Originally posted by coop:
•from hearing schools try to sell pbl, I really think that it is fine to have it as a supplement to the curriculum and tie things together, but that it would take an enormous amount of work to get the same amount of material as compared to a more traditional/primarily lecture format. I have also noticed that schools with more pbl format (I'll be specific, I'm really talking about my experience which is case and pitt) do not match nearly as well as comparably "ranked" schools/schools in the same perceived "tier" that have a more traditional format (pritzker and vanderbilt). This could be lack of board preparation or maybe a lack of confidence in the pbl system, but it could also be me reading too much into matchlists. 😛 •••
Have you taken a look at Harvard's match lists? Additionally, I know that Cornell tends to have excellent matches as well. I think PBL has been successful where tried (Step 1 scores have not decreased significantly) and it is definitely an increasing trend in medical education. PBL offers several advantages, including development of critical thinking, analytical skills, and clinical reasoning, each of which can help prepare students for the clinical years. In addition, it makes learning more fun, puts the information into a clinical context, and can assist in retention. Whether PBL is for a particular individual is for him/her to decide. It all depends on how one learns best. Personally, I prefer some combination of lecture, labs, small groups, and PBL. That was one of the reasons I chose UCSF with the new curriculum.