Premed student needs advice on block curriculum vs. integrated

[49erfan]

i have been accepted to two medical schools. One medical school runs on a block curriculum system and another one is integrated

The integrated curriculum starts with anatomy (ends in December), and cell biology (ends in December), and in November physio starts for the rest of the year a long with biochem in january for the rest of the year.

the block curriculum starts of with biochem and ends in November and then anatomy until Feb/March and then Neuroanatomy for rest of year.

What is an easier curriculum for med students... block or integrated curriculum? I am a nonscience major in undergrad.

should i decide which medical school to attend based on curriculum..

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MilkmanAl]

Don't you kind of need to at least have phys and gross at the same time to have an integrated curriculum? I've always heard the term "integrated" used as a synonym for "systems based." If it's not systems based, I'd guess that this "integrated" curriculum is pretty much the same as a block system just with 2 courses on the test instead of 1. Cell and gross have virtually nothing to do with each other. In light of that, I'd pick the block system. Get rid of anatomy as quickly as possible.

Then again, it kind of sounds like you just mixed up the explanations. The one you call a "block" curriculum sounds remarkably like what UAMS does which is an integrated systems-based approach with head and neck finishing off gross and blending into neuro.

Anyway, I personally would prefer the integrated approach. It makes way more sense to me to learn everything about a system at once rather than continually revisit the same systems to get more pieces to the puzzle. I think you get a more holistic view of each system with an integrated approach, and it's nice to be able to play info from the subjects off of each other.

That said, I don't think either is easier overall. Your preference will depend mostly on your learning style, I think. Traditional (block-style) curricula strike me as more memorization-intensive, whereas integrated curricula encourage you to conceptualize a bit more...with a heapin' helpin' of memorization thrown in.

 

[DonkeyD]

I'll throw in a vote for a traditional curriculum (anatomy/biochem/histo/phys first year and path/pharm second). True, it's the only one I'm familiar with but I feel that going back and reviewing first year material really lets you learn it thoroughly. For example, we're covering cardiac path and pharm right now so a few weeks ago I went back and reviewed relevant cardiac anatomy and phys and really feel like I have it all now.

I can see how it would be harder to integrate subjects conceptually though, that's why I feel the constant reviewing is so important. If you're a conceptual learner like me and not a memorizer I think you can really make a traditional curriculum work.

 

[justdoit31]

I am at a block style school and love it. We just finished anatomy and what was great was we only had to worry about anatomy and study for 1 test at a time. Now we are doing BCT (Biology of Cells and Tissues) so we focus on the biochem, histo, cell, genetics. I personally feel this is a great way to learn it. You need to know the anatomy for everything you will see in the future so it almost like building. We do phys and host defense (micro/virology) in the spring then neuro, and all the path/pharm in second year.

I don't feel like it is memorization intensive any more than other curriculums- we obviously memorize stuff but it does build and we have clinical corelations through all our lectures. So we learn about the heart and cardiac system then have the cardiologist come in and help us apply it. We had orthopedics come in and teach us how to do a shoulder exam, etc. I like that now that we hit histo I have the big picture of the system/organ and can understand it microscopically better.