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

Author:

Cleland Jennifer1ORCID,Blitz Julia2ORCID,Amaral Eliana3ORCID,You You4ORCID,Alexander Kirsty5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine Nanyang Technological University Singapore and National Healthcare Group Singapore Singapore

2. Centre for Health Professions Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Stellenbosch University Stellenbosch South Africa

3. Faculdade de Ciências Médicas UNICAMP (Universidade Estadual de Campinas) Campinas São Paulo Brazil

4. Institute of Medical Education/National Center for Health Professions Education Development and Institute of Economics of Education Peking University Beijing China

5. School of Medicine University of Dundee Dundee UK

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe 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.MethodsThis paper summarises many constructive dialogues grounded in the idea of he er butong (和而不同) (harmony with diversity), learning about and from each other.ResultsSome 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.DiscussionIn 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.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference97 articles.

1. Southern theory and world universities

2. How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review

3. Admission criteria to Saudi medical schools. Which is the best predictor for successful achievement?;Albishri JA;Saudi Med. J.,2012

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3