There's plenty of time for that when you're doing postgraduate work (and to a lesser extent third year, if you take the research project or capstone subjects in Biomedicine etc.). They can push skills but ultimately when you don't know anything about biochemistry, you need to actually learn that and not how to think creatively. Creative thinking doesn't help you interpret Michaelis/Menten whatevers. When you can do that, you can start developing abilities with broad application. There's no point asking a second year student to apply the scientific method to explain T cell migration in the thymus when they don't know what the heck an AIRE is.
I grabbed the exam paper for the last core subject in biomedicine (3rd year, 2nd semester) and it has a slightly decreased focus on rote learning eg
It's a neuroanatomy and pharmacology question that requires memory work but you also get some extra marks if you can synthesize a few social factors into your answer to part b and demonstrate breadth of thought.
Look I do think they're trying and in MCB in particular where it's nigh impossible to have time to breathe let alone to think. There's just too much of an emphasis on minute details really.
It is a cop out to give second years a tonne of content to rote learn rather than trying to have them engage with the material they're learning. First and second year are exactly where the principles should be coming out, where you're learning to apply scientific method etc. Undergrad is set up for people who can rote learn, not necessarily the people who are good scientists. It means that by the time you get to postgrad, all you've got left are the rote learners sadly.
That said, Biomed does feed into med, where you do really need to know you're shit (literally too). So from that perspective an element of rote learning is, of course, vital. A lot of subjects just take it over the top.
What about in other subjects (if the immuno lecturers teach any other subjects)? I'm asking because I'm wondering if they actually teach something that is aligned with their belief of good science, or whether they just carry on disliking the way they teach aspects of MCB (until all they have left is a profound annoyance with the subject...).
That seems so harsh to doctors. At least, I'm sure there are amazing thinkers in every field, and even in a field involving high amounts of memory work, the ability to think is what would make one competent (at least, it's how I would feel able to actually do something.)
The problem is that it's so tricky to do, particularly when you have to lecture. Trying to do anything other than throw facts at people in a lecture is nearly impossible. A hell of a lot of lecturers would much rather be working with the students in smaller groups, in a lab etc. Obviously that's not feasible, so they have to find something to teach and that's essentially facts. Without interaction, you really can't teach people to think. It's bizarre really. Stacks of literature says "oi, unis, lectures are shit", but because they're cheap, they'll keep them.
It did seem a bit harsh to doctors, I agree. There's an element of truth to it though, even though it was expressed poorly. Medicine requires a lot of rote learning, but it also does involve a lot of creative thinking and logical thinking. Science as a career probably requires less rote to be successful and is particularly demanding of flexible thinking.
Home
Help
Search
Login
