Section 1. Studies and teachers

Abstract

Group la decided to tackle its topic by examining the selection criteria used in medical student selection and by reviewing position paper reports and accounts of various selection procedures from different medical schools. The selection criteria touched on in the discussion were academic performance, personal attributes, intelligence testing, personality testing, life experiences, individual and group interviews. There was a wide range of selection criteria represented in the group-all the way from none (as in the case of Ireland and Italy), through a reliance on academic performance and life experience (as in the case of Sweden and Norway) to the more elaborate admission procedures of McMaster (academic achievement, personal attributes, individual and group interview) and Hadassah Medical School (academic achievement, intelligence and personality testing and the personal interview). The question of academic prerequisites disclosed a wide variation, from those existing in the Swedish system (Mathematics, Physics, Biology and Chemistry) to the McMaster system, which had essentially no specific prerequisites. The medical students questioned the retention of the Swedish prerequisite under the new system. As for the issue of academic performance level itself there was general agreement that this criterion should be retained, although there was no agreement on such questions as to (a) how it should be determined, (b) the weighting that should be ascribed to it in the selection process, and (c) what other criteria should be used to complement academic achievement. The suggestion was made that the reliance on ‘objective’ school marks in some instances might be a way of shielding the selection process from a wide variety of political influence; some of the students proposed a system of student selection on the basis of minimum academic level plus lottery. One process problem emerged during the discussion concerning the students’ current preoccupation with their efforts to find ways of changing the system in which they were currently operating, to make it more innovative and more responsive to their perceived educational needs. Their frustration stemming from the apparent lack of change made it difficult for them to address themselves to the issue of student selection. At this particular time, it was felt that: (a) selection procedures should be adapted to the educational and societal needs of the school or the community in which it has to function; (b) methods of selection cannot be changed without inducing necessary changes in the educational programmes and in teacher attitudes towards their roles; and (c) longitudinal evaluation studies should be initiated subsequently, in order to determine whether or not the new admission procedures have in fact some predictive value towards the professional ability of the emerging graduate. The group has refrained from trying to define the successful doctor, because of the variety of criteria which contribute to such definitions and could not have been dealt with due to shortage of time. It was repeatedly emphasized that it is very difficult indeed to design any battery of tests which have predictive values over a period of time, especially if we consider the age of the entering student and the environmental influences he will be exposed to during the 6 years of his undergraduate studies. The group was composed of participants, some of whom were preoccupied with the intricacies of selection procedures, such as what types of personality attributes would best facilitate the production of a ‘successful’ doctor, such as motivation, creativity, compassion, mission orientation, previous life experience-while others represented countries in which open admissions to medical schools still prevailed. Such situations are likely to produce serious pedagogical difficulties, with ineffective teacher-student or patient-student ratios. The group felt reluctant to draw additional conclusions or to commit itself to further