Pass/Fail Curriculum vs. Traditional Grades

[WedgeDawg]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Most schools lie about this. The appendix to this paper speaks the truth:

http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(13)00767-9/abstract

I went through the appendix in detail. New schools are not included in the list below.


no rankings (explicit):
These schools don't give descriptors or any indication of rank

Einstein
CC/Lerner
Creighton
Harvard
Stanford
Wake Forest
Yale

undefined or ambiguous ranking system (do not have a defined hierarchy of descriptors):
These schools may give descriptors, but it's unclear what they mean or if there is a hierarchy

Case Western
Columbia
UCLA
Drexel
Duke
Emory
Hopkins
Meharry
NYU
SLU
SIU
Brown
U AZ (both)
Hawaii
Minnesota
Missouri (Kansas City)
Puerto Rico (San Juan)
UTMB Galveston
Vermont
UVA

All other schools either have explicity defined rank or grouping (quartile, third, etc) or have a defined hierarchy of descriptive adjectives.

Note that this is overall ranking at the end of the student's medical career. This doesn't state whether students are ranked based on pre-clinical grades AND clinical grades or just clinical grades, or if USMLE scores are taken into account.

 

[claduva94]

Quicker I realize what? That you dont understand statistics? Your logic would follow if there was only 1 test for the whole 2 years of M1 and M2.

Do you think that people who score significantly worse on the STEP simply got unlucky?

we aren't talking about Step 1. We are talking about exams in medical school in general. They are fine as rough gauges of knowledge but learning does not necessarily correlate with the exact grade. Hence P/F curricula that encourages independent learning. Simply, a grade does not quantify how much was learned because there are ways to work the system or learn way more detail than necessary. It may apply in some pre-med courses but not medical school. Also getting unlucky on a single exam CAN impact the grade in medical school due to the weight put on individual exams. I fail to see what statistical measure you are referencing.

 

[Psai]

Most schools lie about this. The appendix to this paper speaks the truth:

http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1440(13)00767-9/abstract

UCLA: Incomplete Data. The MSPE explained that all four years are pass/fail thus a class ranking cannot be calculated. Nonetheless students are variably described as Superior, Outstanding or Excellent.

Duke: Incomplete Data. The MSPE explains we do not rank our students, but that students are graded for their individual course work as Excellent, Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. The MSPE does include the number of Excellent grades in the summary paragraph.

George Washington: Incomplete Data. Appendix E states that George Washington does not maintain a class ranking system, nor did they rank students by buzz words. Nonetheless the summary paragraph describes students as Superior, Excellent, Very Good or Good.

University of Arizona: Incomplete Data. It is stated in the dean's letter that the school does not rank their students. The summary paragraph will contain descriptors such as Outstanding or Excellent, chosen at the discretion of the dean, but the descriptors are not defined in the MSPE. r the higher categories as Exceptional 32.5%, Outstanding 23%, Excellent 37.4% and Very Good 4.8%, leaving Good and Acceptable undefined.

University of Chicago: Although the summary paragraphs misleadingly states there are no class rankings, in fact, in descending order, the deans describe their students as Exceptional, Outstanding , Excellent, Very Good, Good and Acceptable. An Appendix D defines the numerical boundaries for the higher categories as Exceptional 32.5%, Outstanding 23%, Excellent 37.4% and Very Good 4.8%, leaving Good and Acceptable undefined.

University of Iowa: Incomplete Data. Summary paragraph descriptors include Outstanding, Excellent, Very Good, Good, Strong, but there are no numerical boundaries defined for these descriptors. The MSPE contains a statement that the Carver COM does not develop a class rank. The higher categories as Exceptional 32.5%, Outstanding 23%, Excellent 37.4% and Very Good 4.8%, leaving Good and Acceptable undefined.


Lol

 

[Pastamahn]

What's the reasoning behind all of this lack of transparency from so many schools?

 

[cloudmurder1]

What's the reasoning behind all of this lack of transparency from so many schools?

They gotta get students to apply and matriculate duh 😛

 

[7331poas]

but learning does not necessarily correlate with the exact grade.

And I am challenging that. It is completely against logic.

Listen I am totally for a P/F curriculum. But not because it makes us better students because it does not necessarily.

That being said, is there any data on P/F on STEP 1 scores vs. classes that have honors?

 

[claduva94]

And I am challenging that. It is completely against logic.

Listen I am totally for a P/F curriculum. But not because it makes us better students because it does not necessarily.

That being said, is there any data on P/F on STEP 1 scores vs. classes that have honors?

You are right. But I think that is why the selection process is so rigorous. Everyone is already a good student (at least in the ideal admissions world). But as I have seen it definitely helps students explore more and critically think (granted my school is H/P/F but still markedly improved from undergrad). In my opinion, by distancing students from strict numerical cutoffs, it becomes less about the "what is on the test?" mentality, which is very narrow and not-conducive to being a well rounded student, and more of the "what can I learn to be a better student?" mentality.

To answer your second question, I doubt it. There are too many variables that can't controlled, including caliber of students from the beginning.

 

[Psai]

You are right. But I think that is why the selection process is so rigorous. Everyone is already a good student (at least in the ideal admissions world). But as I have seen it definitely helps students explore more and critically think (granted my school is H/P/F but still markedly improved from undergrad). In my opinion, by distancing students from strict numerical cutoffs, it becomes less about the "what is on the test?" mentality, which is very narrow and not-conducive to being a well rounded student, and more of the "what can I learn to be a better student?" mentality.

To answer your second question, I doubt it. There are too many variables that can't controlled, including caliber of students from the beginning.

Being a good student is doing well on tests. What is on the test? Every single piece of minutiae imaginable. So which part of that is very narrow to you?

 

[claduva94]

Being a good student is doing well on tests. What is on the test? Every single piece of minutiae imaginable. So which part of that is very narrow to you?

You mean to say that 100 questions covers the breadth of an entire unit? Not even close to 10% of the stuff presented ends up being tested. That is what I call narrow. Yes we are "responsible" for knowing it all but that is just romanticized.

 

[Redpancreas]

....Isnt this directly against your supposed goal of P/F? You say P/F is a system which allows people to learn better. Now you are telling me that P/F is just a mechanism which allows you to skip material that you deem important or not (which is the exact opposite).

I think my problem boils down to the mentality of the classic premed who constant asks in class "will this be on the test"?

No.

I re-read my post and don't see where you two are confused. The pros and cons I listed take into account my own stereotype of what a below average student may do and then what a highly motivated student will do which I specified.. The best system for highly motivated students is strictly pass/fail so they can focus less on minutiae their SCHOOL tests on and focus more on high yield minutiae on boards. For less motivated students, a graded situation is probably better because chances are they wouldn't self study so they'd be better off with the increased motivation of continuous grading or "will this be on this best mentality" because even though they'll learn a lot of pointless minutiae, they'll still hit all the important points but probably in lesser depth than the student who focused on the high yield material...

Also, while it may seem that I'm implying that board-tested information is more important than other material schools teach, I'm sure there's some valuable non-minutiae that schools do teach that won't be on boards such as clinical pearls.

 

[Redpancreas]

I suppose you are right. But what is your alternative? Memorize all the minutiae about each professor's research that you will never actually need to know in practice? Good luck with that, you'll have to spend all your free time studying, and you'll likely burn out very quickly.

Or do you think maybe it's a better idea to focus on the information that the national accrediting bodies deems necessary for you to know? And maybe to focus on an exam that will determine your entire career?

The thing about medical school is that it is NOT undergrad. You cannot just memorizing every little detail the professor presents to you like you could in undergrad. There is not enough time in the day. But at schools that are not pass/fail, you will always be trying to cram more of that minutiae into your head so that you can get a good class rank. Not a good use of your time.

In short, students at schools with grades are studying with the mindset "will this be on THIS relatively insignificant exam?" While students in P/F schools can ask the smarter question "will this be on the most important exam of my life thus far?"
Which sounds better to you?

THIS. Well-phrased man. My explanation may have been confusing.

 

[Redpancreas]

And I am challenging that. It is completely against logic.

Listen I am totally for a P/F curriculum. But not because it makes us better students because it does not necessarily.

That being said, is there any data on P/F on STEP 1 scores vs. classes that have honors?

If the data was that clear, there would already be a publication and all schools would have switched. Currently there are too many unfixed variables. For example, students at Harvard medical school are likely more competitive and hard working on average compared to medical students at an u ranked state medical school. Therefore, if Harvard has a P/F and the state school has grades and lower step scores, you don't really know what factor was more in play and no ones really willing on experimenting and finding out.


One thing that my medical education professor said was that in the literature, there is a lot of data that shows that schools that switch curriculums don't change their metrics in board scores, but student satisfaction may go up. Maybe the same applies with grading styles p? I don't know...

 

[drwoofs]

From my understanding of it USC is true pass fail for MS1&2 and the descriptors come into play for MS3&4 (with regard to SouthernSurgeon's link)

 

[Psai]

You mean to say that 100 questions covers the breadth of an entire unit? Not even close to 10% of the stuff presented ends up being tested. That is what I call narrow. Yes we are "responsible" for knowing it all but that is just romanticized.

No, but that doesn't stop the best students from scoring the best on tests. Since when are tests supposed to cover every single thing you learned? People don't like grades because it reminds them that there are other people better than them. You're an adult, time to find your self-confidence elsewhere.

 

[22031 Alum]

Agreed for the most part but you have to admit, there's is a lot of minutiae that some schools focus on that is irrelevant to boards. This is especially prevalent in schools with a traditional curriculum.

My group of friends and I had a running joke about "Things only (Professor Name) cares about" -- basic minutiae that we figured we were only being taught because of the professor's research niche. No way it could ever be relevant to the boards.

My very first question on Step 1 was on one of those bits of minutiae. To say I was deflated would be a huge understatement. It took me the entire first block to recover from the shock. I think of that whenever I read someone's post about the "irrelevant" details they're learning as MS1s and MS2s.

 

[claduva94]

No, but that doesn't stop the best students from scoring the best on tests. Since when are tests supposed to cover every single thing you learned? People don't like grades because it reminds them that there are other people better than them. You're an adult, time to find your self-confidence elsewhere.

No I agree. The best students will generally score best. although not always. But "poor" students can do well too by using the "what is on the test?" mentality and not focusing on learning the entirety of the concepts. I see it all the time in O Chem. So my point is while tests have their utility, they are still limited and are not an end all be all gauge of learning and potential.

 

[7331poas]

No I agree. The best students will generally score best. although not always. But "poor" students can do well too by using the "what is on the test?" mentality and not focusing on learning the entirety of the concepts. I see it all the time in O Chem. So my point is while tests have their utility, they are still limited and are not an end all be all gauge of learning and potential.

How? can you give an example for OChem? That is actually my prototypical "It doesn't work" class. There are so many variables.

 

[TBV]

I like the transparency of traditional grades. I know how I'm doing in relation to class avg and gives me enough anxiety to grind.

 

[claduva94]

How? can you give an example for OChem? That is actually my prototypical "It doesn't work" class. There are so many variables.

So many people just try to memorize the book and lectures and don't actually learn the concept. Mechanisms aren't hard if you take a conceptual approach but many pre-meds are used to just copying down everything the professor draws on the board and don't understand when just memorizing that isn't good enough (In hindsight, my english was kind of poor. These types of students rarely do well in O Chem. I was more using it as an example where people often fail to actually learn the stuff).

 

[ChillDawg]

You mean to say that 100 questions covers the breadth of an entire unit? Not even close to 10% of the stuff presented ends up being tested. That is what I call narrow. Yes we are "responsible" for knowing it all but that is just romanticized.

Couldn't this same reasoning be extended to the USMLE?

Isn't 'teaching just to the USMLE' essentially the Caribbean model of medical education?

 

[claduva94]

Couldn't this same reasoning be extended to the USMLE?

Isn't 'teaching just to the USMLE' essentially the Caribbean model of medical education?

Yes it can. Scoring well on the USMLE does not necessarily make anyone a good doctor. At best it might be an indicator.

 

[NotYou20]

You are misunderstanding. It's not about what YOU deem to be important, it's about what is important to know for Step 1. Professors love to throw in extra details that they happen to be knowledgeable about, but that may be irrelevant for boards. In schools that are graded, you have to use valuable time to memorize that minutiae instead of focusing on what the National Board of Medical Examiners wants you to know.

Why not take the grade hit and prep for boards anyway? If pre clinical grades are so unimportant would treating your grades as p/f be potentially helpful

 

[Glandzburg]

Why not take the grade hit and prep for boards anyway? If pre clinical grades are so unimportant would treating your grades as p/f be potentially helpful

Not if you want to be eligible for AOA.