My question is why are doctors different? Is it because the process of learning to be a doctor is inherently different from other fields? Or is it that the profession of "doctor" has been around long enough that we have learned to do it right, and other professions have not yet caught up? I believe the latter.
Wokeness Political Poison?
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
This is probably worth its own thread, but I lean towards the former. There are aspects of the latter that I agree with (in that the profession has been around long enough), but I don't think degrees are suitable for all professions in the first place. Being a doctor also carries with it direct power over life and death (or at the very least, significant aspects of any patient's health and livelihood) in a lot of cases, which is why the burden (and as such training) is likely correspondingly higher as well.
I am not convinced. I agree the current model for most higher education of 3 years with only lectures, then the rest of your career with only "on the job" training is not optimal, but you already noted that is not how medical degrees work, so why should others have to? The hard line between 3 year academic degree and "vocational" training does not make much sense and could be blurred to everyone benefit.
Plenty of other jobs carry a lot of responsibility. The life or death aspect is particularly obvious with civil engineering and software development for medical devices, but if you compare the impact of those fujitsu programmers that made the post office system does it make sense to say they have not held other peoples lives in their hands, and failed?
As someone who works in software development, training can only get you so far. Most of the issues companies experience arise out of management issues, scheduling issues, project commitment issues, failing to tackle technical debt, etc. These ultimately (to be rather reductive) stem from the need to make money. It's hard to justify a month working out technical debt if you need to deliver to three customers (let's say) in that time. Given a choice between "earning money" and "fixing old stuff that can be covered up until it's too late", it seems that companies overwhelmingly vote for the former. I don't see this as something degrees can improve, realistically.
Other jobs definitely carry similar responsibility. I'm just suggesting that because doctors literally hold patients' lives in their actual hands, the training requirements are therefore stricter. Management issues can of course compound problems in any profession, but there is a hands-on aspect to a lot of a doctor's work that carries significant weight. Does this mean I think something like, say, tractor driving shouldn't come with strict training? Of course not. But again, that's not degree territory either. It's a complex topic that kinda covers education as a whole (which is obviously going to be very country-specific).
Ultimately, I can't answer why other degrees aren't as stringent as medical degrees. I would imagine because staffing and training is hard enough as it is, for other subjects, and this would price some degrees out of affordability in terms of both university-side recruitment, and student loans (don't get me started on that mess). The necessity of medical degrees creates their existence, would be my "tl;dr". Other professions can get away with less (though I'm sure there are some professions that are somewhat comparable - I think law could be a good example, though degree requirements are often "soft" requirements in that you're not going to get the job unless you do the prerequisites, whereas in medicine the prerequisites are baked into a course by default, making it longer by default).
I kind of agree with most of what you are saying, but not this. I work on the intersection of software development and medicine, and it seems to me that there are similar motivations in both fields. While what we frequently see as medicine is sitting down 1 to 1 with the GP, but most medicine (eg. cancer diagnosis and treatment) involves big hierarchies and lots of profit incentive. Among the things that medical education gives to the system so that it works better than most such systems is personal ability to determine what is in the end users advantage and the moral compass to know what is the right thing to do.
I completely agree that that is a benefit medical education can provide, in terms of ethics (essentially). The problem is, to take computer science as an example, is that the industry / industries that arise from it often value not being ethical. So even if such things were taught (which they are, in certain modules), it ultimately ends up being disregarded in practise. I'm not saying this would automatically be the case for other professions, but it's definitely an issue in software.
A lot of it, culturally, stems from the (to bring us full circle, haha) rather ironic lack of value on things like liberal arts and the social sciences. The idea that "tech" can somehow compensate for such things. Which is why we get tech platforms like Twitter that refuse to uniformly handle harassment (only opting to do so when there is incentive, or a highly-publicised case to handle) because harassment counts as engagement, and engagement props up the value (in actual money) of the platform.
I guess my answer would be that you should not have to do a degree to learn what is the right thing to do.
There is a whole issue with capitalism being largely incompatible with morality, but that certainly deserves its own thread.
I remember a lawyer telling me he'd forgotten almost everything he had studied, except where to find the information.
A law degree requires learning a vast amount of information, being a lawyer less so.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,945
I think a lot of the more technical degrees teach *how* to do your future job, not necessarily the exact information you're going to need. Like lawyers, as mentioned - you get taught how to argue a case, how to research, how to find & cite precedents, etc. Similarly, computer programming - code structure, logical thinking, documentation, even if you never use the actual code (or even language) you used while getting your degree.
Same with the sciences - biology, chemistry, etc. Sure, there's basic underlying knowledge, but you're more learning how to do an experiment, how to conduct research.
The more esoteric the degree though, the less you are taught *how* to do your future job. Like, if you spend 4 years studying the cello, your classes are not likely to cover the best way of asking if someone wants fries with their order.
Same with the sciences - biology, chemistry, etc. Sure, there's basic underlying knowledge, but you're more learning how to do an experiment, how to conduct research.
The more esoteric the degree though, the less you are taught *how* to do your future job. Like, if you spend 4 years studying the cello, your classes are not likely to cover the best way of asking if someone wants fries with their order.
My degree was from a well-respected sciences-based university (not top league ratings or whatever, but a solid middle tier uni with a focus on BSc degrees) and it taught me very little of what was required for my job. Taught me a fair bit about the theory, but code structure is rarely something that comes up in a professional environment (at least to the level it was examined at university) and documentation is an absolute joke throughout.
My experience is anecdotal for sure, but it mirrors a lot of people, especially given that degrees for things like programming weren't anywhere near as common two or three decades ago. A lot of people in IT and computing were a lot more self-made, because the industry was a lot younger back then.
My experience is anecdotal for sure, but it mirrors a lot of people, especially given that degrees for things like programming weren't anywhere near as common two or three decades ago. A lot of people in IT and computing were a lot more self-made, because the industry was a lot younger back then.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,945
Hah! Totally agree with this. I do programming for a living, for insurance company rating models (as I've mentioned here years ago so I don't expect anyone to remember), & documentation is just an afterthought - something people always say they want, but no one ever actually does.
This is my experience as well. Most of the best programmers I know are self-made, self-taught. The newer ones... not so good. I think it's because the older ones also had to be good at other stuff, like problem solving & critical thinking, while the newer ones just took classes in it & learned how to be given specific instructions they must code. Anecdotal as well, but lines up with what you were describing.
EDIT: I know this is super off-topic, but I think it's from the birth of "Project Managers" - think that guy from Office Space who didn't actually do anything ("So what would you say you do here?"). There's a whole middle-man industry now of people who listen to what people want, put it into a project plan, & present it to the coders, who have no idea how what they are coding is going to be used, just that they must follow the instructions they've been given. The older programmers interact with the users directly, & both understand what they are talking about as well as how to implement it in a way to meet their needs. Anyway, that just hit close to home, so... back to Wokeness!
Last edited:
