> the "premed" undergraduate degree (which doesn't exist)
Yes there's no undergraduate major named "premed". There's no need to be pedantic. But US medical schools generally require a 4-year undergraduate degree (BA or BS) and certain coursework (biology and chemistry, among others). [1][2]
> will somehow lead to reduced healthcare costs
And yes, I'm saying that if it takes a couple years less to train a doctor - by letting them go directly to medical school after high school and doing the prereq coursework there over maybe 5.5-6 years instead of the current 4 - that will lead to lower healthcare costs. Not sure why that's so controversial of a statement. It's simple supply and demand.
> And yes, I'm saying that if it takes a couple years less to train a doctor - by letting them go directly to medical school after high school and doing the prereq coursework there over maybe 5.5-6 years instead of the current 4 - that will lead to lower healthcare costs. Not sure why that's so controversial of a statement. It's simple supply and demand.
It's "controversial" because you are conflating two issues.
Shortening the path will at most lead to a very minor supply increase at the time it is implemented; the gains don't compound. Without increasing the total number of admission spots (or more critically, residency slots), the overall supply will not be meaningfully increased.
Removing a prerequisite (bachelor's degree; which I point out in another comment is not actually required at many schools) is generally unrelated to the supply of US physicians and this is why you're getting pushback.
Yes you have to remove the other bottlenecks in the system too (I talked about residency spots in another comment). This seems like an easy win without any accusations of lowering standards.
> the gains don't compound
You give doctors, on average, an additional 2 years of their life to practice medicine instead of spending them in college on a pointless degree (not to mention, slightly lower college debt when starting out). Multiply that over however many doctors we graduate every year, and it'll add up over time. It's not "compounding" in the mathematical sense of the word, obviously. If you assume that a medical career is about 35 years, that's like an 8% increase in available doctor-years over 35 years (or something like that - the math is a bit handwavy). Without doing literally anything else.
I saw your other comment about degree requirements and I'll respond here. In addition to the consulting website, I also looked at Johns Hopkins and they do have a degree requirement. Thanks for providing that counter-example. I wasn't aware and I'll update my understanding of this.
However, your own source said "a baccalaureate degree...is strongly preferred". So it has to be asked - how many non bachelor's degree holders actually get into med school?
Every US-trained doctor I've had has gotten a bachelor's degree (I read bios when they're available). The ones that don't were foreign-trained. If the number of med school applicants greatly exceeds the spots, I'd imagine nearly all serious applicants are going to get a bachelor's degree to improve their chances. It sounds like you're a doctor - what proportion of people in your class got in without a bachelor's degree?
Yes there's no undergraduate major named "premed". There's no need to be pedantic. But US medical schools generally require a 4-year undergraduate degree (BA or BS) and certain coursework (biology and chemistry, among others). [1][2]
> will somehow lead to reduced healthcare costs
And yes, I'm saying that if it takes a couple years less to train a doctor - by letting them go directly to medical school after high school and doing the prereq coursework there over maybe 5.5-6 years instead of the current 4 - that will lead to lower healthcare costs. Not sure why that's so controversial of a statement. It's simple supply and demand.
1. https://www.shemmassianconsulting.com/blog/medical-school-re...
2. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/education-programs/md-pr...