I was going to say something along these lines, but not as harsh. I held back as OP is a colleague, i.e. faculty. Students may believe things aren't important and a waste of time. Often it's because...well, they are students and may not appreciate the experience until it's over. There is a whiff of entitlement in the OP and we all can discuss the advantages or disadvantages of human dissection. PhDs, Paramedics and PAs can be some of the more challenging students to teach in my experience. They have been taught protocols or are zoned in to some minutiae that doesn't apply in the big picture and are reluctant to give it up and become a thinking, rational physician scientists. Physicians don't practice protocol, they practice medicine.
The best career-changers are those who have recognized the limitations of their previous position, and want to really understand pathophysiology. The difficult ones are those who are doing it because they already think they are better than their physician colleagues.
Indeed. We've found that ex-paramedics often get into trouble in OMSIII or IV because they have the mindset of "well, I already know cardiology, so why do I have to study that??"
Dunning-Kruger effect: to understand how bad you are at something requires almost the same level of skills to actually be good at that thing. Therefore if you dont know something, you are too ignorant to know that you dont know it
PBL is heavily person and group dependent, you get out of it what you put in. For me it was personally really helpful and the concepts we covered in PBL required way less additional studying. However, not every person will learn well that way, and many people won't put in the necessary effort to get something out of it. I also think doing it "occasionally" doesn't work at all - doing it regularly with the same people so that your group can develop a good dynamic and workflow is essential. And not all PBLs are designed alike, so some schools may do it really well while it may be trash at other schools.
PBL has been in American medical education for over 45 years, so I wouldn't characterize it as particularly new. It is difficult to implement, and I can see how it would be ineffective if done occasionally.
Not OP, but do you actually have any interest in directly treating patients? Or just expanding credentials for research? I would not recommend med school as a route for research (something you don’t really receive much direct training in) unless you also want to do clinical care.
A lot of "I" in this post. Not unusual for those coming out of research-heavy backgrounds, but it doesn't necessarily play well in Peoria.
As a medical school applicant and now accepted with Ph.D. as well, I highly discourage you from applying or attending medical school with that sort of motivation. As @Med Ed said, lots of "I"s and it's clear you are seeking MD only for credentials. Motivating collaborators should be done with excellent science and communication skills, not with MD title.
