To the Editor:Thirty-seven of the 38 graduate students of psychology enrolled at the University of Tennessee during the Kail Quarter of the aeademic year 1948-49 took both the Miller Analogies Test, Form G, and the I. E. R. Intelligence Scale CAVD, Levels JVI, N, O, P, and Q, Form 3.Two criterion measures were used to check the validities of these tests. The first was the grade-point average in all courses taken while enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Tennessee. This was computed by assigning the grade "A" a point-value of 4; "B", 3; "C", 2; "D", 1; and "F", 0. The grade-point values were averaged, weighting each by the number of credit-hours, and keeping one decimal.The second criterion measure was an overall rating completed by each member of the department who was teaching graduate courses in psychology. The instructions for rating were as follows:"The list, which accompanies this form includes the names of all the present graduate students in psychology. You are requested to rate all of them whom you know well enough, in terms of their overall abilities as graduate students."1. Cross out the names of all the students you do not feel able to rate: fairly and with reasonable accuracy. Do not feel called on to rate all the students whom you may lie teaching in class. The class situation does not always provide close enough personal acquaintance for rating purposes."2. Consider the remaining names. On the blank spaces at the right, write these remaining names in order of ability. On the first line write the name of the ablest student among those you are rating, on the second line the name of Ihe next ablest, etc."3. Draw a heavy line under the name of the last student in your list whom you consider a suitable candidate for the Master's degree. If you believe all of the students in your list are suitable candidates, draw this line under the last name."4. Draw another heavy line under the name of the last student in your list whom you consider a suitable candidate for the Doctor's degree. If you do not believe any of the students in your list are suitable candidates, draw this line over the first name."The distribution of the number of ratings per student was as follows:NUMHKR OF RATINGS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical students were removed from clinical clerkships. During this time of uncertainty, 4 clinical medical students at the University of Michigan returned to the community to support their neighbors experiencing homelessness. They did so by making brown bag lunches for people sleeping on the streets and acting as community volunteers in temporary shelters. Though formal education was stalled, they reconnected with the initial desire that led them to pursue medical education in the first place and developed key skills in communication, relating to others, and compassion that they believe will enable them to become better physicians in the future.

No abstract

In 1994, to guide patients and surgeons in making informed decisions about organ transplantation and reduce transplant-mediated infectious disease transmission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced the Public Health Service guidelines for increased risk donor (IRD) organs. This classification identifies donors associated with greater risk for contracting human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus as increased risk donors. These donor organs are discarded at higher rates than non-IRD organs, despite equivalent patient and graft survival rates following transplantation. Biases and stigmas, as well as misunderstandings about the term “increased risk,” may contribute to the discard of these high-quality organs. Novel communication strategies regarding the risk of disease transmission from IRD organs are needed to reduce misunderstandings between patients and providers and shift the conversation from probabilities and statistics to patient-centered values and expectations. Using a standardized tool such as Best Case/Worst Case to elicit patients’ preferences and share expected outcomes of accepting versus rejecting an IRD organ has the potential to improve IRD risk communication. The purpose of this article is to elucidate the underutilization of IRD organs, through the example of a potential kidney transplantation, to demystify this complex and high-stakes decision utilizing a novel communication strategy and to propose policy changes to IRD organ management that could result in hundreds of additional lives saved each year.