DOES MAJOR MATTER? AN EXAMINATION OF UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR AND MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMISSION
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The official stance of the Association America of Medical Colleges (AAMC) regarding the undergraduate major of applicants for admission to medical school is that there are no required or preferred majors. While the AAMC is the body that governs admission to allopathic medical schools in the United States, this statement does not provide clarity to prospective medical school applicants as to what undergraduate major to select; it only encourages students from a variety of educational backgrounds to apply. Furthermore, a broad statement about undergraduate major flexibility does not indicate how choice of major will eventually impact admission to medical school. While the AAMC encourages applicants to choose any undergraduate major they wish, there is minimal peer-reviewed research or empirical evidence of the relationship between applicants' undergraduate major and their likelihood of admission to medical school. \nThrough the lens of the student-choice construct, this dissertation sought to determine if applicants' undergraduate major is a statistically significant predictor of successful admission to medical school. This model accommodates decisions such as the intent to pursue post-secondary education, which institution to attend, what major to choose, and whether to persist to degree completion. The student-choice construct also contends that these decisions are influenced by the amount of human, financial, social, and cultural capital available to the student throughout the decision-making process. \nTo study how choice of major impacts admission to medical school, I conducted a quantitative study using a hierarchical binary logistic regression. Secondary data were collected using the formal data request procedure outlined by the AAMC. Application-level data were received from the AAMC, and personally identifiable information including applicants’ names, identification numbers, and addresses were removed by the AAMC before the data were delivered. Additionally, given that the study involves the analysis of de-identified extant data, this study received exemption from the Institutional Review Board at Temple University. The dataset included 53,371 applicants to allopathic medical school for the 2019 application cycle. These applicants attended undergraduate institutions primarily located in the United States and Canada. \nThe study revealed that undergraduate major does not serve as a statistically significant predictor of admission to medical school over and above applicants' demographic characteristics, MCAT scores, and undergraduate grade point average. Applicants who chose a Biology, Chemistry, Physics, or Mathematics (BCPM) major did not have a greater chance of being admitted to medical school than an applicant who chose a non-BCPM major. These findings are consistent with previous studies that sought to predict variables that contribute to medical school admission. \nFuture research should investigate the predictive ability of admissions variables such as applicant characteristics captured from medical school interviews; letters of recommendation; personal statements and community service, leadership, and healthcare experiences. A combined or comparative study similarly analyzing applicants to different health profession programs might also be useful. In addition, a non-binary categorization of specific undergraduate majors would provide an even more nuanced analysis of how different majors predict admission to medical school.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,085 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle