TO THE EDITOR:
You don’t learn how to treat patients by first treating patients.
A recent article in The Daily Tar Heel suggested that the first two years of medical education are both “a scam and a waste of resources.”
But put bluntly, patients do not present themselves as multiple choice questions. Medicine is both science and art. The preclinical may appear to emphasize the science, but students equally focus on the art.
The art of performing the basic physical exam, more fully developing and showing empathy, building confidence to ask very personal questions and refining the ability to uncover other important clues such as the social determinants of health. The faculty lectures in the preclinical years give you more than the script to solve a medical problem. They give context to and practice in thinking through real-life scenarios (it’s called “clinical reasoning” after all) before you are given real medical responsibility.
While the advancement of technology has improved the delivery of medical science instruction, it serves to enhance, but not replace, one’s baseline understanding of a subject matter.
While spaced repetition is indeed a validated method to learn, if one lacks the clinical context for the information, then one is just learning factoids you can deploy when you watch Jeopardy on the couch with friends and family.
And for those who don’t have the luxury of time and money, dedicating two years to full-time study without the benefit of university aid or scholarships poses a significant, if not insurmountable, barrier to many students. The formal university structure allows for a learning environment without holding down a job to provide the basics such as food, housing and health insurance.
I agree that learning from your medical role models during the first two years is a way to influence what your ultimate career will be and instill the set of values that will help guide the moral aspects of practicing medicine.