Problem with comparing and contrasting systems based vs. traditional curriculum is that it is very rare to find a student who has experienced both type of systems. Surely, there must be at least 1 student out there who attended med school with one particular curriculum and then, for whatever reason, had to transfer to another and start all over with a different curriculum setting. Again, it is very rare to find a student like this.
With that being said, I can confidently speak for systems based and say that it helped keep my attention and interest in the first 2 years because I was learning a different system every couple of months. I was learning normal physiology of a particular system, pathological abnormalities of that system, and treatment options of those pathologies with pharmacology. In my opinion, it helped me prepare for Step 1 because I understood the clinical picture/context presented on the boards and it was instinctive for me to start connecting dots between chief complaint, lab values, pathophysiology, treatment options, etc.
Ultimately though both systems will adequately prepare you for the boards. You could make the argument students trained in systems based curriculum are better prepared for clinical years because of that instinct they develop of connecting dots to the clinical picture. But it's all speculation on my part. Take it for what its worth.
