So - I’m in the midst of a debate with a friend. He believes that the ability to succeed during the first two years of medical school are good indicators of a doctor’s ability to be a good doctor. by good - he means both bedside manner and scientific knowledge. I’m arguing that while it is important to have the science background - the “art” of doctoring is highly undervalued. Is that just a defense mechanism on my part? I’m curious to hear what others think…
|QUOTE (kellykellykellysmith @ Mar 9 2003, 05:44 PM)|
|So - I'm in the midst of a debate with a friend. He believes that the ability to succeed during the first two years of medical school are good indicators of a doctor's ability to be a good doctor. by good - he means both bedside manner and scientific knowledge. I'm arguing that while it is important to have the science background - the "art" of doctoring is highly undervalued. Is that just a defense mechanism on my part? I'm curious to hear what others think....|
I am going to side with you on this one. While you need the scientific background and ability to practice good evidence based medicine, bedside manner and ability to communicate effectively with patients is an underappreciated art and not taught during your first two years of medical school. I can tell you that I have yet to find a patient who was interested in any of my grades in medical school. In fact, everything learned medical school has less to do with efficiency and ability during residency than work ethic and ability to get the job done. You have to get along with your colleagues and you have to be self-reliant. Even your colleagues don't care what your grades were or what your board scores are. If you are a fellow resident and you are a team player, you are going to be successful.
I was involved in a discussion with my fellow residents about this year's chief residents who are getting ready to leave the program. All are mature, knowledgeable and extremely well-trained. I know that at least one of them was AOA but you would never know it by the manner in which he carries himself. All are very willing to laugh at their short-comings and all strive to bring out the best in the junior resident corps. We can laugh and joke with each other but all of us know that when it get down to the trenches, we have each other's back. We have a couple of folks who are outside the loop but for the most part, you have to be willing to pick up and get the work done. Nowhere is that taught in medical school.
One thing that I learned during third and fourth year was that my colleagues who struggled with some of the first and second year courses were the best folks to work with during the clinical years. They appreciated help and were willing to pitch in for the team. The folks who did the best during first and second year were the ones that tended to be out the door first. In the end, you all will be as equal as the day you started classes.
I agree with Nat,
I don't think there is any correlation between success in the first two years of medical school and ability to be a good doctor. Medical testing pretty much just measures how well you can regurgitate the endless stream of information you are required to memorize. It doesn't measure analytical ability, judgement, and compassion. There might be a correlation between doing well and getting a high power residency (which still won't necessarily make you a better doctor) because board scores (especially Step I) seem to be one of the most important factors in the resident selection process.