Traditional or Integrated Curriculum?

[runningpenguin]

How can you tell if the curriculum for a medical school is traditional or integrated? Sometimes the admissions website for a medical school states it directly. But sometimes it doesn't explicitly state it. I'll see diagram/description of the curriculum with the individual classes, but the website doesn't mention "traditional" or "integrated." So even though I can guess based off of what I see, I'm hesitant to in case I'm incorrect. Is there any resource that explicitly states what exact type of curriculum the school follows?

Also, are there any other styles of medical school curriculum other than traditional or integrated? Or are these the only 2 styles?

Is integrated the same thing as systems and organ too? So integrated= systems= organ?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

How can you tell if the curriculum for a medical school is traditional or integrated? Sometimes the admissions website for a medical school states it directly. But sometimes it doesn't explicitly state it. I'll see diagram/description of the curriculum with the individual classes, but the website doesn't mention "traditional" or "integrated." So even though I can guess based off of what I see, I'm hesitant to in case I'm incorrect. Is there any resource that explicitly states what exact type of curriculum the school follows?

Also, are there any other styles of medical school curriculum other than traditional or integrated? Or are these the only 2 styles?

Is integrated the same thing as systems and organ too? So integrated= systems= organ?

Thanks!

First lets define integrated vs traditional. Now FWIW Ive only attend one med school, and dont claim to be an expert.

Traditional = Blocks = organ systems. You do one "class" at a time, usually for between 2-10 weeks. Each class focuses on a specific subject (eg. Immunology, cardiology, etc) and your exams don't overlap.

Integrated = Multiple classes simultaneously (aka longitudinal). You will take Microbio, immuno, respiratory, cardio, etc in an overlapping semester based fashion (like in undergrad) and and the subjects should in theory tie into each other. For example you learn the Anatomy of the heart along with microbiology related to the heart, immunology related to the heart, etc. Usually theres Larger midterms and finals that encompass multiple disciplines.

In addition, virtually all schools (both trad and integrated) will weave in some longitudinal clinical and "general doctoring" classes with the curriculum.

In reality there's every permutation between the two systems, so many schools wont just out an say what their system is (or will say "integrated" regardless because people think that means "better"). Best thing to do is look at their curriculum and decide if you'd rather be a block learner or an integrated/longitudinal learner. Most schools will have aspects of both to varying degrees.

However, the most important thing to remember is it really doesn't matter almost at all. The medical curriculum is remarkably standardized and you'll learn all the same information regardless of system. The important thing is to be well prepared for the boards and go somewhere with strong clinical education in the 3rd and 4th years.

 

[Goro]

How can you tell if the curriculum for a medical school is traditional or integrated? Sometimes the admissions website for a medical school states it directly. But sometimes it doesn't explicitly state it. I'll see diagram/description of the curriculum with the individual classes, but the website doesn't mention "traditional" or "integrated." So even though I can guess based off of what I see, I'm hesitant to in case I'm incorrect. Is there any resource that explicitly states what exact type of curriculum the school follows?

Also, are there any other styles of medical school curriculum other than traditional or integrated? Or are these the only 2 styles?

Is integrated the same thing as systems and organ too? So integrated= systems= organ?

Thanks!

Knife & Gun covered the definition quite well. The traditional Flexner style curriculum has classes organized by subject and basic sciences discipline, especially in the first year (such as Anatomy, Micro, Histology etc). 2nd year will have a more clinical focus.

My school has had both and the students have liked the integrated style better.

Does is matter which one? UCSF spent a fortune changing from traditional to integrated, and it didn't move Board scores one point. But the students were happier with the latter style more. I'm all for happier students.

 

[WedgeDawg]

Knife & Gun covered the definition quite well. The traditional Flexner style curriculum has classes organized by subject and basic sciences discipline, especially in the first year (such as Anatomy, Micro, Histology etc). 2nd year will have a more clinical focus.

My school has had both and the students have liked the integrated style better.

Does is matter which one? UCSF spent a fortune changing from traditional to integrated, and it didn't move Board scores one point. But the students were happier with the latter style more. I'm all for happier students.

As an addendum, it's also UCSF and they generally don't have to worry about their students matching well and are probably more focused on trying to make their students better doctors (although I'm sure they're already superb).

Board scores aren't everything. Actually learning medicine is pretty important too.

 

[Lannister]

As was mentioned above, I've only ever attended one med school, so I'm biased. But in my opinion, an integrated approach makes so much more sense. Learning anatomy is much easier when it's in a clinical context, and vice versa, learning path is easier when the anatomy is fresh in your mind because you just learned it the week before. Plus, if I had to sit through a 12 week block of nothing but anatomy, I would shoot myself.

 

[WingedOx]

As was mentioned above, I've only ever attended one med school, so I'm biased. But in my opinion, an integrated approach makes so much more sense. Learning anatomy is much easier when it's in a clinical context, and vice versa, learning path is easier when the anatomy is fresh in your mind because you just learned it the week before. Plus, if I had to sit through a 12 week block of nothing but anatomy, I would shoot myself.

Anatomy kind of served as a hazing ritual for medical school to see who could hack it. Plus, you're in so deep with anatomy that after 3 months or so it feels almost disconcerting to be studying anything else.

 

[runningpenguin]

In reality there's every permutation between the two systems, so many schools wont just out an say what their system is (or will say "integrated" regardless because people think that means "better"). Best thing to do is look at their curriculum and decide if you'd rather be a block learner or an integrated/longitudinal learner. Most schools will have aspects of both to varying degrees.

How can a school be both integrated and traditional or on a spectrum? So for some systems it does integrated and others it sticks with traditional? From what I've seen on websites so far, it seems to be either one or the other.

Also, I am hesitant because if I want to say during interviews/secondaries "I really like your integrated curriculum" but it turns out the school is actually on a traditional curriculum, that wouldn't be so good.... So is there any way to know for sure? Some admissions websites do not explicitly state it.

 

[Med Ed]

How can you tell if the curriculum for a medical school is traditional or integrated?

There is no universally accepted definition of an integrated curriculum, because there are many different ways and degrees to which curricular elements can be arranged. Traditional curricula, on the other hand, were based around courses run autonomously by individual departments. Hence you had the biochemistry department handle the biochemistry course, the anatomy department handle the anatomy course, the pathology department handle the pathology course, and so on. The traditional approach has been on the wane for years, so if you are looking at a medical school curriculum nowadays odds are good that you're looking at one that is in some way integrated.

 

[The Knife & Gun Club]

How can a school be both integrated and traditional or on a spectrum? So for some systems it does integrated and others it sticks with traditional? From what I've seen on websites so far, it seems to be either one or the other.

Also, I am hesitant because if I want to say during interviews/secondaries "I really like your integrated curriculum" but it turns out the school is actually on a traditional curriculum, that wouldn't be so good.... So is there any way to know for sure? Some admissions websites do not explicitly state it.

For example 3 schools I looked at attending: all three claimed to have an "integrated curriculum"

1) you take 4 classes simultaneously that last a semester. For 1st semester thats Anatomy, Biochem, genetics, and Microbiology. There is 1 final exam at the end of the semester that covers all 4 classes. I would call this a true integrated/longitudinal curriculum.

2) You take 1 "class" at a time, but each class covers multiple correlated disciplines and lasts around 8-10 weeks. For example you take Microbiology, pathology, and immunology simultaneously. Then you have a semester long "physician skills/medical sociology" class overlaid over the whole semester that correlates with the other subjects being taught. I would call this a hybrid system.

3) You take 1 class at a time, in series, each lasting a few weeks. Anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, microbiology in order with no overlap. Then you have weekly clinical shifts where you work with a local physician (aka a "preceptor") seeing patients and relating what you're learning in class to practical medicine. I would call this a traditional curriculum with an integrated clinical component.


FWIW I never felt focusing on a school's curriculum was really that good of a talking point for secondaries, unless it was really a ground-breaking departure from the norm (like Yale or Duke). Most schools have better things to focus on, like mission, research, unique EC opportunities, etc.

 

[runningpenguin]

FWIW I never felt focusing on a school's curriculum was really that good of a talking point for secondaries, unless it was really a ground-breaking departure from the norm (like Yale or Duke). Most schools have better things to focus on, like mission, research, unique EC opportunities, etc.

When you say unique EC opportunities, what exactly makes the EC unique from school to school? Because all schools that I've seen tend to have free clinics, health education, global health, interest groups, etc. I've been discussing which ECs align with my own experiences and future interests, but it all sort of blends together after a while from school to school.

I agree that curriculum felt like it would be pretty similar across schools. I've been discussing it in brief sections though since school/classes will take up so much time in the future.

 

[longhaul3]

I know it's hard to look more than one step ahead, but in the overall picture the structure of the pre-clinical curriculum is pretty unimportant. I'd say that the two things that make curricula more enticing are length, i.e. less than two years, and P/F grading. I strongly recommend choosing (if you have the option) a school with both of those features, especially P/F.

 

[runningpenguin]

I know it's hard to look more than one step ahead, but in the overall picture the structure of the pre-clinical curriculum is pretty unimportant. I'd say that the two things that make curricula more enticing are length, i.e. less than two years, and P/F grading. I strongly recommend choosing (if you have the option) a school with both of those features, especially P/F.

Is it wise to say in secondaries/interviews that what I'm interested in within a school's curriculum is P/F? I can say that it leads to a less competitive environment which is great for learning and working with peers. But at the same time I think it could potentially come off as "I want things to be more relaxed and less rigorous so I can just get by with a P." If I was an interviewing someone and they said P/F was an asset, I personally would agree and wouldn't mind...I don't get anything negative from it at all. I'm just concerned that it can be taken the wrong way by someone else.

Also, are there any other factors I should mention in secondaries/interviews? What sort of factors should I consider when discussing ECs that a school offers in secondaries/interviews?

 

[longhaul3]

Is it wise to say in secondaries/interviews that what I'm interested in within a school's curriculum is P/F? I can say that it leads to a less competitive environment which is great for learning and working with peers. But at the same time I think it could potentially come off as "I want things to be more relaxed and less rigorous so I can just get by with a P." If I was an interviewing someone and they said P/F was an asset, I personally would agree and wouldn't mind...I don't get anything negative from it at all. I'm just concerned that it can be taken the wrong way by someone else.

Also, are there any other factors I should mention in secondaries/interviews? What sort of factors should I consider when discussing ECs that a school offers in secondaries/interviews?

Hard to say—your interviewer is just as human as you are and is given to react to your answers in his/her own way. There are a few vocal adcom forum members who have an outsize influence on what people think they should or should not do in an interview, but the reality is that there are a hundreds of different schools and a bounty of different interviewers at each school.

I think it's wise to highlight what makes a school unique and explain why its uniqueness appeals to you. If that's the P/F system, I'd be honest about it and bring it up; the line you came up with rings true (at least at my P/F school) and is the main reason I loved my pre-clinical education. But, the pre-clinical education ends up being the same at every school, and in the end I would have gone to my school whether it was P/F or not. So while I don't think you should shy away from mentioning it, I also still think the pre-clinical bells and whistles are relatively less important as I mentioned above.

 

[calivianya]

When you say unique EC opportunities, what exactly makes the EC unique from school to school? Because all schools that I've seen tend to have free clinics, health education, global health, interest groups, etc. I've been discussing which ECs align with my own experiences and future interests, but it all sort of blends together after a while from school to school.

I agree that curriculum felt like it would be pretty similar across schools. I've been discussing it in brief sections though since school/classes will take up so much time in the future.

It really depends on the school. When I was looking up things for George Washington, I noted that at various points, med students present to political leaders in healthcare, and they also have a health policy track that has events like going to congressional hearings, events related to health policy, etc. If you are interested in the politics of healthcare, that would be an interesting opportunity.

I can't think of many others off the top of my head that I found incredibly unique.