- Joined
- Jan 9, 2014
- Messages
- 650
- Reaction score
- 637
- Points
- 5,226
- Pre-Medical

Why is everyone so down on PBL? Seems like everyone here thinks it's a waste of time.
Personally I hate lectures, zone out and can never pay attention. I think PBL would be good for a student like me.
Thoughts?
You're pretty much going to be teaching yourself the stuff either way. Class materials are just a guide to follow and a warning shot as far as what's on the tests. The real question is would you rather get the lecture out of the way 2x as fast in the comfort of home wearing pajamas before you can move on to actually doing something productive, or would you like to trudge to campus and argue with gunners who looked up a bunch of obscure papers on pubmed they don't even understand so they can wait eagerly to get pimped by your small group facilitator.
That being said, there are a few wayward souls out there who do actually prefer PBL. Pray for them.
Part of the problem is that the precise way that PBL is implemented varies greatly from school to school, and also depends heavily on the quality of your group/preceptor. Some schools use it as an adjunct to lecture with a focus on developing team dynamics in the context of a clinical case. Others use it as an alternative to lecture altogether. In most cases, while the theory sounds good, it often comes down to execution, and unless if you have really good faculty, it can be difficult to pull off properly. That being said, the biggest issue is that PBL is often mandatory while lecture generally is not, and if there is one thing med students hate it is mandatory class regardless of format.
That being said, the biggest issue is that PBL is often mandatory while lecture generally is not, and if there is one thing med students hate it is mandatory class regardless of format.
Exactly...as a "still-premed" myself, I found it interesting how this thread was "premeds who think PBL will be awesome" and "med students who think PBL sucks", with very little crossover.Yeah. I'd caution all the premeds posting about how excited they are by the idea of PBL to remember that they're looking at things from an undergrad perspective. When you realize the tidal wave of **** you have to learn each week in addition to whatever extracurriculars/research and god forbid personal hobbies are competing for your time in medical school, the idea of gathering together multiple times a week to sit around and chat becomes insufferably inefficient to many (at least compared to being able to stream lecture at 2x on your own schedule and from wherever you want).

I thought the point of PBL was to introduce the diagnostic reasoning process.
Notice how most people are excited about PBL never experienced it. No one likes lecture. Most lecturers are boring and pay attention to. You don't learn much from lecture. Lecture is there to point out the topics that are important that you need to learn by yourself. But lecture sucking doesn't make PBL good. PBL is mostly you listening to idiots that know as little or less than you sharing random factoids from wikipedia or up-to-date (for the serious kids) that they barely understand. You look at the propaganda that medical schools pump out and you think you'd be engaged but if you think listening to experts in a field with years of experience in front of a classroom is boring, try listening to your clueless classmates.
Obviously, it is on a school by school basis. The one I am particularly interested in has done a very good job of implementing the PBL curriculum and the students I talk to really enjoy the style and claim that it is head and shoulders above lecture based curricula. They do have a lot of reading, as you stated, but they also report as having plenty of time for other pursuits. There's a reason this school is so popular in my area.Yeah. I'd caution all the premeds posting about how excited they are by the idea of PBL to remember that they're looking at things from an undergrad perspective. When you realize the tidal wave of **** you have to learn each week in addition to whatever extracurriculars/research and god forbid personal hobbies are competing for your time in medical school, the idea of gathering together multiple times a week to sit around and chat becomes insufferably inefficient to many (at least compared to being able to stream lecture at 2x on your own schedule and from wherever you want).
The problem I see with PBL is that it is highly facilitator- and peer-dependent. If you have great group members and facilitators that know what they're doing and do a modicum of planning, then the experience can be fun and informative. If that doesn't happen, though, it can be miserable - you spend time talking about things that are irrelevant, you have no idea what you actually were supposed to take away from the case/problem, and, if your team sucks, you may not even get much out of the experience due to poor preparation and limited teaching.
You could say the same thing about lectures, but the difference for me lies in the fact that PBL at most schools tends to be required. If it ends up being a waste of time and not effective, you're stuck. If lectures suck, you can generally just not go to them, unless your school has an attendance policy or something like that.
I think you're clearly right about the importance of motivated group members and competent facilitators, but you're making it seem like having a combination of group members and facilitators good enough to make the experience productive is the exception rather than the rule. This is the opposite of my experience. All of the facilitators I've worked with (6 different ones at my school) have been more than competent, and it's very rare to have a group of classmates so bad that it stops the experience from being productive (you could even argue that learning to deal with this kind of group member is a very useful skill).
Of course, this is my individual experience.
In that vein how are you adequately prepared to comment on whether or not the number of PBL sessions in these various curricula are not enough to get comfortable with that learning type?Let me make another clarification. I do not think that students in traditional lecture-based curricula who have occasional small-group learning experiences are adequately prepared to comment on the quality/utility of true PBL curricula. Getting acclimated to the small-group and case-based learning process takes time and effort. Of course, the first couple of weeks of first year are rough and can be frustrating, but once you learn how it works and how you and your classmates work best in the group, as well as getting the hang of things like hypothesis generation and data analysis, that's when the process starts working. A few small-group learning experiences in a semester aren't enough to get to the point of being comfortable with this kind of learning. Again, that's my opinion.
I guess that's fair. My opinion there is based on my experience in my curriculum, which was that, after even the first 10 or 15 sessions of case-based learning (about a month for us, with 3-3hr sessions per week), I was just starting to get the hang of it. I am assuming that learning the process would be less, rather than more, efficient in situations where the case-based learning was less frequent, as in curricula where there is only occasional case-based learning. I think that's a reasonable assumption.In that vein how are you adequately prepared to comment on whether or not the number of PBL sessions in these various curricula are not enough to get comfortable with that learning type?
What exactly is PBL? I usually would Google an acronym, but there are often multiple possibilities.
Thanks!PBL is problem-based learning. A synonym is case-based learning.
I have been reading many criticisms on PBL. But is there any school that is actually known to do a pretty good job with PBLs?