Mac or UWO

[panda__eyes]

I spoke to a professor who was affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at U of T and asked him how graduates from different medical schools performed. He told me that that there was no significant difference in performance. I also questioned him about stories of how MAC graduates possessed less medical knowledge and were not regarded on the same level as other graduates. He told me that this was more or less a bias that likely stemmed from the former U of T Dean of Medicine who was strongly against PBL, the primary learning method at MAC.

 

In any case, both Western and MAC curricula have their pros and cons. Weigh them carefully in the context of you. Although a curriculum may originally be better suited for certain types of people, at the end of the day, I think most medical students adapt and make the curriculum work for them. And really, a medical education is only as good as what you make out of it.

[discworldheavylight]

my family doc (a uoft graduate) said that back in her heyday (she's in her late 40s early 50s), you could always tell a mac grad from a uoft (didactic school) grad. she said the uoft grad would always know the 11th cause of an illness when there are 10 causes (because the 11th would be the bonus on the test), while the mac grad would know the generic names for drugs. my interpretation of this is that the didactic school grad would have more specialized, detailed knowledge, while the PBL grad had more broad, application-based knowledge. imo, both are good and are important forms of knowledge.

[sfinch]

The board exam issue is not a myth. I believe it was as recently as 2006 when the MAC class had 11-12 FAILURES, more than the other 4 ontario schools combined. That class was also 80% female - so there was obvious bias in favour of females that year - probably leading to many qualified males not getting in and some unqualified females getting in (the class probably should have been closer to 60-65% female).

 

MAC students eventually catch up. And I would have considered taking the program if I got in, because it is only 3 years and is close to Toronto. But the blind loyalty some have for a program where it is probably the easiest for a borderline student to slip by (and get into family medicine, and eventually quietly practice incompetent or inefficient medicine under the radar) does happen. MOST MAC STUDENTS however are motivated and will become great doctors though - in my opinion in spite of the full PBL approach.

 

WE also have a sort of PBL at UWO (as does almost all med schools) - but out didactic lectures are great, and our pretty thorough exams test to make sure we learned our stuff well. MAC, you could have huge gaps, but still know enough to make it under the radar. Harder to do at schools like uwo and uoft.

 

 

Don't forget about learning style! If you like self-directed learning and are capable of keeping yourself motivated and choosing your own path through school, Mac will work out fine. If not, maybe you should think about Western as it will give you a better chance of success.

 

To people who keep harping on the 3 years thing - Mac grads have the same number of preclerkship months and comparable class hours to every other school in Ontario! Working straight through the summer means less time wasted relearning material and getting into gear in the fall, and extra months to complete the coursework in less time. Mac wasn't just given a pass to cut a year out of medical education.

 

Also, I think sfinch's information might not be coming from a reputable source. In preparation for my interviews I read every article that has been published in a reputable journal on Mac's program. One of the issues explored was performance on the licensing exam - and there has been no significant discrepancy in the proportion of passing students in many years. Mac grads also perform well during their residencies, so I find it doubtful that going to Mac automatically means you are underprepared for a career in medicine. Even the matching info seems a bit biased - Mac was just under the provincial average in matches to first choice placement, and just over the provincial average in matches to first choice specialty. If more Mac grads chose family, that doesn't mean you will have a harder time getting into IM. I'm hoping to get into geriatrics (via IM, not family), and I think Mac is a great choice for its focus on clinical problem solving and developing patient interaction skills.

 

The difference in character and style between the two schools is huge, and one of them should speak to you, OP. If you are still having trouble deciding, look up what each of them have published about their curriculum - I know at least Mac has very extensively explored the types of weaknesses their curriculum has and what can/has been done to address them. Has Western done that?

 

umm...my bias? check the signature - lol

[discworldheavylight]

The board exam issue is not a myth. I believe it was as recently as 2006 when the MAC class had 11-12 FAILURES, more than the other 4 ontario schools combined. That class was also 80% female - so there was obvious bias in favour of females that year - probably leading to many qualified males not getting in and some unqualified females getting in (the class probably should have been closer to 60-65% female).

 

sfinch, I'd really like to see a link for this. I've looked into this myself, and I can't find any evidence of it. It is true that Mac used to struggle with board exams, but this was a while back (5-6 years ago). The reason was because, as many have said, they lacked formal diagnostics during their education. However, Mac has introduced the PPI, which is a mock-board exam that they administer periodically throughout med school so that students can gauge their own progress. As you can probably guess, this has improved students' performance on board licensing exams. And these PPIs do matter. My project supervisor, who is a Mac Med faculty member, is currently tutoring a student who has failed to show the necessary amount of progress on her PPIs. Basically, the student has to show the necessary level of improvement on the next test, or she will have to leave med school/repeat her education.

 

EDIT: Deleted all comments regarding Arrested Development, Tobias Funke or Michael Bluth, as it appears these were greatly distressing to sfinch. Let's reserve this forum for positive, supportive comments only.

[sfinch]

You will not get online links to any school's pass rate, as such information is supposed to be confidential (except uwo, which has publisized it publically recently). Mac does not publish their rates - but I guess if you talk to any pgy 2/3/4 right now that went to MAC, they will confirm what I said. The PPI is useful for catching to lowest end students - I agree. But it still possible to not know the key things in cardiology, and still do well on the ppi (where they only look at percentiles among the classmates)...most med schools that have specific exams focusing on key subjects - that would not be possible.

 

The med school being 80% female, with only a 50% female applicant profile was more an attack on a system that showed strong female bias. I think that bias is why they developed the MMI as opposed to their weird pbl mock interview that I heard about, and possibly the MCAT (if verbal). The female applicants probably had somewhat better marks on average, but not enough to create an 80% class for a very large medical school. If the reverse happened (80% male with a 50% male applicant profile), people would be in a total uproar. Anyways, I was confidently told that was the year that the failure rate was so high - and i think it was because the admissions process was just really poor.

 

 

 

sfinch, I'd really like to see a link for this. I've looked into this myself, and I can't find any evidence of it. It is true that Mac used to struggle with board exams, but this was a while back (5-6 years ago). The reason was because, as many have said, they lacked formal diagnostics during their education. However, Mac has introduced the PPI, which is a mock-board exam that they administer periodically throughout med school so that students can gauge their own progress. As you can probably guess, this has improved students' performance on board licensing exams. And these PPIs do matter. My project supervisor, who is a Mac Med faculty member, is currently tutoring a student who has failed to show the necessary amount of progress on her PPIs. Basically, the student has to show the necessary level of improvement on the next test, or she will have to leave med school/repeat her education.

 

EDIT: I also wanted to add that you certainly have a way of words and the comment about the female class came across incredibly sexist. I recommend what Michael recommended to Tobias Bluth: take a tape recorder and just record yourself for one day. Seriously, do it. Sometimes it's good to hear it in person you blow hard.

[sfinch]

Wow. Sensitive much?

 

I assume POS stands for "piece of sh!it" or something crude to that effect? Regardless, it's really not surprising, coming from you.

 

EDIT: I also wanted to add that you certainly have a way of words and the comment about the female class came across incredibly sexist. I recommend what Michael recommended to Tobias Bluth: take a tape recorder and just record yourself for one day. Seriously, do it. Sometimes it's good to hear it in person you blow hard.

 

discworldheavylight - if you can't take it, don't dish it out. I would have had more respect for you if you were not such a hypocrite.

 

PS - THE majority of MAC med students do fine and well - they are bright students that are motivated. And they learn their stuff during residency, like all other med students eventually do. But the MAC system does allow more borderline people to make it farther than they should (before an appropriate intervention takes place - and the only 3 yr component of the program does not help matters).

[greeny]

You guys are so coooo

[DXO]

Just take it to PM guys, please

[discworldheavylight]

Just take it to PM guys, please

 

thus the removal of my comments.

[spiderpig]

I personally find that the way undergrad worked was no fun at all, and was not the best way for me to learn. Yes I did well on exams, but a lot of the time, it was after cramming. Maybe because I was doing a double major, I was always stressed, and that contributed to last minute work, but still...

 

My whole undergrad consisted of learning stuff for assignments, reports, and exams, doing those things, and then pushing that knowledge aside to make room for new knowledge for new courses. There was nothing really that integrated everything together. I never really felt like I got the big picture. I guess my honours project required me to integrate my skills and knowledge to an extent, but the method of scientific inquiry that it required was not something that I felt I had learned in any of my undergrad classes.

 

That's why I'm excited for Mac. I'm hoping that not having that traditional structure - where everything doesn't depend on getting good marks on exams - will encourage me to actually learn things for the sake of learning.

[Nobodycirclesthewagons]

thus the removal of my comments.

 

Wow, I never even knew it was possible to delete your posts.

[discworldheavylight]

Wow, I never even knew it was possible to delete your posts.

 

yup, 'tis possible.

 

spiderpig, I actually had the same experience, except with PBL. I found that because the learning in these courses was less direct, there would sometimes be so many conflicting sources of information that it all got jumbled up in the synthesizing process. In contrast, material from lecture-based courses actually stuck better because the material was introduced in a more direct manner (i.e. lecture notes). However, this was only true for courses where there was a genuine interest. Otherwise, PBL worked slightly better, since it forced you to engage at least to a degree.

 

Ultimately, I wouldn't say PBL trumps didactic learning or vice versa. Certainly, I think PBL is useful in courses where there is a less-than enthusiastic lecturer or dry, meaningless material. In these cases, PBL can help stimulate interest. But with a compelling lecturer, I don't think there is anything wrong with didactic learning. Regardless, I think any student can learn in either setting as long as they are motivated, interested and can find meaning in the material. (Though as demonstrated by spiderpig and myself, each student has their own preference.)

 

In the end, any med school is good for the motivated student. They won't succumb to cramming in lecture-based courses or disengagement during PBL discussions. If you slack, you're screwed either way.

[spiderpig]

True Alastriss and discworldheavylight. But what I meant to say was that I think PBL will be much more engaging for me than the passive lecture format has been in my experience.

[discworldheavylight]

True Alastriss and discworldheavylight. But what I meant to say was that I think PBL will be much more engaging for me than the passive lecture format has been in my experience.

 

I agree. Everyone learns differently and some people will benefit more from PBL more than others. Hopefully this means you'll kill it during med.

[mac19]

There are definitely tests at McMaster in the preclerkship and clerkship curriculum that test knowledge in key areas (i.e. Cardiology, Resp, Heme for instance). The PPI is only one test that students write and its designed more to look at one's progress across all domains. In clerkship, students write the NMBE Exams, which are national exams that students in the US write. I believe that these are also used at Western. If students do not do well on these tests or the preclerkship tests they may need to repeat the specific rotation/unit or do additional work. Students from McMaster are well prepared for the LMCC and do as well as students from other Canadian schools.