[...]

[fa21212]

[...]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PreMedMissteps]

m wondering how the curriculum change starting my year might affect my experience?

What is their curriculum change?

Are they reducing their didactic time?

 

[Gurby]

I believe they are going more PBL.

 

[pwk4d]

What is their curriculum change?

Are they reducing their didactic time?

Looks like they're still evaluating a couple options with one being one year pre-clinical.

 

[DubbiDoctor]

WashU has a very traditional curriculum -- no pathology until year 2 - so it's probably about time they revamped it. I'd rather not spend a whole year learning about physiology when I went to med school to learn how to treat patients.

 

[nopenope9ee]

by my read, the student-led proposal only has 6-7 months of basic sciences before core rotations begin

 

[Crayola227]

A touch of PBL is actually kinda cool. A touch.

I was on a traditional block schedule, didn't have pathology until MS2. I loved it, it reminded me of university, and just made sense to me. Learn all about how the body works and what stuff is, and then learn how it all does wrong. Sorta the order that the things actually happen to human bodies, they work and then they don't. A few PBL kept things interesting.

THEN the year after me had a major curriculum revamp AND a revamp of how they selected applicants. Disaster. They didn't know how to teach to the new class, and they changed how they were teaching. Yuck.

Being the first year for a curriculum change is never good. You're the guinea pig class.

And when I say not good, I don't mean boo hoo it's a pain in the ass but you buck up read a book and learn the stuff anyway.

That whole class failed one of the core classes so badly, they decided they just literally couldn't fail that many, it was basically in that statistical zone where they're not outliers, it's clearly curriculum. They had to grade on a curve to be able to and justify passing all the fails. That didn't make those students know what they needed to know of that material. It just meant they wouldn't be remediated as the remediation system in place literally couldn't have handled that many. Not to mention, you don't want to be the school that screwed that many students' transcripts, it clearly reflects poorly on the school not the students at that point.

So what does than mean moving forward? Well, the curriculum didn't teach these students well and it showed in the Step 1 scores. There's only so much you can do on your own to learn a med school curriculum, it turns out. Or it could also be that they didn't select well with the new admissions system. We'll never know.

It it's your only admittance, you go wherever you can get that MD/DO, and obviously there are other factors, but I would avoid "new" in education like the plague.

 

[dodolol21]

It it's your only admittance, you go wherever you can get that MD/DO, and obviously there are other factors, but I would avoid "new" in education like the plague.

WashU

Bruh, lol

 

[Med Ed]

Have any medical students here ever dealt with a curriculum change? WashU is on my list of schools I may go to, but I'm wondering how the curriculum change starting my year might affect my experience? Will there be a lot of bumps and am I better off going to a school with an established curriculum or is there an alternative perspective? I would highly appreciate it if medical students who went through a curriculum change at their own school could comment on what their experiences were like.

All medical schools "renew" their curricula from time to time. Johns Hopkins, literally the inspiration for the near universal structure of modern medical education, rolled out Genes to Society (GTS) back in 2009. It may be hard to understand from the student side, but running the exact same curriculum year after year gets stale, and eventually only the new faculty aren't phoning it in.

The results of a new curriculum depend on how well it has been thought out, bought into, and implemented. Some bumps are inevitable, but things tend to smooth out over a couple of years. Most schools do intensive planning for several years before making significant changes. I doubt Wash U is going to do anything rash.

That said, there have been occasional disasters.

 

[Broseiden]

Any new curriculum will have some bumps in the road. Our curriculum got overhauled a while ago but there are still a few kinks here and there. I would choose the new wave curriculums over any stuffy old traditional 2 year one though.

Still, being a guinea pig isn't ideal. If you have another school where you feel all else is equal, then why not avoid the hassle.

 

[Toutie]

I know UCSF just changed theirs about 2-3 years ago and I don't think there have been any significant difficulties for the students.

 

[Wahkoon]

First, the curriculum changes won’t be implemented until entering class 2020, so this will not affect your education. Regardless, they announced that they are reducing the class size in order to give more attention to the changes. I have no doubt that they will give students the support needed for any problems this change will cause. I mean it is WashU, and schools renew their curriculum every 7 years..

 

[PreMedMissteps]

Looks like they're still evaluating a couple options with one being one year pre-clinical.

We’re seeing more and more SOMs reducing pre-clinical to 1 year or 1.5 years.

I’m just wondering if the current mood to reduce premed prereqs squares well with reducing pre-clinical. Thoughts?

 

[Goro]

We’re seeing more and more SOMs reducing pre-clinical to 1 year or 1.5 years.

I’m just wondering if the current mood to reduce premed prereqs squares well with reducing pre-clinical. Thoughts?

There are two different motivations to these particular changes.
The move away from the classical prerequisites is a desire to change to competencies.


The move to reduce the preclinical curriculum is, well, to get you to have more clinical training, which, in a way is another form of competencies that medical Educators want out of you.. It might even be a test bed to shortening medical school

 

[PreMedMissteps]

There are two different motivations to these particular changes.
The move away from the classical prerequisites is a desire to change to competencies.


The move to reduce the preclinical curriculum is, well, to get you to have more clinical training, which, in a way is another form of competencies that medical Educators want out of you..

It might even be a test bed to shortening medical school

I agree. And I also agree with your test bed theory - at least for primary care. PA’s are in school for about 30 months. Maybe that’s what they’re looking at? And then go onto residencies from there?

 

[Crayola227]

I think reducing medical student training, be it the didactic years or the clinical, is a MISTAKE.

There is some fat to trim, but for every iota of useless info, you could easily replace it with something valuable in that time.

It's drinking out of a fire hose, and the typical complaint is that there just isn't enough time to learn what you need.

Ultimately there needs to be a constant striving for more efficiency in training, that is not the same as less training.

If I could go back and wave a magic wand, I would just make tweaks to the curriculum and what it covered, and to the clinical years.

I agree curriculums should be continually revamped and looked over. That said, it's a question of how risk averse you are. I would rather go with tried and true for an education of this importance. Knowing more details about the proposed changes and how the school is going to implement them, as well as their reputation, makes a difference. Taking this into account along with 100 other factors that matter for your medical education as well, be it residency matching Step 1 scores sunshine or how close it is to your Aunt Teresa.

At the end of the day, if you work hard, you'll be called doctor, pass the boards, and match. The reputation of the school, as well as your individual performance, matters as does your ultimate career goals. Some paths are more or less painful, as well. They can always make you suffer more.

 

[Med Ed]

I think reducing medical student training, be it the didactic years or the clinical, is a MISTAKE.

I don't disagree, but would like to note the schools that "compressed" their 2-year preclinical curricula to 1.5 years typically did it by removing Y1-Y2 redundancies and shortening summer break.

I would rather go with tried and true for an education of this importance.

That raises and interesting question of what defines "tried and true." PBL was first used in an American medical curriculum in 44 years ago. Lecture is ancient but done more for its ease and familiarity than its effectiveness. The push nowadays for so-called active learning is just a new moniker for applied learning, which has been going on for as long as humans have been teaching other humans. The medical education system observed by Flexner was awful in sum, but before that the dominant model was a physician apprenticeship, which may not have been too bad for the time. And seminal research about adult learning theory is still being done, even now in 2019.

I get it, logically we shouldn't constantly try to fix what isn't necessarily broken. But humans are a restless bunch... just ask the Sumerians.

 

[Melanogaster]

I don't disagree, but would like to note the schools that "compressed" their 2-year preclinical curricula to 1.5 years typically did it by removing Y1-Y2 redundancies and shortening summer break.



That raises and interesting question of what defines "tried and true." PBL was first used in an American medical curriculum in 44 years ago. Lecture is ancient but done more for its ease and familiarity than its effectiveness. The push nowadays for so-called active learning is just a new moniker for applied learning, which has been going on for as long as humans have been teaching other humans. The medical education system observed by Flexner was awful in sum, but before that the dominant model was a physician apprenticeship, which may not have been too bad for the time. And seminal research about adult learning theory is still being done, even now in 2019.

I get it, logically we shouldn't constantly try to fix what isn't necessarily broken. But humans are a restless bunch... just ask the Sumerians.

There have been maybe a handful of times where I've appreciated PBL, but mostly I've noticed that PBL wastes top students time in hopes of bringing up the bottom students.

 

[Med Ed]

There have been maybe a handful of times where I've appreciated PBL, but mostly I've noticed that PBL wastes top students time in hopes of bringing up the bottom students.

How so?

 

[Melanogaster]

How so?

It's mandatory, so everyone has to go. All the top students I've talked to say they're much more efficient on their own. Not to say group review isn't helpful, but 4-5x per week is a waste of time for them.

The PBL sessions just turn into second teaching sessions, where the bottom students get a second pass of the material while the top students are off on their own doing anki cards trying to make up for lost time spent going over stuff they already know.

Should just teach students how to study and free up 10+ hours per week.

edit: should have wrote "and" rather than "in hopes of" in the original post.

 

[Med Ed]

It's mandatory, so everyone has to go. All the top students I've talked to say they're much more efficient on their own. Not to say group review isn't helpful, but 4-5x per week is a waste of time for them.

The PBL sessions just turn into second teaching sessions, where the bottom students get a second pass of the material while the top students are off on their own doing anki cards trying to make up for lost time spent going over stuff they already know.

Should just teach students how to study and free up 10+ hours per week.

edit: should have wrote "and" rather than "in hopes of" in the original post.

It sounds like you have two problems, so to speak:

1. Poor facilitation
2. A fundamental misunderstanding of PBL’s purpose

PBL is not an efficient content delivery system. It’s about learning a method, one that is fully transferable to later life.

Sorry your experience has been lousy. Teachers abound, but good ones are hard to come by.

 

[DubbiDoctor]

It sounds like you have two problems, so to speak:

1. Poor facilitation
2. A fundamental misunderstanding of PBL’s purpose

PBL is not an efficient content delivery system. It’s about learning a method, one that is fully transferable to later life.

Sorry your experience has been lousy. Teachers abound, but good ones are hard to come by.

PBLs focused on clinical skills, using mock patients (either students or paid actors) are very helpful. I can't practice patient interviews by myself - and the feedback really helps. But we also do PBLs where we essentially present to the class the learning objectives that we selected - like what is scleroderma. That is not helpful, since I can actively teach myself - using B&B, pathoma, sketchy and most importantly anki - basic medical knowledge better than I can be passively taught by my classmates. PBLs should focus on clinical skills and problem solving but all to often they consist of passive learning, wasting my time.

 

[differentiating]

I know UCSF just changed theirs about 2-3 years ago and I don't think there have been any significant difficulties for the students.

It was definitely a rocky experience, both for those of us in the class above as well as for the first Bridges class. I imagine most of the kinks have been worked out by now, but the first year of a new curriculum can be a bit of a mess, so I’d be wary of being the guinea pig.

Edit: I see now that you’re likely to be the last class before a curriculum change - which, as I alluded to, can be just as painful an experience. My class found that we were often forgotten and our concerns generally dismissed because we were the last class they applied to. Rotations were also impacted due to the class below entering them early. I think I would have had a much more positive MS3/4 experience if the curriculum change had not occurred. Just some things to consider, since I didn’t realize how it could impact us when I was in your shoes.

 

[Toutie]

It was definitely a rocky experience, both for those of us in the class above as well as for the first Bridges class. I imagine most of the kinks have been worked out by now, but the first year of a new curriculum can be a bit of a mess, so I’d be wary of being the guinea pig.

Edit: I see now that you’re likely to be the last class before a curriculum change - which, as I alluded to, can be just as painful an experience. My class found that we were often forgotten and our concerns generally dismissed because we were the last class they applied to. Rotations were also impacted due to the class below entering them early. I think I would have had a much more positive MS3/4 experience if the curriculum change had not occurred. Just some things to consider, since I didn’t realize how it could impact us when I was in your shoes.

Thanks for chiming in. I was hoping you would, as I knew you were personally in this situation. I was obviously mistaken that it didn't cause some difficulties for the students. Do you think your class or the first Bridges class was irreparably harmed by the change? Or just made things more difficult in general?

Do you think your issues on rotations would have been alleviated some if UCSF had reduced the size of the class a bit like Wash U is doing (from 120 to 100)? I wonder if that is the reason behind the reduction in class size?

 

[Med Ed]

But we also do PBLs where we essentially present to the class the learning objectives that we selected - like what is scleroderma. That is not helpful, since I can actively teach myself - using B&B, pathoma, sketchy and most importantly anki - basic medical knowledge better than I can be passively taught by my classmates.

So, again, the goal of PBL is not to convey basic medical knowledge. If “what is scleroderma “ isn’t helpful then develop better learning objectives.

I spent a good chunk of time as a PBL facilitator, and I always feel it gets unfairly maligned here. In my experience student rated PBL higher than lecture and generally enjoyed it. The ones who got the most out of it were the ones who put the most into it. But, as with everything, YMMV.

Also, what you have described with mock patients would not fit the typical mold of PBL.

 

[mcat_taker]

My school was a mix of PBL or what we called CBL "case based learning" 2x per week about 10 students per group and traditional lectures but the lectures were supposed to support the PBL curriculum and not the other way around.

Lectures are an outdated model of delivering information. Sitting in a big hall of hundreds of students zoning out while slides are being presented, or rather an empty hall since they were all recorded so no one had to show up just isn't the best way for everyone to learn.

PBL was mandatory and we had a student group leader every week that was responsible for knowing the case cold and engaging the group and getting the entire case done on time. We had a physician tutor that facilitated the discussion round a big old table and went over difficult concepts. We had case triggers to answer and go over. It was nice being in a small group setting. We even had an alternating dedicated snacks person that would bring snacks for the group every week.

Like a previous poster said, you get what you put into it. If you prepare for the case ahead of time and read up on the relevant pathophys and other concepts you get more out of it then if you just expect to be spoon fed.

 

[differentiating]

Thanks for chiming in. I was hoping you would, as I knew you were personally in this situation. I was obviously mistaken that it didn't cause some difficulties for the students. Do you think your class or the first Bridges class was irreparably harmed by the change? Or just made things more difficult in general?

Do you think your issues on rotations would have been alleviated some if UCSF had reduced the size of the class a bit like Wash U is doing (from 120 to 100)? I wonder if that is the reason behind the reduction in class size?

Irreparably harmed, I can't say, but I know it definitely negatively impacted my residency application, for one. Because third year rotations were impacted when the MS2s started on the wards, the vast majority of my class was forced to do at least 1 4th year rotation (including sub-Is) prior to finishing third year. This sub-I, in my case, was a hot mess due to the department not expecting sub-Is so early and the school not educating its students on *how* to be a sub-I until third year was finished for everyone - in essence, after most had already needed that information. I also know that the majority of MS2s who started with surgery as their first rotation failed the shelf, as their lack of familiarity with NBME-style exams and how to prepare for them (not having taken Step 1) hurt them. I also know that preclinical (being shortened from 2yrs to 1.5yrs) had snags as well, as there were some blocks that were too fast and some blocks that felt irrelevant, leaving a lot of MS2s underprepared for wards as a whole. I don't know how these have changed in the intervening years, but from what I've heard, rotations and preclinical instruction have improved and adjusted to account for these issues.

Personally, unless the reduction was dropping both years to 50% of normal, I don't think it would've helped much? You'd still have too many students attempting to rotate on the wards at the same time.

This is excellent color and exactly what I was looking for. Doing a deeper analysis on the clinical change at WashU, it seems that the new curriculum will be one year preclinical, then one year clinical, followed by advanced electives, research, etc. For our class, the first year will still be the traditional curriculum which almost mandates that the second year also be traditional given they aren't changing the curriculum until the second year. Usually, there is a class of 124 that rotates 3rd year, but now that size will increase to 200 as two classes may simultaneously be rotating through the hospital (they are reducing the class size to 100 in our year and the year following). The way I see it, there could be some upside to this structure in that the first two years will stay the same as it has for the past 20 years allowing me to stream lectures from home and not attend lecture when possible. In addition, I can use the Anki cards that classes from past years have made to help me learn more efficiently. While third year may undoubtedly have more adjustments as rotations accommodate a significantly increased number of students, the big upside is that it may be changed to pass / fail for our year as well as the year that comes after us. Given the importance of clerkship grades to the match, this would come as welcome relief at least to me. I would be curious if you could reflect on your experience and specifically what your major complaints were in having a curriculum change in the year ahead of you. Also, it would be interesting if you could compare your experiences with the changes potentially afoot at WashU to maybe hypothesize as to whether the class entering WashU in 2019 will have a rocky experience or not. Thanks for all your help!

Just to be clear - the curriculum change was for the year after me, the class of 2020. I'm in the class of 2019, the last bastion of the traditional curriculum. I would've chosen the traditional curriculum over the new one, since imo it's a much better system, but obviously I haven't experienced the new version.

Third year is definitely going to be a hot mess, now that there's 200 people competing for ~124 rotation spots. That's going to be unavoidable. P/F is a huge improvement (UCSF recently changed to this for 3rd year, and my class is definitely jealous that we were stuck with H/P/F), though. I mentioned most of my complaints already - being massively impaired with regards to third & fourth year scheduling, the school legitimately forgetting we exist at times, fourth year electives being limited because the majority are only available to Bridges students. Some things may be different at WashU, but for sure it won't be an easy time for either your class or the one after.

 

[Toutie]

Irreparably harmed, I can't say, but I know it definitely negatively impacted my residency application, for one. Because third year rotations were impacted when the MS2s started on the wards, the vast majority of my class was forced to do at least 1 4th year rotation (including sub-Is) prior to finishing third year. This sub-I, in my case, was a hot mess due to the department not expecting sub-Is so early and the school not educating its students on *how* to be a sub-I until third year was finished for everyone - in essence, after most had already needed that information. I also know that the majority of MS2s who started with surgery as their first rotation failed the shelf, as their lack of familiarity with NBME-style exams and how to prepare for them (not having taken Step 1) hurt them. I also know that preclinical (being shortened from 2yrs to 1.5yrs) had snags as well, as there were some blocks that were too fast and some blocks that felt irrelevant, leaving a lot of MS2s underprepared for wards as a whole. I don't know how these have changed in the intervening years, but from what I've heard, rotations and preclinical instruction have improved and adjusted to account for these issues.

Personally, unless the reduction was dropping both years to 50% of normal, I don't think it would've helped much? You'd still have too many students attempting to rotate on the wards at the same time.



Just to be clear - the curriculum change was for the year after me, the class of 2020. I'm in the class of 2019, the last bastion of the traditional curriculum. I would've chosen the traditional curriculum over the new one, since imo it's a much better system, but obviously I haven't experienced the new version.

Third year is definitely going to be a hot mess, now that there's 200 people competing for ~124 rotation spots. That's going to be unavoidable. P/F is a huge improvement (UCSF recently changed to this for 3rd year, and my class is definitely jealous that we were stuck with H/P/F), though. I mentioned most of my complaints already - being massively impaired with regards to third & fourth year scheduling, the school legitimately forgetting we exist at times, fourth year electives being limited because the majority are only available to Bridges students. Some things may be different at WashU, but for sure it won't be an easy time for either your class or the one after.

How much damage do you think was done to your residency application? Are you now unable to go for the specialty you initially wanted? Or did you have to lower the quality residency programs you were applying for because you were hindered by the mess resulting from the changes? Was any of this addressed in your residency interviews? Are you fairly confident you will do well in the Match next month?

 

[differentiating]

How much damage do you think was done to your residency application? Are you now unable to go for the specialty you initially wanted? Or did you have to lower the quality residency programs you were applying for because you were hindered by the mess resulting from the changes? Was any of this addressed in your residency interviews? Are you fairly confident you will do well in the Match next month?

I'm not applying to a competitive specialty, so I feel fairly confident that I'll still be able to match in the specialty I want - hopefully in my preferred location. But I didn't get invited to interview at some of the top programs I applied to, but did at some others, and I have a suspicion that my clinical grades likely contributed. At one top program I did interview at, one of the questions from the interviewers was why I had so many passes and only a few H. In an attempt to keep some veil of anonymity, I don't want to discuss the specific field and the idiosyncrasies involved in how this all relates, so apologies if this sounds a little vague - let's just say that the sub-I I struggled in was in a related but different field than that I applied into, and certain programs were more concerned about that than others. But yes, I think it affected who was interested/where I interviewed, though in the end I'm hopeful that I'll wind up at one of my top 2 programs pre-interviews in the specialty I prefer.

 

[LizzyM]

Sounds like WashU may have some serious waitlist movement this year and next....

 

[PreMedMissteps]

shortening summer break.

Well, shortening the break between MS1 and MS2 may not be so desirable. That summer’s break has been typically the longer one between the med school years, and perhaps a desired break?

What are they shortening it to be?

 

[Med Ed]

Well, shortening the break between MS1 and MS2 may not be so desirable. That summer’s break has been typically the longer one between the med school years, and perhaps a desired break?

What are they shortening it to be?

Most commonly from about 3 months to about 2 months.

 

[efle]

What are the other options you're considering? If it's something like WashU vs another top 20, I'd dodge the change.

 

[Quantal Reasoning]

Irreparably harmed, I can't say, but I know it definitely negatively impacted my residency application, for one. Because third year rotations were impacted when the MS2s started on the wards, the vast majority of my class was forced to do at least 1 4th year rotation (including sub-Is) prior to finishing third year. This sub-I, in my case, was a hot mess due to the department not expecting sub-Is so early and the school not educating its students on *how* to be a sub-I until third year was finished for everyone - in essence, after most had already needed that information. I also know that the majority of MS2s who started with surgery as their first rotation failed the shelf, as their lack of familiarity with NBME-style exams and how to prepare for them (not having taken Step 1) hurt them. I also know that preclinical (being shortened from 2yrs to 1.5yrs) had snags as well, as there were some blocks that were too fast and some blocks that felt irrelevant, leaving a lot of MS2s underprepared for wards as a whole. I don't know how these have changed in the intervening years, but from what I've heard, rotations and preclinical instruction have improved and adjusted to account for these issues.

Personally, unless the reduction was dropping both years to 50% of normal, I don't think it would've helped much? You'd still have too many students attempting to rotate on the wards at the same time.



Just to be clear - the curriculum change was for the year after me, the class of 2020. I'm in the class of 2019, the last bastion of the traditional curriculum. I would've chosen the traditional curriculum over the new one, since imo it's a much better system, but obviously I haven't experienced the new version.

Third year is definitely going to be a hot mess, now that there's 200 people competing for ~124 rotation spots. That's going to be unavoidable. P/F is a huge improvement (UCSF recently changed to this for 3rd year, and my class is definitely jealous that we were stuck with H/P/F), though. I mentioned most of my complaints already - being massively impaired with regards to third & fourth year scheduling, the school legitimately forgetting we exist at times, fourth year electives being limited because the majority are only available to Bridges students. Some things may be different at WashU, but for sure it won't be an easy time for either your class or the one after.

This actually reflects what a friend of mine said at another school going through the growing pains of a changing curriculum. I'll echo what someone else said; avoid being the guinea pig because those reverberations are going to be felt by classes above and below.

 

[hmockingbird]

My school switched to a PBL based curriculum the year after us. I don’t think it impacted my class much. However they did try out some PBL type lessons which were hit and miss. My friends in the class below me didn’t complain about the curriculum much so I’m assuming they took our feedback seriously and were working on the kinks. I definitely think it’s different if it will be impacting your rotations. But if that’s your only option than obviously you should go.

 

[965978]

Sounds like WashU may have some serious waitlist movement this year and next....

I think, overall, there might be more waitlist movement overall because I would hypothesize that less people will get interviewed.

The reason I say that is because schools will accept less people before April 30th, so that means that more people won't be getting their first acceptance until after April 30th, which means that there will be fewer II's getting withdrawn than usual. Which ultimately means that a lot of II spots will be wasted on applicants that are only going to that interview because their top choice hasn't accepted them yet.

Ex: John Smith gets waitlisted at Emory and really wants to go to Emory. Emory would have accepted him outright had it not been for the change in traffic rules. John gets another interview at Rochester but doesn't really want to go to Rochester, but feels compelled to go to the interview because he does not have an acceptance. If he had withdrawn his II at Rochester, it may have gone to someone else without any other IIs.

So on a national level we may have less candidates being interviewed for the same number of spots. Which would translate to large waitlist movement all over the place.

 

[LizzyM]

I think, overall, there might be more waitlist movement overall because I would hypothesize that less people will get interviewed.

The reason I say that is because schools will accept less people before April 30th, so that means that more people won't be getting their first acceptance until after April 30th, which means that there will be fewer II's getting withdrawn than usual. Which ultimately means that a lot of II spots will be wasted on applicants that are only going to that interview because their top choice hasn't accepted them yet.

Ex: John Smith gets waitlisted at Emory and really wants to go to Emory. Emory would have accepted him outright had it not been for the change in traffic rules. John gets another interview at Rochester but doesn't really want to go to Rochester, but feels compelled to go to the interview because he does not have an acceptance. If he had withdrawn his II at Rochester, it may have gone to someone else without any other IIs.

So on a national level we may have less candidates being interviewed for the same number of spots. Which would translate to large waitlist movement all over the place.

By that logic, there should be less waitlist movement because most applicants (more than right now) will have just one offer and will therefore attend the only school that admits them.

WashU tends to go after the superstars that tend to have many offers. If they are rolling out a new curriculum, many of their successful applicants will choose one of their other offers rather than attend WashU in the year that it changes its curriculum. On the other hand, if more applicants admitted to WashU and another school choose that other school, that school will have less waitlist movement because more of the applicants it makes offers to will choose it.

 

[theKingLT]

Keep in mind these are just predictions at this point for changes and nothing is well-defined. One of the three curriculum proposals has only 6 weeks of pre-clinicals!

 

[Med Ed]

I think, overall, there might be more waitlist movement overall because I would hypothesize that less people will get interviewed.

The reason I say that is because schools will accept less people before April 30th, so that means that more people won't be getting their first acceptance until after April 30th, which means that there will be fewer II's getting withdrawn than usual. Which ultimately means that a lot of II spots will be wasted on applicants that are only going to that interview because their top choice hasn't accepted them yet.

Ex: John Smith gets waitlisted at Emory and really wants to go to Emory. Emory would have accepted him outright had it not been for the change in traffic rules. John gets another interview at Rochester but doesn't really want to go to Rochester, but feels compelled to go to the interview because he does not have an acceptance. If he had withdrawn his II at Rochester, it may have gone to someone else without any other IIs.

So on a national level we may have less candidates being interviewed for the same number of spots. Which would translate to large waitlist movement all over the place.

One weakness with your example is that whoever would have gotten backfilled into John Smith's empty interview slot is extremely unlikely to be a strong contender. So whether John Smith attends the interview out of obligation, or someone else with no other II's attends it out of desperation, Rochester probably isn't filling a seat.

 

[Robin-jay]

I believe they are going more PBL.

PBL is the future. Not saying its good or bad. But I'm surprised all medical schools haven't adopted this by now.

 

[efle]

In truth the future is the universally available, high quality, cohesive lecture packages put together by a single excellent instructor (e.g. Pathoma, Boards and Beyond). Because of the rise of the internet, schools can't compete with outside resources any more like they could when the next best thing was textbooks. There's just no way for a school curriculum, with all the chaos of different daily lecturers doing one-off individual topics, different people than that leading small group, and different people directing each unit...it's just so much faster and cleaner to learn material when it's all organized and presented by one great teacher. School curriculum really shouldn't factor into anyone's decision making any more because you're going to end up ignoring it anyways. It's only if it ruins your clinical years (e.g. 2x as many on your rotation as usual) that I'd dodge it, which sounds like the case here

 

[965978]

One weakness with your example is that whoever would have gotten backfilled into John Smith's empty interview slot is extremely unlikely to be a strong contender. So whether John Smith attends the interview out of obligation, or someone else with no other II's attends it out of desperation, Rochester probably isn't filling a seat.

But why would a school give an II to someone who is weak?

There are plenty of people who only get one acceptance. And in that group are plenty of people who only got one II.

 

[Med Ed]

But why would a school give an II to someone who is weak?

Schools interview lots of weak candidates, that's how you build a waitlist. And if someone is getting called up to fill an interview cancellation, you can bet that person is not going to rocket into the acceptance pile.

 

[965978]

Schools interview lots of weak candidates, that's how you build a waitlist. And if someone is getting called up to fill an interview cancellation, you can bet that person is not going to rocket into the acceptance pile.

So by that logic, do you think that applicants getting an II in August/September are, on average, stronger than applicants getting an II in February/March for the same school?

 

[efle]

So by that logic, do you think that applicants getting an II in August/September are, on average, stronger than applicants getting an II in February/March for the same school?

That's pretty much the case. There are some exceptions, like a very strong applicant who isn't complete until late in the cycle, or a school with such a strong applicant pool that they can fill all 500+ interview slots with top students. But for your typical public school or mid tier school, if you're complete in August and don't get an interview until February, you're probably barely squeaking into that interview slot and are fighting an uphill battle compared to the crowd that got attention six months earlier

 

[965978]

That's pretty much the case. There are some exceptions, like a very strong applicant who isn't complete until late in the cycle, or a school with such a strong applicant pool that they can fill all 500+ interview slots with top students. But for your typical public school or mid tier school, if you're complete in August and don't get an interview until February, you're probably barely squeaking into that interview slot and are fighting an uphill battle compared to the crowd that got attention six months earlier

Hmm. Nice to know. Thank you

 

[LizzyM]

I guess I'm at one of those places that can fill all the slots with strong candidates.... I had more >520s than < 517s in the last week of interviews.

 

[Goro]

I guess I'm at one of those places that can fill all the slots with strong candidates.... I had more >520s than < 517s in the last week of interviews.

 

[965978]

Schools interview lots of weak candidates, that's how you build a waitlist. And if someone is getting called up to fill an interview cancellation, you can bet that person is not going to rocket into the acceptance pile.

Can I ask you something else? Would you say that the true post-II rate for any given school is higher than what is published? The reason I say this is essentially because of waitlist withdrawals.

If someone withdraws from the waitlist, it’s because they have other acceptances. Which means that person is likely a strong contender and had a good chance to get off the waitlist. So the school has to pull someone else off a waitlist seat, perhaps someone who didn’t had any other offers.

Of course, some schools don’t touch their waitlist. So their post-II rate is as published. But I’d reckon for the ones that have extremely significant waitlist movement (Wake, for example) there is a much larger effect.

Example:

A school interviews 500 people for 100 seats. They initially give 100 acceptances, 200 WL, and 200 rejections.

On April 30, 40 accepted applicants withdraw their acceptance and 100 people withdraw their waitlist. So the school makes 40 offers to the remaining pool of 100 WL candidates.

So overall the school made 140 offers. The published rate will be 140/500 = 28%.

But technically, 100 WL’ed people withdrew (and were likely to be very strong contenders to get a waitlist offer because they had other acceptances).

So really the rate should be 140/400 = 35%

 

[LizzyM]

It is more like Wake expects ~40 applicants to decline its offer of admission so it makes 130 offers for 100 seats, has 35 decline the offer and 95 who say yes, goes to the waitlist and makes 10 offers before getting 5 who say yes and it has its 100 incoming students. So it has made 140 offers for 100 seats. End of story. There is nothing to do with how many people drop off the waitlist. Even offers to Harvard get turned down so every school makes more offers than it has seats, except perhaps some of the public schools that government restrictions on how many seats it can offer. The more likely a school is to make offers to applicants who have no other offers, the more conservative they will be in making that initial set of offers given that applicants who have no other options are very likely to accept the offer and matriculate. Schools that are chasing the top 5% of the applicant pool are going to make 2-4 offers for every seat they have to fill because those superstars they are chasing will have 4-7 offers each and all but one will have to be turned down.