Uni Limerick

Agnieszka_88

I've read somewhere that they don't use any cadavers in their GEM course. Is this true? Other universities still use them, don't they?
How on earth are people supposed to learn anatomy without cadavers?

gh1

Agnieszka_88 wrote: »

I've read somewhere that they don't use any cadavers in their GEM course. Is this true? Other universities still use them, don't they?
How on earth are people supposed to learn anatomy without cadavers?

You can still learn anatomy without cadavers. I've studied anatomy for the last 5 years and while cadavers were good to see, the most beneficial thing that I have found is simply long hours of sitting down studying and learning anatomy, the cadavers help put things together but they are by no means essential in my opinion.

jonz

yeap UL does not use cadavers. apparently globally there is a move away from teaching with cadavers. speaking to ppl one the course who used cadavers in their 1st degree they all say while helpful and 'fun' to do dissections/cadavers work they feel that the learning of anatomy in UL is not compromised w/o them.
i myself would like to at least see a cadaver to fully appreciate the anatomy we are learning but saying that i must say i feel that i have a great grasp of anatomy.
how anatomy is done in ul is thru a series of weekly 'minicases' -in practice what that means is that each mon (2nd yr schedule) we get a series of cases with figures that we must answer. this take anywhere from 1-3hrs to do (in first yr make that up to 7hr!). usually we do them as a group and work through the answers together. then on fri we have a taught session with 3 parts: a histo lec, a anatomy lec and then Q&A where we have to answer the questions! this is great though as you make sure you know the anatomy for the week before the Q&A on fri!!!
at the mom the current prof of anatomy is trying to retire and a replace is been sought for him. therefore for the incoming first yrs there might be a slight change to the way antomy is thought. however im sure the minicases are here to stay as they really prepare you for the clinical yrs apparently.

Agnieszka_88

I get it that you don't need cadavers to learn anatomy, you can learn it on models, charts and whatnot, but what about those who actually want to become surgeons or pathologists? The practical aspect of actually seeing, touching a human body? They've never even cut through tissue, I really don't see how it can work. Not to even mention suturing, because you can practice all you want on bananas and/or swine skin, but it's definitely not the same.

IEMedAp

Plenty of medical schools in the UK cope perfectly well without cadavers.

gh1

Agnieszka_88 wrote: »

I get it that you don't need cadavers to learn anatomy, you can learn it on models, charts and whatnot, but what about those who actually want to become surgeons or pathologists? The practical aspect of actually seeing, touching a human body? They've never even cut through tissue, I really don't see how it can work. Not to even mention suturing, because you can practice all you want on bananas and/or swine skin, but it's definitely not the same.

Surely though training as a surgeon takes years and years of practice after medical school. Some medical schools in the UK allow students to come in over their summer holidays voluntarily to assist the anatomists in dissecting the body. If you think plain and simply about how many medical students there are versus the number of bodies donated then I think you can see why not very many students actually get cadavers to dissect. Have you gone through a cadaver before yourself? It's not that beneficial to be honest, and unless you have an in depth knowledge of all the different parts that you're looking at then there's not much point.

nerrad01

Agnieszka_88 wrote: »

I get it that you don't need cadavers to learn anatomy, you can learn it on models, charts and whatnot, but what about those who actually want to become surgeons or pathologists? The practical aspect of actually seeing, touching a human body? They've never even cut through tissue, I really don't see how it can work. Not to even mention suturing, because you can practice all you want on bananas and/or swine skin, but it's definitely not the same.

and could you tell me how using cadavers in your degree determines if you become a surgeon or pathologist??

this is going to come down to how well you do in your degree, getting a relevant intern, then sho spot followed by publications etc to eventually get onto a surgical programme. As far as im aware the final 2 years of the UL course is totally hospital based, and this is where you get your seeing/touching a human body experience. On a side note, the only thing that prepares you for operations, is seeing operation!

Also this topic has been flogged to death on boards and i dont think it needs a new thread, a search would have given you a bucket load of posts on the topic!

Agnieszka_88

After a quick search I did find those other posts, but they're outdated, I thought maybe things changed since UL is supposed to have a new medicine building now.

I'm not bashing UL here, so no need to get so emotional, I'm sure that the doctors who graduate from there are as good as any others, and no one ever said that you can learn everything you need from a few dissections. From my point of view it's a disadvantage, my aunt (a surgeon) says it would be very difficult to get a good idea of anatomy without working with cadavers, but of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are also voices that using cadavers is outdated and unethical, not to mention they're becoming scarce. I guess I'll have to see for myself, but I'll probably choose a medschool that still uses them.

gh1

Agnieszka_88 wrote: »

After a quick search I did find those other posts, but they're outdated, I thought maybe things changed since UL is supposed to have a new medicine building now.

I'm not bashing UL here, so no need to get so emotional, I'm sure that the doctors who graduate from there are as good as any others, and no one ever said that you can learn everything you need from a few dissections. From my point of view it's a disadvantage, my aunt (a surgeon) says it would be very difficult to get a good idea of anatomy without working with cadavers, but of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are also voices that using cadavers is outdated and unethical, not to mention they're becoming scarce. I guess I'll have to see for myself, but I'll probably choose a medschool that still uses them.

Have you got into medicine yet or are you assuming you will? Hard to believe someone would think about rejecting an offer from UL based on them not having cadavers

chanste

A lot of the old school surgeons will say it is a disadvantage, but then many of these will not have seen how easily I can peel away layers of anatomy on a computer program designed for this purpose.

As for 3rd and 4th year on the course the fact is there are some students, myself included, who are not interested in surgery and therefore did not pursue every possible chance to get involved in surgeries, but you still can't escape seeing the relevant anatomy in theatre and although I must state I have never used cadavers, I don't see how actual living people are not adequate. There will be plenty of opportunity to practice stitching etc if you put yourself forward.

I'll be finished my final year in UL in 4 weeks and at this point I think I'm in a good position to judge the school (though not compare - as I've said before on these boards nobody has gone through medicine in all the medical schools). In my opinion the course has its problems, but most of them are minor and very few of the things which will actually bother you are ever mentioned on boards. We only seem to hear of people concerned about lack of cadavers and the PBL style teaching. People's perceptions will change enormously after starting this course.

nerrad01

Agnieszka_88 wrote: »

After a quick search I did find those other posts, but they're outdated, I thought maybe things changed since UL is supposed to have a new medicine building now.

I'm not bashing UL here, so no need to get so emotional, I'm sure that the doctors who graduate from there are as good as any others, and no one ever said that you can learn everything you need from a few dissections. From my point of view it's a disadvantage, my aunt (a surgeon) says it would be very difficult to get a good idea of anatomy without working with cadavers, but of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are also voices that using cadavers is outdated and unethical, not to mention they're becoming scarce. I guess I'll have to see for myself, but I'll probably choose a medschool that still uses them.

im not from ul btw and im far from emotional, but have seen this argument flogged to death to on here!

Taco Chips

To add some balance, I'm in a school that uses cadavers in anatomy teaching and I do find it extremely useful. While yes, a lot of anatomy learning is done by sitting down and reviewing notes, I personally find that cadavers put a lot of it into context. Something about being able to physically trace vessels, nerves and attachments in person makes the material much easier to get through. And of course you see lots of different types of pathology in the donor bodies that adds further interesting insights into the body system as a whole.

I won't pretend to know how the UL system works because I don't but from my own experience at school I have found the cadavers an invaluable resource.

Lady Jane!

UL student here....... (1st year)

If you think that cadavers are the way to go, don't choose here.......If you are open minded to advances in technology UL is great. Actually, I think UL is the best med school in Ireland due to the general independence of it all. There is no relying on your tutors to direct you and as regards anatomy sessions there is no relying on access to labs to "have a look". I live with someone who did an anatomy degree (with cadavers) and they prefer it here. As regards surgery.........technology has become huge in that regards and there will be a time (possibly in our lifetime) when there will be no physicality on behalf of the surgeon....it will be a case of who can use a "joystick" the best! :-)

UL is progressive.............if you're adverse to forward thinking leave well alone :-)

PLAYSTATION4

I think you can certainly learn anatomy without cadavers, in fact, I know you can. That's why the practice of computer learning is being adopted by more and more schools every year.

Cadavers are expensive and scarce so if schools can get by without them they will.

At a medical school interview in the states an anatomy instructor basically told me that you can learn anatomy on a computer, but cadaver learning is preferable since you are exposed to several cadavers, the one you're working on and the ones your classmates are working on, and get to see how anatomy can vary from individual-to-individual. With a computer program you basically have one specimen. He said a drawback to cadavers is that the anatomy of a dead person isn't always the same as in a living person, which is where the computer programs have an edge. He recommended learning on cadavers if given the option.

The same can be said of PBL. It's a way to teach medicine that requires fewer resources from the institution. It simply costs less. But, once again, it's been proven to be no less effective than the traditional didactic approach.

chanste

People seem to forget that UL still has surgical rotations. You will learn a lot about anatomy and its variation there. We were also encouraged in early years to use 3 or 4 anatomy atlases for anatomical variation, and the way the Prof taught us, you really needed to use them all as a source.

Nobody is in a position to compare UL with other medical programs because nobody has done both. I feel my knowledge of anatomy now at the end of the program is more than adequate. A large factor is going to be how much work you put in, but as with other med schools, if you weren't working you can be pretty sure you will be failing.

jonz

PLAYSTATION4 wrote: »

The same can be said of PBL. It's a way to teach medicine that requires fewer resources from the institution. It simply costs less. But, once again, it's been proven to be no less effective than the traditional didactic approach.

Lets just clarify one thing-PBL is not used because it costs less! in fact in costs much much more than lectures.
UL has to run 14 sessions on a mon and on a thurs for second years and the same number for first years on tues and fri. that means that they have 14 different GP/SHO/SpR/Consultants for 5 hours a week for both first years and second years. And you can be assured that they do not work for free!!!

PLAYSTATION4

jonz wrote: »

Lets just clarify one thing-PBL is not used because it costs less! in fact in costs much much more than lectures.
UL has to run 14 sessions on a mon and on a thurs for second years and the same number for first years on tues and fri. that means that they have 14 different GP/SHO/SpR/Consultants for 5 hours a week for both first years and second years. And you can be assured that they do not work for free!!!

I may have spoken incorrectly there, and I apologize as I had been misinformed. Evidently, PBL can sometimes cost more than traditional learning, sometimes cost less, but usually costs about the same. It really depends on the set-up of the program.

jonz

yes and sorry if it seemed like i was biting your head off-i just wanted to make sure that everyone has the correct informing before making the big decision on which col to go to! there are some many + & -'s in relations to PBL people need accurate information before deciding!

Taco Chips

Similarly, it's not accurate to declare that UL is the 'best' medical school in Ireland because it is the most 'progressive'. How do you define progressive? How could you declare one college the best when you have no experience of the others? Why would having a drastically different method of teaching mean that it is better than the other universities? Remember that every single doctor that you are being taught by was educated via the didactic method. Aside from a negligible amount, every doctor in this country and the majority all over the world is educated traditionally and it has certainly been shown to produce an extremely high standard of physicians. I think people are too invested in the whole 'my school is better than yours' thing. Everyone is in it to become doctors in the first place. UL's program is quite different to what is normal but nonetheless has been accepted by accredited counsels to produce adequate doctors.

PLAYSTATION4

jonz wrote: »

yes and sorry if it seemed like i was biting your head off-i just wanted to make sure that everyone has the correct informing before making the big decision on which col to go to! there are some many + & -'s in relations to PBL people need accurate information before deciding!

By all means stick up for your program if you believe in it.

I interviewed for Limerick, and I was accepted there. I was extremely impressed by the staff and their commitment to the success of the students.

I went into interview day a bit weary of the program because it was new, and PBL, but I came out of their presentation confident I could succeed there. I have no doubt that it is an excellent medical school.

Ultimately, I chose to attend UCD because it's eligible for US Federal Loans (which Limerick is not, yet) but if that wasn't the case it would have been a very difficult decision to make.

pc11

FWIW I think that many people might change their mind if they actually visited UL, I personally came away very impressed. And I liked the idea of PBL more, the more I heard about it. UL benched their students against McMaster University in Canada (a very prestigious med school) and there was no difference, which was very reassuring.

But, it does seem like a very intense course.

ojomhgoek

hey does anybody know how strict UL is on the application deadline for the scholarship. I submitted phase 1 and phase 2 deadline is next Wednesday. I live near the Uni so I can drop it in by hand. I have most required documents except for one (P21) and I'm told I'll have it by next Thurs. Hand in the completed application by the deadline and a P21 a day late? any hope? Still waiting for a reply for UL.

Vorsprung

ojomhgoek wrote: »

hey does anybody know how strict UL is on the application deadline for the scholarship. I submitted phase 1 and phase 2 deadline is next Wednesday. I live near the Uni so I can drop it in by hand. I have most required documents except for one (P21) and I'm told I'll have it by next Thurs. Hand in the completed application by the deadline and a P21 a day late? any hope? Still waiting for a reply for UL.

If you haven't heard from them and live nearby, might be worth dropping in. Not worth the disappointment.

letsdothis

The question of travel/accommodation expenses for placements has come up in the Dublin/Cork threads. Just wondering if anyone knows if UL cover for placements outside of Limerick? Thanks

chanste

letsdothis wrote: »

The question of travel/accommodation expenses for placements has come up in the Dublin/Cork threads. Just wondering if anyone knows if UL cover for placements outside of Limerick? Thanks

They don't give an allowance for placements. But if they put you on a placement and expect you to return for classes etc, they have a system for paying an allowance based on mileage done once it is beyond a certain threshold. So for instance if they have you on GP placement in the back arse of nowhere, they may give you a little towards your petrol when you are coming back in for your class on a Wednesday. I never qualified for any of them. Thresholds are pretty high.