There has been talk about creating an accelerated curriculum for medical students. There are benefits to both sides of the argument. Many for this 3-year Medical School believe that, on an economics stand point, the changes in healthcare and student debt will lead to a shortcoming of physicians in the future. This means that since our systems are changing, our medical schools should too to try to accommodate these issues. Health care cost along side with student debt will lead to a projected shortage of physicians so it is believed that Medical Schools should get rid of the 4th year to allow students to save money and to quicken the process to get amount of physicians in the field to increase.
There are obvious disadvantages to this as well. It is obvious that since one year will be cut, students will feel even more pressure than they already do with workload and cramming in that last year of clinical experience. The last year serves as a precursor to residency and allows for students to get experience working with patients and to see what their specified field of interest is all about. Without this year, these developing physicians may not be as experienced and developed as we want. This can lead to problems in the future that may counteract the advantages of cutting one year. We will get more physicians, but will they be skilled enough to handle the pressure and the work in the future? All these are consequences of the change.
I see both sides, but as a student pursing this career, I would say that having that extra year would be helpful to me. I think that students that are qualified enough can maybe opt out of the 4th year. I feel that giving the students that option is better than setting that up from the start. Instead of having 3-year programs, they would have a test after the 3rd year to see if certain students are skilled enough to leave or stay one more year.
See More of Our Blogs at Our Homepage! https://massacademy.wordpress.com/
By: Amanda Ng