@NervousDad01, Congrats on making it thru this entire, now 323 pages, thread. That’s a very huge feat in itself, lol. I don’t recommend reading it all in one sitting ever – high risk of charley horses, leg blood clots, etc. lol. I’ll answer several (5) of the questions you have posed in this particular question.
In general, if you were to look at UMKC’s mean (average) board scores over several years, not just 1 or 2 years (as you would then likely have giant fluctuations which isn’t accurate), they have tended to be lower than what the national mean is, especially on USMLE Step 1. There may be very exceptional years to where that particular Year 4 class is scoring at the national mean or is a little bit above the national mean, but this isn’t a consistent characteristic or trend and is more indicative of that particular class. Contrast this with Mizzou’s board scores: http://medicine.missouri.edu/docs/StepScoreGraphs.pdf, where their USMLE board score averages tend to consistently run above, if not way above, the national average.
Our board score averages also will be lower when you compare them to better medical schools in the country (and I’m not even talking about the top-tier and/or Ivy League medical schools that you see in USWNR rankings). The average USMLE Step 1 score nationally for 2012 was 227. The average USMLE Step 2 CK score nationally for 2012 was 237: https://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/handbook/academics/licensure.cfm. You can look at the 2012 USMLE Step 1 averages for different schools here: http://www.best-medical-schools.com/Missouri.html. The average USMLE score data from that website, I believe are from its survey in 2013 (so scores are actually from 2012: https://anastomosed.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2014/03/15/step-1-scores-at-top-schools-2012/), and most likely come from US World News and Report, if you were to pay for a Compass account subscription. Just FYI, UMKC continues to refuse to participate in the US World News and Report medical school rankings and thus does not submit any of its data. I honestly don’t know the real reason behind this decision - and the excuse of “Well, we’re a 6 year medical program” doesn’t really hold water here, since all medical schools in the country are evaluated in the same way on different aspects, since all of us in medical school take standardized boards, the same required clerkships for the most part, apply for residency in the same system, etc.
So this is what has changed in the UMKC med curriculum starting just this year, in Year 3: https://www.umkc.edu/majormaps/maps/2015-2016/SOM_BLA_MD_2015_2016.pdf
Pathology is now stretched out over a full year (Path I takes place in Fall, Path II in Spring), Med Neuro stayed in the Fall, Med Micro moved to the Spring, and the Clinical Skills course is now moved to the Spring so it matches up with the organ-system pathologies you’d be learning about in Path II (or at least that is how it is us supposed to work in theory). Other than that, everything else has stayed the same in the curriculum: Biochem has always been Fall Year 2 (although the course director who has taught for decades has finally retired and a new course director has been hired and taken over), Human Structure Function I-IV is still the same time period and sequence, Pharmacology is still taught June/July or Oct/Nov depending on which course you are placed in, which is only 2 months in duration.
As @blugrn6 mentioned, the school does try to change things in the curriculum, sometimes has a lot, some, little, or no impact. Do I think it really changes things for BA/MD students in terms of their resulting Step 1 score? No. I’ll give my honest opinion on why this is – The truth of the matter is that scores aren’t as good as they could be since a) the curriculum doesn’t allow BA/MD students to have a very strong science foundation to begin with, to help before taking more advanced courses later on and b) the overall educational/teaching quality of the basic science faculty and course exams given (if you averaged all courses), when it comes to actually preparing BA/MD students for their boards (outside of independent study which every student does anyways), isn’t that great. The one glaring exception is Med Micro but that course director has also written actual board questions for the organization that writes our licensing exams: http://med.umkc.edu/docs/omc/panoramapdfs/panorama-winter_2008b.pdf (Page 4) so he actually knows what he is doing. Basic science education has always been an issue for UMKC’s med school, so this isn’t really anything new.
Overall, on average, I don’t think that UMKC BA/MD students are “stupid” in terms of actual raw intelligence (I’ll leave out varying definitions as to what constitutes “intelligence”, but for this discussion let’s just define it as having the ability to process, think, and analyze information and facts). There definitely are other issues that are probably more a problem in the BA/MD population at UMKC, than if you had went to a traditional 4 year medical school, but intelligence and drive are not one of them. A good argument could be made that students coming thru the program now, are actually smarter than ever before, as you’re recruiting more students outside of Missouri (with regional now added to the mix), as well as getting more valedictorians/salutorians, National Merit Scholars, etc. who are very attracted to UMKC by the 6 year aspect.
It’s also very difficult to make huge changes in the curriculum just because you have to fit in the Bachelor degree requirements in there and you have to have a fair promotion policy as you progess thru the program. if say certain students don’t pass a particular segment and have to repeat it. A huge curriculum upheaval doesn’t happen like you would think, as the medical school has to work within the constraints of having enough hours to justify the university giving a Bachelor degree, as well as meeting the requirements for the MD degree, AND they have to do this while effectively taking out a full 2 years of coursework.
I mean I don’t think UMKC should suddenly change and make everyone take Organic Chem I & II + labs both semesters (that would be utterly useless with no added value), but I do think students would greatly benefit in taking more undergraduate science courses to lay a better foundation, whether that’s General Bio and General Physics (like every other med student has taken) or alternatively, like an undergraduate-level biochemistry or histology course, or an undergraduate human physiology course on campus, before then hitting the hard med school material that is a lot more detailed. It would be an easier transition just based on familiarity of the material alone.
But again, it’s very hard to fit all this in a 6 year program (in which the total length has stayed mainly due to tradition since 1971, when so many other combined programs have increased to 7 years, if not the full 8 years) which is already packed to capacity. Overall, the curriculum of the 6 year program at UMKC, doesn’t lend itself to a very well-rounded, vibrant undergraduate education – that’s one of the compromises you’re making by coming here.