OBJECTIVE: To determine the preferences of program directors for various grading systems and other criteria in selecting students for residency training positions through the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS). DESIGN: Questionnaire survey. PARTICIPANTS: All 110 directors of residency training programs in Ontario. SETTING: Ontario medical schools. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weighting of importance of different screening tools (e.g., grading systems, personal interview, dean's letter) used during undergraduate training. RESULTS: Of the 110 directors 96 (87%) responded. Of the 92 who rated the various grading practices 35 (38%) preferred a numeric grading system, 26 (28%) a letter grading system, 23 (25%) an honours/pass/fail system and 8 (9%) a pass/fail system. Most of the respondents from each school favoured a grading system that was more discriminating than the one used at their location. The personal interview was regarded as the most important screening tool by 80 (83%) of the respondents; the dean's letter was considered to be very useful by only 16 (17%). CONCLUSIONS: More value was placed by program directors on a numeric or other more discriminating grading system than on the pass/fail system. Although the grading system provides only one type of screening mechanism it raises the question of whether there should be a policy for uniform grading practices for all Canadian students.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the preferences of program directors for various grading systems and other criteria in selecting students for residency training positions through the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS). DESIGN: Questionnaire survey. PARTICIPANTS: All 110 directors of residency training programs in Ontario. SETTING: Ontario medical schools. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weighting of importance of different screening tools (e.g., grading systems, personal interview, dean's letter) used during undergraduate training. RESULTS: Of the 110 directors 96 (87%) responded. Of the 92 who rated the various grading practices 35 (38%) preferred a numeric grading system, 26 (28%) a letter grading system, 23 (25%) an honours/pass/fail system and 8 (9%) a pass/fail system. Most of the respondents from each school favoured a grading system that was more discriminating than the one used at their location. The personal interview was regarded as the most important screening tool by 80 (83%) of the respondents; the dean's letter was considered to be very useful by only 16 (17%). CONCLUSIONS: More value was placed by program directors on a numeric or other more discriminating grading system than on the pass/fail system. Although the grading system provides only one type of screening mechanism it raises the question of whether there should be a policy for uniform grading practices for all Canadian students.
Authors: Stephen J Lurie; David R Lambert; Anne C Nofziger; Ronald M Epstein; Tana A Grady-Weliky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.128