"What Do They Want Me To Say?" The hidden curriculum at work in the medical school selection process: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been little study of the role of the essay question in selection for medical school. The purpose of this study was to obtain a better understanding of how applicants approached the essay questions used in selection at our medical school in 2007. METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative analysis of 210 essays written as part of the medical school admissions process, and developed a conceptual framework to describe the relationships, ideas and concepts observed in the data. RESULTS: Findings of this analysis were confirmed in interviews with applicants and assessors. Analysis revealed a tension between "genuine" and "expected" responses that we believe applicants experience when choosing how to answer questions in the admissions process. A theory named "What do they want me to say?" was developed to describe the ways in which applicants modulate their responses to conform to their expectations of the selection process; the elements of this theory were confirmed in interviews with applicants and assessors. CONCLUSIONS: This work suggests the existence of a "hidden curriculum of admissions" and demonstrates that the process of selection has a strong influence on applicant response. This paper suggests ways that selection might be modified to address this effect. Studies such as this can help us to appreciate the unintended consequences of admissions processes and can identify ways to make the selection process more consistent, transparent and fair.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".