I'm going to say that the chickens of remote learning have come home to roost. My daughter is a grad student at a large university, teaching basic algebra courses to undergrads. This is material she learned in her 2nd year of high school. The students are struggling. Not just her students, but across the board. A friend who teaches at a private high school ($$$) said Zoom school was almost a farce. The students could skip, cheat, do poorly on tests, and they still received a passing grade because it seemed unfair to fail them. Now they are in college. (And armed with the weapons of cancel culture.)
Vinay, I think you have unintentionally fingered the actual value of orgo and other pre-medical requirements (for me, it was calculus). You've got to find a way around the obstacles. In orgo's case it is an obscure niche of science that very few professions actually use. However, some professors have figured out or developed a way to acquire an understanding of benzene rings and cis and trans configuration. You may have to spend time acquiring and understanding this knowledge rather than just memorizing it. That's what medical professionals do all the time. Learning CH bonds actually links the learning ability to medicine even if the practicioner can't say they use the knowledge day to day. They will have learned how to develop the understanding.
I have been counseling undergrad and medical students for decades. They all have ALWAYS complained about the same thing: "this is not relevant to what I am going to do" or "it is stupid to learn this (fill in the blank) when I am going to do (fill in a different blank)". And "this class is really hard and taking it is destroying my other classes/medical school chances/love live/whatever".
I have always told them, and you miss the point in your piece, that most of what you learn before you get to your final professional training is learning how to think, how to cope, and how to triumph over adversity. When we actually used incoming grades and compared them to performance in medical school (which has now been replaced with demographics and SJW score, sadly) orgo was the best correlated with general performance in medical school. Yes, you do not need to retain fine details about orgo to succeed in medicine. But you do not need to retain fine details about anything to succeed in life -- you just need to know how to optimize what you get.
I once gave a commencement address at a university where the point of my address was that, other than those graduating with accounting or nursing degrees, the only important course graduates took vis-à-vis content was English 101. This made me a real hero in the English department and did not help my standing elsewhere. But I stand by it. Learning to read and write competent, advanced-level English is the primary subject-based takeaway (assuming you get there) from a college education. But the bigger takeaway is "Have you learned to survive and thrive in an environment that is out to make sure you can think, can improvise, and can be compared to your peers and excel?"
I disagree with Vinay on point 3. He must have hated organic...for that matter, it wasn't much fun for me either, although I aced it. But it taught me different ways to think and gave me a baseline for biochemistry and, surprisingly, for some clinical insights from time to time, too.
If all we want is PA's with pretend MD degrees, why bother with ANY of the other college courses? Or most of the medical school basic science courses? Two years of OJT and you, too, can go to California and under 2098 just follow the government diktats about what to do for each patient -- who cares if you can think? (This was the state of medical education before Flexner, incidentally.) Many people seem to think that would be great, and both college and medical school are being dumbed down to the point that this is likely what we will get anyway, but that does not make it right.
My peers and I have solemnly vowed to care for each other until the last of us dies. Too many of the people being turned out of medical school these days are marginally or frankly incompetent. (If it is all based on "feelings" and "demographics" and pass/fail, this is what you get.) Understanding how to overcome hurdles (as Vinay appropriately emphasizes) for one's patients is much of the practice of medicine. One has to understand how to do this in life in general before being able to do this for patients. It is a journey, and the tough organic course is part of the trip.
I did medical school oversees and Biochemistry was considered the most difficult pre-med course with guaranteed 35- 40% fail rate every semester.
I cannot imagine studying medicine without knowing the basics of organic chemistry. You may forget the non clinical details later but you build the foundation of your medical knowledge by learning chemistry first.
100% agree with how students and residents and fellows are coddled. They present their pts at morning rounds reading from someone else’s notes , without even having examined the patient, and not knowing any details of the history..
If I hadn’t spin the urine sample of my Overnight admit patient with kidney failure and had not looked at the urine sediment under microscope myself in the laboratory in the basement of the hospital in the middle of the night, I would be ripped apart by attending physicians in the morning report! Different times….
I hope organic chemistry isn't just about memorization. Like most physical sciences - and I speak from a background of electrical engineering - it's about assimilating concepts based on fundamental principles, to build ever more complex models that describe physical reality. And THAT, is an important skill to have, especially if you're going into a profession that is reality based like the hard sciences, and medicine.
What you say about ochem applies to 90% (95%?) of school in general, from elementary onwards. It’s 20+ years of regurgitating useless concepts just to prove to adults that you are smart enough and disciplined enough to learn/memorize/study those subjects … but almost none are taught with an eye towards lasting wisdom or meaning in life, it’s just about proving yourself on standardized tests. Finally as an adult you are free to realize how pitifully uneducated you are and to start reading good books and learning wisdom.
So be careful, because if you take ochem out, the whole edifice of modern education is gonna follow.
(I write this as someone who was so good at ochem I tutored my fellow premeds in it… I remember nothing and use precisely zero ochem as a working doctor of course)
Ha! I upgraded to a paid subscription just to be able to post a comment. Most expensive comment of my life!
I read all comments on this article, and there are many good points made (1) for and against orgo as a "litmus test" for the aspiring docs and (2) about the damages caused by remote delivery of course content via Zoom or equivalent. I'm going to share my perspective, which I hope to be of some worth.
I'm one of those who teach Organic Chemistry at the post-secondary level. I have a PhD in Organic Synthesis, 10 years of pharmaceutical research in the "little" pharma (y'know, start-ups, biotechs...) and 16 years of teaching experience (I'm not involved in research anymore). I worked in companies that were spin-offs from research done at CalTech, Scripps and the University of British Columbia, Canada.
Over the years, many of my students were pre-med. I tend to poll my classes early in the term to figure out how many are heading for med school. I often have the opportunity to develop a closer relationship with some of them (they tend to be the ones coming to see me during office hours). I often joke to them that I'm the doorman of med school. If you want to go in, you have to pass through me first (after reading the last sentence, I think I will change to "bouncer"!). As some have commented, I do find that some of the skills acquired through Organic Chemistry courses are highly transferrable to the practice of medicine, even if the subject matter itself may not be always directly applicable. I will give two examples: (1) one of the topics studied is spectroscopy. Students learn how to interpret nuclear magnetic resonance spectra, infrared spectra and mass spectra, and from the spectra, propose the likely structure of an unknown compound. I often emphasize to the pre-meds that while they will probably never do this type of interpretation again, the skill of "reading" these graphs and inferring from them is the same one needed to evaluate an ECG or to provide a course of action based on results of lab exams. (2) I have a background in Organic Synthesis and Medicinal Chemistry. Organic synthesis is a fascinating subject, because is the original molecular engineering: "how do I, in the lab, put this molecule together, a molecule that nature produces apparently effortlessly through clever biosynthetic pathways". So I offer my students these challenges. Of course, appropriate for their level and resources; but I try to tell them that they have a chemical toolbox, and they should learn what each tool does, its limitations, and be aware of other similar tools. Which is not much different from what many of you here do: you see the issue at hand, you pull the tool from your toolbox, and you apply it. My approach to teaching Organic Chemistry echoes one of the comments: I push hard the idea that the number oc "concepts" they have to learn is relatively small when compared to the number of chemical species to that they can be applied)
(Personal medical story on the "toolbox" concept: as a teenager, I developed a painful condition on the side of my right foot's heel. It was painful at night, and a misstep would result in severe pain for hours. The orthopedic specialist was certain that it was some sort of inflammation and I had rounds of very painful cortisone injections; the last felt like this gentleman had hit my foot with a hammer. A second opinion from another specialist quickly revealed an osteoid osteoma, and a quick surgical procedure got rid of it and the pain. Obviously, the first doc did not have an adequate organic chemist bouncer, and his toolbox only had a hammer...)
With respect to remote content delivery, if it's done right, it is not much different from a regular course, but it is not appropriate for most students. I took a course in 2020 on how to properly set up a remote delivery course (notice that I'm not using the term "online course". My courses at that time were not "online courses". They were designed as remotely delivered, synchronous courses). For students that thrive on independent work and don't have the time to physically attend classes, online degrees can be a blessing (Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada, is an "online" university, self-paced). Remotely teaching Organic Chemistry was challenging, and I like think I did a reasonable job; I have no interest in doing it again.
Finally, about the quality of students. This past summer, as part of my self-imposed regular quality control program, I looked into whether or not there has been a reduction in grades. My courses' content are pretty consistent, and while there are always new tests to be prepared, the subjects and level of mastering are pretty much set in stone. So I looked into 14 years worth of grades from my courses, with scores of students. There were some noticeable moments, particularly during the early part of the data (2008/2009), which was a "low", and then the remote delivery period (2020/2021) with another "low". Overall, a simple linear regression of the grade average for each year indicates a small but noticeable decline in grades, with an R square that would not get this published anywhere. So, I have to see what these next few crops of students will reveal.
I hope I contributed positively to the conversation. As the joke goes, one still calls the lowest grade graduate at med-school a "doctor" (probably got a C in orgo...). Let us, the med-school bouncers, do our job!
It is amazing that the "everyone gets a trophy" philosophy persists. About 10 years ago, I had a mental health client who told me that he first became jaded about accomplishment of any kind at 13, when he earned a trophy in a sport, but then saw that all the participants received the same trophy, despite their lesser accomplishment. Like a lot of smart young people encouraged to pretend stupidity, he started using drugs and eventually died of an overdose by age 18. It is heartbreaking to think about the number of young people like him, with great potential, succumbing to depression and hopelessness inspired by this foolish, "everyone is the same" philosophy and the fools that continue to insist the y are "helping kids".
Many years ago I was a pre-med student. One day I looked at the long list of things we had to master academically and the people who were aggressively studying and making grades, and it simply did not match up with either the times (the 60's) nor doctors, of whom I knew many, most of them not that good. I have had good and terrible chemistry and biology teachers, but they hardly connected personally with students, unlike a high school chemistry teacher who created an actual passion for the topic at hand. It's a numbers game if you're a lecturer. Some excel, some get by, some never learn. Distance learning is not that good for discipline. Jump forward to modern times. I've visited many MD's, gotten tested, analyzed and prodded from the Mayo Clinic to Free Clinic to HMO's. A very small percentage of MDs are really any good, many have no idea but are socially adept at enforcing the view that, somehow, they are "gods" worthy of respect and worship. What a pile of crap.
Speaking of figuring out how to succeed, I found a nice in business school. it was rocky and irregular but taught me critical lessons. One year of depression was solved by a simply observant psych counselor who told me to get a girlfriend and have a sex life, while she bummed a couple of cigarettes off me. Another was in my senior year of a 3 part statistics course (which was practically useless and extremely boring) when I failed a critical exam, got called in by a prof and told I would have to re-take it on the spot-take it or leave. Having a more normalized life and girlfriend since the 1st test, I handily aced every single question (different from the 1st test) in record time.
The only moral of the story: do what you find you are good at. Don't complain. Adapt. Pursue your real interests, and serve others through that. Ignore the horrible social strata of encrusted professionalism, it's nonsense if it doesn't produce results. MD's of every stripe need to learn a lot more about what was far more common before specialization dominated the fields of medical work: people, their actual medical issues and causes and solutions. Not all solutions are in a textbook or injection or pills. In fact, most are not.
Keep writing, bring sanity to the medical world through excellence and truth.
" A generation raised on participation trophies gone mad.
When I was a student, it would be unthinkable to submit a petition like this. When I was a student if you got a bad grade, you blamed yourself first and foremost. And you set out to do better. And I've had many s***** teachers. Teachers that were incompetent and inept, some even had the wrong answers to questions. What did I do? I didn't complain about it. I figured out a way to outsmart the system and still get a good grade. Because that's what it takes to succeed in life. That's the real secret." - ive read this paragraph 10 times. music to my ears.
Agree. I would add that pre med and medical school would have served me better with more epidemiology, statistics (boring), business (how to run a practice), legal (how to review contracts, malpractice), journal clubs, exposure to wider economic issues with patients, healthcare management, societal discussions, comparison of different health plans in the world (far and balance not indoctrination), etc. Biochemistry should be basic with those interested in going on to research or pharmacology to take separate advanced classes.
^Source of the story was that NYT article. It's not just that the kids were getting bad grades. They were getting 0s. They wanted zoom classes after in person learning resumed, which he didn't offer, and he gave a reasonable answer why that wasn't feasible.
Imagine being more afraid of in person learning than your 82 year old professor.
Why didn't he offer zoom of in-person instruction? Because he already made online courses with hundreds of hours of video lectures for them during the initial lockdown, and they still didn't bother to watch them (according to him, they didn't comment to refute).
We as a society have lost the ability to take perspective. Sadly we choose to “cancel” rather than reflect and learn. As with many issues, this is probably more complex than it is on face value yet we have lost the ability to think critically and readjust. Instead we chose to cancel which in the end is the real problem.
I'm going to say that the chickens of remote learning have come home to roost. My daughter is a grad student at a large university, teaching basic algebra courses to undergrads. This is material she learned in her 2nd year of high school. The students are struggling. Not just her students, but across the board. A friend who teaches at a private high school ($$$) said Zoom school was almost a farce. The students could skip, cheat, do poorly on tests, and they still received a passing grade because it seemed unfair to fail them. Now they are in college. (And armed with the weapons of cancel culture.)
Vinay, I think you have unintentionally fingered the actual value of orgo and other pre-medical requirements (for me, it was calculus). You've got to find a way around the obstacles. In orgo's case it is an obscure niche of science that very few professions actually use. However, some professors have figured out or developed a way to acquire an understanding of benzene rings and cis and trans configuration. You may have to spend time acquiring and understanding this knowledge rather than just memorizing it. That's what medical professionals do all the time. Learning CH bonds actually links the learning ability to medicine even if the practicioner can't say they use the knowledge day to day. They will have learned how to develop the understanding.
I have been counseling undergrad and medical students for decades. They all have ALWAYS complained about the same thing: "this is not relevant to what I am going to do" or "it is stupid to learn this (fill in the blank) when I am going to do (fill in a different blank)". And "this class is really hard and taking it is destroying my other classes/medical school chances/love live/whatever".
I have always told them, and you miss the point in your piece, that most of what you learn before you get to your final professional training is learning how to think, how to cope, and how to triumph over adversity. When we actually used incoming grades and compared them to performance in medical school (which has now been replaced with demographics and SJW score, sadly) orgo was the best correlated with general performance in medical school. Yes, you do not need to retain fine details about orgo to succeed in medicine. But you do not need to retain fine details about anything to succeed in life -- you just need to know how to optimize what you get.
I once gave a commencement address at a university where the point of my address was that, other than those graduating with accounting or nursing degrees, the only important course graduates took vis-à-vis content was English 101. This made me a real hero in the English department and did not help my standing elsewhere. But I stand by it. Learning to read and write competent, advanced-level English is the primary subject-based takeaway (assuming you get there) from a college education. But the bigger takeaway is "Have you learned to survive and thrive in an environment that is out to make sure you can think, can improvise, and can be compared to your peers and excel?"
I disagree with Vinay on point 3. He must have hated organic...for that matter, it wasn't much fun for me either, although I aced it. But it taught me different ways to think and gave me a baseline for biochemistry and, surprisingly, for some clinical insights from time to time, too.
If all we want is PA's with pretend MD degrees, why bother with ANY of the other college courses? Or most of the medical school basic science courses? Two years of OJT and you, too, can go to California and under 2098 just follow the government diktats about what to do for each patient -- who cares if you can think? (This was the state of medical education before Flexner, incidentally.) Many people seem to think that would be great, and both college and medical school are being dumbed down to the point that this is likely what we will get anyway, but that does not make it right.
My peers and I have solemnly vowed to care for each other until the last of us dies. Too many of the people being turned out of medical school these days are marginally or frankly incompetent. (If it is all based on "feelings" and "demographics" and pass/fail, this is what you get.) Understanding how to overcome hurdles (as Vinay appropriately emphasizes) for one's patients is much of the practice of medicine. One has to understand how to do this in life in general before being able to do this for patients. It is a journey, and the tough organic course is part of the trip.
I did medical school oversees and Biochemistry was considered the most difficult pre-med course with guaranteed 35- 40% fail rate every semester.
I cannot imagine studying medicine without knowing the basics of organic chemistry. You may forget the non clinical details later but you build the foundation of your medical knowledge by learning chemistry first.
100% agree with how students and residents and fellows are coddled. They present their pts at morning rounds reading from someone else’s notes , without even having examined the patient, and not knowing any details of the history..
If I hadn’t spin the urine sample of my Overnight admit patient with kidney failure and had not looked at the urine sediment under microscope myself in the laboratory in the basement of the hospital in the middle of the night, I would be ripped apart by attending physicians in the morning report! Different times….
I hope organic chemistry isn't just about memorization. Like most physical sciences - and I speak from a background of electrical engineering - it's about assimilating concepts based on fundamental principles, to build ever more complex models that describe physical reality. And THAT, is an important skill to have, especially if you're going into a profession that is reality based like the hard sciences, and medicine.
What you say about ochem applies to 90% (95%?) of school in general, from elementary onwards. It’s 20+ years of regurgitating useless concepts just to prove to adults that you are smart enough and disciplined enough to learn/memorize/study those subjects … but almost none are taught with an eye towards lasting wisdom or meaning in life, it’s just about proving yourself on standardized tests. Finally as an adult you are free to realize how pitifully uneducated you are and to start reading good books and learning wisdom.
So be careful, because if you take ochem out, the whole edifice of modern education is gonna follow.
(I write this as someone who was so good at ochem I tutored my fellow premeds in it… I remember nothing and use precisely zero ochem as a working doctor of course)
Coincidentally this is the first class of NYU students who were SAT optional. Is the medical profession still salvageable? There are so many who have done so much harm: https://open.substack.com/pub/yuribezmenov/p/how-to-do-no-harm-part-2?r=12n5dp&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Ha! I upgraded to a paid subscription just to be able to post a comment. Most expensive comment of my life!
I read all comments on this article, and there are many good points made (1) for and against orgo as a "litmus test" for the aspiring docs and (2) about the damages caused by remote delivery of course content via Zoom or equivalent. I'm going to share my perspective, which I hope to be of some worth.
I'm one of those who teach Organic Chemistry at the post-secondary level. I have a PhD in Organic Synthesis, 10 years of pharmaceutical research in the "little" pharma (y'know, start-ups, biotechs...) and 16 years of teaching experience (I'm not involved in research anymore). I worked in companies that were spin-offs from research done at CalTech, Scripps and the University of British Columbia, Canada.
Over the years, many of my students were pre-med. I tend to poll my classes early in the term to figure out how many are heading for med school. I often have the opportunity to develop a closer relationship with some of them (they tend to be the ones coming to see me during office hours). I often joke to them that I'm the doorman of med school. If you want to go in, you have to pass through me first (after reading the last sentence, I think I will change to "bouncer"!). As some have commented, I do find that some of the skills acquired through Organic Chemistry courses are highly transferrable to the practice of medicine, even if the subject matter itself may not be always directly applicable. I will give two examples: (1) one of the topics studied is spectroscopy. Students learn how to interpret nuclear magnetic resonance spectra, infrared spectra and mass spectra, and from the spectra, propose the likely structure of an unknown compound. I often emphasize to the pre-meds that while they will probably never do this type of interpretation again, the skill of "reading" these graphs and inferring from them is the same one needed to evaluate an ECG or to provide a course of action based on results of lab exams. (2) I have a background in Organic Synthesis and Medicinal Chemistry. Organic synthesis is a fascinating subject, because is the original molecular engineering: "how do I, in the lab, put this molecule together, a molecule that nature produces apparently effortlessly through clever biosynthetic pathways". So I offer my students these challenges. Of course, appropriate for their level and resources; but I try to tell them that they have a chemical toolbox, and they should learn what each tool does, its limitations, and be aware of other similar tools. Which is not much different from what many of you here do: you see the issue at hand, you pull the tool from your toolbox, and you apply it. My approach to teaching Organic Chemistry echoes one of the comments: I push hard the idea that the number oc "concepts" they have to learn is relatively small when compared to the number of chemical species to that they can be applied)
(Personal medical story on the "toolbox" concept: as a teenager, I developed a painful condition on the side of my right foot's heel. It was painful at night, and a misstep would result in severe pain for hours. The orthopedic specialist was certain that it was some sort of inflammation and I had rounds of very painful cortisone injections; the last felt like this gentleman had hit my foot with a hammer. A second opinion from another specialist quickly revealed an osteoid osteoma, and a quick surgical procedure got rid of it and the pain. Obviously, the first doc did not have an adequate organic chemist bouncer, and his toolbox only had a hammer...)
With respect to remote content delivery, if it's done right, it is not much different from a regular course, but it is not appropriate for most students. I took a course in 2020 on how to properly set up a remote delivery course (notice that I'm not using the term "online course". My courses at that time were not "online courses". They were designed as remotely delivered, synchronous courses). For students that thrive on independent work and don't have the time to physically attend classes, online degrees can be a blessing (Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada, is an "online" university, self-paced). Remotely teaching Organic Chemistry was challenging, and I like think I did a reasonable job; I have no interest in doing it again.
Finally, about the quality of students. This past summer, as part of my self-imposed regular quality control program, I looked into whether or not there has been a reduction in grades. My courses' content are pretty consistent, and while there are always new tests to be prepared, the subjects and level of mastering are pretty much set in stone. So I looked into 14 years worth of grades from my courses, with scores of students. There were some noticeable moments, particularly during the early part of the data (2008/2009), which was a "low", and then the remote delivery period (2020/2021) with another "low". Overall, a simple linear regression of the grade average for each year indicates a small but noticeable decline in grades, with an R square that would not get this published anywhere. So, I have to see what these next few crops of students will reveal.
I hope I contributed positively to the conversation. As the joke goes, one still calls the lowest grade graduate at med-school a "doctor" (probably got a C in orgo...). Let us, the med-school bouncers, do our job!
Cheers!
It is amazing that the "everyone gets a trophy" philosophy persists. About 10 years ago, I had a mental health client who told me that he first became jaded about accomplishment of any kind at 13, when he earned a trophy in a sport, but then saw that all the participants received the same trophy, despite their lesser accomplishment. Like a lot of smart young people encouraged to pretend stupidity, he started using drugs and eventually died of an overdose by age 18. It is heartbreaking to think about the number of young people like him, with great potential, succumbing to depression and hopelessness inspired by this foolish, "everyone is the same" philosophy and the fools that continue to insist the y are "helping kids".
This is tragic. Why? Often the most talented teachers are also the most difficult.
Many years ago I was a pre-med student. One day I looked at the long list of things we had to master academically and the people who were aggressively studying and making grades, and it simply did not match up with either the times (the 60's) nor doctors, of whom I knew many, most of them not that good. I have had good and terrible chemistry and biology teachers, but they hardly connected personally with students, unlike a high school chemistry teacher who created an actual passion for the topic at hand. It's a numbers game if you're a lecturer. Some excel, some get by, some never learn. Distance learning is not that good for discipline. Jump forward to modern times. I've visited many MD's, gotten tested, analyzed and prodded from the Mayo Clinic to Free Clinic to HMO's. A very small percentage of MDs are really any good, many have no idea but are socially adept at enforcing the view that, somehow, they are "gods" worthy of respect and worship. What a pile of crap.
Speaking of figuring out how to succeed, I found a nice in business school. it was rocky and irregular but taught me critical lessons. One year of depression was solved by a simply observant psych counselor who told me to get a girlfriend and have a sex life, while she bummed a couple of cigarettes off me. Another was in my senior year of a 3 part statistics course (which was practically useless and extremely boring) when I failed a critical exam, got called in by a prof and told I would have to re-take it on the spot-take it or leave. Having a more normalized life and girlfriend since the 1st test, I handily aced every single question (different from the 1st test) in record time.
The only moral of the story: do what you find you are good at. Don't complain. Adapt. Pursue your real interests, and serve others through that. Ignore the horrible social strata of encrusted professionalism, it's nonsense if it doesn't produce results. MD's of every stripe need to learn a lot more about what was far more common before specialization dominated the fields of medical work: people, their actual medical issues and causes and solutions. Not all solutions are in a textbook or injection or pills. In fact, most are not.
Keep writing, bring sanity to the medical world through excellence and truth.
" A generation raised on participation trophies gone mad.
When I was a student, it would be unthinkable to submit a petition like this. When I was a student if you got a bad grade, you blamed yourself first and foremost. And you set out to do better. And I've had many s***** teachers. Teachers that were incompetent and inept, some even had the wrong answers to questions. What did I do? I didn't complain about it. I figured out a way to outsmart the system and still get a good grade. Because that's what it takes to succeed in life. That's the real secret." - ive read this paragraph 10 times. music to my ears.
The coddling of the American Mind (Lukianoff/Haidt) comes to mind. BTW O-chem hasn’t helped me in life’s pursuits.
Agree. I would add that pre med and medical school would have served me better with more epidemiology, statistics (boring), business (how to run a practice), legal (how to review contracts, malpractice), journal clubs, exposure to wider economic issues with patients, healthcare management, societal discussions, comparison of different health plans in the world (far and balance not indoctrination), etc. Biochemistry should be basic with those interested in going on to research or pharmacology to take separate advanced classes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/03/us/nyu-organic-chemistry-petition.html
^Source of the story was that NYT article. It's not just that the kids were getting bad grades. They were getting 0s. They wanted zoom classes after in person learning resumed, which he didn't offer, and he gave a reasonable answer why that wasn't feasible.
Imagine being more afraid of in person learning than your 82 year old professor.
Why didn't he offer zoom of in-person instruction? Because he already made online courses with hundreds of hours of video lectures for them during the initial lockdown, and they still didn't bother to watch them (according to him, they didn't comment to refute).
We as a society have lost the ability to take perspective. Sadly we choose to “cancel” rather than reflect and learn. As with many issues, this is probably more complex than it is on face value yet we have lost the ability to think critically and readjust. Instead we chose to cancel which in the end is the real problem.