i am really not sold on pbl as a teaching approach. i think it is great on theory, TERRIBLE in practice. i think most of the schools problems can be attributed to this. i spoke with some alums (prior to the pbl era) and they said that the changed curriculumn has ruined their school. this is the reason they claim, for the high rate of attrition.
personally, i think pbl is great to supplement a traditional curriculumn (a la uconn). it teaches you to think like a practioner. but in terms of preparing students for the boards it is just not the right approach. if passing the NBDEs were not a part of the game, then i would be all for usc's approach. unfortunately they are out of touch with reality.
i was also turned off how the admin and students alike tried to duck the question of why pbl is a preferable teaching method when the proof is in the pudding that their passing rates are lagging behind. i think usc is lost right now in terms of what to do with their curriculumn. at the very least they have some things to straighten out. i would not be surprised to see a pbl curriclumn-based end within the next 3-5 years.