[triceratops]

> I would like you to start from the beginning of the person's medical training and not include the gatekeeping bit of having to get a bachelors in a random subject unrelated to medicine.

Why? An apples-to-apples comparison would be to see how long it takes to become a general physician after completing secondary school. In the UK or India it's something like 5.5-6 years.[1]

In the US it's 3-4 years of "pre-med", then 4 years of med school. That's from the article you referred.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_school_in_the_United_K...

[bialpio]

> Why? An apples-to-apples comparison would be to see how long it takes to become a general physician after completing secondary school.

Because if the requirement in the US is indeed "bachelor's degree required, any will do", then it exists solely for gate-keeping and says nothing about the standards of education.

Edit: looking at wiki, the requirements are actually a bit more reasonable, but it does seem strange that they are not just rolled into the first year (or two) of medical degree. Why force people to finish undergrad studies if only a few courses are relevant?

[ameister14]

Some universities in the US offer a 7 year undergrad and medical degree. Those usually have an extremely high GPA requirement but it's possible to do just that.

[bialpio]

Interesting, thanks! That's more in line with what I'd expect coming from Poland - medical degree is 6yrs (& is equivalent to Master's, I don't believe you get a Bachelor's degree during those), specialization then takes additional 5-6 years. For context, "normal" degrees are 3y (BSc) + 2y (MSc), which is also 1 year shorter than comparable education in the US. OTOH, I believe there's no such thing as "associate degree", and colleges are more focused from the get-go - you pick your major when applying for college (& the admission criteria are different based on that).

[google234123]

They typically have acceptance rates in the low single digits too.

[kaesar14]

Of the people who attempt the pre-med track not all will make it. Forcing students to get an actual Bachelor's degree gives students some fallback.

I think really it's just the system was built this way and nobody's going to change it now.

[bialpio]

> Forcing students to get an actual Bachelor's degree gives students some fallback.

That may be one reason, but seems to me that it doesn't really raise the standard of education. So it doesn't really help with proving that "US > the world" in this aspect.

I imagine you could still fall-back from medical college to undergrad & get credit for the completed coursework that is relevant towards the Bachelor's degree you fall-back to. This way, you don't incur unnecessary costs on folks who succeed.

> I think really it's just the system was built this way and nobody's going to change it now.

Channeling my inner cynic: nothing's going to change given that the decision-makers benefit financially from the system being set up like this.

[gowld]

They can switch to a Bachelors when they transfer off the med track.

[jimnotgym]

Not at all, because the question at hand was 'how long does it take to train to be an doctor in the US'. I don't understand why one would include time spent training to be something else? It is like saying 'it took me 30 years to learn to code, 3 months on Udemy and 29 years learning to solve problems as a carpenter'.

Premed is gatekeeping, and not all countries enforce that form of gatekeeping.

[triceratops]

> 'how long does it take to train to be an doctor in the US'. I don't understand why one would include time spent training to be something else?

Because you can't train to be a doctor in the US without that gatekeeping? I thought the point GP was making was it takes in the longer because of this pointless gatekeeping.