BACKGROUND: Medical student grades during emergency medicine (EM) rotations are a key factor in resident selection. The variability in grading among EM clerkships is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe the current grade distribution of fourth-year EM clerkships. METHODS: This was an observational study at an EM residency program. We identified grade distributions by reviewing the standard letter of evaluation from individuals applying to our residency program for the 2016 match. Descriptive statistics of proportions, standard deviations (SDs), and p-values were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,075 applications from 236 individual clerkships were reviewed. Thirty-four programs did not give an honors grade during the previous year. Four of these programs distributed a highest grade of "high pass" and 30 gave only "pass" and/or "fail." Of the remaining 202 programs, the percentage of grades that were given as honors ranged from 1% to 87% with a mean (±SD) of 25% (±17.2%). Of the 202 programs that granted honors grades, 63 (31.2%) sites gave between 1 and 14.9% honors grades, 69 (34.2%) gave 15% to 29.9% honors grades, 27 (13.4%) gave 30% to 44.9% honors grades, and 24 (11.9%) programs granted honors to greater than 45% of their students. Medical schools required an EM rotation at 82 (40.6%) sites. Among these programs, honors grades were given to 24% (±16.7%) of students with a range of 4% to 85% while programs that did not require clerkships gave a mean (±SD) of 26% (±17.5%) with a range of 1% to 87% and a p-value of 0.54. CONCLUSIONS: Honor grade distribution varies markedly across U.S. fourth-year EM clerkship sites. Requiring EM clerkships does not affect honor percentages. A minority of sites only give pass/fail grades. Program directors should consider this marked variation in grades when reviewing EM residency applications.
BACKGROUND: Medical student grades during emergency medicine (EM) rotations are a key factor in resident selection. The variability in grading among EM clerkships is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to describe the current grade distribution of fourth-year EM clerkships. METHODS: This was an observational study at an EM residency program. We identified grade distributions by reviewing the standard letter of evaluation from individuals applying to our residency program for the 2016 match. Descriptive statistics of proportions, standard deviations (SDs), and p-values were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1,075 applications from 236 individual clerkships were reviewed. Thirty-four programs did not give an honors grade during the previous year. Four of these programs distributed a highest grade of "high pass" and 30 gave only "pass" and/or "fail." Of the remaining 202 programs, the percentage of grades that were given as honors ranged from 1% to 87% with a mean (±SD) of 25% (±17.2%). Of the 202 programs that granted honors grades, 63 (31.2%) sites gave between 1 and 14.9% honors grades, 69 (34.2%) gave 15% to 29.9% honors grades, 27 (13.4%) gave 30% to 44.9% honors grades, and 24 (11.9%) programs granted honors to greater than 45% of their students. Medical schools required an EM rotation at 82 (40.6%) sites. Among these programs, honors grades were given to 24% (±16.7%) of students with a range of 4% to 85% while programs that did not require clerkships gave a mean (±SD) of 26% (±17.5%) with a range of 1% to 87% and a p-value of 0.54. CONCLUSIONS: Honor grade distribution varies markedly across U.S. fourth-year EM clerkship sites. Requiring EM clerkships does not affect honor percentages. A minority of sites only give pass/fail grades. Program directors should consider this marked variation in grades when reviewing EM residency applications.
Authors: S M Keim; J A Rein; C Chisholm; P L Dyne; G W Hendey; N J Jouriles; R W King; W Schrading; J Salomone; G Swart; J M Wightman Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Margaret A Plymale; Judith French; Michael B Donnelly; Joseph Iocono; Andrew R Pulito Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Christopher S Weaver; Aloysius J Humbert; Bart R Besinger; James A Graber; Edward J Brizendine Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2007-01-22 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Michael S Beeson; Wallace A Carter; Theodore A Christopher; Jonathan W Heidt; James H Jones; Lynne E Meyer; Susan B Promes; Kevin G Rodgers; Philip H Shayne; Susan R Swing; Mary Jo Wagner Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Jeffrey N Love; Jessica Smith; Moshe Weizberg; Christopher I Doty; Greg Garra; Jennifer Avegno; John M Howell Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Paul Kukulski; James Ahn; Christine Babcock; Navneet Cheema; Galeta C Clayton; Adriana S Olson; Nathan Olson; Karis L Tekwani; Keme Carter Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-02-19