Everyones been bashing SLU for this step 1 BS well here is what ACTUALLY happend : This is from the SLU Curriculum Management Committee , you can see it for yourself at
http://oca.slu.edu/comm/index.phtml?page=april112002&cat=2002minutes
Coordinators || Period Codes || General Info
Curriculum Management Committee
Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2002
8:00 a.m.
Members present:
Drs. Blaskiewicz, Egan, Eissenberg, Flaherty, Furman, Galofré, Hickman, Rausch, Schulze, Smith, Swierkosz, and Westfall; Ms. Bennett-Stewart, Mr. Brainard, and Mr. Kriete, with Dr. Mootz presiding.
Absent:
Drs. Fete, Mengel, Park, Slavin, and Tolbert; Mr. Bauer, Mr. Dieber, Mr. Fesler, Mr. Haas, and Ms. Young.
Staff:
Mrs. Parker, Ms. Price.
The minutes of March 28 were approved as amended.
Announcement
The members recognized the contributions of Ms. Amanda Price in the area of student and program evaluation over the past three years. She has resigned her position for another opportunity outside of academia. Dr. Debra Schindler has been hired as her replacement.
USMLE Step 1 Results
The national results of USMLE Step 1 are now available. Our 22% failure rate was not part of a national phenomenon, as the national failure rate was 10%. The national mean was 215(24), compared with SLU's 209(29). The national mean has been increasing each year to the point that 8 of the failing students would have passed in previous years.
Of those students repeating the examination, 45% passed on the second attempt, compared with a nation passing rate of 64% for second time takers. The lower the score on first attempt, the harder it is for the student to pass on the second attempt. This year, every student who scored below 165 on first attempt failed on the second attempt.
Although an increased number of students failed, the number of students scoring in the upper range of scores increased substantially.
With regard to the score distribution by subject,
the NBME cautions that items are designed to be integrated, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to attribute performance difference to individual courses. Dr. Westfall reported that often the designation of items to a particular subject is somewhat arbitrary. As with the standard deviation (SD) of the total scores, the SD for the individual subjects has also increased.
The correlation with USMLE score and class rank was striking. Of the 33 students who failed, 3/4ths were from the bottom of the rank list. In retrospect, class rank was best predictor of students at risk. Dr. Mary Ruh, chair of the ad hoc committee that studied the USMLE results, is invited to the next meeting to discuss the specific recommendations made by that committee. Dr. Mootz pointed out that by the next meeting, we will have the results of the Phase 2 Comprehensive Basic Science Examination taken by all Phase 2 students.
A number of actions have been put into place since January. Phase 2 has been shortened by one week to allow extra time to study, as the NBME's research shows that the stronger scorers have reported an increased number of study hours. Based on class rankings, about 40 at-risk students have been identified. Dr. Rausch has arranged for a guaranteed spot in the review class for these students. Dr. Rausch has also arranged for two diagnostic exams for all students, and 95 students have completed the first exam.
With regard to the at-risk students, Dr. Rausch has counselled them to take the diagnostic exams and to participate in the review class. However, only 16 students have taken the diagnostic test. The Committee on Student Progress and Promotion is hesitant to require such an intervention, and indeed, for this first time, it may be best to see if there is a difference in the USMLE scores for students who do or do not participate.
Improving Written Exams
Dr. Furman presented the findings of Dr. Susan Case. Dr. Case, co-author of the NBME's test item writing book, reviewed a majority of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 examinations from last year. She noted areas of improvement that could easily be made. Some course directors are using item types that the NBME no longer recommends. K-type (multiple-multiple choice), true/false, and matching questions are not considered state-of-art with regard to pencil and paper assessment.
Dr. Eissenberg reported that he has examined the trial version of the databank distributed by Dr. Galofré, and noted that some K questions, no longer used by the USMLE, were present. He cautioned that careful research of the questions should be completed before the purchase of such resources. Dr. Mootz pointed out that in addition to the formatting of questions according to the NBME guidelines, what the questions assess is important. Questions testing high order skills such as analysis and application should be emphasized over factual recall. Dr. Rausch agreed, noting that only 30% of the USMLE questions test recall.
Dr. Galofré has discussed this issue with Dr. Schindler, and has made improving internal examinations a top priority. Dr. Schindler plans to meet with the course directors to review course objectives and assessment methods. She will then analyze the tests, possibly using a rating scale described by the NBME. Dr. Schindler and Dr. Hickman will be presenting workshops for the faculty to improve test item writing. Currently, the staff of Curricular Affairs is exploring software to produce item banks and statistical analysis of examinations, including expanding the answer options.
The problem of faculty not meeting deadlines for submitting questions, and the lack of resources for motivation to change examination practices was discussed. Members agreed that Dr. Galofré would work on producing a draft for a policy on testing, and would report back to the committee at a later date.
LCME Findings
Dr. Galofré reviewed the findings from the LCME accreditation visit. The three major concerns were problems with the library, Information Technology (IT), and a lack of institutional oversight for the fourth year. Of these three concerns, the CMC can directly impact the fourth year most easily. However, Dr. Galofré suggested inviting Dr. Fran Benham, currently in charge of the library, to address the CMC. He met with the IT management, and suggests that the best way to address the problems is to outline a detailed plan to be submitted as part of the School's strategic plan.
Dr. Blaskiewicz and the Phase 3 Committee are working to address the concerns about the fourth year.
Dr. Mootz noted that the School suffered during the LCME's 1994 visit for not responding to concerns expressed in the 1986 visit. He stated that even if the library and IT are not under the purview of the CMC, noncompliance in these areas would affect the next LCME report. Dr. Swierkosz noted problems with the library's Advisory Committee, and mentioned that the library is currently being run with little input from faculty and staff.
Dr. Galofré also reviewed the strengths of the MD Program as documented by the LCME. The site team was so impressed with the objectives matrix, that one member requested a copy to be sent to Harvard. Dr. Galofré acknowledged the work of Dr. Mootz in preparing this document.
Another strength mentioned was the faculty and their dedication and commitment to teaching. The curriculum governance was also praised as an appropriately organized mechanism for delivering an effective coherent and coordinated curriculum. This finding is important because during the last full visit of the LCME, the School was found to be non-compliant with acceptable practices in curriculum governance. Dr. Galofré noted that the LCME recently refused to accredit a new school of medicine in Florida because of the lack of a centralized governance system.
The document also praised the organization of the Patient, Physician, and Society courses, and noted an improvement over the lack of organization of the former "orphan courses."
In summary, the LCME found that the faculty can be "justifiably proud" of the curriculum, and noted that the high failure rate on the USMLE Step 1 should not be considered a failure of the curriculum.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 am.
Minutes submitted by:
Gail E. Furman, PhD
Executive Secretary
So there it is, it was not a failure of the curriculum or the school. The bottom line is that in medical school YOU HAVE TO GET OFF YOU FUC*ING ASS AND STUDY PEOPLE !!!!!!!. Simply going to class and doing the minimum wont cut it. It would seem that a few underachievers took step 1 without proper preparation. LCME basically said that SLU's efforts to prepare the students were more than adequate. The failure rate was due to a class with more than 1 lazy piece of cr*ap muddling their way through the curriculum. SLU is an excellent school and if you all cant see that then cash in your acceptance because youre not wanted anyway. Screw you !!!!
) Not all of 'em though! I think the fact that they're not required to take the MCAT might also play a role in the lower board score pass rates.
