This is definitely a trend but it is one I do not suspect will change any time soon. Just to put things in perspectives for people who have not experienced medical school:
> 50% of students I knew (secretly) spent thousands of dollars on recorded medical lectures
While this may be indeed be true for the students you know, this is also a common practice, in general. The pay-to-play nature of board exam preparation has existed much longer than the active-learning trend. There's no way to know whether these students would have purchased additional materials in another educational system.
> thus did well on the tests (and MCATs) anyway.
You seem to be conflating a couple of things. The MCAT (the Medical College Admission Test) is taken before medical school. There, just as for later examinations there has been a proliferation of prep materials, for which students pay dearly. This is in no way related to curriculum change in medical schools.
Again, you are correct that students who pay more do better.
> "objective peer-reviewed studies" of this learning style won't show score/testing degradation -- because the students are so self-sufficient that they work around the failing format with supplemental lecture materials purchased online
I understand the sentiment, but if students do better after the adoption of this new system, aren't they learning better? Eventually, medical students move from Wikipedia to more authoritative sources like UpToDate or primary literature. If they, themselves, are motivated to expand their knowledge - and as a result do better on tests - this intervention would have been beneficial.
I think you're implying that the huge industry behind medical test preparation materials is new, but this is decidedly not the case.
I enjoyed your comment. To respond to a couple points:
> MCATs are taken before medical school
Sorry, that was just a brain malfunction on my part. I meant to write "USMLEs" (residency admission exam for match process). Corrected my comment to state that.
> "but if students do better after the adoption of this new system, aren't they learning better?"
They are not doing better under the system. They are doing the same, or marginally worse. But I believe the students are more stressed, and getting less value per student debt dollar, due to the "active learning" trend. They are also less prepared for the USMLE and less prepared for residency than they would otherwise be. But they are substituting personal effort for their loss of solid foundational instruction.
A really good study would give students half their topics in lecture style and half in active learning style, and measure time spent and topic on "supplemental" learning outside of class.
> 50% of students I knew (secretly) spent thousands of dollars on recorded medical lectures
While this may be indeed be true for the students you know, this is also a common practice, in general. The pay-to-play nature of board exam preparation has existed much longer than the active-learning trend. There's no way to know whether these students would have purchased additional materials in another educational system.
> thus did well on the tests (and MCATs) anyway.
You seem to be conflating a couple of things. The MCAT (the Medical College Admission Test) is taken before medical school. There, just as for later examinations there has been a proliferation of prep materials, for which students pay dearly. This is in no way related to curriculum change in medical schools.
Again, you are correct that students who pay more do better.
> "objective peer-reviewed studies" of this learning style won't show score/testing degradation -- because the students are so self-sufficient that they work around the failing format with supplemental lecture materials purchased online
I understand the sentiment, but if students do better after the adoption of this new system, aren't they learning better? Eventually, medical students move from Wikipedia to more authoritative sources like UpToDate or primary literature. If they, themselves, are motivated to expand their knowledge - and as a result do better on tests - this intervention would have been beneficial.
I think you're implying that the huge industry behind medical test preparation materials is new, but this is decidedly not the case.