Feeling sad your university is not highly ranked? Don't be.
The university ranking methodology may be scientifically sound, however universities themselves are so widely different in terms of set up, adminstration, purpose, level of funding that the outcome is not very meaningful.
Some universities are mainly teaching universities- their objective may to consistently produce highly trained professionals for the purpose of service to the general public. These universities tend to typically have more undergraduate students and a smaller number of postgraduate students.
Some are research universities the main functions of these are to generate new knowledge. These universities tend to be in the public eye because they constantly publish their findings in professional journals and sometimes get reported in the mass media.
Most universities tend to be a mix of both, leaning either way.
So it is really impossible to rank universities. But it is fun anyway when someone takes the trouble to do a compilation. Enjoy reading!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
Journal reading
Journals usually refer to periodicals/publications usually of an academic nature. Its readership is usually restricted to members of the profession or related fields. However with the increase in internet use and emergence of free access journals, the general public too now have access to and do read these scholarly publications.
- The publishers of journals range from commercial book publishers-like the one publishing you text books to those published by learned societies.
- Journals range from subscription only (you must pay to buy a copy) to those freely available online.
- Some are "peer reviewed" and others are not.
- You can also start your own journal!
Work flow for journal publication:
- Scientist/ doctors do research and write up their findings
- Write up sent to editor of journal
- Editor sends your write up for peer review (this is review by other researcher/experts in the field you are writing about).
- Editor either accepts or rejects your paper. Sometimes they ask you to make modifications and resubmit.
- You get letter of acceptance and your research work gets published.
- If your research gets rejected to might want to send it to another journal and the process starts all over again.
A word of caution when journal reading:
- Not everything published in a journal should be accepted as "fact"-even if is published in a very reputed journal
- Errors, misinterpretation and falsification of data are well known occurrences.
- "Peer review" is NOT a form of guarantee / quality control measure.
- Quite often research is done by postgraduate students who are supervised-the extent of supervision is of course not known !
- Many of those engaged in medical research are not doctors!
Should I read from journals or textbooks?
Ok. This one is difficult to answer because educators tend to feel that at university level students should be reading mainly or at least as much as possible from original sources ie journals.
But I think an exception should be made for medicine.
Typically most medical students will cover about 20 main /core subjects over a 5 year period. In addition to this they will have a large number of practical classess / clinical sessions. All this adds up to a huge amount of time.
Firstly not being a doctor yet, it is likely that you will not have a clear idea about the area you want to cover and to the depth of knowledge you will need.
To try and satisfactorily cover a topic just by reading journals is a time consuming and tedious task, not to mention your that your medical library will probably not subscribe to every single medical journal! This will invariably lead to "gaps" in your knowledge.
So in this instance my advise would be:
But I think an exception should be made for medicine.
Typically most medical students will cover about 20 main /core subjects over a 5 year period. In addition to this they will have a large number of practical classess / clinical sessions. All this adds up to a huge amount of time.
Firstly not being a doctor yet, it is likely that you will not have a clear idea about the area you want to cover and to the depth of knowledge you will need.
To try and satisfactorily cover a topic just by reading journals is a time consuming and tedious task, not to mention your that your medical library will probably not subscribe to every single medical journal! This will invariably lead to "gaps" in your knowledge.
So in this instance my advise would be:
- Read a small concise textbook before the lecture class- this will give you an overview of the entire topic quickly
- concentrate during the lecture class/ practicals etc- these tend to give you a broad outline as to the area to be covered, important topics and the depth of knowledge needed.
- Read a more detailed "standard/ recommended" textbook.
- Practise writing out answers for past year questions-not necessarily only those from your medical school.
Pick a few oft repeated questions and do a bit of journal reading on this. If you do happen to get asked these questions especially for a viva-voce you will be able to impress the examiner!
Help ! my lecturer doesn't know everything
Yup, your lecturer doesn't know everything. Medicine comprises a huge body of constantly evolving knowledge. Most doctors (medical lecturers) are very selective about how much of that they plan to use to treat patients or teach to undergraduates. So quite often if you ask your lecturer something deemed too detailed or perhaps unnecessary for a medical student you will be politely steered away from such level of detail.
On the other hand you sometimes come across students whose "basic knowledge" of the topic is shaky but the student seems very interested in the minute details. This sort of student is very worrying. It is almost as if they cannot see the woods for the trees.
Lecturers however tend to be more eager to discuss this minutae with postgraduate students. Somehow there seems to be less risk of confusing a postgraduate than an undergraduate student. Probably because postgraduates students are qualified doctors themselves and will treat all information with a degree of caution just like the lecturers themselves.
Next post: should I read from journals and textbooks?
On the other hand you sometimes come across students whose "basic knowledge" of the topic is shaky but the student seems very interested in the minute details. This sort of student is very worrying. It is almost as if they cannot see the woods for the trees.
Lecturers however tend to be more eager to discuss this minutae with postgraduate students. Somehow there seems to be less risk of confusing a postgraduate than an undergraduate student. Probably because postgraduates students are qualified doctors themselves and will treat all information with a degree of caution just like the lecturers themselves.
Next post: should I read from journals and textbooks?
In the good old days
Medical lecturers have this unpleasant habit of refering to their glorious past. Somehow or other they were always harder working, smarter, more responsible than you are. So is it true?
In a way those who are now in their 50's and 60's did have a better education than you. The study methods they used in school closely matched that used in university. So basically they entered university better prepared than you.
Most medical students today are of the "work book/ assessment book/ tuition/ model answer" generation. You probably have never had to read proper textbooks and reference books to formulate answers to past year questions. They were given to you at the back of workbooks or as model answers by your teacher. So basically you come into university disadvantaged- through no fault of your own.
Are your lecturers smarter than you? Probably not. Don't forget that your lecturers have had many years since qualifying to rectify their mistakes and acquire new knowledge. So if at all they appear smarter it is due to "the passage of time".
Are your lecturers more responsible than you? Definately yes. They have a practising licence to lose if they are careless. You on the other hand don't have much to lose except your time and fees.
In a way those who are now in their 50's and 60's did have a better education than you. The study methods they used in school closely matched that used in university. So basically they entered university better prepared than you.
Most medical students today are of the "work book/ assessment book/ tuition/ model answer" generation. You probably have never had to read proper textbooks and reference books to formulate answers to past year questions. They were given to you at the back of workbooks or as model answers by your teacher. So basically you come into university disadvantaged- through no fault of your own.
Are your lecturers smarter than you? Probably not. Don't forget that your lecturers have had many years since qualifying to rectify their mistakes and acquire new knowledge. So if at all they appear smarter it is due to "the passage of time".
Are your lecturers more responsible than you? Definately yes. They have a practising licence to lose if they are careless. You on the other hand don't have much to lose except your time and fees.
Critical thinking
I must admit that I have never fully figured out what "critical thinking" means. My educated guess is that you basically have to carefully study the problem/ situation you are faced with and come up with the best response/ solution for it.
Does practising medicine require critical thinking? YES/ NO/ MAYBE.
Medicine is problem solving- so logically speaking it requires critical thinking
However it is not quite the same kind of "open-ended " critical thinking that someone discussing literature or history may use.
It is a sort of "guided critical thinking". In most exams along with the question an answer key is also created- so that means that the response expected from you is more or less pre-scripted. So in reality it is probably not really critical thinking but rather "appropriate thinking". The person who gets to qualify as a doctor is one whose line of thinking more or less matches that of the examiner or well established guidelines- at least for undergraduate medicine.
Does practising medicine require critical thinking? YES/ NO/ MAYBE.
Medicine is problem solving- so logically speaking it requires critical thinking
However it is not quite the same kind of "open-ended " critical thinking that someone discussing literature or history may use.
It is a sort of "guided critical thinking". In most exams along with the question an answer key is also created- so that means that the response expected from you is more or less pre-scripted. So in reality it is probably not really critical thinking but rather "appropriate thinking". The person who gets to qualify as a doctor is one whose line of thinking more or less matches that of the examiner or well established guidelines- at least for undergraduate medicine.
Rote learning
Rote: more or less means memorisation without full/any comprehension.
Is this a useful skill? YES YES YES.
Should I use it as a main learning stratergy in medical school? NO NO NO
Most educators / medical lecturers caution against any rote learning. I think they arebeing over cautious. It has its place in medical education though not a very prominent one. Medicine is a little bit strange because patients present with problems-ie almost your entire career is spent problem solving. BUT the knowledge required to solve these problems comes neatly packaged as systems. This being the case it is very difficult to create a "perfect curriculum". From time to time you will find yourself having to study things that you don't quite understand yet. So this is where rote can be useful. Remember- small areas of information you don't fully understand YET.
Next post- "critical thinking" in medicine
Is this a useful skill? YES YES YES.
Should I use it as a main learning stratergy in medical school? NO NO NO
Most educators / medical lecturers caution against any rote learning. I think they arebeing over cautious. It has its place in medical education though not a very prominent one. Medicine is a little bit strange because patients present with problems-ie almost your entire career is spent problem solving. BUT the knowledge required to solve these problems comes neatly packaged as systems. This being the case it is very difficult to create a "perfect curriculum". From time to time you will find yourself having to study things that you don't quite understand yet. So this is where rote can be useful. Remember- small areas of information you don't fully understand YET.
Next post- "critical thinking" in medicine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)