I know this way late for the previous poster's question, but it may help some people.
First of all, it's hard to evaluate our new curriculum because it's the only one most of us have ever known.
The positives:
-It's cool learning the anatomy, physiology, and pathology all within a month or so for each organ system. I can't imagine learning all of anatomy the first month and be expected to apply that knowledge to pathology months and months down the road. So the integrated, organ-based system works well.
-They're giving us a review course right before Step 1 that'll bring back the best teachers from our first two years to make sure we do well.
-There is time (3 months) set aside for a scholarly research project in the curriculum. So all of us are virtually guaranteed at least one publication without having to use our vacation time to do it (although many of us still do).
The negatives (hopefully many of these will be better now that the first year is over):
-Organizationally, the entire thing is a disaster. Even something as simple as making sure that a required small group session doesn't coincide with another required school function hasn't been a guarantee (this did get better as the year progressed).
-More importantly, though, the organization of the modules and lectures within the modules has been laughable at times. We had pathology before we had anatomy and physiology. Lecturers were either given little direction or ignored the direction they were given, because many of them had no idea where their lectures fell in the curriculum. So lots of lecturers (especially pathologists) assumed we had the same level of knowledge as the students they had been lecturing to for years, even though those students were second years who had completed courses in anatomy and physiology. As you can imagine, none of us would have made it without wikipedia.
-We have an Audience Response System that tracks our daily attendance. This is part of our grade. It is a small part, and they give you a 20% buffer for sick days and such. But still, being forced to go to class has been punitive for many of us. Reading the transcripts after they've been edited and organized is a much more efficient way to learn the material for most people. This was the first year more than a handful of students have shown up to class, so many of the lecturers are accustomed (and more suited) to read straight from the powerpoint and basically dictate a script. We had several lecturers turn their backs on the room of 175 people, look at the powerpoint slide the entire time, and never once look back at us until they were finished. Most of them simply aren't dynamic speakers.
-So we have to go to class every day from 10-3. We have at least two hours of Introduction to Clinical Medicine every week. We have at least two hours of small group activity every week. It takes time to prepare for these meetings, and we also have assignments due once in a while like papers and such. I'd say a very safe estimate of obligated time for school that excludes studying (and therefore is a colossal waste of time for most of us), not counting the hour we get for lunch, is 30 hours/week on average. They didn't tell me about the new required attendance policy when I got in, and I unfortunately got a place pretty far from school. The commute sucked all year. I digress.
-After several good modules throughout the year, we ended with a pretty bad one. Our Muscoloskeletal/Skin module was better because the module director decided he would do away with the required attendance. But most of the lecturers sucked horrendously. The year ended with an open book final that was given to us to work on over the weekend, and then we had to submit our answers before the weekend was over. This counted for something like 40% of our grade for the module (an entire month of medschool). They had to make it open book or lots of us would've failed. So they acquiesced. That's how little we felt we learned, and from previous smaller exams, they agreed, hence the open book final. I doubt too many people have a final counting 40% be made open book on their way to a prestigious M.D.
Overall, if you're an in-state resident, UASOM obviously still makes lots of sense. B'ham isn't a bad city, although neither is Mobile I guess. We don't do as well on the boards as South, but there are more research opportunities and such here in Birmingham if you're interested in that sort of thing. Also the cooler cases end up in Birmingham, so looking forward to rotations that could have an impact on how much you learn. If you're an out-of-state resident, I'm not sure why you'd pick UASOM over other similar schools unless you had some tie to the university or city. I'd give the curriculum change at least another year to work out the kinks. If you can get in here, chances are you got accepted to other decent places. I'd look at those. Although this is total hearsay, UASOM is taking way more people off of the waiting list this year than last. Last year we never got out of the first tier of waitlisters, accepting only 8 or so. This year we're accepting third tier waitlisters. Again, all of this is hearsay. But if it's true, and I tend to believe it, it means that we're accepting lots of people who are choosing other places. I know these things can change yearly, and it's the type of stuff that keeps admissions people worried. But I think it's a reflection on people hearing us complain about the way the new curriculum has been implemented, not wanting daily attendance to help determine class rank, not wanting lots of wasted time in school that could've been used getting ready for boards, and choosing to go other places. But again, it has its positives and negatives, and UAB is still a respected name offering a good education that can open up as many doors as you're willing to enter. And there are some talented, dedicated people in place to help clean up this mess. My only concern is that many of them have been involved from the start, and the newbies are replacing people who were equally talented and dedicated. So we'll see.
