I understand that the negative sentiments said recently are probably heavily exaggerated, but this is the second time something like this has happened about this school. Furthermore, the previously alluded to political agenda might be so pervasive that the federal government had to step in. There may very well be genuine underlying issues that cause such extreme opinions and I think as prospective students we have a right to know about them. Could any current medical students please give an objective input about some of the things brought up both now and in the past about the school? Specifically, about the following points?
Are there significant amounts of politics and political bias infused into the curriculum and into the school in general?
If so, is it so prominent that it starts to take time and attention away from the meat of the medical school curriculum (basic sciences, labs, research, etc.)?
Are funds mismanaged such that money allocated for one purpose is rerouted towards advancing some kind of political agenda and not towards increasing the quality of medical education?
Are there examples of the school being open to constructive criticism and changing academic practices which don't work for students in favor of systems which make students perform better?
Does the school have problems keeping lecturers or with lecturers showing up to class?
I think it fair to expect a school to be politically neutral and to be a place of learning, not a place of politics. Although earlier I was set on this school, I'm starting to have questions now and I also might look into other offers like some other students here. I really hope that these concerns are just exaggerated and not founded in reality. Of course, as stated by another commenter, the proof is in the pudding and the match results aren't bad at all. At the end of the day, we go to medical school to be able to go on to residencies of our choice and it looks like this school can get us into good residencies if we put in the work.
www.wsj.com
