- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 3,757
- Reaction score
- 5
Duke completes all basic sciences in the first year, and its the only school in the country to start med students on the wards in the 2nd year.
My question is, how can they get away with only 1 year of basic science? I looked on their website and it states that they structure the curriculum so that the basic science material is strongly clinically relevant.
Hence, I think they dont cover as much of the purely basic (i.e. not disease oriented) science as other schools. Its obvious that they cant cover exactly the same material in 1 year that others use 2 years to cover.
So, if this method works, why in the HELL arent other schools using this approach? I know that Penn and Baylor use 1.5 years of basic science, but they seem to be only realy comparison to Duke's structure. Since Duke is widely regarded as producing great doctors who are adequately trained in basic science, then shouldnt that be evidece that the other schools are putting irrelevant info into their basic science curricula that isnt necessary to practicing medicine?
I would have expected every school to jump on the Duke bandwagon, since obviously their style produces great docs. So why havent other schools followed suit?
The way I see it, with this curriculum Duke has to be the best overall school in the country bar none, no contest. How can Harvard even compare with Duke when you start clinical training a year before Harvard and get a full year of protected research time?
When you throw out location and other lifestyle variables and just look at the strength of the school itself, I dont see how anyone else even comes close to Duke
My question is, how can they get away with only 1 year of basic science? I looked on their website and it states that they structure the curriculum so that the basic science material is strongly clinically relevant.
Hence, I think they dont cover as much of the purely basic (i.e. not disease oriented) science as other schools. Its obvious that they cant cover exactly the same material in 1 year that others use 2 years to cover.
So, if this method works, why in the HELL arent other schools using this approach? I know that Penn and Baylor use 1.5 years of basic science, but they seem to be only realy comparison to Duke's structure. Since Duke is widely regarded as producing great doctors who are adequately trained in basic science, then shouldnt that be evidece that the other schools are putting irrelevant info into their basic science curricula that isnt necessary to practicing medicine?
I would have expected every school to jump on the Duke bandwagon, since obviously their style produces great docs. So why havent other schools followed suit?
The way I see it, with this curriculum Duke has to be the best overall school in the country bar none, no contest. How can Harvard even compare with Duke when you start clinical training a year before Harvard and get a full year of protected research time?
When you throw out location and other lifestyle variables and just look at the strength of the school itself, I dont see how anyone else even comes close to Duke