Predicting success in graduate entry medical students undertaking a graduate entry medical program (GEM)

Background: Success in undergraduate medical courses in the UK can be predicted by school exit examination (A level) grades. There are no documented predictors of success in UK graduate entry medicine (GEM) courses. This study looks at the examination performance of GEM students to identify factors which may predict success; of particular interest was A level score. Methods: Data was collected for students graduating in 2004, 2005 and 2006, including demographic details (age and gender), details of previous academic achievement (A level total score and prior degree) and examination results at several points during the degree course. Results: Study group comprised 285 students. Statistical analyses identified no significant variables when looking at clinical examinations. Analysis of pass/fail data for written examinations showed no relationship with A level score. However, both percentage data for the final written examination and the analysis of the award of honours showed A level scores of AAB or higher were associated with better performance (p < 0.001). Discussion: A prime objective of introducing GEM programs was to diversify admissions to medical school. In trying to achieve this, medical schools have changed selection criteria. The findings in this study justify this by proving that A level score was not associated with success in either clinical examinations or passing written examinations. Despite this, very high achievements at A level do predict high achievement during medical school. Conclusions: This study shows that selecting graduate medical students with the basic requirement of an upper-second class honours degree is justifiable and does not disadvantage students who may not have achieved high scores in school leaver examinations

Comparing the performance of graduate-entry and school-leaver medical students

Objectives Between 2000 and 2006 Leicester-Warwick Medical Schools (LWMS) provided parallel courses for graduate and school-leaver entrants into medicine. The parallel courses were based upon a single curriculum with `identical teaching programmes and assessment methods over the two sites (Warwick and Leicester). Warwick runs the curriculum over an accelerated 4-year period for its graduate-entry students. LWMS hence provides a unique opportunity to compare outcomes for these two contrasting groups of students. Methods We carried out an observational, quantitative cohort study over a 6-year period covering three cohorts of students who graduated in 2004, 2005 and 2006, respectively, using examination scores as outcome measures. We compared the examination performance of school-leaver and graduate-entry students in written and clinical examinations. These included intermediate clinical examinations, final clinical and final written examinations for both sets of students. Examination data were collected from original mark sheets and university databases at Warwick and Leicester. A-level data were collected from the national University College Admissions Service (UCAS) and compared against examination performance throughout medical school examinations. Results Graduate-entry students performed as well as school-leaver students prior to entering the full-time clinical element of the course despite having significantly lower A-level grades. School-leaver entrants performed better on midpoint examinations, but had lost this advantage by the time they sat final professional examinations. Conclusions This is the first large-scale UK study to compare the performance of graduate-entry and school-leaver medical students following the same clinical curriculum and using the same assessments. Graduate-entry students performed as well as undergraduates in final examinations despite lower A-level grades and a shorter 4-year accelerated course