Practical

You may think my argument yesterday was using the extreme of the case, and, for the majority of our graduates, we should expect them to be proficient in a certain number of essential practical procedures.

Alas, using the jargon of logic, you are committing the red-herring fallacy. But I shall let you through this time.

Nonetheless, my answer remains NO.

The reason is simple: Why do I need to master, for example, a procedure of internal medicine if I determine to be an orthopedic surgeon ? In fact, if a student is determined to be a pathologist, he does not really have to master any procedure (and, seriously, know how to examine the patient alive) - all he needs is some basic book knowledge in clinical medicine, and hopefully a better-than-average understanding of pathology-related subjects. Yes, his choice of further career would be very much limited, but that's his own decision, presumably after assessing his own strength and weakness. If the medical school does not give him the degree, the society may really lose a talented pathologist.

You see where we are getting at ? We do not need a system of ensuring our graduate to be proficient in certain practical procedures for all clinical areas. A student should get his (or her, no discrimination here) medical degree if he knows very basic medical knowledge (for example, in physiology, the heart is responsible for controlling blood supply to other organs), and is proficient in at least one particular subject - which allows him to pursue his career; of course if a student is good at many areas, he could have a wider choice of job.