On October 23rd, 2014, we updated our
By continuing to use LinkedIn’s SlideShare service, you agree to the revised terms, so please take a few minutes to review them.
We will educate students to become outstanding clinicians who have the skills and passion to improve the health of the world’s people through research, innovation, and leadership.
Why do anything different?
It’s not “broke”. Students do well as measured by:
Highly competitive admissions process
High pass rates on boards
Good reports from residency programs
High rate of academics (33%) 10 years after medical school
Why do anything different?
Our education is not primed for the future
Too much emphasis on learning memorizing specific information
Not enough emphasis on:
Methods for accumulating and interpreting new information
Using the most effective educational methods--i.e., simulations, small group interactive learning, online curricula
Cross-disciplinary approaches to learning, particularly bridging gap between clinical and basic sciences
Our curriculum does not fit our faculty or our students
The opportunities afforded students for individual innovation and cross-disciplinary work
An absence of curricular definition--what knowledge, methods and skills do students need to have?
Insufficient time devoted to fostering independent research skills and to developing clinical skills
Funds flow that neither encourages accountability nor provides incentives for teaching excellence, innovation, and interdisciplinary programs
Revise the curriculum to address weaknesses and build on strengths
Foster and facilitate teaching, advising and mentorship
Develop facilities to meet future curriculum
Develop a community service program
Strategic initiatives: Revise curriculum
Identify core knowledge and skills required for all students
Develop required majors (“scholarly tracks”) for all students to enhance independent research capabilities
Within scholarly tracks, develop a research honors programs for a subset of students
Expand the clinical curriculum — particularly in the first years of medical school — to enhance pattern recognition.
Develop a system of incentives to promote curricular change
Current curriculum 1 2 3 4 5 Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Clinical Pre-clinical Med scholars Med scholars TA TA
Proposed curricular structure Proposed curricular structure Year Residency and beyond Undergraduate Scholarly track Basic science Clinical Clinical research Molecular medicine Community service Biotechnology Health economics
Proposal for research tracks
Interdisciplinary programs compete to create scholarly tracks including:
Course work for a large number of students
Honors program for smaller number of students based on resources, number of mentors, etc.
All students required to choose a track
A subset of students (at onset 33%) can compete for the “honors” program within each track and be funded for at least a year of research with or without additional degree
Number of tracks can increase with time and each track can expand
End goal: after 5-10 years, all students will want to be in honors program or MSTP
Future student body Honors research Med scholars Ph.D. No independent scholarship.
Obstacles and opportunities: Curriculum
Funds flow for education
Lack of central oversight of curriculum
Faculty may not be available to teach core elements
Facilities inadequate for variety of teaching methods
Insufficient mentorship and advising programs
Intersections with university campus
Graduate programs to enhance scholarly tracks
Reputation for “flexibility” in our curriculum
Chance to give Stanford a “distinctive” education
A certain level of teaching, advising and mentorship has to be established as a requirement for being on the faculty
Teaching needs to be honored, promoted and facilitated
The true costs of teaching courses should be established
Departments must consider their courses to be an essential component of their mission