Guys,
Yowsers! I didn't even think the 1st year cirriculum was that bad until I got your responses. My impression is that even though the 1st semester coursework seems very heavy, they might be quickie reviews of the most essential information. I get the impression that with the systems-based cirriculum, you review a lot of the basic sciences over again and so this hopefully fosters better retention. Comparing KCOM and COMP, I also get the impression that KCOM has a classical approach to medical education whereas COMP has a more modern approach. California also has one of the most stringent medical licensing laws in the country, and so it makes sense that COMP is probably more allopathically-influenced than other osteopathic medical schools. And I have also been impressed by the high board scores of KCOM graduates, although COMP grads have also secured very high profile allopathic and osteopathic residencies.
Lastly, I agree with Cliff that lifestyle factors play a huge role in choosing a medical college. I loved UHS' facilities and reputation, but having such a non-structured approach to the 3rd and 4th year rotations turned me off. COMP was the natural choice for me because I was wait-listed at UHS, and Kansas City couldn't compare to the cultural diversity and big-city excitement of the Los Angeles area. Plus, I plan to do an allopathic residency at UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCLA, or UCSD after an osteopathic internship, and so I figured my geographic proximity to these programs would be helpful during my elective rotations.
In sum, a very wise doctor friend of mine says that it really doesn't matter where you to medical school, as long as it is AOA or AMA-accredited. Work your butt off and score high on your boards, and you should be able to get a good residency and job afterwards.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious guys, now I am going to start having those nightmares about medical school again!
EDGAR
P.S. Gregory, would you have chosen AZCOM over COMP if NSUCOM had rejected you?