Medical school selection is a sociohistorical embedded activity: A comparison of five countries.

IF 4.9 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-09 DOI:10.1111/medu.15492
Jennifer Cleland, Julia Blitz, Eliana Amaral, You You, Kirsty Alexander
{"title":"Medical school selection is a sociohistorical embedded activity: A comparison of five countries.","authors":"Jennifer Cleland, Julia Blitz, Eliana Amaral, You You, Kirsty Alexander","doi":"10.1111/medu.15492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The medical school selection literature comes mostly from a few countries in the Global North and offers little opportunity to consider different ways of thinking and doing. Our aim, therefore, was to critically consider selection practices and their sociohistorical influences in our respective countries (Brazil, China, Singapore, South Africa and the UK), including how any perceived inequalities are addressed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper summarises many constructive dialogues grounded in the idea of he er butong () (harmony with diversity), learning about and from each other.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Some practices were similar across the five countries, but there were differences in precise practices, attitudes and sociohistorical influences thereon. For example, in Brazil, South Africa and the UK, there is public and political acknowledgement that attainment is linked to systemic and social factors such as socio-economic status and/or race. Selecting for medical school solely on prior attainment is recognised as unfair to less privileged societal groups. Conversely, selection via examination performance is seen as fair and promoting equality in China and Singapore, although the historical context underpinning this value differs across the two countries. The five countries differ in respect of their actions towards addressing inequality. Quotas are used to ensure the representation of certain groups in Brazil and regional representation in China. Quotas are illegal in the UK, and South Africa does not impose them, leading to the use of various, compensatory 'workarounds' to address inequality. Singapore does not take action to address inequality because all people are considered equal constitutionally.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In conclusion, medical school selection practices are firmly embedded in history, values, societal expectations and stakeholder beliefs, which vary by context. More comparisons, working from the position of acknowledging and respecting differences, would extend knowledge further and enable consideration of what permits and hinders change in different contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":"46-55"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15492","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The medical school selection literature comes mostly from a few countries in the Global North and offers little opportunity to consider different ways of thinking and doing. Our aim, therefore, was to critically consider selection practices and their sociohistorical influences in our respective countries (Brazil, China, Singapore, South Africa and the UK), including how any perceived inequalities are addressed.

Methods: This paper summarises many constructive dialogues grounded in the idea of he er butong () (harmony with diversity), learning about and from each other.

Results: Some practices were similar across the five countries, but there were differences in precise practices, attitudes and sociohistorical influences thereon. For example, in Brazil, South Africa and the UK, there is public and political acknowledgement that attainment is linked to systemic and social factors such as socio-economic status and/or race. Selecting for medical school solely on prior attainment is recognised as unfair to less privileged societal groups. Conversely, selection via examination performance is seen as fair and promoting equality in China and Singapore, although the historical context underpinning this value differs across the two countries. The five countries differ in respect of their actions towards addressing inequality. Quotas are used to ensure the representation of certain groups in Brazil and regional representation in China. Quotas are illegal in the UK, and South Africa does not impose them, leading to the use of various, compensatory 'workarounds' to address inequality. Singapore does not take action to address inequality because all people are considered equal constitutionally.

Discussion: In conclusion, medical school selection practices are firmly embedded in history, values, societal expectations and stakeholder beliefs, which vary by context. More comparisons, working from the position of acknowledging and respecting differences, would extend knowledge further and enable consideration of what permits and hinders change in different contexts.

医学院选拔是一项蕴含社会历史的活动:五个国家的比较。
导言:医学院遴选文献主要来自全球北方的几个国家,很少有机会考虑不同的思维和行为方式。因此,我们的目的是批判性地考虑我们各自国家(巴西、中国、新加坡、南非和英国)的遴选做法及其社会历史影响,包括如何解决任何感知到的不平等问题:本文总结了许多基于 he er butong()(与多样性和谐相处)理念的建设性对话,以及相互学习和借鉴的情况:结果:五个国家的一些做法相似,但在具体做法、态度和社会历史影响方面存在差异。例如,在巴西、南非和英国,公众和政界都承认成绩与社会经济地位和/或种族等系统和社会因素有关。人们认识到,仅凭先前的成绩来选拔医学院的学生,对社会地位较低的群体是不公平的。相反,在中国和新加坡,通过考试成绩选拔学生被视为公平和促进平等的做法,尽管两国支持这一价值观的历史背景有所不同。这五个国家在解决不平等问题的行动方面存在差异。在巴西,配额制被用来确保某些群体的代表性,在中国,配额制被用来确保地区代表性。在英国,配额制是非法的,南非也不实行配额制,因此该国采用了各种补偿性的 "变通办法 "来解决不平等问题。新加坡没有采取行动解决不平等问题,因为宪法规定人人平等:总之,医学院的选拔做法深深植根于历史、价值观、社会期望和利益相关者的信念之中,而这些又因环境而异。从承认和尊重差异的立场出发,进行更多的比较,将进一步扩展知识,并能够考虑在不同情况下哪些因素允许和阻碍变革。
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
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
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