On the Right Road: Reflections on the New Integrated Preclinical Curriculum

By: Dr. David Norris

After two full years of our new integrated preclinical curriculum, one thing is clear: we’re still standing—albeit with more gray hair than before we started. This transition has been a herculean effort across the Office of Medical Education, course directors, the School of Medicine Curriculum Committee, and an all-star faculty. There’s been brilliance, collaboration, late nights, and at least two spreadsheet-induced existential crises. But we did it. Mostly upright. Usually caffeinated.

Student feedback has been—predictably—mixed. Integration isn’t always intuitive. Content introduced early may not return in depth for months, which can leave students feeling adrift. That’s part of the design, but it’s still disorienting in the moment.

Still, the early outcomes are encouraging. NBME Customized Assessment scores are at least as strong as they were under our prior discipline-based curriculum. Comprehensive Basic Science Examination scores saw a modest but statistically significant increase. Based on this change, we anticipate an overall 5% increase in first-time pass rates on Step 1 once the whole cohort completes testing. And as of this writing, our pass rate under the new curriculum is 97%—nearly a 10% increase.

It’s also worth noting that most schools see a drop in academic performance during the first 1–2 years of curricular transition. Our goal was simple—don't get worse. So far, we’re not just meeting that goal—we may be edging into “slightly better” territory.

Of course, the real proof lies ahead. As I write this, our first integrated cohort is in orientation for their first clerkship. Over the next year, we’ll see whether curricular reform translates into stronger clinical readiness.

It’s a long road. But so far, it looks like we’re on the right one.