Something I wrote a while back; maybe someone will find it useful:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y7ujxC5CNEW068cBYO_OHaT7YXXT4eNIgZ8EqED61wg/edit?usp=sharing

This is set in the Alexandra Potter universe, if people are wondering. But it's not too specific - I think it would work for most fics. Except for ones that have wizards as idiots.

 

First: Cool.

The one question I don't understand is "What is the unifying approach to medicine for Wizardy?" Currently, modern medicine is broken down by system (pulmonology-everything to do with lungs, hepatology- the liver, neurology-the brain) or by unifying approach- Radiology, peditatrics, OB/GYN. The magical approach seems to be regular medicine with magical remedies screwed on top. So then are there Muggle-ologists and Curseologists and Potionologists?

The one thing I particularly like is how 1st years don't have access to cadavers/patients. It strikes me as very Victorian Sensibilities, trying to protect the young children from death.

And now I'm kinda wanting to write a Healer Harry story set in St. Mungos.

 

I don't think the use of the word mundane is really an issue, I think it's good that Taure is operating under the idea that if something doesn't have a magical cause then it's not going to be any problem for a healer. And I'd rather he call it a mundane pathogen than a muggle one, I've always thought of a muggle as a non-magical person. A slug is still a slug and vibrio cholera is still vibrio cholera (well, presumably, I don't know whether you'd just handwave the reason behind similar naming conventions away).

Essentially, I don't think they'd go around going mundane virus X vs. magical virus X. In my opinion it's a fairly reasonable way to title a section of the curriculum that covers a broad, unique spectrum.

I do think Sree has a point with the programme though. I find it a little perplexing that the first year has a subject-divided approach and the other four years have a system-based approach. Unless the first year of anatomy is purely concerned with planes and anatomical terms of location you will find yourself retreading some of the same ground for the next four years. I think this would be especially a problem for year 2. Anatomy II will be Anatomy I with a scalpel and I'm presuming that it's done before the start of the circulatory system and skeletal system - which will also be covering the anatomy.

If you're going for Victorian sensibilities in first year, then I think that's cool. Like old-school surgery you could have all five years be practical, set in st. Mungos with an apprentice and master system. But it has been done in other contexts and I think you've got more potential here as a structured higher-vocational-learning environment and, considering what you've done with Alexandra Potter and Lords of Magic, you'd make that process very detailed and very interesting.

Ignoring my comments on the divide between first year and second year, I think there are a few items in the curriculum that would do better being swapped around with other things.

• Switch Respiratory system and Skeletal system to the opposite semesters of year 2. It'd have more synergy if the Respiratory and Circulatory system and Muscular and Skeletal were taught at the same time.
  
  
• Replace Physiology - a 12 system introduction with the last free choice topic: Public health, plagues and epidemics. Health promotion and an understanding of epidemiology would seem to me to fit better into the fundamental feel of year 1. Especially as you're going to just re-do that introduction to the vital system four years down the road.
  
  
• I'm not sure what to think about mundane emergencies as a rotation for placement in third year. I can understand that you don't want to throw first years into a situation where it's too deep, too fast. But, if they're being supervised, considering the relative simplicity of a normal injury, this may be something they'd be able to manage earlier. The list of simple reversals is quite extensive and by then will be some time ago. I suppose it comes back to how you want to divide the first year from the other four and why.
  
  
• My final point is whether the free choices in final year would be expected to build into their research or not? Topics like the Imperius Curse or Experimental Techniques seem designed to be built into a project. Maybe considering the lack of focus on research prior to fifth year it'd be better to do two smaller projects rather than one large dissertation. To better show consistency.

As is hopefully apparent from my points I did really enjoy this magical curriculum. The amount of thought that's gone into it is great and it's very comprehensive. I think it's a shame how difficult it would be to show the progression through this course in a story and I hope you see my points as constructive criticism.

 

The structure of the curriculum is based on the structure of UK medical study. (Which is not, as Sree said, 2 years lecture and 3 years clinical).

In the UK there is no pre-med: Medicine is a first degree, not a postgraduate offering. As such the structure is rather different: you have to be learning the biology simultaneously with learning clinical skills. There is no clear division between the academic and the practical: both are going on at the same time. You go on placements (in GP surgeries at first, also care homes, hospitals, and other care environments) of increasing responsibility over the course of the 5 years you study at university (maybe one day a week), simultaneously with academic study and learning practical skills.

This is one of the reasons why a physiology overview is necessary in first year, before the more detailed systems approach of later years. Without it, you would be doing placements in medical situations without any knowledge at all of whatever is covered in later years (e.g. the neural system is almost always left until fifth year).

This is also the reason why first year is very different to the years after. It's a scramble to cover basic knowledge. Once that's established you have the time to go over stuff in more detail, system by system.

Re: anatomy. Yes, this is just learning the names of the parts of the body. E.g. all the names of the bones and the ability to identify them on a diagram. Anatomy II is the same only now you have to be able to identify them on a real body rather than a diagram (much more difficult - the body is a mess).

Makes sense.

 

Yes, that's what they tell you. Some schools are better or worse, but even at Cardiff there's still a differentiation between university teaching and clinical training. With a cursory glance, I think it's still pretty much as Sree says.

But, on topic, specifically as you envisaged this for Alexandra Potter, how structured an educational environment are you imagining this to be?

Is healer training going to be incredibly similar to the methods used by UK medical schools - university in practice, if not name - or something more informal, to maintain Hogwarts as the top of formal magical education?