5-24-01 CME Minutes
Walker, year two student representative, presented an end-of-year
report delineating the following issues as requiring attention:
The “zero tolerance” policy requiring all
Year II students to pass or remediate every
subject committee before advancing to Year III was instituted for
the first time this year. As
a mechanism to increase attendance at lectures, the zero tolerance
policy did not succeed.
Need to work on the collegial attitude of
cooperative education that should exist between students and faculty
Student frustration with secure exams and
desire for faculty to reconsider this arrangement
Need to re-examine the “unintended
consequences of objective
evaluation” via multiple-choice-question exams
Need to refocus on producing outstanding
physicians rather than improving multiple-choice-question test
Mr. Walker concluded his presentation by
encouraging institutionalization of an annual end-of-Year II report by
the student CME representative.
Katz, Curriculum Leadership Council Chairman, presented an end-of-year
report. He listed the
policy issues undertaken by the CLC:
Advancing from Year II to Year III requires
passing all Year II interim exams.
Input from the CLC, Committee on Students, and the CME was
taken into effect in the decision to remediate failures in Year II.
The policy offers the student the opportunity to remediate
within the academic year (Year II).
If the student is not successful, he/she delays entering Year
III and remediates during the summer.
Implementation of cumulative yearlong scoring
of Pathology, integrated across Year II.
The previous year, in Year I, students became accountable for
Gross Anatomy and Histology, integrated across Year I.
Discussion of the merits of the Scoles/Ravdin
“experiment,” which 1) set a prospective pass score for each
subjective committee, and 2) implemented remediation for failure of
an interim. The consensus was that the Scoles/Ravdin proposal was worth
Reconsideration of the secure exam policy given
the input and data brought before the CLC by year two CME student
representative Scott Walker
New strategies for raising the intellectual
level of the learning environment
Institution of standardized online course
evaluation forms completed by students after each subject committee
Evaluation of proposals for vertical themes,
such as genetics, preventive medicine, and sexual health
Completion of a detailed report for the LCME on
support and infrastructure for medical education.
Brief discussion of a problem common to all medical
schools—poor student attendance.
Dr. Katz mentioned issues in the first two years needing
attention. Dr. Katz
announced that he is starting his sabbatical in July.
Dr. Bill Merrick will become the CLC chair in his place.
Dr. Richard Aach, Associate Dean for
Residency and Career Planning, presented his “Analyses of Residency
Programs Matched by CWRU School of Medicine Graduates and Comparison
with Other 13 Consortium Medical Schools.”
Data on the post-graduate experience of our
students is one outcome measure of how well we prepare our students. Data were used to answer two main questions:
1) What proportion of our graduates go to CWRU-affiliated
residency programs? and 2) What proportion of our students go to
top-rated residency programs? Three
sets of criteria were used in rating “top” residency programs.
The first were the top 10 and the top 20 programs for each
specialty ranked in each year’s July issue of U.S.
News and World Report, which rank-orders medical schools, academic
departments, and clinical departments each year.
The second were the responses to the annual survey that Dr. Aach
sends out to program directors and the clinical department chairs of
CWRU-affiliated residencies to indicate what they believe are the top 10
and the top 20 programs of each specialty.
This year 18 out of 20 residency programs responded.
The third criterion was the number of students matching at any
university (medical school) residency program.
The majority of data pertained to the CWRU medical school classes
graduating from 1996 through 2001.
Dr. LaManna felt that many trends cited by Dr. Aach were
noteworthy. Based on the
data, Dr.LaManna suggested adopting the following as a desirable
guideline: retaining 25% ± 5% of our graduates in affiliated residencies was a
good number, with cause to look into the situation should a deviation
occur. Dr. Aach pointed
out the good relative comparability across the two ranking sources (U.S. News and World Report and the CWRU-affiliated residency program
directors/clinical department chairs) indicating the percent of CWRU
graduates matching in the top 10 residency programs and in the top 20
residency programs. Programs
were analyzed two ways: 1)
the percent when CWRU graduates matching the CWRU-affiliated programs
were included, and 2) the percent when CWRU students entering
CWRU-affiliated programs were excluded.
There is a tendency for our students to get into the better residency
programs, as indicated by both sets of criteria used. CWRU students match their first, second, and third choices, and
they aim high. Dr.
LaManna felt that 50% should be
our minimum standard in the “top 20 category that includes CWRU
students matching CWRU-affiliated programs.”
Dr. Aach indicated that this is the first year we hit the 50%
of the CWRU medical school graduating class go to the top 20 residencies
in their specialty, when not counting CWRU-affiliated programs.
In examining the match with university-affiliated residencies, it
was noted that 90% of our
graduates this year matched at university-affiliated programs when
CWRU-affiliated programs were included.
See Curriculum Revision Update
Return to CME Home Page