Clinical Curriculum Pre-Step 1

[SoSimplyKari]

Forgive my ignorance on this issue, but I've heard rumors that some medical schools are switching to curriculums that begin clinical rotations after one year of pre-clinical study and then take step one after having completed some rotations? Can anyone speak to this/confirm/deny?

From what I've heard, the schools going with this method are showing improved step scores. Curious what extra resources are being utilized to get these results- still just the usual step 1 prep resources, or could this be more so from the shelf resources?

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Blue Blood]

A bunch of schools do this (i.e. duke) and some do 1.5 years basic science followed by core rotations and then step 1 and 2 (i.e. usuhs).

 

[slopes23]

Likely it has something to do with the caliber and qualities of the students they are admitting. I'm sure they know what qualities the students should demonstrate in order to be able to handle the extra pressure of a 1 yr curriculum and admit accordingly, resulting not surprisingly in higher step 1 scores.

 

[operaman]

Yeah I would hesitate to read too much in to the stats they quote -- too many confounders to say that their curriculum alone is the reason for the change. There's also the fact that small score differences on step exams are insignificant simply due to the error involved in scaling.

I'm sure they are using the same resources. Shelf and Step 2CK resources are almost totally useless for Step 1 despite what some may say. People hear that step 1 is testing more clinical material and think that the more clinically-focused exam materials like CK/shelves will help, but this is simply not true (or not true enough to matter). They may look alike, but the questions are very different. Clinical knowledge may help reinforce some basic science concepts that would be helpful on step 1, but I think this would be fairly minimal and likely outbalanced by the clinically irrelevant basic science stuff you would forget.

I have mixed feelings about these early clinical approaches. I see the pros and cons and honestly don't know where exactly I come down.

 

[notbobtrustme]

Yeah I would hesitate to read too much in to the stats they quote -- too many confounders to say that their curriculum alone is the reason for the change. There's also the fact that small score differences on step exams are insignificant simply due to the error involved in scaling.

I'm sure they are using the same resources. Shelf and Step 2CK resources are almost totally useless for Step 1 despite what some may say. People hear that step 1 is testing more clinical material and think that the more clinically-focused exam materials like CK/shelves will help, but this is simply not true (or not true enough to matter). They may look alike, but the questions are very different. Clinical knowledge may help reinforce some basic science concepts that would be helpful on step 1, but I think this would be fairly minimal and likely outbalanced by the clinically irrelevant basic science stuff you would forget.

I have mixed feelings about these early clinical approaches. I see the pros and cons and honestly don't know where exactly I come down.

yep.

Step 1 will phrase things in a clinical matter, but it definitely tests basic science at the end and the vast majority of basic science stuff is not needed while on the wards. For example, knowing how various intrinsic glomerus diseases look under the electron microscope is high yield on Step 1. After Step 1 is over, no one will ever care that a deposit is sub-epithelial.

 

[Psai]

rotations are useless for step 1, i scored high a year ago but would probably fail if i took it today