Thought experiment: Step 1 becomes new MCAT

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
4,847
Reaction score
18,242
Consider a scenario where most medical schools condense to 2 years of clinical education and require USMLE Step 1 as the entrance exam.

Now imagine there is a program that consists of 12 months of dedicated preparation for Step 1. You get a study plan, all necessary resources, a desk, access to peer study groups, a learning advisor, and periodic formative exams.

In this hypothetical world, would you consider attending such a program? And if so, how much would you pay for it?
 
That's all well and good but what about formation in professionalism, and the basics of obtaining a history and physical? Would that wait until one reached the clinics and wards?

What would it cost to provide this system? Could one borrow to cover the cost? Would far more be admitted than could be accommodated in the clinical years thus having many more people having spent money for something that does not pan out. Would higher step scores be required for admission or merely "pass/fail"? I fear that a race to high step score would drive out some of the most talented people who have the ability to connect with others and provide excellent care.


I think some schools already offer 3-year Primary Care Track, so, any actual difference?

The condensed portion comes in the second half, rather than the front half.
 
In this hypothetical world, would you consider attending such a program? And if so, how much would you pay for it?
Sign me up. And heck, I’d pay more for a program like this. I mean, I’m already saving 2 years of living expenses. Not to mention the time. I’d even be willing to pay double tuition for a program like this.
 
Nice to see my post inspired this haha

And if so, how much would you pay for it?
The cost of UFAPS

formation in professionalism, and the basics of obtaining a history and physical?
Eliminate professionalism. It’s a worthless class that teaches students *absolutely* nothing. I have no idea where medical people got this idea that professionalism is something that can be taught. It is common sense which 99% of students who have gotten past the checkpoints to get to medical school will have. The other 1% who lack professionalism will be unable to be taught it in a 1 semester course.

The H&P can be taught in 2 months.
 
Eliminate professionalism. It’s a worthless class that teaches students *absolutely* nothing.

Professionalism is not a class meant to teach something that students learn. It is formation as a professional. As a self-regulating profession, like law and the clerical state, one is formed through a series of experiences and interactions with professionals. I suppose that might be done in two years but it seems to truncate the formation.
 
I also think that medical school is something more than passing STEP 1. Practical, daily activities of doctors is inextricably linked with the material world, developing according to its objective laws. A physician who does not know these laws cannot navigate in a wide range of knowledge that is directly related to his profession. He is not able to properly apply this knowledge in his immediate activities. Finally, can he/she scientifically develop the individual problems of his/her specialty? 1 year of general biology during 1st year of undergrad is not enough for these purposes. And even given that doctors are not scientists, time spent in lecture hall shapes one's mind and gives him special point of view that is unique for all specialities. Education is not about taking tests, as many of us see. "I need to study during undergrad to pass MCAT, I need to study at med school to pass STEP 1." No, you need to study because at one day only you will be the barrier between patient and disease (and evil lawyers who look forward to sue you). The thinking of the doctor is directed at the sensual object - at the person. Therefore, it does not stop at the abstract-universal stage (it is not enough in general to know the essence of the disease, the main forms of its course, etc.), but it goes to concretization in an individual object.
Knowledge of the disease as such should be connected with the knowledge of this person and recreate new knowledge. Starting at med school to study the fundamentals of medicine, no one can foresee how his/her personal aspirations will develop in the future. Someone will be attracted by its obvious, momentary usefulness to the practical side of the profession, and in someone will win the desire to devote their strength to research, identifying the "last causes of things." But in this and in another case, enriched by experience, accumulating and critically interpreting his observations, drawing from them reasonable conclusions, every doctor performs scientific work on the content, he/she is a researcher - if not in the scientific laboratory, then at the patient’s bed in difficult time. Although the school curriculum may seem extremely overloaded, but, in fact, they cover only the basics of the medical sciences, the minimum knowledge that every doctor needs. I emphasize: everyone. This minimum must not only be firmly learned, but as far as possible be replenished by reading special journals, monographs, and other scientific literature.
Any doctor who is not thoroughly familiar with normal and pathological anatomy, biochemistry and physiology, histology, clinical, sanitary and hygienic disciplines will not fit anywhere. Everything is interconnected, everything is important, everything is needed. And if you show a special interest in any discipline, then in no way to the detriment of the rest. At med school, first of all, one should strive to accumulate a maximum of versatile knowledge. And the specialization will be discussed only at the end of the course.

I also truly believe that wisdom shared by experienced faculty is irreplaceable, and there are no study guides or notes that could share it. I would prefer traditional route.
 
Last edited:
Most of what you read and hear from medical students is often that their programs are many times an impediment to their progress and potential rather than in support of it.

If students are motivated to skip their lectures and hole themselves in their rooms to memorize thousands of flashcards, it seems that the system and its qualifications for filtering applicant competitiveness are broken.

Either the incentives of students are optimized towards better doctoring compared to board scores or I think I would be in favor of aligning systems that support medical student economic conditions, self-worth, and value rather than cultivating cynicism of their institutions from the get-go for the sake of business as usual. Medical school time/debt is a huge sink that affects the motivations of future providers and their chosen specialty or area of service. A spirit of service and humanism may transform into one of financial survival when taking on physical age, debt, and pressure.

I would also personally choose to give more credit to medical students who learn critical scientific thinking skills throughout college and are already filtered pre-medical education for their intentions, character, and academic aptitude. Identity formation as a professional, I think, has and continues to develop through pre-med to rotations to residencies and beyond.
 
The dialogue surrounding Step 1 has nothing to actually do with Step 1, it has to do with the fact that there are more medical programs being expanded on an annual basis from three different sources MD/DO/Caribbean resulting in a growth in the student population looking for a Match in residency programs that have not accelerated at a similar rate. The matching dilemma for an individual becomes more pronounced the more competition is within their desired specialty and on the receiving end program directors do not have the time or resources to look through every application so they utilize metrics like Step 1 to eliminate a portion of the applicant pool that couldn't make the objective cut. There is a consensus in the price of the negotiation between the two relevant stakeholders: the applicant & the program. It seems like medical school administrators seemingly want to disrupt this agreement in order to prove that they still have influence over the process despite the eventuality that they will be a dime a dozen among a swath of schools.

Adcoms in medical schools are playing a shell game with program directors by modifying Step 1 into P/F or using it as an MCAT replacement which are shell games because they are not real solutions. Program directors will simply adapt and use a new metric as a screening tool because they realistically cannot handle the growth in medical school applicants with the staff they have at the residency programs they run. There are many ways to approach an oversaturation problem, the easiest is to apply clamps and cut off circulation. Stop new schools and expansion of old programs continually expanding student slots, use hard caps and audit schools. Punish schools that break these formalities by removing their accreditation. An M3/M4 clinical rotation model turns medical schools into a 2 year process with a one year feeder program (Step 1 camp) in which schools can ratchet up the frequency of graduates and slam residency programs even harder.

The lack of constraint in limiting school expansion has already resulted in a glut of pharmacists in the healthcare industry and has decimated the field of law to the point where schools are willing to accept students with LSAT scores two or three standard deviations below their standards a decade ago because they are more interested in cashing in on federal loans than the sustainability of the ecosystem. This is a critical time where schools need to act moderately rather than be tempted by opening a school at a time where tuition rates and students loans are at an all time high, but this issue is going to continually self-perpetuate with all parties having their hands in the pie because no one wants to come out a loser. When everyone loses, who foots the bill?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you say it is an arms race for competition-tied to oversaturation-and no matter the metric, PDs will find something else to replace it with. Students are incentivized to target the metric of residency programs so are in alignment (or disalignment) with schools in their capacity to support them in those metrics.

The OP option is to align with students on the current metric in a hyper-efficient manner. This will not necessarily increase the frequency of graduates applying for residency if programs adopt the model across the board, only if more schools/seats continue to be expanded which increases the number of graduates per year (which already seems to be a real issue).
 
Consider a scenario where most medical schools condense to 2 years of clinical education and require USMLE Step 1 as the entrance exam.

Now imagine there is a program that consists of 12 months of dedicated preparation for Step 1. You get a study plan, all necessary resources, a desk, access to peer study groups, a learning advisor, and periodic formative exams.

In this hypothetical world, would you consider attending such a program? And if so, how much would you pay for it?

does Step 2 CS exist in the hypothetical world?
 
Slightly more serious take: im not a medical student and it’s already apparent to me that a great portion of the SDN/Reddit Med Student Party Line will forever be incomprehensible to me, but I do think that I’m fairly savvy about higher ed and how I learn. That said, I can pretty confidently say that whatever happens in the classroom is almost guaranteed to be the least important thing that will ever happen to you in an academic environment. There’s so much more to learning and scholarly development. To be disconnected from that environment, indeed totally isolated from even your peers is not only not worth a higher sticker price, it’s worth precisely nothing at all. I’m confident the medical profession could go on just fine, but it would be impoverished.
 
Slightly more serious take: im not a medical student and it’s already apparent to me that a great portion of the SDN/Reddit Med Student Party Line will forever be incomprehensible to me, but I do think that I’m fairly savvy about higher ed and how I learn. That said, I can pretty confidently say that whatever happens in the classroom is almost guaranteed to be the least important thing that will ever happen to you in an academic environment. There’s so much more to learning and scholarly development. To be disconnected from that environment, indeed totally isolated from even your peers is not only not worth a higher sticker price, it’s worth precisely nothing at all. I’m confident the medical profession could go on just fine, but it would be impoverished.
Yep, this is critical and something to consider. Well said 👍
 
Slightly more serious take: im not a medical student and it’s already apparent to me that a great portion of the SDN/Reddit Med Student Party Line will forever be incomprehensible to me, but I do think that I’m fairly savvy about higher ed and how I learn. That said, I can pretty confidently say that whatever happens in the classroom is almost guaranteed to be the least important thing that will ever happen to you in an academic environment. There’s so much more to learning and scholarly development. To be disconnected from that environment, indeed totally isolated from even your peers is not only not worth a higher sticker price, it’s worth precisely nothing at all. I’m confident the medical profession could go on just fine, but it would be impoverished.
But isn't this the direction schools seem to be taking? Students target schools with non-mandatory lectures and less is more. Half the posts on med student reddit are memes about 3rd party sources providing better education and their schools dragging them down. I am not for the hypothetical model and truly believe the growth related to the medical school experience is highly valuable (hopefully to my effectiveness throughout a career)(and one of the reasons I personally choose to take on higher debt to go through it, because I value thorough development). But how much is that all worth when the average debt load and metric-related pressures are already so high. Many students are paying for medical school because they are degree-granting institutions and they have no other option to pursue their career. I'm not sure how much more the socialization aspects of pre-clinical education contribute to development as a professional when a lot of that is already developed and through pre-med and clinical requirements.
 
So you say it is an arms race for competition-tied to oversaturation-and no matter the metric, PDs will find something else to replace it with. Students are incentivized to target the metric of residency programs so are in alignment (or disalignment) with schools in their capacity to support them in those metrics.

The OP option is to align with students on the current metric in a hyper-efficient manner. This will not necessarily increase the frequency of graduates applying for residency if programs adopt the model across the board, only if more schools/seats continue to be expanded which increases the number of graduates per year (which already seems to be a real issue).
The OP has pushed for a Step 1 P/F system while consequently acknowledging that such a system will just push the burden to Step 2 CK. The OP has stated that Step 1 is designed as a P/F test and has stated that the design of said test is different from the composition of a test like the MCAT, however now we see they "experimenting" with the progressive idea that it can be used to replace it in its current form. The OP has stated before that the situation is coming to a critical point, however has not elaborated on the connotation of what it means. To be quite honest, I am not sure how playing a shell game and forcing students to adapt will actually improve student outcomes. A P/F system has been stated to focus less on students becoming specialists and more on them being competent healthcare providers. However, I think that this is an ongoing rhetoric with no fixed positions so that when the problem hits we can get an, "We really tried to stop this, but it happened."

If medical school goes from a 4 year program to a 2 year clinical rotation system with a 1 year feeder program it will essentially be them modifying their current SMP programs by adding M2 material. The Step 1 exam can then be used as a selection to pick their strongest candidates into the Match. In theoretical practice, its the equivalent to a combine or a farm team where they have a dual selection process (first for candidates into the combine and second to select for candidates who can go pro). This way medical schools have the ability to self-select themselves who does and does not get to make it to residency by leaving their own undesirables in a state of post-Step 1 limbo (Caribbean programs actually have a similar system with deciding who does or does not take Step 1 based on preliminary testing results). Also, you are correct. Changing the length of schooling does not necessitate a change in the graduates that hit residency so long as the frequency is kept per annum. I was completely wrong on that assertion and did not think it through.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. That would be undergrad + 12 month likely overpriced program + medical school.

Hard pass
 
There's no good reason for why US medical education takes four years, on top of four years of undergraduate studies. A majority of European countries require 5-6 years of education at most to become a licensed physician, and there's no evidence that their physicians are inferior to ours. The American system of medical education is, to put it bluntly, a money-making scheme for university administrators, and it applies selection pressures that reward masochism and antisocial tendencies among those on the pre-medical track.
 
But isn't this the direction schools seem to be taking? Students target schools with non-mandatory lectures and less is more. Half the posts on med student reddit are memes about 3rd party sources providing better education and their schools dragging them down. I am not for the hypothetical model and truly believe the growth related to the medical school experience is highly valuable (hopefully to my effectiveness throughout a career)(and one of the reasons I personally choose to take on higher debt to go through it, because I value thorough development). But how much is that all worth when the average debt load and metric-related pressures are already so high. Many students are paying for medical school because they are degree-granting institutions and they have no other option to pursue their career. I'm not sure how much more the socialization aspects of pre-clinical education contribute to development as a professional when a lot of that is already developed and through pre-med and clinical requirements.

I actually don't think that's a bad thing. What a good school should do is recruit motivated, capable, curious students and then get the hell out of the way and provide as many resources as they need to succeed / accomplish their goals.

I also wasn't referring to socialization per se. It's difficult to articulate explicitly, but what I'm trying to get at has to do with a very specific view of what education is meant to provide that I understand is not universal so I don't exactly want to spend an hour writing an impromptu manifesto.

Related to the OP, I think perhaps a more reasonable question to be asking is: is it at all reasonable, in the 21st century, to have a single model of medical education? Standardization provides excellent quality control, no doubt about it. But some medical schools are already experimenting with slightly altered pathways to suit specific goals. The two most obvious examples are the 3 yr MD pathways and MD/PhD programs. They are starkly different, but at the heart of it they are both providing a slightly altered pathway tailored to a specific set of career goals. Personally, I would never want to attend a program anything like what was described in the OP, but some will prefer it. Could multiple streams be tenable? How would people cope with the need to potentially differentiate even before undergraduate medical education begins? To some extent it is already happening but how far could the logic be taken to effectively improve, streamline the training pipeline? There's certainly something to be said for streamlining with the rise of both gap years before med school and research years before residency.
 
There's no good reason for why US medical education takes four years, on top of four years of undergraduate studies. A majority of European countries require 5-6 years of education at most to become a licensed physician, and there's no evidence that their physicians are inferior to ours. The American system of medical education is, to put it bluntly, a money-making scheme for university administrators, and it applies selection pressures that reward masochism and antisocial tendencies among those on the pre-medical track.

The whole premed deal in undergrad should be shortened to to 2-3 years. 0 reason to force a bachelors degree we aren’t going to use.
 
No, that would be garbage. What should actually happen is the following:

-schools should have weekly clinical meetings (SPs, learning how to write a SOAP note, practice coming up with a differential with a physician, how to take a good history, how to do a good physical), maybe start out with one night a week with shadowing in a clinic that slowly allows more and more autonomy as they progress though the pre-clinical year which eventually serves as a segue into clerkships. These should go for the full two years. Hell maybe even a clinical case once a week where they walk through a case with a practicing physician. I'm talking like 10 hours a week MAX for these things.

-There should be a highly detailed anatomy course that goes the first 4 months.

-Schools should provide students with a copy of FA, Boards and Beyond, UWorld, Kaplan Q Bank, Sketchy Med, and if people want Pathoma they can select for it as well. Maybe Firecracker and/or a tutorial for how to use Anki.

-Schools should be given a calendar that shows them a rough outline of how they are expected to go through the topics. Every 1-3 months schools should administer NBME subject exams to make sure students are following along. Grades should be P/F/H with Honors being given to students who perform in the top 10% in the class on these exams.

-2 times a week for 2 hour blocks the professors that would normally teach these courses hold elective classes where they go through clinical cases correlating to the specific block students should be in, answer questions, explain current research if they want, help students that come and want it.

-Pre-clinical years should be shortened to 1.5 years.

-Step 1 should remain scored, with percentiles reported in the score report.

-Get rid of Step 2 CS. It's the most worthless exam currently in use.

-Significantly slash tuition for the first two years of medical school.
 
The OP has pushed for a Step 1 P/F system while consequently acknowledging that such a system will just push the burden to Step 2 CK. The OP has stated that Step 1 is designed as a P/F test and has stated that the design of said test is different from the composition of a test like the MCAT, however now we see they "experimenting" with the progressive idea that it can be used to replace it in its current form. The OP has stated before that the situation is coming to a critical point, however has not elaborated on the connotation of what it means.

I have been hesitant to elaborate on the so-called critical point because we are watching it play out in real time. Students have no real longitudinal perspective on the Step 1 climate, but from the educator's standpoint it feels like the walls are melting, with a sudden spike in exam delays, 5-year graduation plans, and serious mental health issues. The fact that InCUS was convened in the first place, and that the national conversation about Step 1 scoring has remerged for the third time, should give some indication as to how F-ed up things are relative to historic trends.

If Step 1 remains a numerically scored exam (which I think is by far the most likely outcome), I believe we will see more and more schools have their students take it after M3, perhaps using publications like this one as a justification. Students would therefore have to routinely plan to take Step 1 and Step 2 CK in tandem. I don't see this as any better than simply putting the emphasis on Step 2 CK.
 
I would attend such program.

But, this rises an interesting thought:
What happens when med schools start accepting only those with 240+ scores? Instead of medical education would this turn into exam education? (I say this because there are people with low step1 who end up becoming awesome physicians that make a difference, and having a high step1 cutoff would ignore these capable individuals).
Then, what happens at the residency level? Step1 is gone, and PDs would push for a new metric, step 4 perhaps??

It's my feeling that such hypothetical world is exactly what we live right now. We have the mcat, and dedicated annual courses to help you nail it, and students pouring tons of money on them.

Having said that, I would attend such prep program if I could afford it.

Now that we are on the realm of the hypothetical, my hypothetical med school would be one that is managed by a health system, doesn't require a bachelor degree, has mcat as the entrance exam, 2 years preclinical, and 4 years clinical where students take the step 1 after their first 2 years of core clerkships, and secured residencies for their students within the health system.
 
I have been hesitant to elaborate on the so-called critical point because we are watching it play out in real time. Students have no real longitudinal perspective on the Step 1 climate, but from the educator's standpoint it feels like the walls are melting, with a sudden spike in exam delays, 5-year graduation plans, and serious mental health issues. The fact that InCUS was convened in the first place, and that the national conversation about Step 1 scoring has remerged for the third time, should give some indication as to how F-ed up things are relative to historic trends.

If Step 1 remains a numerically scored exam (which I think is by far the most likely outcome), I believe we will see more and more schools have their students take it after M3, perhaps using publications like this one as a justification. Students would therefore have to routinely plan to take Step 1 and Step 2 CK in tandem. I don't see this as any better than simply putting the emphasis on Step 2 CK.

Would it be better if schools simply revamped their preclinical curricula based on the suggestions outlined above and return to grading? I think pass/fail is what led to this current situation.
 
-Get rid of Step 2 CS. It's the most worthless exam currently in use.

I’m not sure if educators care about Step 2 CS even though it’s a waste of money and time, and also causes a lot of stress for students on top of many other things (like focusing on residency applications).
 
Now that we are on the realm of the hypothetical, my hypothetical med school would be one that is managed by a health system, doesn't require a bachelor degree, has mcat as the entrance exam, 2 years preclinical, and 4 years clinical where students take the step 1 after their first 2 years of core clerkships, and secured residencies for their students within the health system.
What I would change about this hypothetical program: No bachelors, but require either 2 years of bachelors level coursework or a year of full time employment followed by a professional evaluation to show competency in s high-demand environment. Instead of 4 years clinical, I would prefer 3 years clinical where the first year is general rotations, second is specialized rotations, third is a built-in field specific (Gen surg, gen medicine, etc) intern year.
 
I think the rise of streamed lecture packages is making a fundamental, paradigm-shifting change in medical education. For the previous generation, you needed to have a preclinical medical education in a classroom, because you needed professors to walk you through. The alternative was a bunch of dusty tomes in the library. Even if every day you had a random new person covering a random lecture topic, and yet another different person leading you through cases in a small group, and yet another person writing your unit exam, that was still a lot better than the dusty tomes.

With the rise of the internet and streamed packages like Boards and Beyond or Pathoma, this isn't true any more. These represent a new option: having one or two beloved teachers lead you through all the material you need to know. They have control over designing all of it so it's comprehensive and flows perfectly, and instead of every new unit exam being a moving target with a different author, they're always aiming at one standardized set of expectations. Namely, the Step1 and NBME exams.

It's a beautiful thing that I think is the natural progression for preclinical education. It makes no sense to drag a dozen different faculty in front of students to give variable quality lectures. Especially considering this all gets recorded; even if you did want to have faculty lectures, you could just record it once and have it streamable for 5+ years on blackboard, with the professor only needing to host office hours and record an updated version every few years.

So honestly, whether Step1 reports percentile, quartile, or only Pass/Fail, we have to accept this new phenomenon. Learn-at-home boot camp from outside resources for 18-24 months, followed by step1, followed by the actual clinical education on the wards, is already happening right this instant all over the country and becoming more popular with students every year. I'd 100% prefer it if schools could acknowledge this and charge us a lot less money while we do it.
 
And for any faculty reading this, I'd ask you to go check out a couple of the free streamed sample lectures on the Boards and Beyond or Pathoma web sites! You'll see why students love them, and how hard it would be for the old style of preclinical education to stay in competition.
 
Would it be better if schools simply revamped their preclinical curricula based on the suggestions outlined above and return to grading? I think pass/fail is what led to this current situation.

It's multifactorial, but P/F grading of the preclinical curriculum was never that important because preclinical grades were never that important. The biggest driver right now is over-application to residency programs. In 2006 the average ERAS user submitted 47 applications, in 2018 it was 90. US seniors went from 22 to 60. Social media has also opened new vistas of paranoia.
 
Most of your tuition goes to paying fixed costs. Cutting out lecturers will not result in appreciable savings, I am sorry to report.
But, are schools bold enough to outright admit we're paying $60k to subsidize the students currently on rotation?

Also isn't it weird how the costs are fixed, but the tuition keeps rising much faster than inflation...
 
But, are schools bold enough to outright admit we're paying $60k to subsidize the students currently on rotation?

Um, are schools denying this?

Efle said:
Also isn't it weird how the costs are fixed, but the tuition keeps rising much faster than inflation...

That's not what "fixed" means in this context.
 
Most of your tuition goes to pay fixed costs. Cutting out lecturers will not result in appreciable savings, I am sorry to report.
I don't know the topic well enough to comment: What are these fixed costs? If costs are fixed, why do tuitions range from <$20k to >$80K?
 
But, are schools bold enough to outright admit we're paying $60k to subsidize the students currently on rotation?

Also isn't it weird how the costs are fixed, but the tuition keeps rising much faster than inflation...
Um, are schools denying this?



That's not what "fixed" means in this context.
I don't know the topic well enough to comment: What are these fixed costs? If costs are fixed, why do tuitions range from <$20k to >$80K?
Hey, I was told in the newsletter announcing the yearly price hike was that it's for "providing the best possible education" or some bland nonsense like that.

I would imagine a fixed cost is a cost that you can’t change because it’s not related to volume but rather the base needs of the school. The charge can rise from year to year at a rate slightly higher than inflation but the point is that the charge won’t go away.


I didn’t know that the tuition from 1/2/4 years is being used towards 3rd year students. But eventually everyone will be a 3rd year student! Although it would be nice to just charge very low tuition during the first three years and then a gigantic sum of $150K during the fourth year so that you can incur significantly less interest. But this is the real world and it would have a lot of downsides to it (one of which is that you get less money from the people who drop out or get expelled).

As for why tuition ranges @MemeLord , I think there are two major factors to that. The first is the variation in cost based on location. If you account for location then I would be willing to bet that the cost of running is similar between different schools. But the second and most important factor is how much of the cost of running the school is coming from sources other than the tuition, which is why public schools have cheaper tuition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Med Ed Looks like Step 1 is too much of a responsibility for preclinical educators (whose only responsibility is training students to take Step 1) so the solution is to get rid of M1/M2 and to make it a boot camp where administrators can already select students with the highest scores so it no longer becomes an issue. If this is the case, then medical schools essentially become contractors who allocate students into clinical rotations without having to worry about attrition in the volatile preclinical years.
 
I’d be very curious to the precise financials of various medical schools.
 
I’d be very curious to the precise financials of various medical schools.
It's always surprised me that the big names with billions and billions in endowment still charge their med students tuition. You'd think covering 100-200 seats to ensure anyone admitted can afford to attend would be common place. I'm hoping NYU (and, soon I expect, Mayo) can start a trend.
 
It's always surprised me that the big names with billions and billions in endowment still charge their med students tuition. You'd think covering 100-200 seats to ensure anyone admitted can afford to attend would be common place. I'm hoping NYU (and, soon I expect, Mayo) can start a trend.
There is actually some fearing that the DOE comes down on schools who have no tuition. It can be construed as a means of pre-admission financial coercion...
 
The dialogue surrounding Step 1 has nothing to actually do with Step 1, it has to do with the fact that there are more medical programs being expanded on an annual basis from three different sources MD/DO/Caribbean resulting in a growth in the student population looking for a Match in residency programs that have not accelerated at a similar rate.

There are many ways to approach an oversaturation problem, the easiest is to apply clamps and cut off circulation. Stop new schools and expansion of old programs continually expanding student slots, use hard caps and audit schools. Punish schools that break these formalities by removing their accreditation.

This is a critical time where schools need to act moderately rather than be tempted by opening a school at a time where tuition rates and students loans are at an all time high...

First, to the OP: yes I would consider it, as it would make me a doctor. But you did not define what would be required to get in to the feeder program. And second, would be concerned about medical schools determining that a 220 on step one is not good enough to become a doctor much like what has become of the MCAT.

To Pina Colada and anyone else;

I agree there is a problem with medical school expansion, and while I think money plays a factor, I also think that there are further underlying problems. There is a primary care shortage, and it’s growing. How do we fix it? I think most schools - like DO and others that have expanded - believe that pumping out MORE physicians will close the gap. But the problem with this is that the selection system is broken.

40 years ago, the average gpa for MD alone was only near a 3.0 and while I can’t find scores for the NMBE that long ago, I can find that the USMLE for step 1 has increased 7 points in 10 years; so how much has the average scores increased since its inception? Are we to believe that physicians that are practicing now are dumb and couldn’t make it to or through the entire med school process of today? Are we really to believe grade inflation has occurred that much? Are we to believe that the licensing exams have inflated that much? I don’t think so, some inflation sure, but that much, no. Leaving one to make the conclusion that there are perfectly great candidates being passed over in hoards by medical schools based solely on MCATs and GPAs. Further proved by the increasing mean of GPAs and MCATs at both MD AND DO schools.

I can hear it now, “What’s the problem with this. It’s competitive. So stay competitive. Life isn’t fair, etc.” But the problem is that the gpa and mcat that are reflective of an applicant that - statistically - will be successful are much lower than the mean.

So, overwhelmingly, it makes sense that smarter and smarter people are getting in. And what do hardworking, intelligent people do in med school? They ace their boards. BUT, intelligent, hard working people are - in and of themselves - not dumb. WHY go into primary care and make some of the least amount of pay when you can pick a specialty and make 3 times more? Especially since medical school prices have skyrocketed and interest rates are so high. They wouldn’t and do not; which now creates a primary care shortage and thus a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If med schools want primary care physicians, they shouldn’t expect rocket scientists with 10484829 ECs out of undergraduates. Further, myself (n=1) would be more inclined to go into primary care if the pay was better especially compared to the debt. But I can do the same thing in family practice as I could in EM, and make more than double that of a FM.

So, if you want to clamp down on medical schools expanding and shut down the ones that do, it should also be required that they don’t continue to inflate their acceptance statistics just to look good as a 500 MCATer could be a better doctor than a 525 MCATer AND might actually want to do primary care (and statistically wouldn’t score as competitively on boards which reduces probability to specialize).
 
Last edited:
@Rogue42 Nothing you wrote pertains to anything I wrote. The idea that putting the clamp on schools will prevent you from getting into a school with your current GPA/MCAT is unfortunate, but if your scores are that low then chances are that you wouldn't have made it into a domestic US school in the first place.
 
Redacted on the basis of trying to keep post on track.
 
Last edited:
They wouldn’t and do not; which now creates a primary care shortage and thus a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What you posted has nothing to do with creating a primary care shortage. You have no idea how the process works. We don't have a shortage, we have a distribution problem, hence why NPs are able to push legislators to expand their practice scope under the pretense of "we will fill the shortage!" (hint: they don't practice in needed areas any more than doctors do).
 
You don't get billions and billions in the endowment by not charing tuition.

I can only speak to a single allopathic school

But I do know that (public dollars + alumni cash) > Tuition.

I’m curious about the exact breakdown and how it goes at other schools, but I’m not willing to be the guy who asks. I’m just a lowly M1, after all.
 
I don't know the topic well enough to comment: What are these fixed costs? If costs are fixed, why do tuitions range from <$20k to >$80K?

@ClamShell was pretty much right. Here is another thought experiment: download the LCME standards and think through the minimum financial requirements to meet those standards. This would include physical space, staff, utilities, maintenance, financial reserves, the educational program, etc.

Low tuition schools typically have state funding and austere environments. The amount of state funding per student usually relates to the tuition level. High tuition schools are typically low tuition state schools that are trying to soak OOS students to mitigate their austere environments.

Private school tuition, IMHO, is remarkably consistent at about 60K, give or take.
 
Top