China, why was medicine (and other professional areas) made post-grad in the United States? It wasn't always the case. They changed it because good high school grades were not considered competitive enough - they needed to have additional factors on which to differentiate between applicants.
Australian unis are noticing the same thing. To be a good doctor (or other professional), you need a lot more than a few good exam results. My husband was told by staff at his uni that historically, there have been problems with med students who get good scores in their year 12 exams but struggle when it comes to developing a good rapport with patients and general communication skills.
This is why there is now more emphasis on interviews, groupwork assessments and more "soft" skills in the admissions process. It is becoming more common because it works well.
What you have written is all very true and accurate. The supposed rationale for change to post-grad entry is that high TER was no guarantee of communication skills and human empathy.
The red hot debate, and this very topic deserves a forum of its own, is what really constitutes a good doctor.
Some of us believe that a good doctor should have hard core academic /intellectual skills - they should be good scientists as they interpret the latest science and apply it to the benefit of the patient. This is what truly differentiates the doctor from other valuable professionals in the health care team - understanding of the physiology and anatomy behind disease process. The softer skills are of secondary importance, in our opinion, because being able to communicate /demonstrate rapport and empathy is often demonstrated by anyone from used car salesmen and property spruikers.
However, the hardliners/traditionalists have lost out as is evidenced by the widespread transition to medical school entry by means of interviews and other "communication" / group work exercises which selects people that present well to other people but really have far less intellectual skills upstairs than the undergrad medical students of old who were selected predominantly with a high TER.
The art of medicine has overwhelmingly usurped the science of medicine.
I'll take your word for it if you can show me something that states that graduate medical students are of lower standard than school leavers. i find that laughable in the extreme.
This is hard to demonstrate because there is no universal agreement as to what really constitutes a good doctor and hence, there are no real objective measures of what constitutes a good doctor.
However, the anecdotal evidence when you talk to established doctors, that is those, with more than ten years since medical school is that many believe that more recent medical school graduates, that is, current interns/residents and current medical students are of a lower calibre than ever before.
The average patient / lay person often thinks that a doctor is good if they are "nice" and smiles and talks to them. So a surgeon could have terrible technical skills but many patients will still think that they are great because they are "nice". This is what medical schools produce these days - "nice" doctors.
And I wasn't talking Ivy League btw - they're on another planet. I said top 50 unis. I just did a quick Google and apparently the University of Utah is ranked #50 in the US at present. This is the list of admission requirements:
- Average GPA of 3.7 (i.e. pretty much HD average - this is the mode score, not median);
- Average MCAT score in top 20% of applicants;
- Established volunteer work every year for 4 years prior to applying;
- An average of 3 community leadership roles;
- Average of 3 months spent in research role; and
- Average of 3 months spent in patient exposure role
Notice that high school grades aren't mentioned? I think the above qualities/attributes say a lot more about the potential of a student than some purchased score.
Please don't make claims when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that is the case.
