为什么优秀的学生很少能进入医学院:医学院录取和智力卓越之间的对立。

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Advances in Physiology Education Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-17 DOI:10.1152/advan.00176.2025
Heidi L Lujan, Stephen E DiCarlo
{"title":"为什么优秀的学生很少能进入医学院:医学院录取和智力卓越之间的对立。","authors":"Heidi L Lujan, Stephen E DiCarlo","doi":"10.1152/advan.00176.2025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What if the best students, the truly curious, creative, and intellectually fearless, are the very ones quietly filtered out by the admissions process? This Personal View confronts a hard truth: the medical admissions process, hailed as rigorous and fair, systematically selects against deep thinkers. By elevating GPA, MCAT scores, and strategically curated experiences, the system rewards compliance, performance, and risk avoidance, traits antithetical to authentic learning. Premedical education has become a crucible of conformity. Students quickly learn that exploration is dangerous, ambiguity is punished, and box-checking is everything. Great students, those who read widely, think deeply, and challenge assumptions, either contort themselves into applicants or quietly walk away. The result? A profession that mistakes obedience for excellence. This piece argues that the admissions process does not just miss great minds-it repels them. The consequence is not merely academic; it's clinical. When medicine favors superficial metrics over intellectual vitality, it cultivates practitioners who fear uncertainty, avoid reflection, and cling to algorithms instead of insight. Reform cannot be cosmetic. Holistic review, in its current form, is too often symbolic rather than substantive. If we want physicians who can think beyond protocols and adapt to complexity, we must stop selecting for test-takers and start selecting for thinkers. Until then, we will keep losing our most promising minds, not because they failed the system but because the system failed them.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> This Personal View exposes a harsh paradox: the very process designed to select future physicians actively repels the most intellectually vibrant minds. By rewarding risk-averse, GPA-driven box-checking, medical admissions undermine curiosity, creativity, and reflective thinking. Rather than cultivating bold, adaptive clinicians, we are grooming compliant test-takers. If medicine is to reclaim its intellectual soul, we must radically rethink what, and whom, we reward.</p>","PeriodicalId":50852,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Physiology Education","volume":" ","pages":"849-850"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why great students rarely make it to medical school: the antithesis between medical admissions and intellectual excellence.\",\"authors\":\"Heidi L Lujan, Stephen E DiCarlo\",\"doi\":\"10.1152/advan.00176.2025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>What if the best students, the truly curious, creative, and intellectually fearless, are the very ones quietly filtered out by the admissions process? This Personal View confronts a hard truth: the medical admissions process, hailed as rigorous and fair, systematically selects against deep thinkers. By elevating GPA, MCAT scores, and strategically curated experiences, the system rewards compliance, performance, and risk avoidance, traits antithetical to authentic learning. Premedical education has become a crucible of conformity. Students quickly learn that exploration is dangerous, ambiguity is punished, and box-checking is everything. Great students, those who read widely, think deeply, and challenge assumptions, either contort themselves into applicants or quietly walk away. The result? A profession that mistakes obedience for excellence. This piece argues that the admissions process does not just miss great minds-it repels them. The consequence is not merely academic; it's clinical. When medicine favors superficial metrics over intellectual vitality, it cultivates practitioners who fear uncertainty, avoid reflection, and cling to algorithms instead of insight. Reform cannot be cosmetic. Holistic review, in its current form, is too often symbolic rather than substantive. If we want physicians who can think beyond protocols and adapt to complexity, we must stop selecting for test-takers and start selecting for thinkers. Until then, we will keep losing our most promising minds, not because they failed the system but because the system failed them.<b>NEW & NOTEWORTHY</b> This Personal View exposes a harsh paradox: the very process designed to select future physicians actively repels the most intellectually vibrant minds. By rewarding risk-averse, GPA-driven box-checking, medical admissions undermine curiosity, creativity, and reflective thinking. Rather than cultivating bold, adaptive clinicians, we are grooming compliant test-takers. If medicine is to reclaim its intellectual soul, we must radically rethink what, and whom, we reward.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"849-850\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Physiology Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00176.2025\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Physiology Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00176.2025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果最优秀的学生——那些真正好奇、有创造力、在智力上无所畏惧的人——被录取过程悄悄地过滤掉了呢?这种个人观点面对的是一个残酷的事实:医学招生过程,被誉为严格和公平,系统地选择与深刻的思想家。通过提高GPA、MCAT分数和战略策划的经验,该系统奖励服从、表现和风险规避——与真实学习相反的特征。医学预科教育已经成为一致性的熔炉。学生们很快就知道,探索是危险的,模棱两可是要受到惩罚的,打勾就是一切。优秀的学生——那些博览群书、深思熟虑、敢于挑战假设的人——要么把自己扭曲成申请者,要么悄悄地离开。结果呢?把服从误认为是卓越的职业。这篇文章认为,招生过程不仅错过了伟大的思想,而且排斥了他们。其结果不仅仅是学术上的;它是临床。当医学倾向于肤浅的指标而不是智力活力时,它会培养出害怕不确定性、避免反思、坚持算法而不是洞察力的从业者。改革不能只是表面功夫。目前形式的全面审查往往是象征性的,而不是实质性的。如果我们想要的是能够超越常规思考并适应复杂情况的医生,我们就必须停止选择应试者,而开始选择思考者。在那之前,我们将继续失去最有前途的人才——不是因为他们辜负了这个制度,而是因为这个制度辜负了他们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why great students rarely make it to medical school: the antithesis between medical admissions and intellectual excellence.

What if the best students, the truly curious, creative, and intellectually fearless, are the very ones quietly filtered out by the admissions process? This Personal View confronts a hard truth: the medical admissions process, hailed as rigorous and fair, systematically selects against deep thinkers. By elevating GPA, MCAT scores, and strategically curated experiences, the system rewards compliance, performance, and risk avoidance, traits antithetical to authentic learning. Premedical education has become a crucible of conformity. Students quickly learn that exploration is dangerous, ambiguity is punished, and box-checking is everything. Great students, those who read widely, think deeply, and challenge assumptions, either contort themselves into applicants or quietly walk away. The result? A profession that mistakes obedience for excellence. This piece argues that the admissions process does not just miss great minds-it repels them. The consequence is not merely academic; it's clinical. When medicine favors superficial metrics over intellectual vitality, it cultivates practitioners who fear uncertainty, avoid reflection, and cling to algorithms instead of insight. Reform cannot be cosmetic. Holistic review, in its current form, is too often symbolic rather than substantive. If we want physicians who can think beyond protocols and adapt to complexity, we must stop selecting for test-takers and start selecting for thinkers. Until then, we will keep losing our most promising minds, not because they failed the system but because the system failed them.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This Personal View exposes a harsh paradox: the very process designed to select future physicians actively repels the most intellectually vibrant minds. By rewarding risk-averse, GPA-driven box-checking, medical admissions undermine curiosity, creativity, and reflective thinking. Rather than cultivating bold, adaptive clinicians, we are grooming compliant test-takers. If medicine is to reclaim its intellectual soul, we must radically rethink what, and whom, we reward.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
19.00%
发文量
100
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Physiology Education promotes and disseminates educational scholarship in order to enhance teaching and learning of physiology, neuroscience and pathophysiology. The journal publishes peer-reviewed descriptions of innovations that improve teaching in the classroom and laboratory, essays on education, and review articles based on our current understanding of physiological mechanisms. Submissions that evaluate new technologies for teaching and research, and educational pedagogy, are especially welcome. The audience for the journal includes educators at all levels: K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信