Shield of the SOM Committee on Medical Education
Home || New || Search Net || Search SOM

Summary of 2-10-00 CME Minutes 

1. Year Two Examination Proposal

Dr. David Katz, chairman of the Curriculum Leadership Council, presented a proposal passed by the CLC, specifying the Year II exam requirements for promotion to the third year. The CLC proposal holds students accountable for mastery of the CWRU curriculum material. It addresses the disconnect that holds students accountable for passing the USMLE Step 1 but not our own curriculum, one consequence of which is that class attendance sharply falls off during the second half of Year II as students study for the Boards. The following proposal was passed unanimously by the Curriculum Leadership Council January 12, 2000, and subsequently, by the CME at the February 10 meeting by a vote of 5 in favor, 1 opposed:

    1. Students must pass all Year II subject committees in order to advance to Year III.
    2. Identification on a Year II interim examination must be remediated. Students must successfully complete remediation prior to beginning their Year III clerkships.
    3. Remediation must be evaluated by an examination. The content and format of the examination will be determined by the subject committee chair.
    4. Failure to remediate successfully will automatically require that the student appear before the Committee on Students for evaluation.
    5. Students remediating a Year II subject committee identification should be given credit, equivalent to one Type A elective, for their remediation effort.

For the record, it was stipulated the dissenting CME vote opposed giving elective credit for remediaton. One of the CME members who voted in favor of the proposal also expressed his opposition to stipulation #5.

Opinion was divided on point 5: giving one Type A elective credit for a successful remediation effort. Both viewpoints follow:

Proponents felt that this policy change would acknowledge the student effort required for remediation. This was also intended to be a way of unloading some of the requirements for a remediating student, so that he/she is not remediating on top of the core requirement. Some discussants cited precedents in the existing Flexible Program for giving students elective credit that is intended to enhance the performance on core material.

The Flexible Program Coordinator opposed giving Flexible elective credit for remediation. The current philosophy views the Flexible Program and the core as two distinct domains. Besides the logistical problem in that elective periods do not coincide with the subject committee schedule, the purpose of the Flexible Program is to enhance and augment the core material. It provides opportunities for the student to excel, not to review core material. Other discussants also expressed this latter view.

While the proposal was intended to concentrate on remediation as evaluated by an exam with elective credit for successful remediation via a program formatted at the discretion of the subject committee chair, the possibility of proposed elective courses taken by remediating students was raised by some discussants, who expressed concern for the preservation of anonymity.

In general, there was support among CME members for adopting successful passage of an exam determined by the subject committee chair as the only acceptable criteria for proof of remediation (point 3).

In addition to the 5-point policy listed above, the Curriculum Leadership Council strongly endorsed, by a vote of 11-2, the following recommendation to the Committee on Students: That the threshold for considering whether or not a student will repeat Year II be lowered from 4 to 3 failures of Year II interim examinations. This threshold obtains regardless of the outcome of any remediation.

The last recommendation was not voted upon by the CME.

See Curriculum Revision Update

Return to CME Home Page



This page was last updated on 3/10/00 by Eric Schmidt.

This website is maintained by the office of
Information Systems at the CWRU School of Medicine.