Applicants to medical school: if at first they don’t succeed, who tries again and are they successful?

Griffin, Barbara; Auton, Jaime C.; Duvivier, Robbert; Shulruf, Boaz; Hu, Wendy

doi:10.1007/s10459-018-9847-9

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It important to consider that our participants do not represent all non-traditional medical school applicants. Half the participants were required to reapply at least once, which suggests that they may be part of a specific subgroup both demographically [50], but also in terms of their growth mindset [51]-these applicants seemed to possess the grit to draw determination from initial failure rather than discouragement [52]. Moreover, all our participants were successful in their medical applications and were progressing through the standard medical courses at their respective schools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“The biggest barrier was my own self”: the role of social comparison in non-traditional students’ journey to medicine

Ball¹,

Alexander²,

Cleland

2020

Perspect Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Social comparisons strongly influence an individual's concept of self, their aspirations and decisions. This study investigates how non-traditional applicants used social comparison to shape their preferences, beliefs and predictions whilst preparing an application for medical school. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 UK medical students from non-traditional backgrounds to explore their process of 'getting ready' for medical school, and the role social comparison played in their experiences. Thematic analysis was used to inductively develop themes in the data, before findings were interpreted through the 'triadic model' of social comparison. Results Findings revealed that participants looked to the opinions of those with similar norms and backgrounds to accept their desire to study medicine. They sought the opinions of 'experts' to affirm a belief in their suitability but lacked confidence until success in crucial examinations 'proved', in their own view, that they had the ability to do medicine. Social comparison to peers who were perceived to be less committed to

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“The biggest barrier was my own self”: the role of social comparison in non-traditional students’ journey to medicine

Ball¹,

Alexander²,

Cleland

2020

Perspect Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the efficacy of approaches to short-listing for selection interviews. Many applicants have the aptitudes to become good medical students and doctors, but fail to secure a place in the program [13,29,30]. In this study, two models of selection for interview were compared.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This gap in the literature raises concern, since it is well known that different selection tools yield different results. It is therefore possible that applicants who failed securing an offer for an interview might have been successful medical students and later on successful doctors [9,13,14], while places are offered to possibly less suitable applicants [2]. Moreover, the methods for selecting applicants for interviews varies across medical schools, yet no evidence has been presented regarding the efficacy of any of these methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting top candidates for medical school selection interviews- a non-compensatory approach

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Medical schools apply a range of selection methods to ensure that admitted students succeed in the program. In Australia, selection tools typically include measures of academic achievement (e.g. the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank -ATAR) and aptitude tests (e.g. the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admissions Test -UMAT). These are most commonly used to determine which applicants are invited for additional selection processes, such as interviews. However, no previous study has examined the efficacy of the first part of the selection process. In particular, are compensatory or non-compensatory approaches more effective in evaluating the outcomes of cognitive and aptitude tests, and do they affect the demographics of students selected for interview?Methods: This study utilised data from consecutive cohorts of mainstream domestic students who applied to enter the UNSW Medicine program between 2013 to 2018. A compensatory ranked selection model was compared with a non-compensatory ranked model. Initially, ATAR marks and UMAT scores for each applicant were ranked within each cohort. In the compensatory model, the mean of the ATAR and UMAT ranks were used to determine the outcome. In the non-compensatory model, the lowest rank of ATAR and UMAT determined the outcome for each applicant. The impact of each model on the gender and socioeconomic status of applicants selected to interview was evaluated across all cohorts. Results: The non-compensatory ranked selection model resulted in substantially higher ATAR and UMAT thresholds for invitation to interview, with no significant effect on the socioeconomic status of the selected applicants.Conclusions: These results are important, demonstrating that it is possible to raise the academic threshold for selection to medicine without having any negative impact on applicants from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Overall, the evidence gathered in this study suggests that a non-compensatory model is preferable for selecting applicants for medical student selection interview.

show abstract

“…1 While there is a paucity of comparable Australian data, one study noted that only 38% of first-time applicants who were extended an interview to medical schools in the largest Australian state matriculated in the 2013 to 2014 cycle. 2 There are notable differences in medical school admission processes between the two countries. For example, about half of all Australian medical schools recruit applicants who are in their final year of high school for entry into 5 to 7-year medical school courses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Australian and American Medical School Admission Experiences

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attaining admission into medical school has been described as a very competitive process by successful matriculants. The processes that medical schools use to stratify applicants can greatly differ between institutions. These systemic differences flow over onto the applicant level, such that individuals from different geographic regions can have varied and diverse application experiences depending on local medical school admissions protocols. This piece compares the medical school admission processes of Australia and the United States of America, in the form of a narrative recount of a successful medical school matriculant in each country, with the individual experiences of matriculants from alternative pathways blended into the piece. The authors discovered significant differences in admissions protocols between the two countries, with the greatest differences revolving around admissions exams, applicant profile (high school students versus college students), degree types and alternative entrance pathways.

show abstract

Applicants to medical school: if at first they don’t succeed, who tries again and are they successful?

Cited by 8 publications

References 22 publications

“The biggest barrier was my own self”: the role of social comparison in non-traditional students’ journey to medicine

“The biggest barrier was my own self”: the role of social comparison in non-traditional students’ journey to medicine

Selecting top candidates for medical school selection interviews- a non-compensatory approach

A Comparison of Australian and American Medical School Admission Experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About