I say what I say because the definition of quality medicine is relative to where one lives. It is true that increased medical staff is necessary due to increase in elderly people and population in general , but I believe that training in general is too poor for those going into the medical field, possibly in part because of the increase in people entering the field decreases each individual's share of time doing important intern work and other educational on-the-job experience, especially if one has the aspiration to be a doctor but not the means to afford one's own education, in which case they are relegated to small medical and nursing schools that, by their small nature, provide less opportunity to practice anywhere except for slow-activity country hospitals and outpatient offices. I have encountered the entire spectrum of physicians (of similar age, because of course I realize this is a factor) in regards to quality from clueless country bumpkins to living medical encyclopedias and, therefore, the only conclusions that can be drawn from such variance in ability are that influence from educators either played into their desire to become a doctor or their medical education itself; while one doctor still cannot physically do the work of multiple mediocre doctors, lower-end physicians like nurses and technicians are more versatile from their general medical training than they are given credit for and therefore we have many untapped resources that we can use to fill perceived gaps in the quantity of quality physicians.
Ah, you misinterpreted me; I did not say machinery would completely replace men in the engineering field; my intent was to say that the field will become more narrow in the future but, of course, the base of any construction field will always be manpower. I simply see some of the more commonly-hazardous positions and those needing great precision being phased out in years to come.
I don't mind teachers telling their students what fields are best for working in or most in demand, but I was using the personal example of my school (and I realize I generalized by saying "public schools", but I feel that my school is rather representative of most low-end public schools from what I've observed) to state that I see it as wrong that the teachers encourage material success above all else; there are many other in-demand jobs besides medical ones but those are entirely excluded because they are somewhat less lucrative. I merely wish my school's focus was a bit more broad and didn't contain the message "either be [such and such job] or be a failure"; because we are left to our own devices when job searching and it seems that, because of this, those few who do not take the pharmacist/doctor route each year almost invariably take up farming or grade-school teaching. Honorable professions, but when they're chosen as frequently here as they are, something in the system is obviously broken.
