An interesting journalistic note was published in The nation on March 31, entitled “Expert: cadavers and microscopes are unnecessary when training doctors”, with an interview with Dr. Francisco Gutiérrez on medical education.
The views of the Mexican doctor were presented at a workshop for executives in the area of human health, which took place in March at the Harvard University School of Public Health.
Gutiérrez works with a network of universities associated with Arizona State University, which seeks curricular innovation in all professional areas.
The context of some opinions was not clear to me, although it is possibly due to the curricular difference between the teaching of Medicine in the United States and that of Costa Rica.
Admission to a medical school in the United States requires, among other requirements, that the student has previously obtained a university baccalaureate with an emphasis in a natural science, such as biology or chemistry.
In Costa Rica, first-year students enter Medicine once they have been accepted for the degree at the academic center in which they enroll. Something similar happens in law schools in the United States, where a bachelor’s degree in some social science is required as an admission criterion.
I remember with pleasure some anecdotes that Dr. Luis Guillermo Brenes Sobrado told me regarding his time studying for the university baccalaureate with an emphasis in Chemistry at Haverford College, in Pennsylvania, before starting Medicine at Temple University, also in Pennsylvania.
Dr. Brenes Sobrado was head of the Medicine Section of the San Juan de Dios Hospital. But returning to the article, Gutiérrez indicates that what is relevant for training is to eliminate what does not contribute, such as four semesters under the microscope: a doctor never uses the microscope once more. This excludes pathologists, obviously.
I imagine that the “four semesters in the microscope” might have meaning in the American curriculum, where students use microscopes in courses such as General Biology and Botany during the undergraduate stage (bachelor’s degree with an emphasis in Biology), and later, already in Medicine , in Histology and Pathology courses.
Technological developments can improve traditional teaching styles, at all levels and areas of knowledge. Gutiérrez says that imaging techniques would be very good for learning anatomy, and not just as a diagnostic tool.
It’s an excellent idea. Undoubtedly, when it comes to issues related to the cellular level (not tissues), electron microscopy images would be optimal as a pedagogical resource.
In short, I am of the opinion that some of Dr. Gutiérrez’s recommendations should be understood in terms of the curricular realities of the country so as not to create confusion either in society, in general, or in students who aspire to study Medicine.
This type of situation can also occur when a study plan abroad does not fit with the curricular objectives sought in Costa Rica.
I remember cases in which boys who graduated from high school with an emphasis in Chemistry or Biochemistry, also in the United States, did not receive the expected recognition here, because in the foreign university they did not teach courses such as Industrial Chemistry or sufficient analytical chemistry, more appropriate for professional practice. common in that country.
Parents and young people should be clear regarding the professional scenario in which they will develop in the country and think carefully regarding the convenience of studying in a foreign country at the undergraduate level.
julio.mata@ucr.ac.cr
The author is a professor at UCR.
