1-4-3 plan vs 2-4-2 plan

[MacGyver]

after completing the 2nd year of med school, I'm convinced that the 2-4-2 is junk and the 1-4-3 is the way to go.

the core of this belief is based on the fact that its better to have 2nd and 3rd years together, rather than 1st and 2nd years.

Its MUCH EASIER to manage a gap between 1st and 2nd, as opposed to 2nd and 3rd years.

Also, the Step I is STRONGLY based on 2nd year material over first year.

Furthermore, the 1-4-3 plan ensures that you will have no timing problems regarding the Step I-II-III split (remember the 7 year rule that many state medical boards impose).

Dont listen to the lie that you must take 2nd year directly after 1st year. Its totally wrong. The 1st year stuff helps, certainly, but its NOT worth the tradeoff of having a 4 year gap between 2nd and 3rd years.

Discuss amongst yourselves....

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Hotsauce21]

even though i didnt do med sci program. i would agree

 

[Gfunk6]

From a psychological point of view, who the heck would want to enter the 2nd year of medical school with all the extensive coursework AFTER you completed the Ph.D. I know I wouldn't. I'm glad I have Step 1 long out of the way and I can focus on getting prepped for Clinicals.

 

[MacGyver]

From a psychological point of view, who the heck would want to enter the 2nd year of medical school with all the extensive coursework AFTER you completed the Ph.D. I know I wouldn't. I'm glad I have Step 1 long out of the way and I can focus on getting prepped for Clinicals.

Yeah, but Step I and clinicals are much more strongly related than 1st year and 2nd year.

You could take the first year 10 years prior to the 2nd year, and still be fine.

However, try that with 2nd and 3rd year and you will get burned.

 

[noy]

This means do some core rotations before starting the PhD.

I'm thinking this is the best way to go. I get to connect Step 1 and clinicals, get a taste of the wards before the Phd years, and most importantly, get to connect some clinical experience while doing thesis work.

My ignorant opinion, though. Get back to me in n years.

 

[adesua]

I remember discussing this 1-4-3 vs 2-4-2 plan with someone. What the person said was this:

For many medical schools, the 1st year is just basic sciences (normal body function). The 2nd year is when you actually learn medicine i.e. pathophysiology, disease mechanisms etc. Thus in this person's opinion, that 2nd year knowledge is important in getting you into the mind frame of a doctor when you conduct research. You'll have a better understanding of disease mechanisms and thus can relate what you do more to human disease.
This is an argument in favor of having the 2nd year material before one immerses him/herself into research.


I figure those whose undergraduate work enabled them to take courses in genetics, biochemistry, cell biology etc. may find a lot of the 1st year stuff redundant and thus might use the time to get some 2nd year knowledge thus allowing them to go the 1-4-3 route and still have some benefits of the 2-4-2 path explained above.

As for effect on boards I guess only those who've actually written the step1 will be able to say whether it would have been better to have gone the 2-4-2 or 1-4-3 route. I feel as if since the traditional way is to go the 2-4-2 route, the might be a gross underrepresentation of those who have gone the 1-4-3 route and thus it might be difficult to get a fair assessment of how that route helped or did not help in preparation for Step 1.

 

[adesua]

Furthermore, the 1-4-3 plan ensures that you will have no timing problems regarding the Step I-II-III split (remember the 7 year rule that many state medical boards impose).

Could someone please explain a bit more this "7 year rule"?

Thanks.

 

[Newquagmire]

Could someone please explain a bit more this "7 year rule"?

Thanks.

your board scores supposedly "expire" after x years (7 i guess?) if you don't finish the series or something like that. it's like the 3 year rule for MCAT scores.

but i've heard that most schools fix it up for you so that even with the "7 year rule," you never actually have to worry about your scores as an MD/PhD expiring.

 

[pathdr2b]

after completing the 2nd year of med school, I'm convinced that the 2-4-2 is junk and the 1-4-3 is the way to go.

1-4-3 sounds REAL good to me too! No actually, I like 1-3-3 much better!

 

[Gfunk6]

In my experience, MSTP students who are in the early stages of their training tend to think "their way" is better. I certainly did. On the face of it 1-4-3 sounds quite logical, but once you are finished with your PhD, very few people are willing to go back into the classroom for one year.

I took essentially 2 months of vacation between the end of my PhD and the start of my clinicals to do an intense review. I feel well-prepared and it seems that 3rd year is sufficiently "different" from the preclinical years so that you will not have that much of a problem.

However, there are some amusing tidbits that come up. For instance, Leukotriene Antagonists were not yet on the market when I was taking Pharmacology.

 

[DarkChild]

screw it, why not just 4 and 4?
all your previous arguments still hold.
i'm all for the 2-3.5-1.5 game myself. and I agree with adesua - having an understanding of disease pathology allows you to think about your research in a way that a PhD-only grad student wouldnt. the entire point of MD/PhD programs is to find new ideas at the interface of medicine and research. that interface only exists if the two are allowed to interact synergistically - which is what happens when we bring an understanding of the basis of disease to the research bench in our thesis years. (obviously, this isnt always the case)
YMMV.

 

[pathdr2b]

I agree with adesua - having an understanding of disease pathology allows you to think about your research in a way that a PhD-only grad student wouldnt.

Unless you're like me and plan to get the PhD in pathology.