Effects of Entry Grades on Students’ Academic Performance Under Homogeneous Educational Resources

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Naya Huang, Yiying Xiao, Wei Chen, Xin Wang
{"title":"Effects of Entry Grades on Students’ Academic Performance Under Homogeneous Educational Resources","authors":"Naya Huang, Yiying Xiao, Wei Chen, Xin Wang","doi":"10.2147/AMEP.S444964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background A minor difference in college entrance examination scores can result in vastly different educational resources in China, so it has been debated whether it is the difference in the student population or the difference in educational resources that causes the difference in medical graduates. We aimed to evaluate the effects of entry grades on students’ academic performance under homogeneous educational resources. Methods Students in grade 2016 with 13-point difference in the average admission scores of 2 medicine schools in Sun Yat-sen University were educated in mixed classes and were taught with the same educators during the 5 years of undergraduate period. The grades, graduation, and postgraduate enrollment rates of the students were compared between the two campuses. Results The average admission scores for Shenzhen Campus (SZC) students are 13 points lower than those of Guangzhou North Campus (GZNC) (613 points vs 626 points). After 5 years of homogeneous education, comparing the GZNC students with the SZC students, there were no significant differences in the average total score (80.2 ± 4.6 vs 80.0 ± 5.6, P = 0.691), the average compulsory course (78.9 ± 3.4 vs 78.4 ± 6.1, P = 0.438), the average core course score (78.8 ± 7.4 vs 78.7 ± 5.0, P=0.860) and the average clerkship score (85.1 ± 7.2 vs 84.6 ± 2.7, P=0.275). However, the completion rate for SZC was higher than for GZNC (93.94% vs 86.27%, P=0.009). There was no statistical difference in postgraduate enrolment between the two institutions (P=0.758). Conclusion Given the same educational resources, more medical students with lower entrance scores completed their studies and achieved the same percentage of postgraduate acceptance. This finding suggests that a key component of improving the quality of medical higher education in China may be to further rationalize the allocation of high-quality educational resources, rather than to pursuing students with high entrance examination scores.","PeriodicalId":47404,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Medical Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S444964","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background A minor difference in college entrance examination scores can result in vastly different educational resources in China, so it has been debated whether it is the difference in the student population or the difference in educational resources that causes the difference in medical graduates. We aimed to evaluate the effects of entry grades on students’ academic performance under homogeneous educational resources. Methods Students in grade 2016 with 13-point difference in the average admission scores of 2 medicine schools in Sun Yat-sen University were educated in mixed classes and were taught with the same educators during the 5 years of undergraduate period. The grades, graduation, and postgraduate enrollment rates of the students were compared between the two campuses. Results The average admission scores for Shenzhen Campus (SZC) students are 13 points lower than those of Guangzhou North Campus (GZNC) (613 points vs 626 points). After 5 years of homogeneous education, comparing the GZNC students with the SZC students, there were no significant differences in the average total score (80.2 ± 4.6 vs 80.0 ± 5.6, P = 0.691), the average compulsory course (78.9 ± 3.4 vs 78.4 ± 6.1, P = 0.438), the average core course score (78.8 ± 7.4 vs 78.7 ± 5.0, P=0.860) and the average clerkship score (85.1 ± 7.2 vs 84.6 ± 2.7, P=0.275). However, the completion rate for SZC was higher than for GZNC (93.94% vs 86.27%, P=0.009). There was no statistical difference in postgraduate enrolment between the two institutions (P=0.758). Conclusion Given the same educational resources, more medical students with lower entrance scores completed their studies and achieved the same percentage of postgraduate acceptance. This finding suggests that a key component of improving the quality of medical higher education in China may be to further rationalize the allocation of high-quality educational resources, rather than to pursuing students with high entrance examination scores.
同质教育资源下入学年级对学生学业成绩的影响
背景 在中国,高考分数的微小差异就会导致教育资源的巨大差异,因此,究竟是生源差异还是教育资源差异导致了医学毕业生的差异,一直存在争议。我们旨在评估在同质教育资源下,入学成绩对学生学业成绩的影响。方法 对中山大学两个医学院平均录取分数相差 13 分的 2016 级学生进行混合编班教育,并在本科 5 年期间由相同的教育工作者授课。比较了两个校区学生的成绩、毕业率和研究生入学率。结果 深圳校区学生的平均录取分数比广州北校区低 13 分(613 分对 626 分)。经过 5 年的同质化教育后,广州北校区学生与深圳校区学生的平均总分(80.2±4.6 vs 80.0±5.6,P = 0.691)、必修课平均分(78.9±3.4 vs 78.4±6.1,P=0.438)、核心课平均分(78.8±7.4 vs 78.7±5.0,P=0.860)和实习平均分(85.1±7.2 vs 84.6±2.7,P=0.275)均无明显差异。然而,深中的结业率高于广中(93.94% vs 86.27%,P=0.009)。两所院校的研究生入学率没有统计学差异(P=0.758)。结论 在教育资源相同的情况下,更多入学分数较低的医学生完成了学业,并取得了相同比例的研究生录取率。这一发现表明,提高中国医学高等教育质量的关键环节可能是进一步合理配置优质教育资源,而不是一味追求高分学生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Medical Education and Practice
Advances in Medical Education and Practice EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
189
审稿时长
16 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信