Is CCLCM just Duke with an extra year?

[jjmack]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey,

After interviewing at both places it looks like CCLCM is just a Duke-like program, but is afraid to cut the basic sciences back to one year so it takes 5 years to get the full 12 months of independent research. I know some of you may say that CCLCM is trying to train clinical research physicians and that duke is all basic research, but you can do a a full year of clinical research training at duke, a full year of basic science training, or get another degree in a year such as an MA, MPH. Some also take more time off from their medical training to pursue a PhD or a JD. It just seems like Duke is a better designed CCLCM. I'd be curious to hear other people?s thoughts.

 

[Bones2008]

Duke's first year is very, very intensive and just barely managable (from what I've heard as an undergrad here). If your sole criteria is time, then Duke takes the cake for efficiency over any other med school in the country and probably the world. However, if such a fast paced style isn't for you, then Duke's system would be a disaster if you were to attend. I don't think CCLCM is "afraid" to combine their basic science years. Maybe they just think it's stupid to do that. Personally, though I go to Duke undergrad, and they favor their undergrads (everything else being equal), I chose not even to apply to their med school. Their curriculum just wouldn't jive with me. For me, it wasn't "better designed" at all. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[fuzzylogic]

i did not interview at duke so i might not be able to make a fair comparison. based on my personal experience, i believe that there is a basis to the additional research training year at cclcm.

i've been doing bench research fulltime for awhile. believe me, it is not easy to conduct bench research while you are in school. research itself is a fulltime job and it takes time to think through theories, problems and experiments. in order to do something meaningful, i think it helps with the additional training year. i think a lot of schools and organizations encourage students to take an additional year to do bench/clinical research (i.e., harvard, einstein, nih and so on).

it seems that duke has a tendency to shorten students' research period. my friend who interviewed at duke mstp four years ago told me that duke wanted him to finish the entire mstp training in 6 yrs. i am not sure how it is possible to finish your phd phase in two yrs fulltime. maybe someone else from duke can explain their theory better. just my .02.

 

[jjmack]

I think six years for MSTP would be hard to do, but not impossible especially at Duke. My boss did his MD. PhD in six years at AECOM, but he is crazy. I could see someone doing an MSTP program at Duke since you only have three years of formal training in medical school with a whole year left open for independent work. I think their average time to graduate is 7.2 for their MSTP.

 

[SoulRFlare]

Duke started experimenting with the "one year basic science" when my dad was there, and though he still had two years of basic sciences, the class after him didn't. He thinks that the system is a bit too much--that you can't really get a firm foundation in just one year (and this was back in the 60's...there's much more to learn today!). as for the research end of things, I don't know how they structure it, so I can't comment.
regarding CCLCM--one thing Dr. Hutzler kept emphasizing was that the extra year isn't a research year added to the tail end of your education. rather, students integrate research and clinicals into the three remaining years after the basic sciences are complete.

 

[elias514]

A friend of mine is an intern at Duke Medical Center and he thinks that the compressed preclinical curriculum at Duke med school is a bad idea. He told me that it's just too fast and that the med students don't know jack when they do their core clerkships 2nd year.

 

[fuzzylogic]

good point, soulrflare. though the cclcm would like to integrate the research component into the clerkship, i know it is certainly possible to do research for one yr (i.e., after the second yr). i believe the importance of this program is its flexibility. anyway, i am all for the extra yr. for research.

 

[Gleevec]

If you're smart and can learn on the go, Duke's curriculum is way better. Almost every single medical student Ive talked to in their 3rd and 4th years have said that preclinicals are a waste of time outside of USMLE and that a bulk of their learning occurs on the wards. Also, since most people tend to forget the non-clinically applicable minutiae readily, its almost as if they never learned it at all.

I hear Duke uses a lot of board review books and such, passing over a lot of these details that people don't really use in the wards anyway (or will relearn there). So if you want to cut the crap, are willing to study a bit harder for the boards, and would like to do research, Duke is where its at.

Penn and Baylor have 1.5 year preclinicals, which apparently work quite well since its half a year shorter and their average board scores are extremely high (235ish)

 

[SoulRFlare]

I forgot to mention that Duke is revamping their curriculum in order to model it after the university of rochester. guess where one of the architects of rochester's curriculum is now...

 

[Gleevec]

Originally posted by SoulRFlare
I forgot to mention that Duke is revamping their curriculum in order to model it after the university of rochester. guess where one of the architects of rochester's curriculum is now...

what is rochester's curriculum?

 

[SoulRFlare]

Originally posted by Gleevec
what is rochester's curriculum?

here's a link to their website