So I clarified with him what he meant. Basically, he's saying the material is essentially the same and that schools don't necessarily do well that which that proclaim in changing up/improving curricula, so that in the end, it doesn't make much of a difference. For example, I loved Northwestern's curriculum. I like the way they do pre-clinical training with standardized patients and student-run clinics. To me, different features of the curricula are distinguishing factors even though it can sometimes blend together. Northwestern and Foster School of Medicine (El Paso) both stood out as having really distinctive curricular choices that would impact my learning as a student beyond the self-preparation for Step 1. In other ways, most schools are pretty similar with pass/fail, no rank, etc.