- David Powis, assistant dean, undergraduate education
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia
Editorial by Abbasi and Paper p 1111
The analysis on p 1111 by McManus of some of the factors affecting whether a candidate is offered a place at medical school in the United Kingdom1 shows clearly that selectors haven't yet got it right.
What follows is a brief guide that might help medical schools and doctors to determine what they want from a selection procedure—that is, what knowledge, skills, and attributes need to be sought in potential medical students, and why. This determination requires data, specifically, on the progress rates of medical students and the reasons for failure or premature withdrawal. With such knowledge the guide may be used to show how admissions committees should devise and operate an appropriately objective student selection procedure.
Summary points
The selection of medical students is often an arbitrary process, with the criteria for selection often being undefined
The selection procedure should be an objective exercise based on defensible criteria with transparency of process and freedom from bias
This article describes the steps entailed in establishing a suitable procedure and how to operate it
The procedure is based on collecting pertinent data in academic, cognitive, and non-cognitive domains by the most appropriate methods
A key recommendation is to dissociate the selection event from the interview
The interview should be used only to collect data; selection is performed later by administrative staff, who enter the data gathered by all means into a predetermined algorithm
Assumptions
Medical school admissions procedures are often not selection procedures but an administrative exercise to limit the number of entrants to the number of places available on the course by means of a movable marks threshold. The assumption is that the greater the number of applicants for places in the medical school the higher the marks threshold needs to be set to limit …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012