Abstract
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Section 7 of the Health Professions Education Amendments of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-215, Dec. 19, 1977.
2.
To the author's knowledge, the results of this study were not published.
3.
A letter was sent to the dean or nursing director of each school of medicine, nursing, and osteopathy by
Whiteside D.D.S
Daniel F.
Director of Bureau of Health Manpower, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Health Resources Administration, Hyattsville, Maryland, dated March 28, 1978. The letter is reproduced in the Verbatim section of this edition of Issues in Law & Medicine [hereinafter Letter].
4.
A notice was published in the Federal Register inviting both successful and unsuccessful applicants (including graduates) to send comments describing their experiences in the admissions process regarding the subject of abortion/sterilization and opinions as to their probable impact on selection.
5.
See Letter, supra note 3.
6.
This information is derived from documents provided to the authors and retained in their personal files.
7.
Id.
8.
Letter, supra note 3.
9.
This is the customary procedure with respect to all medical schools in the United States.
10.
This is by and large the method employed by all U.S. medical schools.
11.
This is true because, when the admissions committee member presented the application, he could summarize and emphasize certain parts of the information available on the application in ways he thought appropriate. This summary could be challenged, but committee dynamics what they are, it was an important factor, challenged or unchallenged, in evaluating applicants.
12.
Some medical schools have an acceptance/nonacceptance vote and leave it to the dean of admissions to decide on who is offered acceptance. At the school being described in this article, the committee voted a “rank/order” list. Students were then accepted in this rank/order.
13.
The reports of the admissions committee members and faculty interviewers were provided to the authors and are quoted below. Also provided were informal notes of admissions committee discussions, and these are quoted to indicate discussions by the committee. These notes were reportedly prepared shortly after the committee meetings ended. For purposes of readability, the quotations below have been edited, but the meaning has been preserved.
14.
These quotations are from admissions committee or faculty members’ interview reports, as provided to the authors.
15.
Id.
16.
These quotations are from the notes of admissions committee discussions, as provided to the authors.
17.Supra note 14.
18.Supra note 16.
19.Supra note 14.
20.
These quotations are from notes made after the conversations with the students summarizing their remarks, as provided to the authors.
21.Supra note 14.
22.Supra note 16.
23.Supra note 14.
24.Supra note 16.
25.Supra note 14.
26.
Id.
27.Supra note 16.