High school versus graduate entry in a Saudi medical school - is there any difference in academic performance and professionalism lapses?

Study Habits of Highly Effective Medical Students

BACKGROUND

Study habits have been the most significant indicator of academic performance and play a unique role in students' academic accomplishment. The study is aiming to determine the most common study habits of highly successful medical students and their relation to academic achievement.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted from September to December 2019 among medical students of both gender from six medical colleges in Saudi Arabia. The students answered the standardized questionnaires to study the different learning habits among medical students, including learning prioritization, knowledge retention strategies, motivation, daily hours of studying, study learning resources.

RESULTS

Six hundred and seventy-five medical students enrolled themselves electively into the study. The results showed a significant correlation between study habits and students' academic accomplishments. The top ten study habits of highly effective medical students are managing their time effectively, they get rid of interruptions (phone, family, friends) that disrupt their daily work, they use goal-setting to determine their most important activities, their daily study hours is ranging between 3 and 4 hours, they study alone for knowledge retention of medical information, learn from multiple sources and invest in technology with high efficiency, they contribute to the teaching of their peers, they study the main lecture slides with notes when no exam is coming, and they study lecture slides with notes and previous exam questions when preparing for upcoming exams; finally, they maintained motivation for self-gratification and fulfillment of their family dreams.

CONCLUSION

This study's outcomes consolidate general study practices that can be credited to learning achievement and expand recognition to inspire less accomplished students by investigating and exploring factors that have enhanced and worked for many accomplished students.

Relative progress and academic performance of graduate vs undergraduate entrants to an Australian medical school

BACKGROUND

Whether graduate entrants to medical school perform better academically than undergraduate entrants remains controversial. Differences in the discipline backgrounds of graduates may, at least in part, have accounted for differences in the results of comparative studies reported to date. This study aimed to address the dual issues of whether academic performance and progression rates were different between GE and UG students and the extent to which the discipline background of GE students may underpin any differences observed.

METHODS

Relative academic performance as well as indicators of student progression (supplementary examinations, repeat years, leave of absence, withdrawal from the programme) were compared between graduate entrants (GE) (N = 410) and both school leaver entrants (SLE) (N = 865) and non-standard entrants (some prior tertiary education) (NSE) (N = 148) who combined for the final 4 yr. of a 6 yr. MBBS undergraduate programme in 8 consecutive cohorts from 2006 to 2013 in Western Australia.

RESULTS

Examination scores were generally at or very close to a distinction grade or higher across all groups. Higher mean examination scores were seen for GE versus both SLE and NSE in the first 2 years with no significant differences in the final 2 years. GE from biological science / science backgrounds (N = 241) or physical science backgrounds (N = 26) performed the same as SLE and NSE throughout the programme. GE with a health / allied health background (N = 91), however, performed better throughout. They also performed better when compared to their GE counterparts from a humanities (N = 32) or a biological science / science background. GE had increased odds of withdrawing when compared to SLE (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.30, 4.79, P = 0.006), but not compared to NSE. NSE had increased odds of repeating at least one level when compared to either GE (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.21, 6.21, P = 0.016) or SLE (OR 4.10, 95% CI 1.93, 8.70, P < 0.001). There were no differences by entry category in the odds of sitting at least one supplementary examination during the programme. There was an increase in the odds of taking at least one leave of absence in both SLE (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.79, 3.63, P < 0.001) and NSE (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.50, 4.07, P < 0.001) compared to GE.

CONCLUSIONS

Better academic performance by GE compared to SLE and NSE was predominantly due to higher scores for GE with a health / allied health background. GE were also less likely to have impeded progress during the course.