Science vs. The Gentleman in Victorian Medical Schools

Degeneration in Education is not a new, or post-modern, fear. It is something the Victorians' felt keenly. Not only did they recognize this potential issue, but they saw the increasing 'scientism' that Darwin and his supporters presented as a threat to their most hallowed educational institutions. Case in point was Oxford's Medical School. In his article entitled, Gentlemanly versus Scientific Ideals: John Burdon Sanderson, Medical Education, and the Failure of the Oxford School of Physiology, Terrie M. Romano details "the lack of support for a move to a science-based medical curriculum in late-Victorian Britain, despite the many efforts during this era to reform medical education along these lines" (226).
In it, he details why a school of "physiology" was not established in the Victorian era, despite many efforts by some at the school. He boils down the problem to a specific tension: "The failure of the Oxford physiology program was due in part to the support of gentlemanly over scientific ideals"(227).

Romano claims that it is an issue of class, that the "classical education" was a mark of the Oxford doctor's gentlemanliness, and that they believed it should still remain at the foundation of their program (227).

The problem with the attitude of the Oxford Doctors, as well as most Victorian Classicists like Matthew Arnold and Walter Patter, is that their views are so viscerally reactionary. They are Victorians, and so it comes as no surprise that they insist upon arguing their points in a violently polemical manner. Yet, denying science is as ridiculous as worshiping it, and as dangerous. While I maintain that our thesis about the importance of arts based education in the prevailing culture of scientism is correct, I cannot say that I agree wholeheartedly with these Classicists. Suppression and ignorance never solves anything.

Take for example this blog. While some might point out the potential hypocrisy of using this "technological" format to present our thesis, I believe that it is an example of overcoming the some of the problems that lead to the downfall of the Victorian Classical view of education. The arts-based education model did not survive because what it was presenting was dead. A Classical education is fine, but if it does not directly engage with the present, then it is of no use. In order to combat the degeneration of 'scentism', those of letters must discuss these issues that are unavoidable in a post-Darwinian world.

Source: http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/journals/bulletin_of_the_history_of_medicine/v071/71.2romano.html

Questions:
Do you think doctors today would benefit, not from a return to the Victorian Oxford curriculum, but from an increased amount of arts-based education in addition to what they already do?

Would Pater or Arnold see the ridiculousness in a medical degree heavily based on a Classical education?