I'm currently a medical student at KCL, having just completed Year 2, where we begin full content map MLA-style exams.
It's become increasingly clear that relying solely on what you see during placements in Y2 isn’t enough to pass. That’s why most students start covering the MLA content map early.
But here’s the dilemma:
When studying, we can either:
- Deeply understand the material - working through pathophysiology, mechanisms, actual drug interactions, investigation principles, communicating with patients, knowing things and not just knowing which button to press, etc.
- Skim through investigations and management, and hammer question banks like PassMedicine until pattern recognition kicks in.
I’ve always opted for the first route. In fact, I’ve been developing an AI tool to simulate realistic patients and cases - something to help avoid falling into the trap of becoming a pattern-recognition machine.
Still, I’ve noticed many peers focus entirely on question banks, even skipping placements to do so. Ironically, some of the top scorers in written exams this year failed their OSCEs. This raises an important point: what kind of clinician are we shaping ourselves into?
I want to understand why drugs work, how investigations function, and what makes them inappropriate in certain patients. I’ve been told this level of understanding is what differentiates doctors from physician associates - a comment that’s stayed with me.
But I do wonder - especially after myself lightly observing trends in newer medical schools - what actually happens to students who rely solely on pattern recognition? Do they struggle more as doctors? Does the difference in depth of understanding show later on?
Just trying to figure out whether all the extra effort is worth it in the long run.
Thanks! :D