Explore the vast range of titles available.

Uneducated Guesses challenges everything our policymakers thought they knew about education and education reform, from how to close the achievement gap in public schools to admission standards for top universities. In this explosive book, Howard Wainer uses statistical evidence to show why some of the most widely held beliefs in education today--and the policies that have resulted--are wrong. He shows why colleges that make the SAT optional for applicants end up with underperforming students and inflated national rankings, and why the push to substitute achievement tests for aptitude tests makes no sense. Wainer challenges the thinking behind the enormous rise of advanced placement courses in high schools, and demonstrates why assessing teachers based on how well their students perform on tests--a central pillar of recent education reforms--is woefully misguided. He explains why college rankings are often lacking in hard evidence, why essay questions on tests disadvantage women, why the most grievous errors in education testing are not made by testing organizations--and much more.

Little research exists on the relationship between pre-examination resources, race, and standardized test outcomes. This study aimed to determine the effect of test preparation resources and race on test scores. We surveyed medical students at an allopathic institution on the use of test preparation materials and their test scores. Students were grouped by self-identified race. Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) students were defined as Black/African American (AA), Hispanic/Latino (HL), Native American (NA) and multiple races. Univariate analysis and linear regression were used for statistical analysis. 192 students completed the survey (response rate = 33%). URiM students reported more MCAT attempts than other students. No differences between scores existed between races. There was no association between scores and the use of test preparation resources. We found that URiM students took the MCAT more times than their peers; however, we found no racial/ethnic differences in examination preparation resources or scores.

The verbal section of the GRE is essentially a vocabulary test. With a few exceptions, if you know the word, you will probably be able to answer the question correctly. Thus, it is crucial that you improve your vocabulary. Even if you have a strong vocabulary, you will still encounter unfamiliar words on the GRE. Many students write off questions, which contain words, they don't recognize. This is a mistake. This book introduces numerous techniques that decode unfamiliar words and prod your memory of words you only half-remember. With these techniques, you will often be able to squeeze out enough meaning from an unfamiliar word to answer a question correctly. All the words you need for success on the GRE!.

Every year, students pay 1,000 and more to test prep companies to prepare for the GRE. Now, you can get the same preparation in a book. GRE Prep Course provides the equivalent of a 2-month, 50-hour course. Although the GRE is a difficult test, it is a very learnable test. GRE Prep Course presents a thorough analysis of the GRE and introduces numerous analytic techniques that will help you immensely, not only on the GRE but in graduate school as well. Features: * Math: Twenty-two chapters provide comprehensive review of GRE math. * Verbal: Develop the ability to spot places from which questions are likely to be drawn as you read a passage (pivotal words, counter-premises, etc.). Also, learn the 4000 essential GRE words. * Mentor Exercises: These exercises provide hints, insight, and partial solutions to ease your transition from seeing GRE problems solved to solving them on your own. * If your target is a top score, this is the book!.

In the last 30 years, except for female participation, the enrollment of Latinx, African Americans, Native Americans, Alaskan natives, and disadvantaged students in medical school has been constant; however, increasing enrollment of these minority populations is feasible, if admissions committees make two changes in approach. First, the traditional belief that matriculation merit is a linear function of past academic performance must be rejected. Second, once the threshold needed to complete medical school in four years and to pass licensing examinations at the first attempt has been met, all candidates are equally qualified, and matriculation decisions must be based, in part, on societal interests. In Grutter vs. Bollinger, the United States Supreme Court determined that graduate admission committees can and should consider societal interests. Each admission decision represents a substantial government investment in each student, as the Medicare Act directly subsidizes much of the cost of medical education. As Grutter explained, there is a societal interest in the public having confidence in, and access to, the medical school training that will prepare tomorrow’s medical, professional, and political leaders. Our analysis suggests that medical school admissions are biased towards academic achievement in matriculants, beyond acceptable thresholds for graduation and licensure. We believe medical schools must shift their admissions strategies and consider noncognitive factors in all candidates as determinative once minimum acceptable academic standards have been met.

Background The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States Level 1 (COMLEX 1) is important for medical students to be able to graduate. There is a glaring need to identify students who are at a significant risk of performing poorly on COMLEX 1 as early as possible so that extra assistance can be provided to those students. Our goal is to produce a reliable predictive model to identify students who are at risk of scoring lower than 500 on COMLEX 1 at the earliest possible time. Methods Academic data from medical students who matriculated at Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine between 2011 and 2017 were obtained. Odds ratios were used to assess the predictors for scoring lower than 500 on COMLEX 1. Correlation with COMLEX 1 scores was assessed with Pearson correlation coefficient. The predictive models were developed by multiple logistic regression, backward logistic regression, and logistic regression with average scores in courses in the first three semesters, and were based on performances on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) before admission, as well as students’ performances in preclinical courses during the first three semesters. The models were generated in about 82% of the student performance data and were then validated in the remaining 18% of the data. Results Odds ratios showed that MCAT scores and final grades in each course in the first three semesters were significant in predicting a score lower than 500 on COMLEX 1. Performances in third-semester courses including Renal System II, Cardiovascular System II, and Respiratory System II were most important in prediction. The three predictive models had sensitivities of 65.8 -71%, and specificities of 83.2 - 88.2% in predicting a score lower than 500 on COMLEX 1. Conclusions Lower MCAT scores and lower grades in the first three semesters of medical school predict scoring lower than 500 on COMLEX 1. Students who are identified at risk by our models will have a 65.8 -71% chance of actually scoring lower than 500 on COMLEX 1. Those students will have enough time to receive assistance before taking COMLEX 1.

The modifications to the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) to be introduced in 2015 represent a significant change to a test which has hitherto seemed to successfully help medical school admissions committees identify students with the requisite ability to succeed in medical school. This commentary takes the decision to remove the MCAT Writing Sample as a stimulus to reconsider the value which a writing test can bring to admissions testing, and to examine some of the validity evidence and key considerations for using a writing task for such purposes. The authors argue that a writing task provides important information about applicants' cognitive abilities that cannot be obtained using traditional selected-response items, and that this outweighs the conventional concern of testing to strive for maximum reliability at all costs. [Author abstract]

More than 8 million students enrolled in 4-year, degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the United States in 1996. The multifaceted system through which these students applied to and were selected by the approximately 2,240 institutions in which they enrolled is complex, to say the least; for students, parents, and advisers, it is often stressful and sometimes bewildering. This process raises important questions about the social goals that underlie the sorting of students, and it has been the subject of considerable controversy. The role of standardized tests in this sorting process has been one of the principal flashpoints in discussions of its fairness. Tests have been cited as the chief evidence of unfairness in lawsuits over admissions decisions, criticized as biased against minorities and women, and blamed for the fierce competitiveness of the process. Yet tests have also been praised for their value in providing a common yardstick for comparing students from diverse schools with different grading standards. Myths and Tradeoffs identifies and corrects some persistent myths about standardized admissions tests and highlight some of the specific tradeoffs that decisions about the uses of tests entail; presents conclusions and recommendations about the role of tests in college admissions; and lays out several issues about which information would clearly help decision makers, but about which the existing data are either insufficient or need synthesis and interpretation. This report will benefit a broad audience of college and university officials, state and other officials and lawmakers, and others who are wrestling with decisions about admissions policies, definitions of merit, legal actions, and other issues.

The Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) is a quantitative metric used by MD and MD–PhD programs to evaluate applicants for admission. This study assessed the validity of the MCAT in predicting training performance measures and career outcomes for MD–PhD students at a single institution. The study population consisted of 153 graduates of the Vanderbilt Medical Scientist Training Program (combined MD–PhD program) who matriculated between 1963 and 2003 and completed dual-degree training. This population was divided into three cohorts corresponding to the version of the MCAT taken at the time of application. Multivariable regression (logistic for binary outcomes and linear for continuous outcomes) was used to analyze factors associated with outcome measures. The MCAT score and undergraduate GPA (uGPA) were treated as independent variables; medical and graduate school grades, time-to-PhD defense, USMLE scores, publication number, and career outcome were dependent variables. For cohort 1 (1963–1977), MCAT score was not associated with any assessed outcome, although uGPA was associated with medical school preclinical GPA and graduate school GPA (gsGPA). For cohort 2 (1978–1991), MCAT score was associated with USMLE Step II score and inversely correlated with publication number, and uGPA was associated with preclinical GPA (mspGPA) and clinical GPA (mscGPA). For cohort 3 (1992–2003), the MCAT score was associated with mscGPA, and uGPA was associated with gsGPA. Overall, MCAT score and uGPA were inconsistent or weak predictors of training metrics and career outcomes for this population of MD–PhD students.

Background The socioeconomic status of applicants to Canadian medical schools has been understudied in the past two decades. Institutional efforts have been made to address the lack of socioeconomic diversity across Canada during this time. We investigated the income characteristics of medical school applicants, as well as the relationship between applicant income and offer of admission, to characterize the current state of socioeconomic diversity in medical admissions. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study on 26,120 applicants at one Ontario medical school from 2013 to 2018. Characteristics of applicants who were offered admission were compared to the general population and applicants not offered admission. Regression analyses were used to investigate the association between median total neighborhood income and successful admission. Results The median total neighborhood income for medical school applicants was $98,816, which was approximately $28,480 higher than the Canadian general population. Those not admitted to the medical school had a median total neighborhood income of $98,304 compared to $105,984 for those offered admission ( p  < 0.001). This trend was seen in every province and territory in Canada. Median total neighborhood income was a predictor of an offer of admission; applicants in the >75th percentile income group had 54% increased odds of being offered admission when compared to applicants in the <25th percentile in our unadjusted model. Income was not significant in our adjusted models but showed that the income medians drastically shifted between pre-interview and post-interview periods, from $98,816 to $104,960 ( p  < 0.001). Conclusion Medical school applicants are from higher economic strata compared to the general population. Despite already representing a high economic stratum, a higher median total neighborhood income relative to other applicants was associated with an offer of admission.