1.5 Year Pre-Clinical Curriculum

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

I'd like to hear perspectives on the 1.5 year pre-clinical curriculum that some schools are moving towards. Not sure how long it's been around, but if anyone out there has gone this route, please share your thoughts.

It appeals to me because despite the high level of subjectivity and frustrations of clerkships, I'd much rather be in the hospital learning than studying PowerPoint slides in the library. The only concern I have is whether the fairly large gap between the end of basic science courses and the Step 1 would impact my score.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mt Kilimanjaro]

Never mind...just found this. Showed up in Google, but not when I searched SDN.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=911380

 

[darkjedi]

School's with 1.5 year curricula have some of the highest average board scores in the nation, it surely doesn't hurt them.

 

[mvenus929]

The only concern I have is whether the fairly large gap between the end of basic science courses and the Step 1 would impact my score.

What makes you think there's a very large gap? Some schools on the 1.5 year basic science curriculum don't do step 1 until after clerkships, yes, but some do them right after. We get roughly 2 months of study time to take Step 1, then begin clerkships, which is pretty on par with schools who have a full 2 year pre-clerkship curriculum.

 

[armybound]

School's with 1.5 year curricula have some of the highest average board scores in the nation, it surely doesn't hurt them.

do you think those schools also tend to recruit higher-achieving pre-meds?

so it might be a matter of who their students are instead of what their curriculum is?

 

[Leonidis I]

i go to such a school and it's awesome. less time spent learning the krebs cycle and OIAI of muscles and more time on organ systems pathology and pathophys during preclinicals and of course more time seeing patients. we can take step 1 any time during 3rd year (december-january is popular) and upperclassmen i've talked to who have taken it said that their clinical experience helped them tremendously and they would have been at a disadvantage if they had taken it right after preclinicals. another advantage is you get more exposure to different fields so you can make a better decision as to what you want to specialize in.

do you think those schools also tend to recruit higher-achieving pre-meds?

so it might be a matter of who their students are instead of what their curriculum is?

our school's scores jumped ~10 pts the first year the 1.5 curriculum was implemented and have slowly creeped up since then every year according to our dean. doubt there was much difference in student caliber from year to year so i do think it's the curriculum.

 

[Disinence2]

seems very doable to me! I would go for it if given the chance again

 

[darkjedi]

do you think those schools also tend to recruit higher-achieving pre-meds?

so it might be a matter of who their students are instead of what their curriculum is?

Baylor has a 1.5 year curriculum, and while an amazing school, may not recruit the same 'higher-achieving' students as places like HMS or UCSF. However their average board scores are also through the roof. Not saying that student body isn't a huge component to average step scores, but curriculum can matter as well. Being able to take the step 1 after a year of clinicals seems to be a huge benefit.

At my own school, in the years after we switched to our current 1.5 year curriculum, our board scores shot up dozens of points.