I have a few comments. From my past observations of both medical schools and my time teaching chemistry at a community college, I have never seen anyone fail half of their class or more and be able to keep their job; except for one, and that was a tenured physics professor. Failure rates = a weak program, and a weak program = a lack of money generated for the school. Granted, undergraduate is a completely different beast from medical school, or any graduate school for that matter, and any excessive failure would probably have to be placed on the admissions committee for accepting students that can't handle the rigors of medical schools. With the recent full accreditation of WCUCOM, that means their program has meet the academic standard of every other osteopathic medical school in the country; if that wasn't the case, they would have been placed on probation or closed down. So, the actual content and what's being taught, logically, cannot be the problem. It's linked to individual teaching by the professors and effort/professionalism of the students. We all know how it goes in college; teachers don't care what excuses you have for why you're doing poorly. It's always been our job, as the student, to extrapolate the information from what our teacher gives us and learn from it, even if a particular teacher is deficient in their methods. Does it suck that professors treat us like crap, teach with apathy, and expect us to learn everything perfectly? Of course! It sucks, but that's just how life works. Even if 100% of what you say is true, I'm going to get through this program and succeed. I'm not a genius that knows everything, but I'll get through this program no matter what. Ultimately, though, the biggest question is this: who knows how to run a medical school more efficiently, medical students or a staff full of physicians and professors with years of experience?