Been a bit of a delay in my response - it's amazing how work seems to get in the way of posting.
I suppose this is directed towards me: being asked to speak about the strengths of an institution is almost an open invitation to bloviate on about the school. I'm really not a fan of school cheer-leading, so I'll answer this as candidly as possible - divided into fact and opinion - strengths and some weakness admixed.
Facts:
-There is scheduled activity every weekday from 8AM-1PM. This is inclusive of things like labs, pbl, lectures, and small groups. Depending on the block, at least one afternoon is devoted to clinical activity with patients, and in the most intense 8 week block of the first two years, 3 afternoons are taken up with purely clinical activity (that block, though intense, has the best reviews).
-Formal PBL, which is one of the only required activities during that time takes place for 1.5 hours 3 times a week for a majority of the blocks. For a tiny percentage, this is all the school that is attended (~>90% attend everything voluntarily). They try not to schedule more than 2 hours of lecture a day, and spend as much time as possible teaching in small groups with clinical faculty.
-The school makes no attempt to teach specifically towards, or even really acknowledge Step1, and it is not a requirement for graduation or promotion to the wards (though there is extensive upperclassmen support). Nevertheless, its impact on medical student matches is real, and 8 weeks are given to students for studying (I took 4, and most took 5). Obviously, this doesn't mean that students are unprepared for step1, but there are areas that are less well covered with regards to the test than others, but the ample study time seems to quell concerns. The average board score is in line with other top schools (though Penn, for instance, is an outlier with a higher score no doubt helped by their time on the wards prior to taking Step1).
-The clinical years (3rd primarily) are as intense as is expected, and require students to spend time both at NYH, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Hospital for Special Surgery, as well as in myriad away sites located in large and small hospital setting in Brooklyn, Bronx, and Queens (sorry Staten Island fans). There is a great deal of choice in where one can go, but there is a substantial portion of time spent outside of the three local hospitals to ensure comfort in varying settings (resource-limited settings to far more technologically advanced) and patient populations. National shelfs are incorporated, to varying degrees, into clerkship grading. During the 4th year, a large percentage of medical students go on the extensive set of cornell-affiliated international electives - and there is a large focus on these programs/affiliations/funding (in addition, Cornell-Qatar has opened, and Cornell-Tanzania [in Bugando] has been agreed upon with an ambitious plan for further international medical adventures).
-Medical students tend to be parochial in their choice of match locations (NYC (especially NYH)/New England), but I've never heard of someone not being able to go to good schools in California, for instance. The school tilts heavily to producing specialists, for better or worse, and produces a reasonably high number of surgeons and surgery sub-specialists, though there is always a strong internal medicine-oriented contingent. Since there are only 100 or so students matching each year, the match list varies wildly in percentage composition to specific specialties.
-MD/PhDs as a cohort do very well in the match and beyond, despite varying performances in medical schools (grades) and boards. They tend to match at a small set of programs by choice (usually covering NYC, Boston, SF, and occasionally Philadelphia) in both "canonical" and "non-canonical" md/phd specialties.
Opinion:
-PBL, like hypnosis, is only as effective as you allow it to be. Those times that I was annoyed about the obligation, and in turn was less mentally engaged, I learned the least. I initially took umbrage to the evaluative aspect of pbl, as I thought it detracted from the process by overlaying "being graded" behavior into the mix. However, when I made even a modicum of effort to follow along and give it some thought, I was surprised (usually in reflection during studying for boards) by how effective it could be. Yes, some environmental aspects are dependent on your mentor and fellow students, but in retrospect, much of the possible learning was independent of those factors. The more didactic, clinically oriented small groups were uniformly excellent, but quality of class-wide lectures varied greatly. There were limited scenarios where I felt student to student teaching via presentations was inappropriate in small group settings. However, at all points, if I felt my time was more usefully spent studying without a formal component, I did so.
-The curriculum itself does a good job of giving medicine a structure, and weighting information in a manner that makes sense and allows for effective concatenation (the key to effective retention), as opposed to continually feeding students a constant fusillade of facts without regard for relative importance. The school provides the student with a reasonably deep superstructure, but leaves the details up to the student to learn, in general. There is only one block (6 weeks at the end of the first year) that seems to fail in this regard, and is perpetually in flux to address this. A class of 100 autodidacts is not at all the expectation, but there is an emphasis on learning outside of an entirely formal structure (hence the swathes of time after 1PM everyday). Since there is a testing structure, one can't be completely remiss in this context, but it's definitely possible to skate by until come arma-gedd-eon day (boards).
-Only on a couple occasions do I recall feeling anything approaching "stressed" in the first two years, and this is probably the sentiment you'll hear from many md/phds. There is work to be done, but it gets done, and you learn what you need to learn. Anecdotally, my md/phd classmates did very well on the boards, despite their varying sustained interest levels in the first two years. My medical school classmates work incredibly hard as a group (my year is actually infamous for this, though the year ahead of me is infamous in the opposite regard; how these stereotypes form out a group of 100 very different people is beyond me), and take advantage of the time afforded by the curriculum.
-I don't particularly feel any need to justify the more laid back approach that cornell takes within an established superstructure, because I really can't imagine going through medical school happily without an environment at least as flexible (hell, I would have preferred even less structure). There are a number of things I would change in the day to day execution of the curriculum, but they wouldn't really make sense without going through it oneself. I can't overstate how great it is to be a medical student in NYC, with this flexible schedule. As a social, cultural, and intellectual nexus, the opportunities are amazing.
-With regards to residency and matching, perhaps Cornell students seem to lack the killer instinct to go to the best program no matter the location/environment (i.e. it's rare to see a student head to hopkins, or washU for residency, for example, despite their excellent clinical reputation). Many really enjoy their clinical experience at NYH and try to stay (though there many, many exceptions to this over-generalization). Many residencies (Urology, Orthopedics, Radiation Oncology, Surgery, ENT etc...)/fellowships (GI, Cards, Heme/Onc etc...) here are primary destinations for top medical students/residents throughout the country, a reflection of clinical reputation and location, and there certainly is favoritism in picking cornell students, which feeds this parochial phenomenon. Of course, the same goes for similarly regarded programs at other institutions, so it's no surprise.
-How does Cornell stacks up to places like Penn/Hopkins? I honestly couldn't say. I have a very good sense about how it compares in experience to Columbia, as I've gone to school in step with someone close to me at that institution (med), complete with play-by-play reporting. At least by reputation, they all produce great doctors - but there are substantial differences in style between some of them - and this truly makes a difference in experience (I don't particularly agree with "they're all good, it's like picking out of a hat, you'll be happy anywhere"). Most, but not all of these "top" schools have broad networks of good clinical affiliates, assets that really add another dimension to the 3rd year clerkship experience. As for convincing someone to attend Cornell over Penn or Hopkins or wherever, I can't say I would try: they're also excellent. I don't have a Panglossian view of this place, as it should be subject to constant criticism and improvement. Having said that, I don't feel like I've missed a thing (but one can't prove the counterfactual).
Apologies for major syntactical errors, this was written very quickly (a little more thought would have probably reduced the length, which is a bit much).
To prevent this from simply being dashed off as a panegyric, I'll stop here. Questions?
