Selected medical students achieve better than lottery-admitted students during clerkships

Abstract

OBJECTIVES A recent controlled study by our group showed that the dropout rate in the first 2 years of study of medical students selected for entry by the assessment of a combination of non-cognitive and cognitive abilities was 2.6 times lower than that of a control group of students admitted by lottery. The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of these two groups in the clinical phase. RESULTS Selected students obtained a significantly higher mean grade during their first five clerkships than lottery-admitted students (mean ± standard error [SE] 7.95 ± 0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.90-8.00 versus mean ± SE 7.84 ± 0.02, 95% CI 7.81-7.87; p < 0.001). This difference reflected the fact that selected students achieved a grade of ‡ 8.0 1.5 times more often than lottery-admitted students. An analysis of all mean grades awarded on 10 clerkships revealed the same results. Moreover, the longer follow-up period over the clerkships showed that the relative risk for dropout was twice as low in the selected student group as in the lottery-admitted student group. CONCLUSIONSThe selected group received significantly higher mean grades on their first five clerkships, which could not be attributed to factors other than the selection procedure. Although the risk for dropout before the clinical phase increased somewhat in both groups, the actual dropout rate proved to be twice as low in the selected group.

The relationship between extracurricular activities assessed during selection and during medical school and performance

“…The undergraduate medical curriculum at Erasmus MC Medical School has been described previously (Urlings-Strop et al 2011). The medical curriculum at the time of the study The relationship between extracurricular activities… 289 consisted of a 4-year pre-clinical phase followed by a 2-year clinical phase.…”

“…Of the S-group and L-group, 338 (86.9%) and 755 (80.5%) were eligible to start clerkships respectively (Urlings-Strop et al 2011). Follow-up for all students was at least 5.5 years allowing sufficient opportunity to take part in any of the msECAs.…”

Selection methods in healthcare professions: where are we now and where next?

“…The reactions of applicants and recruiters are important, as are reactions from wider stakeholders, including government, regulatory bodies and the general public, which play an important role in decision-making at policy level. For example, the lottery system for medical school admissions was politically acceptable within the Netherlands for some time, but this approach was less acceptable to stakeholders elsewhere across the globe (Urlings-Strop et al 2011). Similarly, structured interviews/MMIs are widely used medical school admissions across the globe, but are not used in Ireland due to stakeholder perceptions of fairness (Kelly et al 2014).…”

Association Between a Medical School Admission Process Using the Multiple Mini-interview and National Licensing Examination Scores

“…In European countries in which students have traditionally been admitted based on self-selection (either via open admissions practices in which students are allowed to choose their domain of study without institutional selection or through lottery-based selection), improvement in performance and graduation rate has been observed after academic measures were implemented to create a barrier that had to be overcome (typically using GPA or standardized tests for the sake of selection decision making). [25][26][27] Personal interviews have become the standard through which health professional schools assess nonacademic aspects of applicants. 28 There is a broad spectrum of qualities that can be used to select candidates, 29 but traditional interviews may not be able to identify the top candidates.…”