actually, most schools do not require 4 years undergrad. they require 90 units, which is 3 years if you go slow, or 2 years if you go year round. so, the requirement at nearly ALL US med schools is not 4 years undegrad.

however, the students that get accepted are typically in possession of a **. you seem to imply that the reason for this is because of competence. however, look at the state laws. most states require 60 semester units of premed, or specific pre med courses, or the international equivilent. so, the individual states have ALL approved grads of the 6 year programs from around the world for licensue, without this pre-med education that you seem to feel is so vital.

the fact is that the extreme competition for med school spots is what drove the average successful applicant to possess a **/BA degree. neither the schools, nor the states require it. the evidence is strongly supportive of this, given that the states ALL have licensed grads of 6 year programs.

now, while your opinion may be that pre med is vital and important, it certainly is not any governing bodies position. at least not beyond the bare minimum pre med requirements, which are easily met at all the 6 year schools.

my idiot alarm goes off every time i read one of your posts.

Neil,

You just repeated everything I had already said. I know the state's requirements- READ MY POSTS!!! I know the US medical school requirements- READ MY POSTS!! But, I also said that most will not get accepted into US schools w/o a 4 year degree. You seem to have trouble paying attention to detail. The question/discussion I raised, which you again didn't discuss or reply to, was should states ammend their current regulations concerning pre-med requirements to a consistent standard that is inline with the majority of US medical school student's backgrounds in respect to their undergraduate pre-medical coursework. Please don't reply to my posts anymore unless you have read and evaluated them thoroughly. You are proof that lack of adequate undergraduate education is dangerous. You could benefit from 2 years of intensive general education. You obviously missed out.

actually, my fine feathered freind, i have completed all of my premed requirements, and attended two esteemed institutions of higher education. but, thanks for caring.

it is pretty obvious that you are gamely trying to find fault with charles (and pretty much the entire world's) method of 6 year medical education. and, it is pretty clear that you somehow think a 4 year ** degree from the states is more valuable than the 2 extra years spent learning the medical-school specific pre medical sciences in the international model. i admire your spirity, but i see that you have yet to find somebody who shares your views. and, the international medical community seem to be functioning just fine without the benefit of a US undergraduate education.

anyhow, i would find it interesting if the states cared enough about pre med to mandate any additional requirements. i think you would be hard pressed to find any studies linking undergrad performance, or education, with performance as a physician. med line it, i did. nothing came up for me.

if i understand what you are trying to say (and it is tough to try to figure out what you are trying to say), it is whether states should mandate 4 years of undergrad as a prereq for licensure. well, there are several issues with that. first of all, it would eliminate some of the US grads themselves, as there are several combined 6/7 year **/MD programs. it would also eliminate the few that get into US schools with the 90 units or more, but without a degree. also, it certainly would not eliminate a significant portion of us citizens that study abroad. the americans at most schools (yes, even in the 6 year programs) have **/BA degrees.

but, i think that if you place so much value on pre-med, go lobby for it. i wouldn't care either way. in fact, most US students who go abroad wouldn't care, as the vast majority of us (at charles too) already have the undergrad requirements. the only people you would be blocking out would be the true IMG's, those educated in a different system.

so, to answer you question as to whether the boards should do it...a big, resounding, "who cares???". i think it is a pretty retarded idea, but given the source it is fitting. and, if you want to get your panties in a bunch about it, fine. it affects nobody at charles that i know of, and nobody abroad that i know of.

what i find especially interesting is how much value you place on a good pre medical education, yet how little you place on an adequate and proven medical education. i think the vast majority of people in the US care a lot more about the quality of medical education than the quantity or quality of pre medical education. which is too bad for you.

are you really trying to say that by requiring a certain level of undergrad education, you will be applying a consistent standard of medical education? that is pretty stupid, considering that nearly zero of what we learn in undergrad is used in med school to any significant degree. also, where do you draw the line? what about english majors? is a person with a BA in world lit as well prepared as a person with 90 units of a biochem degree? this is pretty poorly thought out


hmmmm....well, i read the above, and commented on how it is NOT a US med school requirement to have a **, or 8 years of education, and that it is merely a consequence of increased competition. you replied with this:

well, my dear man, i did read your post. you cleary state that you think it is a requirement in "the majority of schools" to have 8 years of education in the US. it is NOT a requirement. you are wrong. the average applicant does have 8 years, but it is NOT a requirement.

either way, i enjoy the assumption that graduates of 6 year programs have less interpersonal development. i think intellectually you will be hard pressed to find many grads of the european programs that do not match up well on any level (communication, business, interpersonal) to their US counterparts. you, on the other hand, are providing us with solid evidence of how somebody with a US degree and a solid undergraduate record can be completely without common sense (hence, your choice in schools), interpersonal skills (you seem to be rubbing everybody the wrong way on this site), and debate skills (you lose every argument you start very convicingly).

based on you, i think we should make it EASIER to get a license. they should prohibit people with undergrad degrees, if it leads to more people like you. apparently you can teach the inteligence right out of a person!

Another wonderful example of how some Americans find that there system and only there system is correct. What makes you think that you would become a better doctor because you have studied trees and animals as an Biology undergrad or perhaps photosynthesis as a BioChem undergrad? Should I remind you that the American system of public education lags far, and I mean very far, behind the majority of industialized nations. A "high school" graduate in Europe is equivalant to a 2 year associates college graduate here in the states.

so thats it, you're a student at IUHS...LMAO. sorry, but isn't that school another one of those that takes anyone with a pulse?

actually, i don't think a pulse is required. in fact, it may be discouraged, as the presence of a pulse would imply SOME level of cerebral perfusion. and, any level of cerebral perfusion should be enough to generate suffecient sense to avoid IUHS, even in an otherwise non-functional brain.

so, pulse is optional. checkbook and ignorance are mandatory, however.

Iuhsms4,
It seems as if you are casting quite a brood net on your description of a school in which you have never attended. I for one am planning to apply to a Czech Republic or Hungary medical school. I have an under grad degree and belong to the National Honors society (USA). I by no means consider myself inferior or sub par, yet in the same token I don’t believe myself to be superior. As a well traveled person I have come to the conclusion that there are many ways to the finish line. It is my belief that success lye’s in the individual. Thus, persons that have been confined to a certain system or protocol tend to not only believe that their way is the best way, but that it is the only way. Is your intension to inform people or to project yourself as superior? If you believe yourself to be superior, then you are setting yourself up for humiliation.

posts like these of the op are perfect examples of why many people in the world (this is the place where America is located in case you weren't aware) regard Americans as ignorant and blissfully unaware of anywhere else in the universe, especially in culture, education and international relations...

i was pleasantly surpised that they actually said "Czech Republic" and not Czechoslovakia which is where many Americans, even in 2006, think i goto school, based on that fact alone, i'm sure the poster will do well at IUHS.com or whatever it is, and become an excellent physician (of course a state would have to give them a license first, which could be a difficult task)...

anyways dude, there are 192 countries in the world, the US is just one, why should any school, especially ones established 400+ years before the US was even recognized as a country, conform to our arbitrary rules of taking non-medically related courses prior to entering a medical school?

from a more personal view, i started at charles first faculty this year, and yes, straight out of high school. the difficulties i've experienced have been indescribeable... medical school is tough and lacking a background in the sciences is a huge disadvantage and has created a considerably larger amount of work for myself, but i'm managing...

the school's admission standards are not very stringent, if you pass the test, you are in... also, i've never heard of being able to choose what subjects you tets, its always chem bio and physics and you must pass to obtain a place...

all that being said, the difficulties of living in a foreign country with a different language and culture only compounds the overall toughness. many people don't make it through (i heard there's ~40-50% attrition) and several have already left this year, i know of 4 north americans (and yes, they ALL had a bachelors degrees) that couldn't handle it for one reason or another and have subsequently gone home... i hope to stick it out.. the benefit of starting a 6 year curriculim directly from high school is that if one were to fail a class and had to repeat, they would still be 1 year ahead of the game time wise in applying for residency. its really not cut and dry, 6 years is just a guideline, there are many 7th year students and the person primarily responding to these strange posts finished in 5...

finally, i don't know if the op is under the impression that the school is full of americans, but we definitely comprise a VERY small minority of the student body in the english parallel... thus, no 4 year graduate entry program, ie. poland (which have yet to be fully recognized by all of the EU and US states for licensing by the way...)


-matt

i never said that "I" think US medical boards should change their regulations in respect to pre-med requirements. i simply posed a question regarding standards. nobody on this thread got that! however, i made it very clear in my posts. instead, my question was ignored and defensive and evasive posts were made knocking my school and country's attitude toward IMG's. why are you so defensive? i guess the quote, "if you think somebody is going to steal from you, you are probably a thief" applies here. why are you all so defensive?

neilc, this isn't about winning or losing arguments. there is no need for arguments, though you are very argumentative. my intention was to provoke educated dicussion regarding an inconsistency between the majority of the US medical student pool's undergraduate backgrounds and state licensure requirements.

i think it is interesting that many us medical schools will not consider applicants with 2 years of undergraduate study, however licensing boards will accept them for licensure. it's a thought-provoking issue, so i raised it in a forum who's medical school openly admits persons with high school diplomas and minimal undergraduate coursework. maybe us medical schools should begin to consider applicants with only high school diplomas or minimal undergraduate coursework like Charles U. does. I don't know! That was what I hoped to discuss here. or, on the other side of the spetrum, maybe state medical boards should re-write their regulations regarding pre-med requirements to reflect the majority of US medical student's and, apparently, according to Neilc, Charles U student's pre-med backgrounds. However, i think saying that undergrad coursework has no bearing on how well a person may practice medicine is simple and thoughtless, Neilc. the question is, how much should be required in my country (US) in order to be licensed as a physician. I still contend that a 4 year undergrad education is essential for the reasons i stated in my previous post. However, I may be wrong. Apparently many US medical school admission's departments agree with me as they rarely consider students with less than Bachelors degrees for admission. however, i strongly disagree with admitting students into medical school and allowing them to see patients when their highest level of education is high school. but again, maybe i'm wrong. i hope to see dicussion that reflects both sides of this issue-

1.opposed to pre-med requirements written in licensure regualtions being reflective of the majority of US medical students undergraduate backgrounds
2. for pre-med requirements written in licensure regualtions being reflective of the majority of US medical students undergraduate backgrounds

please state your reasons for your respective position. please cite any data you post. if it is an assumption, say it is. and, please, if you have anything to say that might harm anything or anyone, be damn sure you have collected all avaliable data before typing it!

neilc wrote "99% of med students at Charles U. have 4 year degrees." is that verifiable? if not, don't post it! correct disclosure of percentages is very imporatnt in the field of medicine (incidence, prevalence, etc...) if the actual percentage is 91%, then you , again, irresponsibly and ignorantly reported data that is incorrect. if you are saying to yourself, "who cares? it's close enough! and what's the point?" you are not of the mind of a competent scientist or physician. you need to practice reporting valid and reliable data. not assumptions. however, collecting reliable data takes time. you are obviously not willing to take the time. which is ok. but, please don't report false, subjective, and confounded data if you aren't willing to spend the time, especially on a medical school website.