Convergence (reflections on second year)

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


“You are a red blood cell in the left subclavian artery, on your way to the brain. What vessels will you pass through?”

One by one, the ten or so of us in the neuroanatomy lab bay recited the vessels in the Circle of Willis, answering additional questions about nerves we would pass by and parts of the brain we would supply energy for. When someone made an error, the rest of the group simultaneously mumbled the correct answer.

“I want to see everyone else mouthing it,” our instructor said. “Say it to yourself as you’re walking down the street.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


People have said that medical school is a bubble. Others prefer the term echo chamber. In many ways, it really is. I walk through campus and overhear someone on her phone explaining G protein-coupled receptors. On the way to class, two students vigorously debate the rationale for a certain stroke treatment. As I walk down the street, I find myself noticing abnormalities in strangers and thinking up differential diagnoses. I am starting to see medicine everywhere, in everyone.

It wasn’t always like this. We came to medical school as a class of 165 individuals, all with diverse personalities and interests. Some already knew exactly what they wanted to do. Psychiatry. Othropedic surgery. Oncology. Then there were our other passions. Global health, policy, ethics, creative writing, music, everything in between. In the beginning, it was those differences that we recognized and embraced. “Learn from your classmates,” was a recommendation I heard often. I did. We did. Hearing the multitude of reasons people chose to pursue the path of medicine was inspiring.

Now, regardless of those interests, the way medical school works is that we all must be trained broadly. Everyone goes through everything, and we go through it at the same time. Neurology, cardiovascular, renal. Steps of glycolysis, inborn errors of metabolism. Visualizing the optic disc. Eliciting deep tendon reflexes. Asking patients about sex. We read the same books. We recite the same words. Earlier this year, we purchased the same equipment; now we struggle how to use it.

We are sounding more and more alike because there is a specific end goal we want to reach. We look at the third and fourth years who look at the residents who look at the attendings, and we admire their knowledge, their competence, and their skills. I watch those who know more and actively ask myself: how can I be like that? What knowledge do I need to obtain, and what skills must I work on?

Because it’s only once we reach that bank of broad knowledge can we begin to diverge once again. It’s only once we know a little about a lot can we choose to learn a lot about a little.

There’s a quote I love from Milan Kundera’s Laughable Loves:

“We pass through the present with our eyes blindfolded. We are permitted merely to sense and guess at what we are actually experiencing. Only later when the cloth is untied can we glance at the past and find out what we have experienced and what meaning it has.”

In just seven months, I will be out of the classrooms and on the hospital wards. I remind myself that all the studying now is for then, for that, for the patients.

I cannot wait to see what happens when the blindfold of second year comes off.

I think many of us were concerned about losing ourselves as we became immersed in the medical school bubble. But as it’s happening, I find it’s okay. There will be a time for our personalities and differences to shine again. For now, there is excitement in joining the bubble; in becoming the same.

Ilana Yurkiewicz, M.D., is a physician at Stanford University and a medical journalist. She is a former Scientific American Blog Network columnist and AAAS Mass Media Fellow. Her writing has also appeared in Aeon Magazine, Health Affairs, and STAT News, and has been featured in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing.

More by Ilana Yurkiewicz

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe