“The aim of the Bologna process is to make European universities comparable. Sure, accredited curriculums are valid in every country in the European Union, which would indicate that the essential things studied are the same for each subject all over the Union. In most majors, it is possible to go abroad for some time and the courses taken at another university are considered comparable with or equal to the same courses offered at the home university, all thanks to ECTS. This way studying abroad is not simply a method of experiencing a different culture or making friends or acquaintances with potential future colleagues, employees, or superiors, it is an opportunity to receive education that is somewhat different from what everybody else in the home country receives. No two universities are exactly the same as every lecturer teaches in a different way. Some know more tricks to solve difficult problems, some teach a certain methodical approach that others don't. It gives the student an edge in the job market. The final diploma the student receives is equal to other diplomas of the same kind because the courses taken are equal. There are some differences in the attractability of the diploma for potential employers - an Oxford graduate is more likely to get a job than someone who studied in Riga. But both can apply to the same positions and sometimes the less likely candidate is chosen because of qualities possibly unrelated to the alma mater, but rather the personality, motivation, or the first impression of the candidates. This is, as I already mentioned, in most majors.
In certain fields, such as law and medicine, a year abroad is a somewhat more complicated undertaking than in, for example, biochemistry. While the final result of medical school is the same, a chance to start residency, the way the curricula are built up differs quite a bit. Some universities, such as LMU München, have officially divided the medicine major into two stages, 3 years each. In a way, it is like finishing Bachelor's and beginning Master's, but the first three years do not actually give a level of qualification. In most European universities the 3+3 concept is used, but the curricula are not officially separated. The first three years are so-called pre-clinical years, the years when the students must learn the theory of medicine, from the Latin names of all the tiny protuberances on every single bone (sulcus tendinis musculi flexoris hallucis longi, to all those anatomy geeks) of the body to different treatments to complicated illnesses caused by various pathogens. The second 3 years is for practice, rotations, for the student to get personally acquainted with the actual everyday life in a working hospital, to learn how each part of a large hospital operates and how to become a good cog in the well-oiled machinery. The difference between universities is mostly in the way things are taught, but somewhat also in when something is taught.
In 'normal' majors, the student has a number of obligatory courses he/she has to pass and a large number of voluntary courses. The student can usually decide when to take the obligatory courses, sometimes causing them to be ready for a Bachelor's diploma a full year before the nominal study time is over. In medicine, however, the obligatory subjects are set by year. If you don't pass it in the year you are supposed to, you either get thrown out or you take a year off and try again after a year has passed, but you do not get to advance to the next year's subjects. And this causes the problem with studying abroad. There are surprisingly few cases in which studying abroad works as it would if the major was something simpler, like computer science. Generally, the people who study medicine and do go abroad, do it for a very short amount of time. This way they can still complete all the courses of the year at the home university, but gain valuable experience elsewhere as well. The other option would be to go for a whole year and repeat a year at the home university.
But this causes a rather important question to arise: if all accredited medicine curricula are considered equal or comparable in their results, why aren't the components of them considered equal or comparable as well? It would stand to reason that if two wholes are equal, then the pieces of the whole ought to be equal as well.
It gets even more complicated with residency. While officially, a resident is no longer a student, but an employee at a hospital, the concept of residency is learning through intense practice. In different countries, the duration of residency varies. In Estonia, for example, residency lasts for 3 to 5 years, depending on the specific field of study. Most surgical fields require 5 years. Lately, however, there have been talks between politicians and the medical student union about adding an extra year to the beginning of each residency that would not be field-specific (extending residency to 4-6 years). Some countries, such as Germany, still employ an extra year called Internatur for this purpose, but this concept was abolished in Estonia about 15 years ago. But the result of residency is still the same: one becomes a fully fledged doctor of medicine. So if the purpose is the same, the result is the same, the methods employed should be the same (otherwise the result would not be the same), why are there still differences between the systems in use in the European Union? It would appear that soon an Estonian medical student should do his or her best to start residency in an another country, such as Germany or Finland, as opposed to going there after residency, as appears to be the case right now.”
The quotation marks are for a reason. In fact,I strongly recommend you check out this place, as I did.
No comments:
Post a Comment