Latest news with #MedicalCollegeAdmissionTest
The Star
6 days ago
- Health
- The Star
Is your education helping?
Is one school better than another, or do smart students succeed no matter where they study? One way to see if schools, universities and teachers really make a difference in learning is by measuring the impact of educational institutions using the 'value-added' approach, which looks at how much students improve over time. Instead of only focusing on final grades, it measures progress, giving a clearer picture of how well a school or teacher is performing. 'Value-added' compares what a student is expected to achieve based on their starting point with what they actually achieve by the end of a course or school year. This method focuses on improvement rather than just final scores, showing how much a student has grown academically. Traditional ways of judging schools and teachers rely heavily on test scores. However, these scores can be influenced by factors outside a school's control, like family background and early education. For example, a child from a low-income family may start school with fewer skills, while a child from a wealthier family may have an advantage. Comparing only final test scores can be unfair. The 'value-added' approach looks at progress, recognising the hard work of both students and teachers. It measures how well each child reaches their full potential. A good example of how the 'value-added' approach works in practice comes from medical schools in the United States. Students enter medical school based on their Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores and graduate by passing the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). Schools that accept high-scoring students in the MCAT usually produce high-scoring graduates in the USMLE. However, some schools help students improve beyond expectations, while others underperform. If you were choosing a medical school, you would want one that not only helps students grow, but also 'adds value' to the individual. Here's a look at the benefits of using 'value added' as a measure of educational success: > Focuses on progress Instead of teaching just for test scores, schools and teachers help every student improve, no matter their starting level. This builds academic skills, confidence, and a love of learning. > Fairer for teachers Teachers work with students of different backgrounds and abilities. A great teacher may not always have the highest- scoring students, but they can still help them improve significantly. > Promotes educational fairness Schools in low-income areas are often judged unfairly based on test scores alone. The 'value-added' approach highlights schools that are helping students grow, even in challenging situations. > Helps parents make better choices Parents want the best education for their children. A school may not have the highest overall scores, but if it helps students improve a lot, it could be a great choice. > Guides policy decisions Education leaders can use the 'value-added' approach to decide where to invest resources. Schools that help students make big improvements can serve as models, while struggling schools can receive extra support. Focusing on the 'value-added' approach benefits society as well. It encourages effort and resilience – qualities that are valuable in education and the workplace. Employers appreciate candidates who have shown steady growth and the ability to overcome challenges. Of course, no single measure can fully capture the impact of education. Some critics argue that 'value-added' oversimplifies learning. However, when used alongside other methods, it provides valuable insight into student progress. It reminds us that education is not just about where students end up but also how far they have come. 'Value-added' offers a fair and meaningful way to measure the impact of schools and teachers. By focusing on student growth, it provides a clearer picture of success than traditional test scores. It recognises great teaching, encourages improvement, and helps address educational inequalities. In a world where every student's potential matters, 'value-added' is not just a trend – it is an important step towards a better and more supportive education system for all. Prof Dr David Whitford is vice-chancellor and chief executive of University of Cyberjaya. He earned a doctorate from Cambridge University and has held leadership roles in medical education. With over 70 research publications on disadvantaged communities and quality healthcare delivery, his academic journey includes positions at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland in Dublin and in Bahrain, where he established community-based teaching and led postgraduate studies. The views expressed here are the writer's own.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - DEI stifled my medical career. Remove this divisive racial ideology from education.
I'm cheering President Trump's rollback of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' from the other side of the world. In fact, the main reason I am a medical resident in Tokyo — having arrived last month — is that DEI made it harder to pursue my career in the U.S. Qualified people like myself have been pushed away by this race-based ideology, which not only insults me but injures America. I wish I was home in the U.S. I was born in New York City. I attended City College. As an undergraduate, I served as an EMT on an ambulance and as a medic in ROTC. When I took the Medical College Admission Test, I scored in the 90th percentile, with a near-perfect score in each of the three science sections — biology, chemistry and physics, and psychology and sociology. I had every intention of entering medical practice in the U.S., where I hoped to stay my entire career. But DEI got in the way. It first reared its ugly head when, despite my Medical College Admission Test scores and experience, only one medical school accepted me of the 75 I applied to — the University of Tennessee. Only three other schools even offered to interview me, almost certainly reflecting the unfair standard to which Asians are held thanks to DEI. I accepted the slot at Tennessee, figuring it would still be the springboard I needed for my career. But the DEI shenanigans were just getting started. In 2022, I was part of the first class of medical students who took the revised 'Step 1' test under the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, which plays a big role in determining where students get their residencies. Before, medical students had been given a numerical score, clearly indicating our knowledge level relative to our peers. Activists, however, successfully demanded that this be changed to a pass-fail, all in the name of diversity. To put it bluntly, the activists do not want the most qualified candidates with the best scores to dominate the best residency opportunities if too many of them are Asian or white. So by using pass-fail, they pushed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination administrators to make it easier for less qualified students to appear just as qualified as better-performing students. Never mind that better scores tend to indicate which students will become the best physicians, providing the best care to patients. This was the beginning of the end of my hopes of staying in the U.S. I took the Step 2 test in 2023. Although I wish my score had been higher, it put me in strong contention for a residency in neurology. Unfortunately, despite applying to 50-plus residencies, I got one rejection after another. I understood when Ivy League schools said no. I did not understand it when schools like Rutgers and Hofstra rejected me. The University of Tennessee gave me two residency offers, but that would have told future employers that I couldn't succeed without a home-field advantage. I spoke with numerous students of different races who had scored lower than me but got better residencies. That's exactly what's supposed to happen under DEI. Spurned by American institutions, I did something I never thought I would do — I looked overseas. I was invited to present a research paper in Germany, winning an award in the process. I was also asked to present at the University of Osaka. I also submitted a research plan to Dr. Masashi Hamada at the University of Tokyo School of Medicine, who offered me a residency. I am now the first foreign trainee and researcher that school has ever had. In Japan, thanks to American DEI. I am grateful that a top-tier university finally accepted me. But it pains me that, while Japan wants me, America does not. The United Kingdom and Australia have also given me a license to practice medicine in their countries. They recognize merit in a way that the U.S. no longer does, to the detriment of our medical system and the 340 million Americans who rely on it. Will I return to the U.S. to continue my career? I certainly want to, but I am coming to love practicing medicine in a country where the focus is treating patients, not checking ideological or racial boxes. I would be more likely to return if President Trump and state leaders continue to get divisive racial ideology out of higher education — especially out of medical school. There's much more to be done when it comes to restoring a system based on merit. DEI has pushed me away. But if Trump keeps rolling it back, it will be much easier to come home someday. Saivikram Madireddy is a neurology trainee and researcher at the University of Tokyo in Japan. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
DEI stifled my medical career. Remove this divisive racial ideology from education.
I'm cheering President Trump's rollback of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' from the other side of the world. In fact, the main reason I am a medical resident in Tokyo — having arrived last month — is that DEI made it harder to pursue my career in the U.S. Qualified people like myself have been pushed away by this race-based ideology, which not only insults me but injures America. I wish I was home in the U.S. I was born in New York City. I attended City College. As an undergraduate, I served as an EMT on an ambulance and as a medic in ROTC. When I took the Medical College Admission Test, I scored in the 90th percentile, with a near-perfect score in each of the three science sections — biology, chemistry and physics, and psychology and sociology. I had every intention of entering medical practice in the U.S., where I hoped to stay my entire career. But DEI got in the way. It first reared its ugly head when, despite my Medical College Admission Test scores and experience, only one medical school accepted me of the 75 I applied to — the University of Tennessee. Only three other schools even offered to interview me, almost certainly reflecting the unfair standard to which Asians are held thanks to DEI. I accepted the slot at Tennessee, figuring it would still be the springboard I needed for my career. But the DEI shenanigans were just getting started. In 2022, I was part of the first class of medical students who took the revised 'Step 1' test under the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, which plays a big role in determining where students get their residencies. Before, medical students had been given a numerical score, clearly indicating our knowledge level relative to our peers. Activists, however, successfully demanded that this be changed to a pass-fail, all in the name of diversity. To put it bluntly, the activists do not want the most qualified candidates with the best scores to dominate the best residency opportunities if too many of them are Asian or white. So by using pass-fail, they pushed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination administrators to make it easier for less qualified students to appear just as qualified as better-performing students. Never mind that better scores tend to indicate which students will become the best physicians, providing the best care to patients. This was the beginning of the end of my hopes of staying in the U.S. I took the Step 2 test in 2023. Although I wish my score had been higher, it put me in strong contention for a residency in neurology. Unfortunately, despite applying to 50-plus residencies, I got one rejection after another. I understood when Ivy League schools said no. I did not understand it when schools like Rutgers and Hofstra rejected me. The University of Tennessee gave me two residency offers, but that would have told future employers that I couldn't succeed without a home-field advantage. I spoke with numerous students of different races who had scored lower than me but got better residencies. That's exactly what's supposed to happen under DEI. Spurned by American institutions, I did something I never thought I would do — I looked overseas. I was invited to present a research paper in Germany, winning an award in the process. I was also asked to present at the University of Osaka. I also submitted a research plan to Dr. Masashi Hamada at the University of Tokyo School of Medicine, who offered me a residency. I am now the first foreign trainee and researcher that school has ever had. In Japan, thanks to American DEI. I am grateful that a top-tier university finally accepted me. But it pains me that, while Japan wants me, America does not. The United Kingdom and Australia have also given me a license to practice medicine in their countries. They recognize merit in a way that the U.S. no longer does, to the detriment of our medical system and the 340 million Americans who rely on it. Will I return to the U.S. to continue my career? I certainly want to, but I am coming to love practicing medicine in a country where the focus is treating patients, not checking ideological or racial boxes. I would be more likely to return if President Trump and state leaders continue to get divisive racial ideology out of higher education — especially out of medical school. There's much more to be done when it comes to restoring a system based on merit. DEI has pushed me away. But if Trump keeps rolling it back, it will be much easier to come home someday. Saivikram Madireddy is a neurology trainee and researcher at the University of Tokyo in Japan.
CBC
14-04-2025
- Health
- CBC
Shut out of medical school, he blames controversial admissions test which experts say lacks evidence
Erik Soby thought he had a shot at getting into medical school last year. The Torontonian scored high on the standard Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) and had an impressive grade point average. But most medical schools in Canada now require another admissions test — called the Casper — and Soby believes that hurdle was his downfall. "That was the one aspect where I was below the average," he said. "So I ended up getting screened out." Medical schools are under a lot of pressure to sort through thousands of applications each year — people vying for a coveted spot and the chance to become a physician. To help narrow down candidates, many medical schools use the Casper, which stands for Computer-Based Assessment for Sampling Personal Characteristics. The company behind the test, Acuity Insights, claims the Casper helps schools predict which students will have career success by assessing "soft skills" — from empathy and ethics to judgment and communication. The test poses video and typed scenario-based questions that ask the applicant to weigh in on a moral dilemma. The questions change every year, but Soby gives an example of what one might look like. "They'd say, 'This company that we're looking to invest in has a reputation of [not believing in] climate change,'" he said. "You're supposed to weigh both sides of the scenario." But Soby says the test is shrouded in mystery — test takers are never given their actual score, never learn where they might need improvement, and have no idea who is rating the test that can have such an impact on their future. On top of that, critics say Acuity Insight's research backing up its claims is poor and unconvincing. "There is no evidence that Casper predicts future performance," said Jennifer Cleland, an internationally renowned researcher in the area of selection to medical school, and professor of medical education research at Singapore's Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine. WATCH | Controversial Casper: "They are selling this tool — and presumably making money from it — and people are using it thinking that it's doing what it says it does." Twelve of Canada's 17 medical schools rely on the Casper test as part of the initial admissions process, many putting a lot of weight on an applicant's score — up to 30 per cent in some cases. Acuity Insights declined a request to be interviewed. A spokesperson wrote that a "wide range of evidence points to the effectiveness of Casper in assessing applicants' non-academic skills" and that medical schools that use Casper in their admissions processes "can identify applicants who will excel not just academically, but also as compassionate and effective physicians." Use of Casper spreading The test was developed by McMaster University's Faculty of Health Sciences and became part of its medical school admissions process in 2010. A few years later it was licensed to a private company — now Toronto-based Acuity Insights — and has received nearly $2.5 million in government funding since 2018 through grants from the National Research Council Canada. Although Casper was originally designed to screen medical school applicants, the company has successfully marketed it to other programs across Canada — from nursing, dentistry and physical therapy to undergraduate programs such as the University of Alberta's bachelor of education program and the University of Western Ontario's engineering school. One of the most common criticisms is the test's lack of transparency. People who write the Casper are never told a score — the company only sends that information to the schools. Instead, test takers are told which of four tiers they fall into, from highest to lowest — relative to other people taking the test at the same time. Acuity says this makes "feedback more accessible." "I think we deserve to know [the exact percentile], considering how much weight it carries going into admissions," said Soby. Go Public has heard from over two dozen medical school applicants who also have concerns. "The process is unnecessarily opaque," wrote one, who said he'd taken the test five times before finally getting accepted to a medical school. "I have endless concerns about the test," wrote another, who said he'd written Casper three times. A student who said he'd taken the test four times wrote that it should "be abolished." The company charges applicants $50 to write the test, and another $18 to submit to each medical school. Applicants also question the training of people who rate the Casper exams. A recent online job posting by Acuity promised raters could earn $30 to $50 an hour. The ad did not list any academic or professional requirements, noting that "applicants from all walks of life" were welcome and raters would get paid 65 cents for every written answer they assess and $1 for every video response. Acuity told Go Public it monitors how quickly raters are scoring responses "to ensure they are spending an appropriate amount of time reviewing the context of each response." The company also said its raters "have differing levels of qualification" which ensures "they represent the patient population students will serve when they become physicians." 'No evidence' But perhaps the biggest concern is criticism from respected academics who say there is no compelling evidence the test does what it claims. After Go Public asked about those claims, Acuity sent a lengthy document, which included a list of eight studies, in support of the Casper. Go Public shared those studies with Cleland — and three other established researchers with experience in medical school admissions, who declined to be identified as they fear professional repercussions. All called the research weak and insufficient to back the company's claims. "I was actually very surprised at how poor the research was," said Cleland. "They were not terribly high-quality studies. They weren't very good." Cleland and the others pointed out that one of the studies doesn't examine the actual Casper test, but a test that's similar. They said another is an overview of existing research and does not provide any new data. Two were conference papers — so did not undergo the rigour of a journal peer-review process — and several did not address long-term outcomes. "It disappoints me that something is so lacking in scholarship, lacking in rigour, robustness and credibility," said Cleland. The researchers also said that several studies are potentially "conflicted" because they were authored by co-founders of the company that is now Acuity or researchers that work for them. Acuity says "industry-funded research" is common practice and that all research involving the company undergoes "full disclosure regarding funding and affiliations." The researchers we spoke to were also concerned that most of the studies were small enough to be scientifically questionable, and hadn't been replicated. Cleland pointed to one study that looked at 31 medical residents and concluded that Casper could predict which ones would have fewer professional issues. "How can you say that with such tiny, tiny numbers?" asked Cleland. "The claim is groundless." Some of the research Acuity Insights sent showed that medical school applicants with higher Casper scores were more likely to be invited for an interview and do well in that interview, and other studies found that Casper can predict who will do well on some assessments in medical school. But Cleland says there was no clear pattern established. "So it predicted performance in one clinical exam, but not the equivalent exam the next year," she said. "You would expect that if something was predicting what it was meant to predict… it would be kind of consistent." There are few studies that track student performance over time, but Go Public examined two longitudinal studies that Acuity did not reference. One examined whether Casper scores and other admissions criteria could predict which medical students might run into professional problems. "Our research did not reveal a significant relationship between Casper performance and the need for professionalism remediation in medical school," said Lawrence Grierson, senior author of that study and an associate professor with the department of family medicine at McMaster University. The other study Grierson worked on also found the Casper test could not predict who would do well on the exam for obtaining a medical licence. "We did not find an association," said Grierson. "It is hard to know why an association appears in some studies and not others. But, taken together, what this means is any declarations of the test's universal effectiveness (at least with respect to predicting future professional behaviour) are overstated." Acuity Insights also sent Go Public its "technical manual," a 148-page document which it says "provides a robust and comprehensive guide on the validity and reliability of the Casper test." The researchers we spoke with point to the fact that the technical manual is not a peer-reviewed study, but a document used — in part — for commercial purposes. The company later sent more research, but some studies were duplicates they'd already sent, several were research papers — not peer-reviewed studies — and one was a student's doctoral thesis. Acuity also points to research that suggests the Casper test can increase student diversity because test results show less racial bias than academic assessments like the MCAT and GPA scores. Soby wrote the Casper test again last August and is waiting to hear whether he'll get into medical school for the fall. Meantime, he's posted a TikTok about his Casper concerns, calling out the fact that applicants don't get their exact score and that raters might rush through responses to increase their hourly wage. He says he wants medical schools to know how the Casper test is affecting people who hope to become doctors. "It's important that those schools see the criticisms," said Soby. "And it's also important that the public sees what's going on."
