Turn on thread page Beta

Why medicine is so popular in this forum? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Hi guys.
    I've seen lots of question on this forum, and most of the ones related to university are about medicine.
    Also the Youtube page of TSR have lots of video about Medicine.

    Why it's so popular, compared to other degree?

    Thanks
    WiSi.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I am also going into medicine and it may just be a coincidence or it may be because it is just so interesting
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Too many things to consider .. too many hurdles ... frankly there are other better paid jobs with less hassles ... it is a hype ...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Because it’s frequently subscribed to and high demand for places...

    Also, typically, there’s a correlation. You come on to the STUDENT room if you’re dedicated to education and attached to your workbooks, with a very particular and strong work ethic let’s say. That has to be applicable to all current and potential medical students, as the only way to succeed in the profession is through graft.

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It has a high level of prestige attached to it because it's very competitive and if you get in:

    . The vast majority of people consider you smart.

    . You are basically guaranteed a job after.

    I think it's very glorified though. I would personally consider someone graduating with a 2:1 in Chemistry or Physics far smarter than a medicine student simply due to the fact that medicine involves less hardcore problem solving skills than Nat.Sci.

    Natural Science students could easily learn the biology of medicine but I doubt a medic would find Synthetic Organic Chemistry or General relativity easy going.

    To be fair however, medics are selected on their interpersonal skills. Unfortunately a lot of scientists are quiet thinkers who would struggle with the social aspect of medicine - 'The bedside manner'.

    Medics are biological engineering analogues.

    Synthetic Chemists (not pharmacists) are the people solving the core, difficult synthetic problems in order to make the drugs that Pharmacists hand to the medics.

    Physics lays the ground theory that underpins it all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    It has a high level of prestige attached to it because it's very competitive and if you get in:

    . The vast majority of people consider you smart.

    . You are basically guaranteed a job after.

    I think it's very glorified though. I would personally consider someone graduating with a 2:1 in Chemistry or Physics far smarter than a medicine student simply due to the fact that medicine involves less hardcore problem solving skills than Nat.Sci.

    Natural Science students could easily learn the biology of medicine but I doubt a medic would find Synthetic Organic Chemistry or General relativity easy going.

    To be fair however, medics are selected on their interpersonal skills. Unfortunately a lot of scientists are quiet thinkers who would struggle with the social aspect of medicine - 'The bedside manner'.

    Medics are biological engineering analogues.

    Synthetic Chemists (not pharmacists) are the people solving the core, difficult synthetic problems in order to make the drugs that Pharmacists hand to the medics.

    Physics lays the ground theory that underpins it all.
    This is happening also in Italy.

    Be a scientist can be very frustrated because you are not really appreciated, and here there are a lots of people, I would say the majority that thinks that doctors are the smartest people in the world, while physicist are not very considered, the same for Biology and Chemistry and Math

    Those are very difficult subjects, more difficult then Medicine, in term of complexity, but not rewarded in the same way.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    It has a high level of prestige attached to it because it's very competitive and if you get in:

    . The vast majority of people consider you smart.

    . You are basically guaranteed a job after.

    I think it's very glorified though. I would personally consider someone graduating with a 2:1 in Chemistry or Physics far smarter than a medicine student simply due to the fact that medicine involves less hardcore problem solving skills than Nat.Sci.

    Natural Science students could easily learn the biology of medicine but I doubt a medic would find Synthetic Organic Chemistry or General relativity easy going.

    To be fair however, medics are selected on their interpersonal skills. Unfortunately a lot of scientists are quiet thinkers who would struggle with the social aspect of medicine - 'The bedside manner'.

    Medics are biological engineering analogues.

    Synthetic Chemists (not pharmacists) are the people solving the core, difficult synthetic problems in order to make the drugs that Pharmacists hand to the medics.

    Physics lays the ground theory that underpins it all.
    It's been a while since I posted but posts like this always amused me when I was applying to medical school.

    There are so many confounding factors to what you're saying and frankly, it just comes across as facile. Consider a few:

    1. You happen to study Chemistry at university and think that synthetic chemists are the "people solving the core difficult synthetic problems", even though this is clearly a multi-disciplinary approach requiring many STEM subject groups working at large pharmaceuticals.

    2. Your assertion isn't even necessarily correct - the world's best selling drug (a beta blocker called propranolol) was invented by Sir James Black - a physician and pharmacologist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_...harmacologist)

    3. Surely it depends on the individual's intelligence and its a case by case thing anyway when you're judging how smart someone is? There are other confounders too like whether they're grads (there are a couple of medics on my course who have post-grad level degrees in physics/chemistry/biology..), the university, whether you're the type of person that just does enough to pass exams, or you understand the science so you may one day "solve hardcore" problems?

    I mean it's just silly to make blanket statements like that really. But then this is always the way here. I never understood the intense hate/useless debate tbh.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by WiSi)
    Hi guys.
    I've seen lots of question on this forum, and most of the ones related to university are about medicine.
    Also the Youtube page of TSR have lots of video about Medicine.

    Why it's so popular, compared to other degree?

    Thanks
    WiSi.
    Most? They really arent. You arent looking hard enough.

    It is an aspirational and unique career. status, money, job, life saving.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WiSi)
    Hi guys.
    I've seen lots of question on this forum, and most of the ones related to university are about medicine.
    Also the Youtube page of TSR have lots of video about Medicine.

    Why it's so popular, compared to other degree?

    Thanks
    WiSi.
    Anything that requires A* grades at GCSE/A Level is popular on this forum.

    That's why threads involving Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, Medicine etc have so many replies

    Think Investment banking might be the biggest.

    Basically anything that is aspirational
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All Taken)
    It's been a while since I posted but posts like this always amused me when I was applying to medical school.

    There are so many confounding factors to what you're saying and frankly, it just comes across as facile. Consider a few:

    1. You happen to study Chemistry at university and think that synthetic chemists are the "people solving the core difficult synthetic problems", even though this is clearly a multi-disciplinary approach requiring many STEM subject groups working at large pharmaceuticals.

    2. Your assertion isn't even necessarily correct - the world's best selling drug (a beta blocker called propranolol) was invented by Sir James Black - a physician and pharmacologist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_...harmacologist)

    3. Surely it depends on the individual's intelligence and its a case by case thing anyway when you're judging how smart someone is? There are other confounders too like whether they're grads (there are a couple of medics on my course who have post-grad level degrees in physics/chemistry/biology..), the university, whether you're the type of person that just does enough to pass exams, or you understand the science so you may one day "solve hardcore" problems?

    I mean it's just silly to make blanket statements like that really. But then this is always the way here. I never understood the intense hate/useless debate tbh.
    Important point in your statement is that the inventor of that drug is also a pharmacologist, that isn't most doctors.

    Fleming was a surgeon too, but he was also an academic.

    Im not sure I agree with OP about ability, but medicine doesn't give you the skills to solve problems like that, more academic subjects do - medicine also needs some focus on vocational aspects and consequently doesn't cover all academic bases. Hence why the beta blocker inventor also studied pharmacology and why Fleming, a surgeon, was an academic.

    Synthetics, while multi-disciplinary is based mostly on chemical and physical aspects and biologists get thrown in when biology needs to be considered for the body, otherwise it's exempt.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All Taken)
    It's been a while since I posted but posts like this always amused me when I was applying to medical school.

    There are so many confounding factors to what you're saying and frankly, it just comes across as facile. Consider a few:

    1. You happen to study Chemistry at university and think that synthetic chemists are the "people solving the core difficult synthetic problems", even though this is clearly a multi-disciplinary approach requiring many STEM subject groups working at large pharmaceuticals.

    2. Your assertion isn't even necessarily correct - the world's best selling drug (a beta blocker called propranolol) was invented by Sir James Black - a physician and pharmacologist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_...harmacologist)

    3. Surely it depends on the individual's intelligence and its a case by case thing anyway when you're judging how smart someone is? There are other confounders too like whether they're grads (there are a couple of medics on my course who have post-grad level degrees in physics/chemistry/biology..), the university, whether you're the type of person that just does enough to pass exams, or you understand the science so you may one day "solve hardcore" problems?

    I mean it's just silly to make blanket statements like that really. But then this is always the way here. I never understood the intense hate/useless debate tbh.
    Never said I hated medics. I simply think it's a very hyped up subject.

    1.) Technically, yes. Engineers and certain biologists are involved to some extent in the process, really for deciding the desired properties of the drug at the end.

    Neither will actually know how to perform a proper retrosynthetic analysis. Understand how very subtle changes in the stereochemistry can change whole properties of the drug. How to separate enantiomers, what catalysts to use from the inorganic world, how to choose solvents and the overall thermodynamics and physics of the synthesis.

    Those aren't even all of the variables Synthetic chemists have to factor in. Yield, enantiomeric efficiency, recyclability of catalysts, solvent 'greenness', energetic efficiency etc Are also considered.

    They are also the people who use FT NMR, DEPT 90/135 , IR, Mass spec and GC-MS to deduce or evidence properties such as structure and purity

    2.) Black was an exception, a Physician and a pharmacologist. Most modern doctors are just doctors. Also if you synthesise anything you are performing Chemistry. So really he was also a Chemist, he even taught Medicinal Chemistry at undergraduate.

    Vitamin B12, Biologists did not synthesize that.

    69 steps, 91 postdocs and 12 pH.D students. Extremely important for nerve health. All Synthetic Chemists. No medics or biologists involved.

    3.) Yes and no. On average though, I would say because Nat.Sci generally has way harder problems in it. Medicine has much more memorisation. Science graduates vs medicine graduates (1st degree) with 2:1s would on average, be smarter. That's on average.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WiSi)
    This is happening also in Italy.

    Be a scientist can be very frustrated because you are not really appreciated, and here there are a lots of people, I would say the majority that thinks that doctors are the smartest people in the world, while physicist are not very considered, the same for Biology and Chemistry and Math

    Those are very difficult subjects, more difficult then Medicine, in term of complexity, but not rewarded in the same way.
    Doesn't everyone get accepted into medicine in Italy? And then most drop out?

    I'd imagine the prestige associated with the course then falls a lot.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    Natural Science students could easily learn the biology of medicine but I doubt a medic would find Synthetic Organic Chemistry easy going.
    You can't just compare two disciplines like this. You are saying a synthetic chemist could basically read medicine/biomedical sciences? They probably could. However, most medical students could maybe just as easily do a chemistry course/become a synthetic organic chemist and solve problems within that discipline.

    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    I would personally consider someone graduating with a 2:1 in Chemistry or Physics far smarter than a medicine student simply due to the fact that medicine involves less hardcore problem solving skills than Nat.Sci.
    This is a comical way of measuring how 'smart' someone is.
    Where is this data to show how they're smarter on average?

    Perhaps focus on answering the question in the OP rather than trying to show why you're smarter as a synthetic chemist than medical students.

    (Original post by WiSi)
    Hi guys.
    I've seen lots of question on this forum, and most of the ones related to university are about medicine.
    Also the Youtube page of TSR have lots of video about Medicine.

    Why it's so popular, compared to other degree?

    Thanks
    WiSi.
    Post number 9 is the most accurate answer imo
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    Never said I hated medics. I simply think it's a very hyped up subject.

    1.) Technically, yes. Engineers and certain biologists are involved to some extent in the process, really for deciding the desired properties of the drug at the end.

    Neither will actually know how to perform a proper retrosynthetic analysis. Understand how very subtle changes in the stereochemistry can change whole properties of the drug. How to separate enantiomers, what catalysts to use from the inorganic world, how to choose solvents and the overall thermodynamics and physics of the synthesis.

    Those aren't even all of the variables Synthetic chemists have to factor in. Yield, enantiomeric efficiency, recyclability of catalysts, solvent 'greenness', energetic efficiency etc Are also considered.

    They are also the people who use FT NMR, DEPT 90/135 , IR, Mass spec and GC-MS to deduce or evidence properties such as structure and purity

    2.) Black was an exception, a Physician and a pharmacologist. Most modern doctors are just doctors. Also if you synthesise anything you are performing Chemistry. So really he was also a Chemist, he even taught Medicinal Chemistry at undergraduate.

    Vitamin B12, Biologists did not synthesize that.

    69 steps, 91 postdocs and 12 pH.D students. Extremely important for nerve health. All Synthetic Chemists. No medics or biologists involved.

    3.) Yes and no. On average though, I would say because Nat.Sci generally has way harder problems in it. Medicine has much more memorisation. Science graduates vs medicine graduates (1st degree) with 2:1s would on average, be smarter. That's on average.
    alright, we get it. you do natsci.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    Never said I hated medics. I simply think it's a very hyped up subject.

    1.) Technically, yes. Engineers and certain biologists are involved to some extent in the process, really for deciding the desired properties of the drug at the end.

    Neither will actually know how to perform a proper retrosynthetic analysis. Understand how very subtle changes in the stereochemistry can change whole properties of the drug. How to separate enantiomers, what catalysts to use from the inorganic world, how to choose solvents and the overall thermodynamics and physics of the synthesis.

    Those aren't even all of the variables Synthetic chemists have to factor in. Yield, enantiomeric efficiency, recyclability of catalysts, solvent 'greenness', energetic efficiency etc Are also considered.

    They are also the people who use FT NMR, DEPT 90/135 , IR, Mass spec and GC-MS to deduce or evidence properties such as structure and purity

    2.) Black was an exception, a Physician and a pharmacologist. Most modern doctors are just doctors. Also if you synthesise anything you are performing Chemistry. So really he was also a Chemist, he even taught Medicinal Chemistry at undergraduate.

    Vitamin B12, Biologists did not synthesize that.

    69 steps, 91 postdocs and 12 pH.D students. Extremely important for nerve health. All Synthetic Chemists. No medics or biologists involved.

    3.) Yes and no. On average though, I would say because Nat.Sci generally has way harder problems in it. Medicine has much more memorisation. Science graduates vs medicine graduates (1st degree) with 2:1s would on average, be smarter. That's on average.
    I never said you hated medics. No need to rebuke a point I didn't make.

    Look I'm just saying I think you've made a great many weak points.

    1. The only differentiating academic factor between students at undergraduate level (just before they've started their degree) - is what their A-level, IB or highers grades are. Many very high achievers will go into science, medicine, law, economics, history, philosophy, but also art and so on.

    1.1 I would therefore propose to you, that there are many history students for example at good universities who are very, very intelligent indeed. I would even say some of them may be more intelligent (with whatever metric you may use to measure intelligence) than a science student (how inconceivable!).

    2. An intelligent historian say, wouldn't necessarily have to solve "hardcore" problems (however it is you're even defining "hardcore") throughout their degree per se (something I actually doubt you're doing yourself tbh), but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have the capacity to be an excellent problem solver in general.

    2.1 There is a fairly well described theory of general intelligence, which suggests its divided into two factors: "crystallised" (what you know, ability to use skill) and "fluid" (your problem solving capability, reasoning).

    2.2 A very intelligent student, with straight A*s at school may well have excellent reasoning - there would be no clear reason why they couldn't become a physicist, lawyer, incredible synthetic chemist solving hardcore problems or biologist. Indeed, they could apply to most courses and get accepted. But maybe they chose history. You can't then say they would find chemistry hard-going, but with this weird implicit assumption like they somehow couldn't possibly attain the problem solving and interpretive skills necessary. Like you're somehow, "on average", more intelligent. You simply cannot know that.

    3. Neither your personal perceived problem solving ability or the perceived difficulty of your own course are accurate indicators of the general intellect of other chemists, let alone scientists. That's before you could even get to comparing one whole community to another (chemists versus plumbers, for example).

    3.1 Describing lots of things chemistry students might do with jargon doesn't change point 3.

    3.2 Your overarching point seems to follow from point 3 above and is odd to me anyway, which is that you think the study of medicine is "hyped" - but the reason you think that is literally because you think synthetic chemists are smarter, on average of course. You know this because, in your own words:

    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    On average though, I would say because Nat.Sci generally has way harder problems in it.
    ..?

    In conclusion, I think the only reasonable way to assess intelligence is by assessing each person individually. The only time group assessments can be made is when using hierarchy: "On average, a PhD student studying artificial neural networks will be more intelligent than a maths undergrad with an interest in machine learning" might just be about fair enough. And even then might not be correct.

    I think you're bias, and I think your point comes across as being arrogant.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All Taken)
    I never said you hated medics. No need to rebuke a point I didn't make.

    Look I'm just saying I think you've made a great many weak points.

    1. The only differentiating academic factor between students at undergraduate level (just before they've started their degree) - is what their A-level, IB or highers grades are. Many very high achievers will go into science, medicine, law, economics, history, philosophy, but also art and so on.

    1.1 I would therefore propose to you, that there are many history students for example at good universities who are very, very intelligent indeed. I would even say some of them may be more intelligent (with whatever metric you may use to measure intelligence) than a science student (how inconceivable!).

    2. An intelligent historian say, wouldn't necessarily have to solve "hardcore" problems (however it is you're even defining "hardcore" throughout their degree per se (something I actually doubt you're doing yourself tbh), but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have the capacity to be an excellent problem solver in general.

    2.1 There is a fairly well described theory of general intelligence, which suggests its divided into two factors: "crystallised" (what you know, ability to use skill) and "fluid" (your problem solving capability, reasoning).

    2.2 A very intelligent student, with straight A*s at school may well have excellent reasoning - there would be no clear reason why they couldn't become a physicist, lawyer, incredible synthetic chemist solving hardcore problems or biologist. Indeed, they could apply to most courses and get accepted. But maybe they chose history. You can't then say they would find chemistry hard-going, but with this weird implicit assumption like they somehow couldn't possibly attain the problem solving and interpretive skills necessary. Like you're somehow, "on average", more intelligent. You simply cannot know that.

    3. Neither your personal perceived problem solving ability or the perceived difficulty of your own course are accurate indicators of the general intellect of other chemists, let alone scientists. That's before you could even get to comparing one whole community to another (chemists versus plumbers, for example).

    3.1 Describing lots of things chemistry students might do with jargon doesn't change point 3.

    3.2 Your overarching point seems to follow from point 3 above and is odd to me anyway, which is that you think the study of medicine is "hyped" - but the reason you think that is literally because you think synthetic chemists are smarter, on average of course. You know this because, in your own words:



    ..?

    In conclusion, I think the only reasonable way to assess intelligence is by assessing each person individually. The only time group assessments can be made is when using hierarchy: "On average, a PhD student studying artificial neural networks will be more intelligent than a maths undergrad with an interest in machine learning" might just be about fair enough. And even then might not be correct.

    I think you're bias, and I think your point comes across as being arrogant.
    Of course I'm biased, we all are. Not everyone admits it.

    1.) I'm talking about after they graduate.

    . I very much doubt that. History involves some analytical skills, but It's nothing like learning the problem solving in Q.M or X-ray crystallography. History is factual information that people analyse. I can go to the library right now and learn history in my spare time. You can't learn Maths, Chem or Physics simply by reading. You have to actively solve problems.

    I would say the best problem solvers lie in STEM. Not saying there aren't any in the humanities but Maths student vs sociology student, who's going to be the better problem solver?

    2.) Again, after they graduate.

    3.) If you can solve a complex in Crystal field theory. You are easily as smart as someone in retrosynthesis. That's besides the point though. Science graduates are problem solvers with academic and practical skills unique to their fields that I feel are much harder to obtain than in medicine and other fields. That's my opinion.

    3.) I was simply elaborating my view that medicine is hyped up compared to the sciences, that are just as hard and often do not get the credit that they deserve.

    My point on synthesis still stands, Black was an exception to that. 99% of physicians are just physicians. They don't contribute to the drug making process at all.

    About 60% of the drug making process is done by Synthetic Chemists, followed by Chemical Engineers ca.30% and 10% from Pharmacologist/Biologists.

    Hence Medics are hyped-up and Scientists are enormously underappreciated.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    Anything that requires A* grades at GCSE/A Level is popular on this forum.

    That's why threads involving Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, Medicine etc have so many replies

    Think Investment banking might be the biggest.

    Basically anything that is aspirational
    Why investment banking?
    I'm asking because in Italy we don't have a degree about it.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WiSi)
    Why investment banking?
    I'm asking because in Italy we don't have a degree about it.
    It's not a degree, its a job; a high paying one too
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _NMcC_)
    Of course I'm biased, we all are. Not everyone admits it.

    1.) I'm talking about after they graduate.

    . I very much doubt that. History involves some analytical skills, but It's nothing like learning the problem solving in Q.M or X-ray crystallography. History is factual information that people analyse. I can go to the library right now and learn history in my spare time. You can't learn Maths, Chem or Physics simply by reading. You have to actively solve problems.

    I would say the best problem solvers lie in STEM. Not saying there aren't any in the humanities but Maths student vs sociology student, who's going to be the better problem solver?

    2.) Again, after they graduate.

    3.) If you can solve a complex in Crystal field theory. You are easily as smart as someone in retrosynthesis. That's besides the point though. Science graduates are problem solvers with academic and practical skills unique to their fields that I feel are much harder to obtain than in medicine and other fields. That's my opinion.

    3.) I was simply elaborating my view that medicine is hyped up compared to the sciences, that are just as hard and often do not get the credit that they deserve.

    My point on synthesis still stands, Black was an exception to that. 99% of physicians are just physicians. They don't contribute to the drug making process at all.

    About 60% of the drug making process is done by Synthetic Chemists, followed by Chemical Engineers ca.30% and 10% from Pharmacologist/Biologists.

    Hence Medics are hyped-up and Scientists are enormously underappreciated.
    I hoped that Uk gives more importance to scientists, such a physicists
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    It's not a degree, its a job; a high paying one too
    What you have to study to do it?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.