4-yr programmes with only 1 yr of pre-clinical teaching

[Ezekiel20]

---

Members do not see this ad.

A while ago I came across the UMelb website that explains their newly proposed 4-yr 'MD' programme, and was surprised to find that there is only 1 year of pre-clinical teaching followed by 3 years of clinical rotations.

And then today I clicked on the link on the new NUS-Duke programme on this very forum, and again found that they have only 1 year of pre-clinical teaching.

I think part of the criticism directed at the 4-yr programmes in Australia (including USyd, UQ, UWA etc), is due to their perceived lack of depth in the teaching of basic sciences.

And in my experience, even after having studied medical science as an undergrad, the 2 pre-clinical years felt a little too short.

So how do people here see these new programmes..?

 

[shan564]

Sounds iffy to me. In my limited experience, I haven't noticed any shortage of clinical skills in the medical workforce (especially in Australia) - what people tend to lack is a basic understanding of the pharmacology of their drugs and the physiology of the mechanisms involved in what they do. I think 2 years is enough for a person with a science background (i.e. I took more than enough biology/biochemistry in my undergrad to make up for the "shortage" in the graduate program), but I feel like strangling somebody every time somebody in my PBL group says that "we could use an antacid to lower the pH."

That, combined with the fact that Melbourne is calling their degree "MD", leads me to believe that they might be losing respect in the future.

 

[redshifteffect]

I don't think that Melbourne will be number 1 much longer if they go ahead with this program.

1 year of pre-clinical training is definitely not enough. Also why call it an MD? Nothing much different then the other graduate MBBS programs.

Also UWA has both a graduate and undergradate program, so it'd be interesting to see the difference in quality of both graduates (if any).

 

[kash_711]

lol. antacid to lower the pH. i can't stop laughing

 

[jaketheory]

the Duke med school in NC has been one year preclinical for a very long time and Duke-NUS adopted the same curriculum. Duke has a required year of research so they arent actually getting 3 years clinical.

i seriously doubt the prestige of Melb will suffer for this change. this is a change directed by the fact that in Aust much of basic science learning it left to specialty training. i do not claim to say this from experience but in May i visited Monash where they do one year preclinical and 3 years clinical. i argued with a current student about how such in depth basic sci was or was not preferred and his thoughts were that there was no point cramming so much info when it wasnt really needed and would be learned later in specialty training. im under the impression that one year at monash is a bit more intense than preclinical at other schools.

 

[redshifteffect]

I assume you're referring to the post-grad Monash program, and not the undergraduate one?

I think that there might be some merit in what the student (you spoke to) is saying, ie. The basic sciences are emphasied while undergoing specialty training. However many of the posters on this forum have aims to go back to the US after graduation and don't intend to stay in Aus. These type of people expect Australian schools to prepare them for the USMLE, and I think if they attend a school like this they will be frustrated and perhaps even disappointed.

I think anyone who's expecting to be spoon fed USMLE material at a school with only 1 pre-clinical year is going to have to think twice.

 

[jaketheory]

I assume you're referring to the post-grad Monash program, and not the undergraduate one?

I think that there might be some merit in what the student (you spoke to) is saying, ie. The basic sciences are emphasied while undergoing specialty training. However many of the posters on this forum have aims to go back to the US after graduation and don't intend to stay in Aus. These type of people expect Australian schools to prepare them for the USMLE, and I think if they attend a school like this they will be frustrated and perhaps even disappointed.

I think anyone who's expecting to be spoon fed USMLE material at a school with only 1 pre-clinical year is going to have to think twice.

yes, grad entry at monash gippsland. while there is only one year of preclinical it was noted that basic sciences learning is integrated throughout all 4 years. such that they only have the one formal year but in case studies in PBL's in later years they will also be learning additional basic sci. however, this still probably would not be that helpful for those looking to take the USMLE.

 

[redshifteffect]

I think the case study PBLs aren't really any different then the other medical schools. Even undergrad schools have integrated PBLs and basic sciences tutorials in the clinical years.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

A while ago I came across the UMelb website that explains their newly proposed 4-yr 'MD' programme, and was surprised to find that there is only 1 year of pre-clinical teaching followed by 3 years of clinical rotations.

And then today I clicked on the link on the new NUS-Duke programme on this very forum, and again found that they have only 1 year of pre-clinical teaching.

I think part of the criticism directed at the 4-yr programmes in Australia (including USyd, UQ, UWA etc), is due to their perceived lack of depth in the teaching of basic sciences.

And in my experience, even after having studied medical science as an undergrad, the 2 pre-clinical years felt a little too short.

So how do people here see these new programmes..?

The basic science curriculum in the Grad Entry programs are already extremely light. Most North Americans have to literally teach themselves Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology, Anatomy, and Microbiology to pass the Step 1.

 

[jaketheory]

i've had a look at the state licensure and statistics guide published by the american medical association and got quite concerned when i found at least one state as a stated the medical education of foreign medical grads required specifically 2 years of preclinical basic science. however, that was the 2007 edition and i haven't checked out the 2009 ed. I mentioned this to a friend of mine who state this is unlikely to be a strict requirement given US schools are now trending towards less than 2 years basic science as well. he is at Tufts and while he did 2 yrs basic science this years entering class will only have 1.5 yrs basic science.

anyway, duke has had only one year basic sci for years. i'm sure they have to do a fair amount of prep on their own and i doubt they are bombing step 1.

 

[redshifteffect]

Keep in mind the difference in candidates too though. Places like Duke are accepting the best and brightest of the US, UQ et. al. probably aren't. That may also explain the difference.

 

[koffein]

I thought that this was the case at U Melb because they require their applicants to have already taken Biochemistry, Anatomy, and Physiology. Last I checked this was listed in their pre-requisites page.

 

[adrianus]

the Duke med school in NC has been one year preclinical for a very long time and Duke-NUS adopted the same curriculum. Duke has a required year of research so they arent actually getting 3 years clinical.

i seriously doubt the prestige of Melb will suffer for this change. this is a change directed by the fact that in Aust much of basic science learning it left to specialty training. i do not claim to say this from experience but in May i visited Monash where they do one year preclinical and 3 years clinical. i argued with a current student about how such in depth basic sci was or was not preferred and his thoughts were that there was no point cramming so much info when it wasnt really needed and would be learned later in specialty training. im under the impression that one year at monash is a bit more intense than preclinical at other schools.

Yup, I am in Duke-NUS. One year pre-clinical is possible, but be prepared to work extra extra hard during that one year. But you'd have to have strong background in Physio / Anatomy / Biochemistry before doing such program, without which you'll struggle to catch up. In my opinion solid basic science is important too, no point of cramming 'clinical skills' without solid understanding of the science behind it. So it'll probably be a better idea to attend schools with 2 years pre-clinical if your first major wasn't in medically related science.