(calming piano music)
>> The curriculum is called Gene's to the Society
because we recognize that the individual variability
had really two large sources.
One was genetic make up of each person
and the second was the cumulated
environmental experiences of each person.
So, to do one without the other made no sense at all,
and we're very fortunate at Johns Hopkins
to have a superb school of public health.
As well as a superb medical school.
So, we are well equipped to present, and teach
and educate in both sort of basic biology of medicine,
as well as, more social issues that span a population
rather than individual than individual patients.
We try to pull all of that together.
Decrease the lecture time,
increase the sort of, computerized learning tools
that are now available, increase simulations
emphasizing patient safety and cross cutting themes
like professionalism across the four years.
And we also built in some novel things,
that's sort of a chronic concern about medical education
is that in the old style where you
sort of had two years of basic science exposure.
First year was normal basic science.
The second was abnormal, was pathology basically.
And then two clinical years
and many students, during their basic science years
would say well you know I'm really interested
in laying on the hands, why do I need
to understand the Krebs cycle?
And so, it was only until after
they got the wards and had the experience of managing
a patient, let's say in diabetic ketoacidosis,
where the Krebs cycle is not working in
many different ways.
They would say,
"Oh gee, I wish I had paid attention to first year
"when I was studying the Krebs cycle."
So, we get them in touch with their patients
as quickly as possible in the first year.
And then we built in these inner sessions between
blocks of time in all four years.
In the first two years, the inner sessions
focus on clinical topics,
giving them another window on clinical activities
in the first two years.
And the second two years,
the inner sessions focus on basic science.
Being leader in medicine requires one
to be a leader in biomedical research
and we certainly feel like we are among
the leaders in biomedical research.
And I think we all think that this
is something that separates Johns Hopkins
from many other places that one
could get a medical education.
And so, we think it's enormously important,
not only in terms of informing the students
but also giving them a certain rigor
in the way they think about problems
and in the way they evaluate the literature,
and scientific trends and all sorts of things.
So, the scientific education that they receive
is enormously important.
And we didn't want to sacrifice on that.
On the other hand, we did want to spread it out
so that they were more receptive to it.
And they heard it at different stages
so perhaps, more likely to carry it forward with them
over the subsequent decades of their career.
(calming electronic music)
Changing a medical curriculum is really a big deal.
It's like turning a gigantic oil tanker.
It really is hard, there are so many people involved.
We have to realize at Hopkins is that
we're fortunate enough to attract
a very top notch medical student.
So, they're excellent when they walk in the door.
So, it's not good enough to say
that when they leave they're excellent,
because they were excellent when they came in.
We have to show that what we've given them
is something that will allow them to
take advantage of their talents, their enormous talents.
And improve medicine over the next four generations.
I think I speak for the school to say
that we're in for the duration.
We have along tradition of excellence
and we wanna maintain it.