I got an interview @ UMKC. I have a couple of questions.
@IMGDAD
I think there are some presentations. I’m more than sure that there was something on finances and paying for everything. There will be some downtime, though. But either way, I recommend sticking around, eating lunch and keeping your kid calm and in the zone.
@southsenior12, thank you.
It is really surprising how low the graduation rate is considering that the minimum GPA is so low and the program does not require the MCAT. Out of the 110 original in the program usually only around 60-70 make it all the way through. Does anyone know why?
There are so many factors, too numerous to name why the attrition rate in UMKC’s BA/MD program is very high. For the majority, I don’t believe it’s bc the students are “dumb”. I think those reasons have been talked about ad nauseum on this board, but in the end desperate students esp. those from CC, won’t listen to the realities of the program anyways, until it’s too late.
I’ve noticed that now they’ve started taking in A LOT more students who live outside Missouri than they used to (most likely due to the higher tuition they can charge) and A LOT more advanced standing students (normal 4 year students that come in at Year 2 of the program) than they used to. It used to be that there were very few advanced standing students, like 3-5, and they could only be from in-state, but that seems to no longer be the case.
The classes now have essentially started becoming Asian mills (I agree with the user Norcal on this) - especially affluent physician Asian parents that force their children to attend this program without fully researching it.
You’ll have to decide for yourself whether **$169,505<a href=“in-state”>/b</a>, **$249,063<a href=“regional”>/b</a>, or **$328,612 <a href=“out-of-state”>/b</a> for an unranked medical school that is at the bottom of the three MD schools in Missouri.
I honestly don’t think the med school ranking has anything to do with it. First of all, I’m pretty sure the reason UMKC is not ranked is because they are not a part of AAMC due to their no MCAT policy. Second, med schools are ranked primarily by their NIH research funding. UMKC prides itself it being very good at giving students a lot of clinical experience which is a very important part of medicine. Also, they are doing their best to increase research opportunities.
@PursuitTExcel, I agree that ranking does not mean anything. I truly believe that, based on the curriculum of the school, UMKC will train very good and clinically astute physicians and is a good school to go to if you want to be a practicing physician. If you hope to pursue an MD/PhD degree, it is probably not the best school to go to since the undergraduate part of the BA/MD program is weak, based on the curriculum. I also think that luckily the students do not need MCAT because one semester of organic chemistry and basic Anatomy etc will not cut it good scores in MCAT.
@PursuitTExcel, UMKC is a part of the AAMC: This can easily be Googled: <a href=“AAMC Organization Directory Search Result”>AAMC Organization Directory Search Result;
You can’t be an American allopathic medical school and not be part of the AAMC.
The US World News and Report is the one who does rankings, not the AAMC. Also, med schools are ranked by USWNR in 2 lists: one in Research (NIH funding) AND one in Primary Care (which has nothing to do with NIH funding). Medical schools can however choose not to participate in the rankings and there are ones that don’t participate (usually ones that are so low ranked they have no benefit in being ranked and compared to other schools). UMKC chooses not to be ranked.
Your original question was to why the graduation rate is so low and there are a myriad of factors that have been discussed through the thread. By the way, most medical medical schools have incorporated some clinical experience in the first 2 years, so UMKC is not somehow “special” in that respect.
You will have to decide for yourself whether the cost of attendance, is worth the quality of the medical school you are getting. So for example if you’re out-of-state, UMKC is definitely not worth the price tag, in which even WashU School of Medicine’s tuition is cheaper for a more highly regarded medical school. This as well as research is important, esp. for highly competitive specialties.
@Roentgen, in regards to your comment about “most medical schools have incorporated some clinical experience in the first two years”. Yes, except UMKC incorporates it even before that… UMKC starts clinical experience while you are still merely and undergraduate student and the official “first two years” of med school at UMKC don’t start until 3rd and 4th year. During those years, you get to be fully immersed in the medical field through intense docent rotations and other experiences. Also, if you have looked at the match list for UMKC there are plenty of people getting into competitive specialties.
@IMGAD, Yes I agree with you on that. Also, I believe that is why UMKC doesn’t emphasize the undergraduate science courses (they don’t require the MCAT). Instead, they want you to focus on preparing for the USMLE step 1 which is more directly related to medicine than the MCAT anyways.
@PursuitToExcel, the “clinical experience” in the first 2 years of the program are mere shadowing in a hospital, something any premed can do by shadowing at a hospital. This is relatively useless, bc their Physical Diagnosis course isn’t even until the 3rd year of the program.
The additional clinical experience after that is a once-a-week outpatient Internal Medicine clinic experience from Years 3-6. If the clinical experience that UMKC gets was so great, their students who are going for Internal Medicine would be matching in more prestigious and better Internal Medicine residencies. Instead they don’t - and they tend to match in the midwest. I have looked at their Match Lists - trust me, it’s not exactly mindblowing for a Midwest, low-tier medical school whose primary goal is primary care.
There will always be the top cream of the crop that are truly gifted and bright and would succeed no matter where they go, and match into competitive specialties. Look at the rule, not the exception. Also, their USMLE Step 1 score average is not high, which is to be expected from the caliber of students and institution.
@PursuitToExcel and @Roentgen, it really depends on what a student is looking for. I am a British-trained physician and I feel that the UMKC program provides training that is very much like that offered in Britain. Medicine in Britain is a five or six-year course, straight from high schools. The British training only does courses relevant to Medicine and so no student will need to do anymore English, second language, Math, Biology, Chemistry, or Physics. Instead, we did Anatomy including Embryology (mind you, we did three semesters, i.e. one and a half years, of Anatomy!), Physiology, Biochemistry, Genetics, Microbiology, and Pharmacology. We started clinical in the second semester of second year, and spend the rest of the time doing Pathology and all the clinically relevant subspecialty rotations. Now that I have worked with US medical students, residents, and colleagues trained in the US, I can truly say that British-trained physicians are a lot more clinically astute and are generally much better doctors. However, this has been achieved at the expense of being rather narrow and unable to discuss history, sociology, politics etc etc that US training via the 4+4 programs will provide. So if all you want is to be a good doctor and provide high quality clinical care to your patients, then UMKC is likely the better choice than the other schools. However, it is likely graduates from UMKC will not be as “rounded” as graduates from the other programs.
@IMGDAD
The difference however, is that in the British system, the medical school curriculum is spread out over 6 years. UMKC however does not run like the British system. At UMKC, you still do have an undergraduate portion, except it is condensed into 2 years. The entire first year is all undergraduate courses (many of them watered down) along with what is essentially shadowing in a hospital.
I would also venture to say that no matter what specialty you go into, patients want doctors who are well-rounded and thus able to relate better to their patients. Medicine does not occur in a vacuum. Simply being knowledgeable in medicine is not enough to practice clinical medicine in the United States.
@Roentgen, I note that you graduated from the UMKC program and from your posting, it would appear that you probably regret attending the program. You have got your point about the British system partially correct. Yes, the curriculum is spread over five or six years, depending on whether you choose to do a BS degree (usually in Medical Science) or not. Either, you do mainly medically relevant science courses, and for those considered basic sciences such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics, you do not even do the “watered down” version because it is believed that you do not need them to be a good physician. The clinical portion is either three or three and a half years, compared to two years in the US system if you go by the traditional route. This definitely explain the generally sub-par clinical acumen of physicians in the US. Even some of my colleagues have said to me that the reason why I am so astute at picking up what seemingly unimportant clinical signs and symptoms is because of “your British training”. I do not believe it is the British or US training but it is just a reflection of more clinical exposure at medical school, and I believe this is what the UMKC offers, compared to the other programs.
Being well rounded is a good thing but being empathetic and clinically astute are as, if not more, important. I am not saying that the BA/MD program at UMKC is the best program. I am just trying to point out that different medical program trains different types of physicians and UMKC trains primarily practicing physicians. On the other hand, medical programs in the Ivies usually train physicians who are not that interested in daily patient care but usually end up being the Dean or Head of Departments in a medical school.
@IMGDad, yes, I graduated from the program and I got the specialty that I wanted, Anesthesiology. Hence, why I am laughing at the “clinical experience” being touted since I actually experienced it. I’m able to comment on it pretty accurately.
Part of the reason why Brits who train in the UK may be better clinically than the U.S. is because we rely on imaging to a great degree in the U.S. at the expense of physical exam signs. Much of this imaging is either not available in other places or would take forever to be done.
You are absolutely incorrect about the Ivies, usually training physicians who are not interested in daily patient care. Ivies ALLOW one to maybe head a department (although this isn’t the case at state schools), but most of those in the Ivies, practice medicine just like everyone else. As mentioned by @PursuitToExcel, the graduation rate from this program (from the original class) is low for good reason.
@Roentgen, I do not understand why you bash this program so much considering you attended it. I have had four family members attend this program and they are all very good doctors now who have been trained well. Also, they have told me that the reason why many people choose to go to residency in the Midwest is because they are actually from the Midwest or want to stay in the area for personal reasons. UMKC has above average USMLE step 1 scores and much above average step 2 scores because of all of the clinical experience (the students pretty much are the staff at Truman). At Ivy League med schools you are unlikely to get as much live experience in situations as you’d get at UMKC and it’s hospitals. And yes, I do agree that there are super hard workers who can make it anywhere from any med school. And if I was accepted to UMKC, that is who I would strive to be. I would not just settle for what the program provides, I would seek out more opportunities beyond that such as electives in other places, study abroad, and as much research as possible. I know one thing, UMKC is definitely growing and so is Kansas City. Considering this is one of the few programs in the US where students get to have a guaranteed MD if accepted, I don’t see why so many people put it down.
@PursuitToExcel, you are correct. UMKC is a good place to go to, IF all you want is to be a good clinician. I took my son for his interview yesterday and I met a OBGyn physician who also took her daughter there for her interview as well. She graduated from the UMKC program and spoke very highly of the program, and acknowledging that the program is very good primarily for training astute practicing physicians.
@Roentgen, I would like to correct what I said about the Ivies. I do not mean that the Ivies only train physicians who are not interested in daily patient care. What I meant was that if a student is trained in the Ivies or other high ranking medical schools, it is very likely that the students will be trained by physicians who are not as interested in daily patient care. I have been a Professor in high ranking medical schools. I can tell you that, because of the emphasis of getting research publications and grants, most “successful” physicians (esp. the head of the department) spend only about one to two months a year doing clinical work and the rest in research and publication. I know of a head of the Division who only spends 2 weeks a year for inpatient service and half a day a week in clinic. These individuals are extremely successful in terms of publications, reputations, and research grants but are just not interested in the daily patient care and in fact, most of the time, not the best clinicians I have come across.
As for reliance on imaging, unfortunately imaging does not always tell the whole story. For example, I have patients referred to me by GI physicians (some trained in UT Southwestern and Yale) for investigations of low platelet count. Yet, even before doing any investigations, I picked up the florid clinical stigmata of chronic liver disease (that was not shown by liver function tests) that were missed by the referring physicians who saw the patients for colonoscopy or other procedures. It was just so embarrassing having to refer the patients back to the GI physicians telling them that the patients had hepatitis C.
@IMGDAD, I still don’t understand how you can say that UMKC is only good for producing clinicians. It seems as if much of what field of medicine people go into has a lot to do with what residency program they choose. For example, someone could graduate from UMKC and then decide to pursue their PhD and apply to a very competitive residency. There are only about 120 accredited medical schools in the US so I think that anyone should consider themselves fortunate to be accepted to any one of them. The competition from undergrad to get into medical school seems like a gruesome process and something that takes away from the actual enjoyment of the college experience.
Also, how was the overall interview experience? Was everything organized well there?
@PursuitToExcel, my assertion of UMKC is only good for producing clinicians is based on reading the curriculum (especially training using the docents) and on what a parent who was trained in the program and was also there for her daughter’s interview. A clinician just means a physician who spends most of the time caring for patients and, maybe, teaching but very little in terms of research. There is of course nothing to stop one from doing a PhD degree to make a career as a physician scientist.
@IMGDAD, I could not agree with you more. That makes perfect sense. It seems as if clinical skills should be the primary focus in medicine and then research secondary because ultimately it’s all about the patients. Most doctors who work for major hospitals and institutions are required to do both research and clinical/surgical work in their specialty. Another nice thing about UMKC is getting the MD two years earlier so if one were to want to pursue a PhD, they could always do so after and not lose any years.