THREAD
Many thanks to the > 10,000 people who voted in this poll. 777 voters thought Applicant 1 was "most qualified"; the balance voted for Applicant 2. I wanted to stimulate debate; the comments didn't disappoint. https://twitter.com/DrQuinnCapers4/status/1293224283095916546

Some pointed out that the way we rate "commumnications" might disadvantage neurodiverse applicants. We grade it based on the ability of the interviewee to explain concepts, like their research project or something that they have recently read. Was the explanation clear?

Many said "take both of them!" This is heartwarming, but we receive 8,000 applications and our auditorium is not that big. In other words, we have to make some decisions, and this poll is modeled after training we do with our admissions committee.

Some wondered how we could assess poise during an emergency or communications. Communications is simple: from what they write in their essay and their conversation with us during the interview. Pre-pandemic, some schools were experimenting with group activities with

interviewees in the clinical skills lab or with group interviews or with MMI scenarios to grade "calm during an emergency." We don't do this at OSU, but it can be done. Obviously, whatever you are assessing, it is critical to assess every candidate the same way.

Some voted for app 1 because "you can teach poise and communication skills, but 'smart' is valuable." Others stated that communication skills are innate, as is equanimity under duress, & hi marks in those areas with an above avg (not stellar) score on a test of Bio, Chem, Physics

makes app 2 a better candidate. The impetus for the poll is the philosophy of many who oppose affirmative action when they say "The ONLY thing that should matter for med school (law school, dental school, college, etc.) admissions is MERIT!" I have heard this many times. It is

amazing how much unity there is among those who oppose affirmative action in what they mean by "merit." When I ask "Gee ... what do you mean by 'merit?'" the answer, after a bit of circular talking, always comes down to scores on standardized tests. My counter-argument:

doctors do many things: inform families that their loved ones just died; convince people to do things they don't want to do (quit smoking); allay fears; keep cool during emergencies; hold a dying pt's hand; etc., that are not assayed by the ACT, MCAT, or USMLE. I do believe

these tests are important; they tell me that a candidate has the ability to think critically, learn new info, and problem solve in the moment (on a written test). But, above a certain cut-off level of competence, what does it tell me if someone answered 99% of questions

correctly vs 80% of questions correctly? It tells me that they studied more or they had access to better prep or that they are outstanding test-takers. It is one item that is important. One. ONE. But not everything. I will take the 79th percentile scorer who can explain

complex concepts to a pt and their family and who keeps their head when an artery is nicked and the pt's abdomen begins to fill up with blood over the 95th percentile candidate who is weak in those areas anyday. Most of you appear to agree, but a good number do not.

I hope this can stimulate some debate (calm, emotionally-intelligent, please) about selecting future Drs based on Holistic review vs metrics only, which seems to be the preferred strategy of those who oppose affirmative action.

Thanks for reading!