>You’re very wrong about the perception of doctors. According to polls, doctors are the 2nd most trusted profession. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388649/military-brass-judges-am...

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...

They are the 4th largest briber in the US.

Far be it from me to defend our system of lobbying the government, but there's a big difference between bribery and federal lobbying. Your phrasing poisons the well.

No.

Finding a difference between bribery and federal lobbying with money, is the same outcome.

Money goes from person who wants, to person with power who receives. Everything else is theatre.

I’m the case of lobbying you can go look on a website and see who took money from whom when you’re choosing who to vote for.

The money that comes from lobbying is also limited and pays for reelection, the candidate doesn’t get to use it for personal expenses.

There are clearly problems with the system, but yelling no! it’s exactly the same as taking bribes isn’t helpful.

"Paying money to legislators and regulators with the intent of swaying their decisions to suit your interests".

Lobbying is legal because we live in a society that places such a high value on money that we've accepted bribery as a means to increase its power.

Fewer than 20% of physicians belong to the AMA, so that’s just an absurd statement. By that logic all old people are the 15th largest bribers.

I mean as much as politicians go after old peoples votes, you might be right.

> According to polls, doctors are the 2nd most trusted profession.

n=1 anecdote here:

When I was in research track biochem and bumped into premed students, nearly the entire population of premed didn't seem to care about the science behind what they were learning. They formed a very different social clique. The "top students" in that set were sharing previous years' organic chemistry exams and none of them would read papers or get involved in research. They were entirely disinterested in the science.

In my interactions with general practitioners, I like to talk about medicines' method of actions, pharmacology, the actual biochemistry behind diseases. Most of them seem to have no clue or retention of this information. I'm not trying to challenge them, either -- I'm generally curious to learn.

That's not to say all doctors are like that. A lot of the surgeons and specialists I know are walking tomes of information.

This seems analogous to a programmer who knows all the sort functions offered by their language of choice and when to use each, but has never learned how to write their own sort algorithm, and therefore can't hold a conversation about doing so. Plenty of employers and customers would be thrilled with such a programmer, if the job at hand is just to ensure that the data gets properly sorted.

I think a lot of your general practitioners are bound to follow protocol set forth by various medical organizations. So in that sense a lot of diving into research won’t help them. They need to understand and diagnose without having to worry about every little research paper. A lot of research papers aren’t truth - they are peer reviewed opinions.

Once you get to medical research groups that formulate those protocols, that’s where research becomes important.

>I think a lot of your general practitioners are bound to follow protocol set forth by various medical organizations. So in that sense a lot of diving into research won’t help them. They need to understand and diagnose without having to worry about every little research paper. A lot of research papers aren’t truth - they are peer reviewed opinions.

Isnt this even more necessary for them to learn the fundementals? Especially if Physicians claim that they are both Art and Science, which is why we can't merely use science for diagnosis and treatment.

That’s why diving into research will not help general practitioners. Because research isn’t fact. You need a body of research along with oversight of statistical methods and its data collection to claim fact and that too with specific constraints.

So they do learn fundamentals but fundamentals do not come out of research papers.

Studying for the test and taking easy classes, especially as premeds, has been a (likely accurate) stereotype of the medical profession since at least the 1970s & 80s.

I’m not sure how that’s any different than 90% of computer science students, or the average college student in general.

When I took non-required theoretical classes, I tended to be one of the only undergrads in the class

I don’t really know, but it might be okay for them to not focus on that knowledge.

Seems like we could train a lot of people for a lot cheaper if that was the case, though.

That’s essentially what Physicians assistants and Nurse Practitioners are.

From country where medschool is done by entrance exams the whole "premed" always sounded extremely weird and wasteful. They already have longest training time and then more is added on top?

Med school in those countries tends to last a year or 2 longer.

Also most other countries have national education programs for secondary school. High school in the US is regulated at the state and local level, so it’s very variable. As a consequence, the first 2 years of college tends towards general and education.

Sure but in the US it is 4 (undergrad) + 4 (med school) so in total it is 8 years rather than 5 or 6.

Agreed regarding the US high school standards but students that take AP courses in high school can take the MCAT. They may not do the “best” but they will know some of the material. Schools in the US like UMKC have 6 year programs were high school students take the MCAT.

In a lot of ways, the first two years of US undergrad are "remedial high school". This also explains how, e.g. American undergrads typically declare their majors until mid to late into their second years.

In theory, the point of having medical students have an undergrad degree is that they will be more "well rounded". Unlike in many countries where university education is very focused, in the US, an undergraduate even studying STEM is required to take a certain number of courses like literature or history, and likewise someone studying literature or history is required to take some science courses. Of course just requiring people to take courses doesn't mean they will actually retain the knowledge after the tests, but it's a nice idea anyway.

Something like 17% of premed students end up actually becoming physicians.

That’s a very different sample. Then you have to consider that the people that you are most likely to notice are the most vocal self identified “premed” students since most colleges don’t actually have premed degrees.

As far as interactions with doctors. GPs are the least likely to get into specifics because of the generalist nature of their work. Expecting them to remember something that they haven’t used in 10+ years is asking a lot.

Understanding calculus is incredibly useful to software engineers. But try asking a practicing software engineer 10 years out of school some textbook calculus questions.

This is because medicine is so complex and usually doctors are in the business of caring for patients, and while they may enjoy science, it’s not like every single detail of medicine, which is a very broad field, will be interesting to them. At some point, the MoA of a drug just becomes another fact to memorize for board exams. clinical application is far more based on experience and familiarity compared to abstract theoretical knowledge, even though this forms the base for medicine.