Med School schedules

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

This isn't a "What's it like..." question, but close:

Do med schools generally run their classes sequentially where Class 1 completes before Class 2 starts and so on, or is it more like what we are all accustomed to where we're taking 3 or 4 or more together in the same timeframe?

I seem to remember reading somewhere about a school that did it the first way. Their claim was that you could focus all of your time and energy on that one class, and then move onto the next one. Is that a common approach?

Thanks!
KB

I don't know of any schools that only teach one subject at a time. IF they
exist they'd be few and far between. At most schools (DO and MD) you'll be
responsible for 5-6 courses at a time. For example, at UHS we have the following
schedule. 1st yr: anatomy, physiology, biochem (the big 3), cell bio, histology,
radiology, neuro, immunology, physical diagnosis, human sexuality, sports medicine
and OPP. 2nd yr: micro, pharm, path (the big 3), pediatrics, OB-GYN, psych, IM,
surgery, physical diagnosis, medical ethics, and ODT. Most of the year you have
the big 3, plus physical diagnosis and OPP/ODT. To this schedule is added 1-2 of
the other shorter courses (they last 2-3 months).

I have a friend at loyola here in chicago. they do anatomy in the first six weeks of med school as their only class (to "get it out of the way"). after that they stack up and end up taking 5 or 6 classes at time.

some schools break it down differently. at the u of alberta, they spend blocks of time on each system as a whole--ie. five weeks on micro and immun., seven weeks on cardio systems. all the various disciplines are integrated(ie. physiology, pharm. and path, etc. are taught as a whole) together so that there is only one exam at the end (and maybe one at the middle).

At UOMHS the first year gets blocked together, but the second year is all done by systems. It makes things much easier to study and retain.

that is called the "systems" approach. some schools are switching to this. I know that UNECOM and Lake Erie also do this. Ofcourse there are several allopathic schools doing this too.

COMP, WV and Pikeville also implement the systems approach. It is one thing that (many of) the DO schools do right in the first two years and is superior to the traditional basic science approach, IMHO.

One problem I have with the systems approach or the integrated curriculum, as the U of Alberta calls it, is that you're hit with everything about one system at one time. What's wrong with that? Well, schooling, I believe, is very repetitive and it's repetive for a reason: to drill something into your brain until you remember it. If you don't get it the first time or the second time, you (hopefully) will encounter it a third time and get it then. This is what the traditional curriculum does, it hits you with the stuff about three times so that you will hopefully get it into your head before you graduate. As a chemistry major, I truly believe that the whole purpose of the four years of university was for me to learn the Henderson-Hasselbach (or Hasselhoff, as we like to call it) equation, the Gibbs free energy equation and how to balance ionic equations. These three things were pounded into my thick skull almost every semester and are really the only things that I remember. I think that the traditional medical curriculum does the same thing. You are taught the same things over and over, only in different perspectives, until you understand what's going on. For me, I think I would prefer the traditional curriculum over an integrated approach. That, IMO, is the only weak point that the U of A had.

Systems usu follows an overview of the basic sciences. This overview tends to be from six months to one academic year, so this method is also repetitious

I think that it depends on the school. Some schools don't have an overview of the basic sciences but leap right into systems at week 1 of year 1.