Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Single Malt)
    Do I get an award:confused:
    no, but you could do the world a favour and shut up
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All I can say is avoid Aberdeen. Anatomy here is *****. Unforgivably *****.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    post edited, not needed anymore.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Single Malt)
    I reckon he means prosection as in people dissect cadavers infront of you... as opposed to the "ready meal" type 'pro-section' other talk of.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Single Malt: are you on a wind up?

    Just accept the fact that you're wrong.

    I don't know why any current med students bother to come on here: they try and help, on to end up in pointless arguments with know-it-all A-Level students who have never even set foot in a med school.

    (Oh, and btw, Wikipedia also says: "A prosection may also refer to the dissected cadaver or cadaver part which is then reassembled and provided to students for review." which is the definition referred to at med school. Nothing like selectively quoting a source, is there?)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Self Preservation Society)
    Single Malt: are you on a wind up?

    Just accept the fact that you're wrong.

    I don't know why any current med students bother to come on here: they try and help, on to end up in pointless arguments with know-it-all A-Level students who have never even set foot in a med school.

    (Oh, and btw, Wikipedia also says: "A prosection may also refer to the dissected cadaver or cadaver part which is then reassembled and provided to students for review." which is the definition referred to at med school. Nothing like selectively quoting a source, is there?)
    I'm sorry if not everyone seems to find this lulzy...

    If you were offended, feel free to slowly scroll down this page...

    http://*********************.com/Offended
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    We do next to no anatomy in reality.

    Prosections, and it comes up as part of one of the three exams (lumped in with embryology/histology/cellular structure in first year, neuroscience in second).

    There's a two week 'crash course' to remind you what the hell is going on once you've forgotten it all at the end of third year too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Single Malt)
    I'm sorry if not everyone seems to find this lulzy...

    If you were offended, feel free to slowly scroll down this page...

    http://*********************.com/Offended
    I'm not really sure how you arguing that black is white is supposed to be "lulzy", but I'll leave you to it:rolleyes:

    In answer to the OP: UCL does dissection from January of the first year, continuing throughout the first 2 years I believe. Three hours of dissection per week at the moment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No but I think the real question here is why would you want to do a course with extensive amounts of anatomy, it gets pretty boring after a while, and its pretty much all clinically irrelevant.

    mehmeh each to their own.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Leaving the OCD lot out of this, I would say that to my mind (having just finished three years of dissection, with prosection (in the ready done point at bits manner for the anally retentive) and models in tutorials, I have found the prosections and models to be of vastly more use than dissection.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abhijitnair)
    i would be really interested in doing a lot of dissection and be well versed about anatomy.
    i've heard not all uni's take anatomy seriously but which do?
    Oh God, anatomy is sooooo dry. Doing loads of it would piss me off royally!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by terpineol)
    Leaving the OCD lot out of this, I would say that to my mind (having just finished three years of dissection, with prosection (in the ready done point at bits manner for the anally retentive) and models in tutorials, I have found the prosections and models to be of vastly more use than dissection.
    Agree totally - a first year medic will learn nothing from dissecting a cadaver, except how to make a goddamn mess. Imagine trying to dissect out the brachial plexus! Our prosectors showed us an immaculate specimin, I think had we tried it would have ended up looking like a pile of mince.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by martin101)
    Agree totally - a first year medic will learn nothing from dissecting a cadaver, except how to make a goddamn mess. Imagine trying to dissect out the brachial plexus! Our prosectors showed us an immaculate specimin, I think had we tried it would have ended up looking like a pile of mince.
    The brachial plexus wasn't too bad when we did it, though spending those four hours in tutorials with prosections and models would have resulted in far better learning of the stuff.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Single Malt)
    Original paper? If we are talking do I believe in prions and there role in TSE's, then yes. I think overwhelming evidence has been produced in favour, especially with the relatively recent use of PMCA.

    Cell signalling wise, I think the main evidence was the PrP proteins location on the lipid raft membrane and some sugar chains on the prion, so I would dismiss it. The evidence for it being a copper-related antioxidant is very strong, it acts as a ligand and has had some proven effects, notably in-vitro tests showing it reduces the number of anti-oxidants. I have read a couple papers by David R Brown, he seems pretty decent. I assume you can get them for free through your university, here is a list of his papers.

    http://en.scientificcommons.org/david_r_brown

    If you were looking for a book I would suggest Claudio Soto's Prions:the new biology of Proteins. Its old (2006) but concise and presents the information very neatly.

    edit: got M & C the wrong way round in PMCA
    Completly honestly, if I went to my tute saying I'd read that book and a few papers and therefore the evidence was settled, I would be **** on from a great height. That book, with respect, academically speaking is probably not detailed enough to even start to form an opinion. You'd start with something like: http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Diseas...d_bxgy_b_img_b

    If you really want to know, go and read his paper in Science, 216, 4542,136-144.

    The thing is, sometimes you have to admit that we don't know, that because we are human, and human endeavour can only progress at such a pace. Research is not about instant miracles, its about little bits of grunt coming together to realise a momment of genius. Those individual contributions all are just as important as the final product, as each experiement, no matter how it goes, if done properly and in good faith will evolve human understanding. It might well be that it does something, it might well be that it does nothing, but its very difficult to tell, and even harder to prove. People have dedicated entire lifetimes to this work.

    Btw, how are you getting access to journals, are you at uni? In which case you should realise this...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I have to agree with Wangers, a textbook of less than 200 pages cant really be more than a brief introductory summary of what we know. For example, if I whack the word 'prion' into web of science I get the fat end of 12000 papers of which a third have been published since 2006, making it horrendously outdated at best. My choice would be his paper, or one of the many hundreds of review papers and take it from there, because there is no way on this earth Im gonna read 800 pages of textbook!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by t3h_y0u553f)
    Cambridge are supposed to have a very intensive anatomy intensive first year with dissection.
    Sorry about the terrible grammar and style. It was late...

    (Original post by Vazzyb)
    x
    (Original post by Helenia)
    x
    Do you think the level of anatomy studied at Cambridge is advantageous when practising as a doctor, would be a good reason to choose this course over another?

    Also the teaching of biochemistry and pharmacology is known to be to a highly detailed and difficult standard, is this useful in a clinical setting; or is it only really beneficial to those keen on academic research.

    Thanks
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by t3h_y0u553f)
    Do you think the level of anatomy studied at Cambridge is advantageous when practising as a doctor, would be a good reason to choose this course over another?

    Also the teaching of biochemistry and pharmacology is known to be to a highly detailed and difficult standard, is this useful in a clinical setting; or is it only really beneficial to those keen on academic research.

    Thanks
    If a)you actually remember it and b)you are interested in surgery, then the anatomy course is very useful. It's certainly worth bearing in mind.

    As for biochem and pharm, I'd be inclined to say it's only really useful if you want to do some research, but it can't hurt to have a more detailed background.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    If a)you actually remember it and b)you are interested in surgery, then the anatomy course is very useful. It's certainly worth bearing in mind.

    As for biochem and pharm, I'd be inclined to say it's only really useful if you want to do some research, but it can't hurt to have a more detailed background.
    Yes but everyone knows that at Cambridge you never get to talk to patients and thus make terrible doctors. :yep: :o: :p:

    P.s. I didn't break any bones.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by t3h_y0u553f)
    Sorry about the terrible grammar and style. It was late...



    Do you think the level of anatomy studied at Cambridge is advantageous when practising as a doctor, would be a good reason to choose this course over another?

    Also the teaching of biochemistry and pharmacology is known to be to a highly detailed and difficult standard, is this useful in a clinical setting; or is it only really beneficial to those keen on academic research.

    Thanks
    I'll give my take on this: basically you don't need to know that much anatomy. You need to know functional anatomy, i.e. stuff you are going to do on a day to day basis. An orthopod isn't going to give a hoot about the minutae of the cerebral circulation, for example. You learn the anatomy in depth for what is required for your career speciality.

    Biochem: How often are you going to need to recall the steps and enzymes of the urea cycle, for example? (Unless your doing the USMLEs). Not often, in clinical practice.

    Pharma: Interesting subject, I would have liked to do more theory. Not sure how much day to day pharmacological theory you need (like receptor modulation etc etc), it's more "give x drug of z class for y condition to evoke this desired response". That's what the BNF is for!

    I am jealous of the depth of pathology the cambridge lot get taught however.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spencer Wells)
    Yes but everyone knows that at Cambridge you never get to talk to patients and thus make terrible doctors. :yep: :o: :p:

    P.s. I didn't break any bones.
    But that doesn't matter if you want to be a surgeon :p:

    And good. :hugs: See you on Tues.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.