Spicedmanna, I have a general curriculum question as I am currently debating between KCUMB and DMU. Since prospective students hear everything that is awesome about the curriculum, what do you feel are the drawback to it? Do you feel you were prepared enough for pharm? Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.
That's an excellent question. I'm not sure I can answer it knowledgeably, since I have little to no ability to compare KCUMB's curriculum that of other schools. Also, I am not sure how many of my challenges were my own and not indicative of my education. It is of additional note that I took those classes two or more years ago and things might have changed since then.
I will say that I was underwhelmed with my knowledge of biochemistry, pathophysiology of...well everything, and certain aspects of physiology, for example, renal, cardiopulmonary phys, and reproductive, in particular. I say that because I felt that I had to really study that material in depth for the boards, not just review it. There were basic deficiencies in my knowledge in these areas. However, I was able to make up for them and do well on boards. Keep in mind that I did little to supplement my classwork while I was in those classes. Others in my class might disagree, but that's how I found it. Thank goodness for Goljan's material; his material taught me pathophysiology and tied everything together neatly for the boards, something I found hard to do with the piecemeal systems approach of the curriculum. (Also, please see addendum about immunology.)
Furthermore, I was underwhelmed by the OMT instruction and how it was presented. It was certainly adequate for the boards and all, especially when boosted by Saverese's book, but I left feeling like I didn't pick up that much. Of course, I didn't really put in extra time to learn it, either. Thankfully, I did an elective rotation in OMT at my hospital and that's where I really learned how to do the stuff. Maybe that's how it is with OMT. I don't know. But I felt that it could have been presented better.
I felt particularly strong with pharm and micro, going into boards, part I. I didn't study those much. I just reviewed that information, for the most part, although, I found the Kaplan pharm review to be very excellent. We did not get that much into the fundamentals of pharmacology as much as I would have liked. Thank goodness for Kaplan pharm, which helped fill in those conceptual blanks. It's the way I learn. I like to know the concepts first, before delving into the specifics. My mind works that way. I need a space to put facts into, or they get lost in space.
Neuro was more than adequate. I think, actually, the neuro section was overkill for the boards. No complaints there. I kind of wished there was more instruction on peripheral nerves, plexi, etc, and associated pathologies, however. I felt underprepared for that aspect on boards. However, this might have been my own fault for not spending more time on that myself.
Anatomy was well choreographed. I tutored anatomy, which probably also helped me be well-prepared for that aspect.
I will also say that I was well-prepared for rotations for the most part, at least from a basic science what-you-can-learn-in-a-classroom perspective. Received many complements on my basic science knowledge and I'm sure a lot of that is from what I learned in the first two years. So, despite whatever challenges I had, it all worked out well. I'm sure every school has different challenges and offers different strengths and weakness. It's all about the work YOU do on your own. I mean, you learn a lot during rotations and the basic science stuff really starts to make sense when you see it in patients. That's where the big learning happens. Don't get me wrong, the first two years do matter, but at the end, it's more about just getting familiar with the "language" of medicine. My opinion.
Oh, yeah, of note, I felt really strong with pathology in terms of structural and morphological analysis, if that's what you call it. That is to say, I am aware that I was trained well in that area, when confronted with the need to do that in clinical work. Also, on clinical aspects of pathology. On the onset, I had deficiencies in telling you why something is, but I can sure could identify the specific pathological elements! That's a strength that the curriculum offer.
These are just my slightly-informed opinions. Take them for what they are worth.
Did I answer your question?
Addendum: I forgot to mention that I felt most ill-prepared, knowledge-wise, with immunology. That is to say, this was something I had to learn on my own for boards. I knew a lot of esoteric facts, but pretty much none of the necessary basics. I highly recommend picking up an easy-to-understand basic immunology text to aid your learning.