Oncology as a Primary Degree

liberal

I think it's time that Ireland offered a degree in Oncology

It could be similar to biomed/micro/biochem etc where by one does a general 1st year, a semi-specialised 2nd then a specialised 3rd/4th year

The amount of relevant genetics, biochem, micro, histology, pharma could easily fill two years, and put an emphasis on developing students as researchers, in fact it could be a 5 year degree

If it was called Medical Oncology I gurantee it would be 450+ points

come SFI we need ye now more than ever!

locum-motion

liberal wrote: »

I think it's time that Ireland offered a degree in Oncology

It could be similar to biomed/micro/biochem etc where by one does a general 1st year, a semi-specialised 2nd then a specialised 3rd/4th year

The amount of relevant genetics, biochem, micro, histology, pharma could easily fill two years, and put an emphasis on developing students as researchers, in fact it could be a 5 year degree

If it was called Medical Oncology I gurantee it would be 450+ points

come SFI we need ye now more than ever!

What would you envisage a gratuate from such a course working at?
They wouldn't be a doctor, a nurse or a pharmacist. What would they be?

liberal

locum-motion wrote: »

What would you envisage a gratuate from such a course working at?
They wouldn't be a doctor, a nurse or a pharmacist. What would they be?

what does one do with a degree in physiology, neuroscience, biochemistry?

research

SomeDose

locum-motion wrote: »

What would you envisage a gratuate from such a course working at?
They wouldn't be a doctor, a nurse or a pharmacist. What would they be?

My impression from the OP is that the intention would be for these graduates to become involved in research afterwards, with a view to maybe developing new treatments and therapies for cancers. Most degrees in the various biological & medical sciences do not confer professional qualifications, so this would be no different. Apart from pharmacy, I also have a degree in biochemistry which "qualifies" me for...well, nothing specifically. You don't have to "be" someone at the end of a degree. But I'm playing devil's advocate here!

Thing is though, where do you draw the line with introduction of specialist degrees like this? Why not offer a degree in haematology, or gastroenterology, or cardiology for example? Although I think that, in theory, an oncology degree seems like a useful qualification, I can't help feeling that it would be something that falls between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they wouldn't be medically qualified so it would be difficult to have clinical involvement, nevermind the fact that oncology consultants would be acknowledged experts in the field anyway. On the other hand, if you envisage these undergrads as leading cancer researchers, they wouldn't have the same level of expertise as non-medical PhDs in genetics/immunology/biochemistry who are the people who drive most of the novel research at molecular & cellular level. In saying that, it would be a fascinating degree and I've no doubt would probably attract a lot of interest.

locum-motion

liberal wrote: »

what does one do with a degree in physiology, neuroscience, biochemistry?

research

Fair enough. Thanks.

Kevster

Im doing a research PhD degree on one major type of cancer, but Im doubtful about the idea of an oncology-specific degree. The reason is - well - it's too specific for a degree. If all students entering it were absolutely certain that they want to work in oncology, then great. However, with a degree, I feel there needs to be a lot of flexibility with regard to career paths taken after the degree.

nesf

Why isn't it adequate to get a more general biology/biochemistry background at undergrad and then specialise at postgrad level in oncology?

Amnesiac_ie

I think we should be moving away from specialised undergraduate degrees with sexy titles and focussing on solid, broad based undergraduate degrees that prepare students for a broad variety of careers in different disciplines. Why pigeon hole a future scientist's research interests when they are filling out the CAO form at the age of 17? It always perplexed me that a course in Genetics commanded such a high points entry when very similar degrees in Biochemistry or Biomedical Sciences only required half the points. Secondary students flocked to the course with the sexier name, despite the fact that an honours degree in Biochemistry would probably be of equal if not more value to most applicants.

imported_guy

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

I think we should be moving away from specialised undergraduate degrees with sexy titles and focussing on solid, broad based undergraduate degrees that prepare students for a broad variety of careers in different disciplines. Why pigeon hole a future scientist's research interests when they are filling out the CAO form at the age of 17? It always perplexed me that a course in Genetics commanded such a high points entry when very similar degrees in Biochemistry or Biomedical Sciences only required half the points. Secondary students flocked to the course with the sexier name, despite the fact that an honours degree in Biochemistry would probably be of equal if not more value to most applicants.

well this has its draw backs, if you take like someone with a degree in oncology vs a biochemistry student applying for like a research masters/phd spot depending on the topic of research one would probably get more preference than the other, same with other degrees such as mechanical engineering vs mechatronics or civil engineering vs structural engineering, remember titles arent the only difference in most cases theres alot of difference between what/how they are taught, sure a mechanical engineer might know most of stuff a mechatronic engineer knows, but they both have a place in our society

liberal

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

I think we should be moving away from specialised undergraduate degrees with sexy titles and focussing on solid, broad based undergraduate degrees that prepare students for a broad variety of careers in different disciplines. Why pigeon hole a future scientist's research interests when they are filling out the CAO form at the age of 17? It always perplexed me that a course in Genetics commanded such a high points entry when very similar degrees in Biochemistry or Biomedical Sciences only required half the points. Secondary students flocked to the course with the sexier name, despite the fact that an honours degree in Biochemistry would probably be of equal if not more value to most applicants.

i was going to point out that biomed has the highest cao entrance points of any science degree but im not that vain