The 1.5 Year Preclinical Curriculum

[DocMom1]

A number of medical schools (including Duke, Penn, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Baylor and NYU) have compressed (or "accelerated") the traditional 2 year preclinical curriculum to 1.5 years.

If the same basic information must be covered, does this mean that students have to work much harder in schools with a compressed curriculum to stay on top of the material?

Responses from current med students on this question would be most appreciated.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[KLycos]

A number of medical schools (including Duke, Penn, Vanderbilt, Columbia and NYU) have compressed the traditional 2 year preclinical curriculum into 1.5 years.

If the same basic information must be covered, does this mean that students have to work much harder in schools with a compressed curriculum to stay on top of the material?

Responses from current med students on this question would be most appreciated.

At the Duke interview, it was explained that the students are in lectures for much longer hours, so YES. Screw that man, and it's all to fit in more research to make the school look good. Stupid IMO.

 

[Dartmouth1230]

At the Duke interview, it was explained that the students are in lectures for much longer hours, so YES. Screw that man, and it's all to fit in more research to make the school look good. Stupid IMO.

Lecture hours at NYU were actually shortened. Material isn't being condensed, but rather redistributed throughout all four years (NYU feels that some material would be better off taught during/after clinical clerkships). This is one reason why NYU students take STEP 1 during their third year. A 1.5 year curriculum also provides an opportunity to pursue a variety of dual degrees in four years, as opposed to five.

 

[ialwayslose]

At the Duke interview, it was explained that the students are in lectures for much longer hours, so YES. Screw that man, and it's all to fit in more research to make the school look good. Stupid IMO.

Duke is condensed into 1 year, which is even more extreme ---- BUT you get to start clinical rotations / potentially figure your future out a year earlier / have an entire year to pursue your own interests (ie you don't need to spend your (shorter) summers trying to get research in).

The condensed curriculum probably works for some people and not for others.

 

[LizzyM]

Duke is condensed into 1 year, which is even more extreme ---- BUT you get to start clinical rotations / potentially figure your future out a year earlier / have an entire year to pursue your own interests (ie you don't need to spend your (shorter) summers trying to get research in).

The condensed curriculum probably works for some people and not for others.

This cycles back to the question, "Why [this school]?" An applicant should know something aobut the school's curriculum and be able to articulate why that approach fits with the applicant's learning style. Not every school is a good fit for every applicant.

 

[Shost5]

Baylor does this and the students I talked to there seemed to really like it. They said it was really helpful to get clinical experience in before taking Step 1. And if Baylor's Step 1 stats are any indication; I'd say it's working well.

It also seems like condensing the pre-clinical years allows for more flexibility in years 3-4. I talked to several students who were able to pursue research opportunities, complete extra sub-internships in their desired specialties, or even just take some time off completely in 4th year that wouldn't have been possible at some of the other programs with which I interviewed.

Like others have said, not every school is a fit for every student. Some would rather load up the front end to have more time in years 3-4, others would rather stick with the traditional route.

 

[DocMom1]

This cycles back to the question, "Why [this school]?" An applicant should know something aobut the school's curriculum and be able to articulate why that approach fits with the applicant's learning style. Not every school is a good fit for every applicant.

This is a good point, and it underscores the fact that it is equally important for schools to provide applicants with sufficient information to be able to answer such questions and to understand how a compressed preclinical curriculum will affect their lives on a day-to-day basis.

Saying "we have shortened the preclinical curriculum" does not give students nearly enough information to understand the real impact it will have. Questions that should be answered include:

• Do students have to work harder to pass, and is there less time for extracurricular activities?
• Are students more stressed because they have to go through the same material in less time?
• Do exams happen more often or is there just more information on each exam?
• If the latter, is the threshold for passing attendantly lowered to account for the fact that there is more information being tested?
• Have students on the whole been more or less satisfied with the compressed curriculum than they were before it was implemented?

 

[LizzyM]

This is a good point, and it underscores the fact that it is equally important for schools to provide applicants with sufficient information to be able to answer such questions and to understand how a compressed preclinical curriculum will affect their lives on a day-to-day basis.

Saying "we have shortened the preclinical curriculum" does not give students nearly enough information to understand the real impact it will have. Questions that should be answered include:

• Do students have to work harder to pass, and is there less time for extracurricular activities?
• Are students more stressed because they have to go through the same material in less time?
• Do exams happen more often or is there just more information on each exam?
• If the latter, is the threshold for passing attendantly lowered to account for the fact that there is more information being tested?
• Have students on the whole been more or less satisfied with the compressed curriculum than they were before it was implemented?

I was thinking of things more along the lines of number of hours of lecture per day/week, mandatory attendance vs voluntary, PBL and small group learning vs. large lecture (or the relative mix of the two), block scheduling, organ system based teaching vs subject specific courses (histology, physiology, etc), timing of clinical exposures within the 4 year curriculum, research: required v. encouraged v. available. Lectures available as podcasts? other materials available for students to review?

Mandatory attendance is a drag if you are a visual learner who learns best reviewing the material on your own and drawing concept maps, and would prefer just to show up for the exams. If you are the type who learns best by teaching/tutoring as a review of the material, then you might prefer a small group model over a lecture based format.

Is everything on the test and is the test hard is not, in my opinion, the way to judge your fit for a specific medical school.

 

[Nymphicus]

The schools that I interviewed at with 1.5 seemed to actually have less class time than the "traditional" schools that I interviewed at.

 

[DocMom1]

I was thinking of things more along the lines of number of hours of lecture per day/week, mandatory attendance vs voluntary, PBL and small group learning vs. large lecture (or the relative mix of the two), block scheduling, organ system based teaching vs subject specific courses (histology, physiology, etc), timing of clinical exposures within the 4 year curriculum, research: required v. encouraged v. available. Lectures available as podcasts? other materials available for students to review?

Mandatory attendance is a drag if you are a visual learner who learns best reviewing the material on your own and drawing concept maps, and would prefer just to show up for the exams. If you are the type who learns best by teaching/tutoring as a review of the material, then you might prefer a small group model over a lecture based format.

Is everything on the test and is the test hard is not, in my opinion, the way to judge your fit for a specific medical school.

These things are important, but as someone who is able to adapt to multiple styles of learning and to different environments (as I believe most students able to get admitted to medical school are), what is most important to me in a med school is the ability to balance life and work. If school A requires me to be learning 10 hours a day due to the compressed curriculum but school B requires me to be learning 6 hours a day, I'll go with school B, all other things being equal. However, it is unclear to me whether the work requirements are indeed so much different. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

 

[wanderer]

The schools that I interviewed at with 1.5 seemed to actually have less class time than the "traditional" schools that I interviewed at.

But often more PBL. PBL is a pretty inefficient way of learning.

 

[mvenus929]

My school (UVA) recently switched to a condensed curriculum (my class was the first class). We have lectures for 4 hours a day, and roughly half of them are required (it varies depending on the system). They cut the 8 weeks (or so) out from the 'traditional' curriculum they were on by reducing the amount of research and other not so high yield things from the first year, and making sure that everything that was taught was clinically relevant.

I don't have anything to compare it to, but I don't think we work any harder than students at other schools, and our P/F grading system makes it easy to have a life outside of med school without worrying about the grades.

 

[Nymphicus]

But often more PBL. PBL is a pretty inefficient way of learning.

Neither Vanderbilt or Baylor have all that much PBL. Very limited, I would say actually.

The curriculum dean actually told us at Vanderbilt that the reason they don't have a lot of PBL is that it is inefficient with all the material you are supposed to deliver to students.

 

[dd128]

Baylor does this and the students I talked to there seemed to really like it. They said it was really helpful to get clinical experience in before taking Step 1. And if Baylor's Step 1 stats are any indication; I'd say it's working well.

The thing you need to keep in mind is that overall Baylor tends to take more competitive applicants than your average state school. They would probably do well on step no matter when they took step.

 

[2010houston]

I couldnt be happier w the 1.5yr preclinicals. I think taking step 1 during mid 3rd year after a full year of clinicals, with ample time off to study, is a huge advantage.

 

[Thego2guy]

But often more PBL. PBL is a pretty inefficient way of learning.

Can you please elaborate? Why do so many schools stick with it then? Maybe it works best in a hybrid system (like at Cornell), where its mostly lecture and then a little PBL?

 

[DocMom1]

Can you please elaborate? Why do so many schools stick with it then? Maybe it works best in a hybrid system (like at Cornell), where its mostly lecture and then a little PBL?

Isn't Cornell all PBL?

 

[Thego2guy]

Isn't Cornell all PBL?

Nah dude, its a common misconception. Many people bitched on this forum before about this and that (about PBL at Cornell) and it has been pointed out multiple times on these threads by Cornell Med Students, as well as elsewhere (youtube, their website etc..) that PBL is a small part of their curriculum. They have lecture, group discussions, and PBL, so there are a variety of different learning methods apparently.

 

[willen101383]

At my school we could EASILY have been done in 1.5 years. Our 3rd trimester consisted of a bunch of BS fluff classes that were EXTREMELY low yield and served no purpose other than to make us all miserable.

 

[Thego2guy]

At my school we could EASILY have been done in 1.5 years. Our 3rd trimester consisted of a bunch of BS fluff classes that were EXTREMELY low yield and served no purpose other than to make us all miserable.

Yeah I heard that there is much redundancy in med school, so it is totally feasible to cut some of that out. What kind of crap did they make you you do? Lol

 

[NeuralNetwork]

A number of medical schools (including Duke, Penn, Vanderbilt, Columbia and NYU) have compressed (or "accelerated") the traditional 2 year preclinical curriculum to 1.5 years.

If the same basic information must be covered, does this mean that students have to work much harder in schools with a compressed curriculum to stay on top of the material?

Responses from current med students on this question would be most appreciated.

I had the same question, so during my interview day at NYU, I asked both the students and my interviewer. Their answers were pretty much the same: that the curriculum isn't condensed, but that instead a lot of the redundancies that used to exist in the curriculum were removed. The students also said they had a lot of free time, so I don't imagine that the curriculum change made them work harder to get more information in.

 

[DocMom1]

I had the same question, so during my interview day at NYU, I asked both the students and my interviewer. Their answers were pretty much the same: that the curriculum isn't condensed, but that instead a lot of the redundancies that used to exist in the curriculum were removed. The students also said they had a lot of free time, so I don't imagine that the curriculum change made them work harder to get more information in.

At the same time, it is often said that the learning that takes place in med school is through repetition. If the repetition is cut out, the logical consequence would seem to be that learning gets harder.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

The difference between a traditional 2-year preclinical curriculum vs. a condensed one most likely just involves reduction in redundancy and the number of times you're exposed to a topic in class. Mine is a 2-year preclinical curriculum and, for example, we had a lecture on the topic of sleep probably 4 different times (in various classes) covering, for the most part, the same material. You'd be surprised how many times the same things are repeated in different classes. Is it necessary to spend a lecture talking about the renin-AngII-aldosterone system in the cardio unit, the renal unit, and the endocrine unit instead of discussing it at one point? Probably not.

Cut down on a lot of this redundancy and you have your condensed curriculum. I personally do like some of this redundancy though since it's pretty much beaten these concepts (and details) into my head whether I like it or not.

At the same time, it is often said that the learning that takes place in med school is through repetition. If the repetition is cut out, the logical consequence would seem to be that learning gets harder.

Most of this repetition should be done in your own time, not class time. By the time you get to an exam, you've ideally gone through the material several times already. Cutting down redundancies in lectures doesn't necessarily have to mean that you're exposed to fewer repetitions of the content. Does that make sense?

 

[sliceofbread136]

Yeah I heard that there is much redundancy in med school, so it is totally feasible to cut some of that out. What kind of crap did they make you you do? Lol

I'm guessing it was OOM. If I had to spend my time learning something like that I would probably rage quit.

Sliceofbread136 has left the game.

 

[Thego2guy]

I'm guessing it was OOM. If I had to spend my time learning something like that I would probably rage quit.

Sliceofbread136 has left the game.

Lol at OOM,

and, what does that mean? Sorry, I'm slow.

 

[DocMom1]

Most of this repetition should be done in your own time, not class time. By the time you get to an exam, you've ideally gone through the material several times already. Cutting down redundancies in lectures doesn't necessarily have to mean that you're exposed to fewer repetitions of the content. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, but it also seems to clearly imply that you will be working harder, since you will have the same number of hours in lecture per day (if not more) than a student in a non-compressed curriculum, but there will be by design more new (as opposed to review) material in each hour of lecture. This seems to mean more material to master every day of your preclinical years. Am I right in thinking this?

If you are covering the same body of fresh material, but there are 25% less days in which to cover it, I don't see how that can't mean that studying during those years becomes 25% more difficult/time-consuming.

 

[sliceofbread136]

Lol at OOM,

and, what does that mean? Sorry, I'm slow.

You must not play alot of DOTA 2.

 

[Thego2guy]

You must not play alot of DOTA 2.

Lol, whether it is for the better or the worse, my video game days are over.

 

[kasho11]

Out of mana

 

[wanderer]

The difference between a traditional 2-year preclinical curriculum vs. a condensed one most likely just involves reduction in redundancy and the number of times you're exposed to a topic in class. Mine is a 2-year preclinical curriculum and, for example, we had a lecture on the topic of sleep probably 4 different times (in various classes) covering, for the most part, the same material. You'd be surprised how many times the same things are repeated in different classes. Is it necessary to spend a lecture talking about the renin-AngII-aldosterone system in the cardio unit, the renal unit, and the endocrine unit instead of discussing it at one point? Probably not.

Cut down on a lot of this redundancy and you have your condensed curriculum. I personally do like some of this redundancy though since it's pretty much beaten these concepts (and details) into my head whether I like it or not.



Most of this repetition should be done in your own time, not class time. By the time you get to an exam, you've ideally gone through the material several times already. Cutting down redundancies in lectures doesn't necessarily have to mean that you're exposed to fewer repetitions of the content. Does that make sense?

I think that's how you remember the more important things. The first two years it's like you're learning a new language, and the best way to learn a new language is by repetition. And having the same topic in different courses makes you look at it through different perspectives, thereby solidifying your knowledge.

 

[loveoforganic]

I think that's how you remember the more important things. The first two years it's like you're learning a new language, and the best way to learn a new language is by repetition. And having the same topic in different courses makes you look at it through different perspectives, thereby solidifying your knowledge.

agree, particularly since it's not usually "exactly the same" but slightly building up or integrating with other material - you hear the information again and tie it into something else

 

[Morsetlis]

A number of medical schools (including Duke, Penn, Vanderbilt, Columbia, Baylor and NYU) have compressed (or "accelerated") the traditional 2 year preclinical curriculum to 1.5 years.

If the same basic information must be covered, does this mean that students have to work much harder in schools with a compressed curriculum to stay on top of the material?

Responses from current med students on this question would be most appreciated.

A lot of the materials are re-taught and there's redundancy. There could definitely be more efficiency in my 2-year program (that, and it's SGU, lol).

Really don't need to spend 5 different lectures going over RAAS. Better to spend 2 hours on it, then go do practice problems for 3 hours, by yourself.

 

[DocMom1]

A lot of the materials are re-taught and there's redundancy. There could definitely be more efficiency in my 2-year program (that, and it's SGU, lol).

If you are covering the same body of fresh material, but there are 25% less days in which to cover it, I don't see how that can't imply that studying during those years becomes 25% more difficult/time-consuming.

 

[DocMom1]

If you are covering the same body of fresh material, but there are 25% less days in which to cover it, I don't see how that can't imply that studying during those years becomes 25% more difficult/time-consuming.

Is there something missing here?

 

[wanderer]

Is there something missing here?

Nope. These schools think they're awesome for being new and innovative as if there's any evidence their new graduates will be any better than their current/previous graduates.

 

[Cinclus]

Nope. These schools think they're awesome for being new and innovative as if there's any evidence their new graduates will be any better than their current/previous graduates.

Baylor's had a 1.5-year preclinical curriculum for over 30 years.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

I think that's how you remember the more important things. The first two years it's like you're learning a new language, and the best way to learn a new language is by repetition. And having the same topic in different courses makes you look at it through different perspectives, thereby solidifying your knowledge.

agree, particularly since it's not usually "exactly the same" but slightly building up or integrating with other material - you hear the information again and tie it into something else

I don't know if I'd say I've gotten different perspectives on the topic each time. It's been, more or less, the same. Maybe it'll be different during M2 year when there's lots of things that could lead to similar pathology?

I do agree with the idea of repetition. I generally see the material around 7 times by the time I get to the actual exam. The nice thing about having repeat lectures in different courses is that when I see something we already covered in a prior course, I pretty much go "Oh awesome, skipping this lecture since we already learned it!" instead of actually going over it again. Or I'll just skim through it really quickly to see if there's anything new added.

With my previous post, I just meant that I don't think cutting redundancies in the basic sciences (like the schools with condensed curricula do) significantly hurts the students. That's just my opinion as an M1, so take that with a grain of salt.

Really don't need to spend 5 different lectures going over RAAS. Better to spend 2 hours on it, then go do practice problems for 3 hours, by yourself.

That's generally been my philosophy as well. Practice problems really help reinforce the important concepts/details. This is really where I've learned to integrate material.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[DocMom1]

Sounds rather intense.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Baylor's had a 1.5-year preclinical curriculum for over 30 years.

Columbia had a 1.5 year pre-clinical curriculum for decades too a long time ago, but then like Baylor and all other schools they switched to the 2 year and now things have come full circle and some schools are switching back. McGill was the first to switch back about 15 years ago. Penn was the first US school to switch back.

To answer your question OP, some stuff was condensed (for Columbia the big condensation was going from 1 year of anatomy to 1/2 year like most schools), and some things were reorganized. For example, we do phys, path, and pharm by system rather than doing a semester long class of phys, then path, then pharm. I think that saves time as well. Columbia has some PBL/TBL, but it is mostly non mandatory except for the occasional group quiz.

I personally think that most schools will switch to the 1.5 year pre-clinical or some variant of it. I think it reflects the current trends in our healthcare system for more clinical experience before starting residency. The biggest advantages of such a curriculum are 1) You finish clinical year with 6 months, more or less, before you have to seriously start preparing for residency. This is great because it gives you more time to figure out what you want to do, more time to prepare once you know, and it also gives you time to apply for year off grants (which have deadlines typically in January); and 2) More clinical experience to bring to bear against the step 1. I personally thought it helped me, and I finished the exam 1.5 hours early despite taking an hour of breaks. I didn't find it easy, but I did find that I was able to jump to the answers quickly because the diseases tended to be so obvious. There really isn't any way to know objectively, but schools report higher step 1 scores after the transition. For Columbia, our highest average step 1 was 237/100% pass rate and in the first year of the new curriculum taking the step 1 our new highest average step 1 is 241/100% pass rate for MD students (240 for MD/PhDs who didn't do clinical year before the step 1).

 

[maymay]

pre-answer disclaimer: n=1 from BCM

• Do students have to work harder to pass, and is there less time for extracurricular activities?
  In the 1.5 pre-clinical years, people generally work very hard. Compared to undergrad, there is a lot more to learn. However, when comparing how hard we work to students in a traditional two-year program across the street, I don't think our shortened curriculum is a particular burden. That lecture is only 4 hours/day, is available via streaming, and isn't mandatory attendance helps. We have a lot of free time, and after the first few months, most people figure out how to maximize their efficiency learning the material.
  
  I definitely don't think there's been less time for extracurriculars; people who want to research/work in the free clinic/do something entirely unrelated to med school have the time to do so. The only thing that seems limited is traveling during that time - we only get one month off after first year, where I think most other places have two or three.
  
  
• Are students more stressed because they have to go through the same material in less time?
  I don't think people are more stressed here (assuming a baseline level of stress inherent to medical school). Switching to P/F for the preclinical years probably helped with that. I never felt rushed during the blocks I kept up with the material on. I will say there might be less slack in allowing yourself to fall behind - I got lazy during a block in Fall 2 and the cramming was brutal.
  
  
• Do exams happen more often or is there just more information on each exam?
• If the latter, is the threshold for passing attendantly lowered to account for the fact that there is more information being tested?
  Exams are school specific. We happen to have them for each class at the end of each block - so, 3-4 exams every ~6 weeks for first year. It never seemed like there was an unfair amount of information on the exams (well, maybe infectious disease. But that's the nature of that beast). The threshold for passing is always 70%. Very few people fail.
  
  
• Have students on the whole been more or less satisfied with the compressed curriculum than they were before it was implemented?
  I don't know anyone who doesn't like preclinicals being 1.5 years, and it's a primary reason many of us chose to come here. I'm really glad I'll have a year of clinicals under my belt before I get two months off to start studying for Step 1; I remember so much more of what seemed like useless trivia during the first 1.5 years after seeing it in clinics. Plus, I get an extra six months to play around with - so I can take two off for step study, another during interview season, and still have time for three extra electives/away rotations
  

That's just my perspective, though. I'm sure there are advantages to both systems, and as an earlier poster said - there's probably some selection bias based on who the school accepts and who chooses to come here. The people who are happier with the traditional system aren't here to give you the lowdown on their experience.

Wow, that got long. tl;dr I like my 1.5 year school; feel free to PM with specific questions

 

[235788]

At the Duke interview, it was explained that the students are in lectures for much longer hours, so YES. Screw that man, and it's all to fit in more research to make the school look good. Stupid IMO.

agree. Research should be optional... My school is moving towards that also. .

Research is self-selecting... Those who need it for competitve residencies will be doing it, and those who don't NEED it and are set on peds/fm/internal(just IM) will be thrown into the mix - congesting projects and PIs. Totally lame!

 

[DocMom1]

Is there time to do research in the 1.5 yr preclinical potion in such schools or do they recommend waiting until after to do it?

 

[theWUbear]

Baylor does this and the students I talked to there seemed to really like it. They said it was really helpful to get clinical experience in before taking Step 1.

Does clinical experience even have any relevance to STEP 1?

 

[mmmcdowe]

Does clinical experience even have any relevance to STEP 1?

I found it super helpful for the images and for the auscultation questions where they make you listen to murmurs as part of the question stem. I also found it helpful in terms of having a much firmer grounding in various diseases than I did in pre-clinicals. This was useful because it gave me a better framework to relearn the basic science stuff that I didn't remember a day after the exams, let alone a year after.

 

[theWUbear]

I found it super helpful for the images and for the auscultation questions where they make you listen to murmurs as part of the question stem. I also found it helpful in terms of having a much firmer grounding in various diseases than I did in pre-clinicals. This was useful because it gave me a better framework to relearn the basic science stuff that I didn't remember a day after the exams, let alone a year after.

Nice. That makes sense

 

[wanderedtoolong]

Is there a comprehensive list of schools offering 1.5yr preclinicals anywhere?

 

[Bro Dude]

Is there a comprehensive list of schools offering 1.5yr preclinicals anywhere?

There aren't that many. Columbia, Penn, Vanderbilt, UVa, NYU, Emory, Baylor, and UVM. Duke has 1.0 years for pre-clinical coursework and Vandy will shorten it's pre-clinicals to 1.0 years starting next year or so.

 

[wanderedtoolong]

There aren't that many. Columbia, Penn, Vanderbilt, UVa, NYU, Emory, Baylor, and UVM. Duke has 1.0 years for pre-clinical coursework and Vandy will shorten it's pre-clinicals to 1.0 years starting next year or so.

Thanks! It's a very appealing option and I'll be tweaking my school list a bit to include most of those.

 

[mmmcdowe]

Did Sinai switch to a 1.5 yet?

 

[kasukabe81]

Stony Brook is changing to 1.5 year starting this year.