And just to be sure, I would like you to start from the beginning of the person's medical training and not include the gatekeeping bit of having to get a bachelors in a random subject unrelated to medicine.
I note this Wikipedia article that suggests 4 years messed school plus 1 year internship could get me a license in the US. That sounds like Western Europe to me. Or India...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_education_in_the_Uni...
Why? An apples-to-apples comparison would be to see how long it takes to become a general physician after completing secondary school. In the UK or India it's something like 5.5-6 years.[1]
In the US it's 3-4 years of "pre-med", then 4 years of med school. That's from the article you referred.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_school_in_the_United_K...
Because if the requirement in the US is indeed "bachelor's degree required, any will do", then it exists solely for gate-keeping and says nothing about the standards of education.
Edit: looking at wiki, the requirements are actually a bit more reasonable, but it does seem strange that they are not just rolled into the first year (or two) of medical degree. Why force people to finish undergrad studies if only a few courses are relevant?
I think really it's just the system was built this way and nobody's going to change it now.
That may be one reason, but seems to me that it doesn't really raise the standard of education. So it doesn't really help with proving that "US > the world" in this aspect.
I imagine you could still fall-back from medical college to undergrad & get credit for the completed coursework that is relevant towards the Bachelor's degree you fall-back to. This way, you don't incur unnecessary costs on folks who succeed.
> I think really it's just the system was built this way and nobody's going to change it now.
Channeling my inner cynic: nothing's going to change given that the decision-makers benefit financially from the system being set up like this.
Premed is gatekeeping, and not all countries enforce that form of gatekeeping.
Because you can't train to be a doctor in the US without that gatekeeping? I thought the point GP was making was it takes in the longer because of this pointless gatekeeping.
Is it? If a doctor in the UK can graduate from medical school and practice as a GP 6 years out of secondary school, but for a US doctor it takes 8-9 years, it's not really "earlier". What you're talking about is status within the profession.
It’s hard to casually verify this because each country uses different terms and has a different track but I think, when you include the various phases of training, starting from the bachelors degree, the US one is more total years.
Edit:
So for example the UK and France don’t appear to require any sort of bachelor’s degree as a prerequisite for medical. Which saves you 4 years on average. So their tracks may be longer but you can start sooner.