physicians. A competent practicing physician should breeze through a well designed certification exam.
>I agree there’s a lot wrong with our current training paradigm; the cost of medical school education is #1 with several terrible downstream effects.
>However, there are no shortcuts. You have to put in the time to master the material, else you are doing your patients a disservice.
If someone who wants to be a geriatric doctor skips pediatrics I don't see the disservice. Or take someone like a registered Nurse Midwife. Someone with 20 years experience delivering babies. The only way for them to become competent to prescribe pitocin, antibiotics, or use forceps is 4 years and $200k worth of school? It doesn't pass the smell test.
>And claiming that 20% of cellular bio is unnecessary is a silly metric when in the US 70% is passing... I don’t think that logical conclusion applies.
You're saying that you don't know 20% of cellular biology that they teach in med school. You are a practicing radiologist. Therefore, 20% of the cellular biology they teach is not necessary to be a radiologist.
I have certifications in my field. Developer, Senior Developer, and Lead Developer. If I were to retake the tests, I'd get a 100% on the Developer and Senior one without studying for a minute. Those are good tests. They reflect what you need to know to be effective. The Lead one isn't. I'd probably not pass if I took it today even though I've worked several years as a lead developer since I passed it. So despite actually working in the field and becoming a better developer I'd do worse on the test. That means it is a bad test.
So when you say that the overwhelming majority "wouldn't do as well as they did after many weeks of dedicated study" that makes it a bad test. It means that a good chunk of it is meaningless hoop jumping irrelevant to practicing physicians. A competent practicing physician should breeze through a well designed certification exam.
>I agree there’s a lot wrong with our current training paradigm; the cost of medical school education is #1 with several terrible downstream effects.
>However, there are no shortcuts. You have to put in the time to master the material, else you are doing your patients a disservice.
If someone who wants to be a geriatric doctor skips pediatrics I don't see the disservice. Or take someone like a registered Nurse Midwife. Someone with 20 years experience delivering babies. The only way for them to become competent to prescribe pitocin, antibiotics, or use forceps is 4 years and $200k worth of school? It doesn't pass the smell test.