I arrived at the hospital with a sense of wonder and thrill — every neuron in my body firing at full potential, triggering me to feel excitement in my fingertips and through my toes. As I walked into the lobby, I greeted the man who was kind enough to take me under his wing, and with a firm handshake I began my first day of shadowing a brilliant physician. I felt as though every year of wanting and working had led to this moment — seeing real patients in a real hospital.
The doctor asked me what courses I had taken in college thus far and I listed off the names of hard science classes that sounded more like a foreign language.
“Ah, you survived organic chemistry without getting weeded out,” he proclaimed. This exchange led me to ask my most pondered question: “As a physician, do you ever use organic chemistry?”
My question was met with a loud chuckle and an answer that left me frustrated: “No, never.”
Why would all U.S. medical schools require a class that would not help me be a better physician? A couple of hours of research led me to my answer.
One hundred and eight years ago, a single account turned our nation’s health care system completely on its head — the Flexner Report. Mr. Abraham Flexner published his report on U.S. medical schools in 1910, which created clear and consistent admissions standards. Flexner argued for the establishment of the biomedical model of medical training, and after his report was published, it became the gold standard.
In the aftermath of his high standards, one-third of U.S. medical schools were shut down. Under Flexner’s recommendations, the new medical school admission prerequisites were chemistry, biology and physics, with their respective labs completed within a minimum of two years in college. Further, he endorsed taking more science courses than the required ones.
To provide a comparison, the Association of American Medical Colleges currently requires chemistry (both general and organic), biology, physics and English to apply to medical school. Sound familiar? In over a century, the antiquated prerequisites for medical college admission are virtually unchanged.
It is important to note, to contextualize the absurdity of this, that in 1910 the germ theory was still being developed and tested and antibiotics were still 30 years in the future. While Flexner wildly improved health care and medical education in his time, the pre-med students of today desperately need yet another curriculum overhaul.
Instead of an emphasis on the hard sciences, focus should be shifted to finding the solutions to modernity’s problems. Pre-med students should be required to take sociology courses on disparities between populations of different races, religions, genders and so on.
Also, to further the brilliant medical research rooted in computers and coding, students should be proficient in computer science. Additionally, to combat the burgeoning epidemic of physician burnout and suicide, a stress management course should be required. These are just a few of the many areas that would produce better doctors than our current system does.
Today’s field of health care is ever-changing, with novel technologies developing constantly, new trends emerging annually and global populations being served more than ever. It is of the utmost importance to prepare our next generation of doctors for the progressive and unique role they will possess in society.
The attempt at reform in the 2015 Medical College Admissions Test was far too small a step in the right direction. Changes must be bigger and more revolutionary to adequately care for patients and even physicians. The direction taken should be in direct response to the following question: How can we prepare and groom the next generation of doctors to best serve our people?
Morgan Manganello is a junior majoring in integrative neuroscience.