| Literature DB >> 24178991 |
J C Edwards1, E K Johnson, J B Molidor.
Abstract
Admission to medical school is the goal of many students in many countries. The admission process varies from country to country. In some countries, students compete in an open market to gain a position in medical school. In other countries, "intake" is a more routine, planned beaureaucratic process. Where competition reigns, the interview is an important part of the selection process. The interview has been defined by Bingham and Moore [1] as:A serious conversation directed to a definite purpose other than satisfaction in the conversation itself ... We must recognize that not only spoken words, but other means of face-to-face communication also are used. Inflection, qualities of voice, facial expression, glint of the eye, posture, gestures, and general behavior supplement what is said. They all contribute to the purposeful exchange of meanings which is the interview.Faculty members in medical schools interview patients all the time. This type of interview, however, is different from the admission interview conducted for applicants to medical school. Patient interviews are highly patterned and structured to obtain specific information. Interviews of applicants, on the other hand, usually are more open-ended. The psychology of the two types of interviews differ also. Applicants to medical school, if accepted, will in time become colleagues with their interviewers and will have increasing levels of responsibility and respect. Patients, however, will always be dependent upon the physicians who treat them.In this article, we present basic facts, conclusions, and recommendations from a review of literature about the interview [2]. Results of a survey of admission interviews at Canadian and United Kingdom medical schools are presented for the first time, and comparisons with United States interview practices are drawn. Finally, descriptions of the selection process at several medical schools with problem based learning curricula are provided and comparisons are noted.Entities:
Year: 1996 PMID: 24178991 DOI: 10.1007/BF00596226
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract ISSN: 1382-4996 Impact factor: 3.853