Curricula are "unbalanced" for many reasons
Editor - In
response to Davina Sharmas letter criticising the unbalanced
teaching of certain issues at medical school—such as infectious diseases—I empathise with her view but appreciate that many factors contribute to this (mis)proportionation.1
The issue is certainly thought provoking and interesting. You could have the notion that medical students should be trained in readiness for the everyday situations that we will encounter on the wards and in general practice. But preclinical and clinical teaching are often limited by time, resources, and expertise. For this reason, such constraints may result in the prioritisation of teaching according to importance: heart disease and diabetes will grab the lions share of exam questions rather than mucormycosis and Dengue fever. Collectively, important diseases such as these impose a far greater burden on healthcare systems, in comparison to certain infectious diseases. Is it such a bad thing to emphasise this to students?
The flip side to the coin,
however, is that the fashionable pickings may well end up taking the entire basket, leaving topics such as infectious diseases out in the cold entirely. This could result in doctors who are streamlined in
their knowledge but unable to think past the third or fourth
differential on their list. Medical schools could accurately define a
core curriculum which each and every student follows. This would
broaden horizons and encourage appreciation and understanding of the
global nature of infectious diseases. Additionally, special studies
modules could provide avenues for those wishing to further their
interest.
Sameer Trikha, fourth year medical student, University of Southampton
Email: st298@;soton.ac.uk
studentBMJ 2002;10:397-440 November ISSN 0966-6494
- Sharma D. Keeping the important issues in proportion. studentBMJ 2002;10;392. (October.)
