I already understand that. All I was looking for was a simple answer to the question.
I admit, my earlier post sounded pretty harsh. My apologies.
If you're still really worried about it, I would suggest visiting threads for schools that have long used P/F or non-traditional forms of student assessment (Yale, CCLCM) and see if any MS3s from there (looking to match next year) can give you perspective.
I am convinced P/F is a very good thing. And that doesn't mean I'm a slacker who relishes the thought of a lower bar to jump over. I worked extremely hard in undergrad and had a high GPA, and I will continue to work hard to land a competitive specialty.
However, during interviews, it definitely seemed like the students at schools with P/F really were happier and focused on actual learning.
One study found no difference in the test performance of med students after a switch to P/F (and found that students had "similar success getting matched into quality residency programs"), but did see "higher scores related to positive well-being, self-control, vitality and general health." Plus, I think learning to be a better team player and letting go of the pre-med neuroticism (which we all suffer from) will go much farther in landing your dream residency than beating your peers in assessments.
EDIT: Also check out
this web page, which is UVa's Q&A about their switch to P/F. I suspect BCM will do something similar for AOA (wait until 3rd year clerkships) if it doesn't already (see item #9).
From the same web page:
"Wagoner and Suriano (1999) surveyed 1,200 residency program directors in 14 specialties and asked them to rate the importance of each of 12 criteria in residency selection. Overall, 'grades in preclinical courses' was rated as the least important criteria (while 'grades in required clerkships' was rated as the most important of the 12 criteria)."
