Maybe I'm straying from pediatric subject matter to make this comment. But I can't be the first one to wonder if the 4 years of medical school are absolutely necessary. Are all the basic science courses with labs taught by research oriented PhD's really the ideal way for MD students to learn science? Couldn't these courses be taught on an undergrad level and made requirements to apply to med school? I imagine the whole 4 year curriculum could be revised and updated. Maybe a year or so could be eliminated.
Of course, it could never happen. Grants and funding for basic research seems to be inseparable from the goals of training future clinicians (does it really have to be that way?) There are powerful entrenched interests in the medical education system and the politics is really intense. This is something I noticed when I was employed by a medical school for a few years after graduation. The cardiologist for whom I was coordinating a clinical trial liked to read espionage novels (the John Grisham equivalents of the late 70's) because he said they reminded him of the medical school.
Stephanie Walker FNP
I think that when
> tries to say that the average NP is just as good as the average
> it is an insult to every doctor who had to bust their hump
> through 4
> years of medical school and then work crazy hours and shifts
> residency. When NP school is a 4 year program + a 3 year
> residency is
> the day that I will start to compare NPs to doctors or
> alternatively we
> can shorten the MD program -- I don't think that idea will get
> much support from the public.