Learning to take a history is probably more "real" in terms of being prepared for clinical medicine than knowing the exact mechanisms/pathway of the TCA cycle.
Sure, but does it take 50 hours of "fake" interviews with your classmates to learn the skill? Past a certain point (fairly early on), it was diminishing returns, honestly. (I'm sure once we all get out into the hospitals, it will still take some adjustment to learn to do it with real patients. It's inevitable.)
Also, in MSI, we don't really have the knowledge to know the right Qs to ask. Hence, it's like flailing around in the water, without anyone teaching you how to swim (or where to swim to). Does thrashing around for a long time actually prepare you to learn to swim for real, later on? I dunno, guys...
I admit, I may be a bit biased due to having a bit of clinical experience before med school. For someone without ANY experience of that sort, I can see how the early exposure might be seen as welcome, interesting, and even useful.
This is also why I'd rather schools require a certain amount of clinical contact before med school. (The way PA schools do it.) It would do a world of good for a lot of people, I think. Especially as immunization for 3rd yr, when ppl who have never worked a day in their lives whine about how miserable it is to actually work until 6pm every night... lol (Not to mention shaving off some of the classroom hours for this early patient contact stuff.)