Actually, this is an interesting question, because I actually did my MD degree in Belgium, and I did my specialty in France, so I can clearly compare Europe to here. I'm Iranian in origin, so I've been to Iran. I have seen what's happening.
The medical education in North America is evidence-based, so they go with what evidence shows to be working in educating people, whereas in Europe and in other parts of the world maybe it's more traditional. So you will see in many European countries that they still do lots of lectures whereas here we don't. We don't do that here because not only are we evidence-based, but also it has been shown that active learning creates a long-time memory. What is the problem doctors have? They do medical education; then they do residency; and then they're out, and you have them for 20 years, 30 years after and they still need to remember this stuff. So you want long term and you want them to be independent, and the AFMC has actually done a very good job at accrediting.
When you ask if someone can do lectures all the time in Canada, they can't. They can't in the U.S. either, as the lecture hours have been cut because it has been shown that small-group teaching active learning is much more proficient in the long term. All these are evidence-based in active learning, in actually how adults like to learn. We always consider our students to be adults so we know they're motivated. We know they want to learn, so we give them all the tools and make them learn how to learn this stuff. As the information changes, what I tell them now on how to treat hypertension maybe in 20 years will not be the way. They need to be able to find it out.
Do you want to add anything?