Clinical Year Veterinary Students’ Expectations of New Graduate Independence Exceed Their Self-Perceived Competence and Expectations of Community Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veterinary medicine is unique in that graduating veterinarians can be licensed to practice independently at the time of graduation. A veterinary curriculum needs to not only prepare graduate veterinarians to meet the expectations of their professional community but also ensure those veterinarians have an accurate perception of expected job requirements. This paper evaluates and compares veterinary students' perceived expectations of graduate-level independence with their self-perceived competence over their clinical (fourth) year. Additionally, we compare these findings to practitioner expectations of graduate-level independence. A survey assessing nine technical and three non-technical categories was distributed to clinical year students at the beginning and end of their clinical year at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine (UW-SVM). These results were compared to previously obtained survey data from community practitioner members of the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association (WVMA). Results indicate an improvement in student self-perceived competence in technical tasks over the clinical year, with the final measures of self-perceived competence aligning with community practitioner expectations of graduate-level independence. However, our results demonstrate a significant difference between student expectations of graduate-level independence, their self-perceived competence, and the community practitioner expectations of graduate independence. These results indicate that veterinary students have unrealistic expectations of their expected independence at graduation and that their self-perceived competence cannot meet these perceived expectations of independence. This misalignment and perceived self-deficit could perpetuate stress and burnout. Further investigation into the cause of this misalignment may help inform educational interventions that encourage students to set realistic expectations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".