Choice

Alas, we are coming to the heart of the problem: There are two parameters that a curriculum planner could modify:

1. For each teacher, to cover their own specialty or to go for simple general medicine.
2. For time allocation, to have a few rotations, each for a considerable duration, or to have many touch-and-go encounters.

In other words, we can create a two-times-two matrix for the four possible scenarios:

1. Teach our own specialty and have long rotations - not desirable, as the curriculum would be incomplete and biased.
2. Teach our own specialty and have many short rotations.
3. Teach general medicine and have long rotations.
4. Teach general medicine and have many short rotations - a silly arrangement, of course.

You see? Only options #2 and #3 are sensible - why shouldn't we choose the latter?

Well, I'm not going to discuss should or should not. Unfortunately, the game theory actually predicts that focusing on our own specialty is a dominant strategy in teaching; once some of the academic staff do so, the others would quickly follow, and the few who do not would easily be eliminated by the system (unless, of course, one has won the exemplary teacher award).

I shall leave the logic of deducing such a happening to your imagination.