- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
I, too, am an M1 at Feinberg and someone pointed me to this thread because of all the talk about the new curriculum. After reading the post by @NtsFrmUndrgrnd I felt the need to add another perspective. I actually started at FSM last year but for various reasons the year was interrupted. So I have perspective on what the curriculum was like, what it's like now, and can tell you my views on the changes. I will go into specifics, but I want to emphasize that despite the glitches/problems/etc. inherent with a new curriculum, I enjoy this curriculum SO much more than the previous one. I feel like I am getting a better education, the material is WAY more interesting, integrated, and clinically relevant, and truthfully, this curriculum has really enabled our class to bond. (Whether that's because we're complaining about this or that or because of the inherent structure of the curriculum, I don't know - probably both).
Specifics:
I agree with all of the positives mentioned in other posts. But I really want to stress how much better it is to have all the normal physiology/anatomy/etc. presented together with the pathophysiology. For one, it's a heck of a lot more enjoyable to study. It's hard to motivate when you are studying an organ's physiology in isolation. It's hard to see the relevance and a lot of times I was thinking, so what? But when you are learning the path simultaneously, the physiology just makes sense. It's not only more interesting, but honestly I think it eliminates some of the burden of memorization because you can think through the pathogenesis rather than memorizing that disease X is characterized by a, b, and c.
On top of that, it makes the clinical exposure we get so much richer. Last year, we would learn physical exam skills relevant to the organ we were studying. But how are you supposed to recognize, appreciate, and understand abnormal exam findings when you haven't learned the possible disease states it represents? I can tell you, it feels very superficial. We also have preceptorships this year. While I will say that everyone's experience is different (depending on what specialty their preceptor is, etc.), it's so cool to be able to walk out of science lecture and into the hospital where you actually SEE the disease you just learned about. Yes, M2s at every school get this experience. But we get it earlier. Finally, we have ~1.5 hours a week of clinical medicine lecture. One of these hours is called clinical correlations. A real patient comes in and talks about their experience with a disease we are learning about. I know I speak for many when I say it's incredible.
Now to the negatives.
We do have a lot of class that seems like nonsense. Honestly, most people are probably browsing the internet, looking at flashcards, or whatever during Health & Society. It feels like a lot of redundant material that does not require that much time to present. I whine like everyone else that it's required. But it's only 2 hours a week. They have scaled it back drastically from the beginning of the year.
In terms of Professional Development: the "corporate personality workshop" is truthfully a silly leadership lecture series. Do I pay attention? No. Do I wish I could leave? Yes. But it's maybe once a month. The rest of Professional Development I truthfully feel is similar to what you'd get at any other school (and I have friends at other med schools so this isn't coming from no where). Besides, we had ethics 2 hours a week last year. It's not some "fluffy nonsense" that was invented for this curriculum.
AOSC: I'll be blunt, it was poorly planned. The communication has been terrible and expectations are unclear. I would not, however, say that it is a joke nor would I say it will weaken our residency applications. There are rigid constraints and I know that has interfered with some people's projects. But so much of this is because it's the first year and honestly, the people running AOSC don't even really know what's going on. I believe most of this is due to the fact that it's the first year and stuff is going to go wrong. But you should know that many of these problems will be improved next year. And I'm really excited about my project.
I'm on one of the curriculum review committees and I will tell you that the faculty are listening to our complaints and striving to make positive changes. Are we going to get all the changes we want? No. Are some of the people who designed the curriculum too idealistic? Yes. But it's honestly because they care (cheesy, yes). They have spent years on this curriculum. They don't want it to fail. And I've read every one of my classmates' evaluations. @NtsFrmUndrgrnd completely misrepresents the overall sentiment.
Like I said, I am FAR happier with this curriculum than the last. I think it's making me a stronger student and will ultimately make me a better residency applicant and a better physician. Keep in mind that some of the complaints and frustrations that have been voiced are due to the fact that this is the first year of a new curriculum. I would bet that next year things will run a lot smoother.
If you don't read any of this post, read this. I was doing a focused clinical experience (shadowing experiences themed around the organ system we are doing/just did) with a cardiologist at the connective tissue disease clinic at Lurie Children's. I spent a lot of time with the nurse practitioner and a nurse (of 25 years) who was studying to be a nurse practitioner. She hadn't had much experience with CTDs and had a number of questions throughout the morning, some of which I was able to answer. At the end, she thanked me for my help. She said, "Now are you a resident?" I said, no, student. And she said, "4th year?"
Random, isolated incident but I think it's a good sign that the new curriculum (flaws and all) is preparing us well.
Specifics:
I agree with all of the positives mentioned in other posts. But I really want to stress how much better it is to have all the normal physiology/anatomy/etc. presented together with the pathophysiology. For one, it's a heck of a lot more enjoyable to study. It's hard to motivate when you are studying an organ's physiology in isolation. It's hard to see the relevance and a lot of times I was thinking, so what? But when you are learning the path simultaneously, the physiology just makes sense. It's not only more interesting, but honestly I think it eliminates some of the burden of memorization because you can think through the pathogenesis rather than memorizing that disease X is characterized by a, b, and c.
On top of that, it makes the clinical exposure we get so much richer. Last year, we would learn physical exam skills relevant to the organ we were studying. But how are you supposed to recognize, appreciate, and understand abnormal exam findings when you haven't learned the possible disease states it represents? I can tell you, it feels very superficial. We also have preceptorships this year. While I will say that everyone's experience is different (depending on what specialty their preceptor is, etc.), it's so cool to be able to walk out of science lecture and into the hospital where you actually SEE the disease you just learned about. Yes, M2s at every school get this experience. But we get it earlier. Finally, we have ~1.5 hours a week of clinical medicine lecture. One of these hours is called clinical correlations. A real patient comes in and talks about their experience with a disease we are learning about. I know I speak for many when I say it's incredible.
Now to the negatives.
We do have a lot of class that seems like nonsense. Honestly, most people are probably browsing the internet, looking at flashcards, or whatever during Health & Society. It feels like a lot of redundant material that does not require that much time to present. I whine like everyone else that it's required. But it's only 2 hours a week. They have scaled it back drastically from the beginning of the year.
In terms of Professional Development: the "corporate personality workshop" is truthfully a silly leadership lecture series. Do I pay attention? No. Do I wish I could leave? Yes. But it's maybe once a month. The rest of Professional Development I truthfully feel is similar to what you'd get at any other school (and I have friends at other med schools so this isn't coming from no where). Besides, we had ethics 2 hours a week last year. It's not some "fluffy nonsense" that was invented for this curriculum.
AOSC: I'll be blunt, it was poorly planned. The communication has been terrible and expectations are unclear. I would not, however, say that it is a joke nor would I say it will weaken our residency applications. There are rigid constraints and I know that has interfered with some people's projects. But so much of this is because it's the first year and honestly, the people running AOSC don't even really know what's going on. I believe most of this is due to the fact that it's the first year and stuff is going to go wrong. But you should know that many of these problems will be improved next year. And I'm really excited about my project.
I'm on one of the curriculum review committees and I will tell you that the faculty are listening to our complaints and striving to make positive changes. Are we going to get all the changes we want? No. Are some of the people who designed the curriculum too idealistic? Yes. But it's honestly because they care (cheesy, yes). They have spent years on this curriculum. They don't want it to fail. And I've read every one of my classmates' evaluations. @NtsFrmUndrgrnd completely misrepresents the overall sentiment.
Like I said, I am FAR happier with this curriculum than the last. I think it's making me a stronger student and will ultimately make me a better residency applicant and a better physician. Keep in mind that some of the complaints and frustrations that have been voiced are due to the fact that this is the first year of a new curriculum. I would bet that next year things will run a lot smoother.
If you don't read any of this post, read this. I was doing a focused clinical experience (shadowing experiences themed around the organ system we are doing/just did) with a cardiologist at the connective tissue disease clinic at Lurie Children's. I spent a lot of time with the nurse practitioner and a nurse (of 25 years) who was studying to be a nurse practitioner. She hadn't had much experience with CTDs and had a number of questions throughout the morning, some of which I was able to answer. At the end, she thanked me for my help. She said, "Now are you a resident?" I said, no, student. And she said, "4th year?"
Random, isolated incident but I think it's a good sign that the new curriculum (flaws and all) is preparing us well.
Last edited:
