By Ryan Lovell
Across medical education, there has been a noticeable shift away from numerical grading towards binary systems like Pass/Fail (P/F). This is most prominently seen with the January 2022 change in the USMLE Step 1 Exam, a required board exam for second-year medical students, which historically provided numerical scores but now only lists P/F. These changes were seemingly well intentioned. It was originally thought that these changes would improve student quality of life, both by reducing stress and improving collaboration1. Many students have also suggested that an emphasis on P/F will remove unnecessary competitiveness in the academic atmosphere, thus allowing them to focus more on the course material, another clear benefit. However, these changes may have had unintended and detrimental effects.
One such consequence has been the growing emphasis on Step 2, an exam taken during the 3rd or 4th year of medical school that continues to provide numerical scores. This would seem to defeat the purpose of the initial Step 1 change, as now the stress burden of testing has simply shifted from one exam to the other. However, I would argue these effects are much more pervasive and extend beyond Step 2.
Less discussed is the increasing importance of extracurricular involvement, particularly in research and student interest groups. Trends at the national level suggest that medical student research has been increasing for years, even before the changes to Step 1. Despite that increase, some believe that the increase is not driven by actual increases in the number of total student research publications, but rather by increases in the number of authors listed per publication2. Furthermore, it was reported that many student publications remained uncited, which brings about questions regarding their actual impact on the scientific and medical communities2.
Interest groups have seen a similar shift. The emphasis has subtly moved away from the education value and tangible contributions of group activities to the more application-oriented goal of group membership and leadership titles. No longer is the focus on what your group does but rather on how many groups you are a part of.
The importance of this relates to patient and community benefit. Consider the opportunity costs: time spent on research or accumulating leadership positions inevitably reduces the time available for traditional service activities, such as volunteering and community health initiatives. Medical students have a finite amount of time, and many can agree that they spend most of that time directed toward the pursuit of their desired residency.
Given this, can we really consider these positive changes, especially when they detract from the core purpose of medicine—a field centered on service and helping others?
Medical students have a tremendous amount of potential to do good, whether that be revolutionizing healthcare systems on a national level or helping change and save lives on an individual level. While I believe that progress-driven changes are essential for advancing medical education, it would be tragic if we let current trends take precedent over what we all signed up for originally: a lifelong commitment to serving others.
References:
1. Rohe DE, Barrier PA, Clark MM, Cook DA, Vickers KS, Decker PA. The benefits of pass-fail grading on stress, mood, and group cohesion in medical students. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(11):1443-1448. doi:10.4065/81.11.1443
2. Wickramasinghe DP, Perera CS, Senarathna S, Samarasekera DN. Patterns and trends of medical student research. BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:175. Published 2013 Dec 28. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-13-175
