Premium
Reasons selectors give for accepting and rejecting medical applicants before interview
Author(s) -
Turner Rebecca,
Nicholson Sandra
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03874.x
Subject(s) - scrutiny , psychology , context (archaeology) , enthusiasm , medical education , medical school , focus group , selection (genetic algorithm) , applied psychology , social psychology , medicine , computer science , sociology , paleontology , artificial intelligence , political science , anthropology , law , biology
Medical Education 2011: 45 : 298–307Context The introduction of aptitude testing in the selection of applicants for medical and dental school, in the UK, has led to growing scrutiny of current selection practices. There is increasing difficulty in discriminating between the high numbers of very able candidates who apply to study medicine based on traditional academic criteria. Concerns have been raised that the current selection methods of screening Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) forms in the UK and holding interviews are essentially subjective and their abilities to predict success at medical school are largely unknown. In particular, questions on the validity and reliability of screening students’ personal statements are highlighted. Objectives This study aims to further examine this subjectivity and elucidate the reasons given by selectors in one medical school for accepting or rejecting candidates, prior to interview, based on the screening of UCAS forms. Methods Three focus groups, totalling 17 participant selectors, explored current selector practices at one London‐based medical school. Additionally, reasons given on selector marking forms for rejecting candidates prior to interview were analysed by content analysis. Data were then triangulated with themes derived from the focus groups exploring why selectors accepted or rejected candidates for interview. Results Selectors identified clear criteria for selecting or rejecting candidates for interview. They described the ‘ideal’ candidate as one who possessed positive attributes, including academic ability, enthusiasm and motivation. These views correlated with the reasons for rejecting candidates given by selectors on selector marking forms. Conclusions This study describes selector practice in one medical school and clarifies selector reasons for accepting or rejecting candidates for interview. Although it provides criteria for the ‘ideal’ candidate, this study highlights the subjective nature of the selection process and the difficulties in quantifying applicant aptitude, and raises the need for a more open, transparent and reliable way of selecting future medical students.