MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898454648 · doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000243.1

The Direct Economic and Opportunity Costs of the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) for Canadian Medical Students

2018· article· en· W2898454648 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPublish · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsAssociation of Universities and Colleges of CanadaThe Wilson CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentFamily medicineMedical educationSocioeconomic statusTest (biology)Diversity (politics)MedicinePopulationPsychologyDemographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, Future of Medical Education in Canada report shared a collective vision to improve social accountability, including a review of admissions policies to enhance student diversity. This study explored if and how the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) might mediate the socioeconomic diversity of Canadian medical schools by quantifying the costs and other cost-related factors of preparing for the exam. Methods A 34-question anonymous and bilingual (English and French) online questionnaire was sent to the 2015 first-year cohort of Canadian medical students. Developed collaboratively, the survey content focused on MCAT preparation and completion activities, associated costs, and students' perceptions of MCAT costs. Findings The survey response rate was 32%. First-year medical students were more likely than the Canadian population to belong to high-income families (63% vs. 36%) and less likely to be from rural locations (4.5% vs. 19%). Use of MCAT preparation materials was reported by nearly every MCAT test-taker (95.3%): of those, 76.4% used free practice tests; 59.8% paid for practice tests; 45.1% registered for preparation courses; and 3.3% hired a private tutor. In terms of writing the MCAT, the total economic costs per respondent are estimated at $6,357 ($4,755-$7,958) and total direct costs per respondent are estimated at $2,970 ($1,882- $4,058). Opportunity costs represented the majority of economic costs, at $3,387 ($2,872 - $3,901), or 53.2%. MCAT preparation costs are estimated to be $2,372 ($1,373-$3,372), or 79.9% of total direct costs and 37.3% of economic costs. Most respondents agreed, 76%, that the MCAT posed a financial hardship. Conclusion The financial demands of preparing for and completing the MCAT quantified in this study highlight an admissions requirement that is likely contributing to the current student diversity challenges in Canadian medical schools. In the spirit of social accountability, perhaps it is time to prioritize equitable alternative for assessing applicants' academic readiness for medical school.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it