Student Selection: A lottery in Leeds
1
Physiotherapy January 2003/vol 89/no 1 70 References Brown, C (2002). ‘Research and undergraduate students’, Occupational Therapy News, 10, 11, 9. Department of Health (2001a). Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, DoH, London. Department of Health (2001b). Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees, DoH, London. Long, A F (2002). 'Critically appraising research studies' in: McSherry, R, Simmons, M and Abbott, P (eds) Evidence-informed Nursing: A guide for clinical nurses, Routledge, London. Rosenberg, W and Donald, A (1995). 'Evidence-based medicine: An approach to clinical problem- solving', British Medical Journal, 310, 1122-26. Wiles, R (2002). ‘Research governance’, Physiotherapy, 88, 11, 642-644. CATHERINE POPE’S assumption that we select our students at Leeds Metropolitan University by a ‘lottery’ is strongly refuted. ‘Lottery’ to the team here is a loaded term of chance, which does not do justice to the well-reasoned process that was developed and continues to evolve among the course team here. Our initial selection of potential students is related to both academic and personal criteria. The latter were formulated after lengthy consultation with course team members and course committee members comprising academic staff, clinical representatives and physiotherapy managers. The random selection policy, which was eventually implemented, was agreed by senior university staff with expertise in statistics and admissions issues. Catherine Pope’s point about the sole purpose being to reduce the workload of the academic staff is important. Prioritising work of teaching staff is an on-going and much debated issue. Interviewing several hundred students a year to assess oral and interpersonal skills is unproven and time wasting. The staff would rather concentrate on crucial issues such as improving the existing students’ experience through our teaching methods. We feel it is more important to be doing relevant research, encouraging critical thinking and engendering a commitment and interest in physiotherapy in the students. We do not exist in an academic ivory tower. The acedemic staff here had at least seven years’ clinical experience before they moved into education. A large proportion of our time is spent visiting students on placement, making links with local clinical educators and keeping abreast of clinical developments. It is not clear from Catherine Pope’s letter how she would assess verbal skills fairly and equitably at interview. Following a thorough literature review, we could not find any supporting evidence for this. We are clear, though, that the team does not wish to spend Mark Lewis and Susan Smith reply: HAVING read Lewis and Smith’s paper (November, 2002), I am left with the impression that selecting physiotherapy students is reduced to a lottery based on previous academic achievement, for the sole purpose of reducing the workload of the academic staff. While I can sympathise with their desire to widen access to physiotherapy and remove potential bias from their selection process, it seems that their project has failed in both these aims. The cohorts of students recruited since the changes described are, by the authors’ own admission, virtually identical to earlier ones in terms of composition. Any bias in the process, rather than being removed, has merely shifted from those who perform well at interview, to those who complete application forms better. So verbal communication skills lose out to written ones, or worse still, to those with better advice on completing applications, which is hardly widening access. Clearly, if the main success criterion of the selection process is low attrition rates during the course, then academic achievement may well be a reliable indicator, and there may be no further insight gained on this point by an interview. That is all this study can claim to show. Whatever happened to the idea that courses should be selecting and producing people who will make good physiotherapists? It may upset some of those in academia to know that physiotherapy is not purely science-based. The ‘art’ of physiotherapy requires practitioners highly skilled in interpersonal and communication skills, able to empathise with and motivate people from all backgrounds. The day we lose these skills is the day we stop treating patients as people, but think of them as conditions. If the authors felt that their interview process failed to recognise the applicants who possessed these skills, then perhaps they needed to review rather than remove it? A far better indicator of a successful selection process would be to measure the satisfaction of employers, patients and the ex-students themselves once they left the university, and are actually working as physiotherapists (or not), although of course these data are not available. Catherine Pope MA MCSP Nottingham Reference Lewis, M and Smith, S (2002). ‘Selection of pre-registration physiotherapy students: Changing to a more objective process’, Physiotherapy, 88, 11, 688-698. Student Selection: A lottery in Leeds
-
Upload
catherine-pope -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Student Selection: A lottery in Leeds
Physiotherapy January 2003/vol 89/no 1
70
References
Brown, C (2002). ‘Research andundergraduate students’, OccupationalTherapy News, 10, 11, 9.
Department of Health (2001a).Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care, DoH, London.
Department of Health (2001b).Governance Arrangements for NHSResearch Ethics Committees, DoH,London.
Long, A F (2002). 'Critically appraisingresearch studies' in: McSherry, R,Simmons, M and Abbott, P (eds)Evidence-informed Nursing: A guide forclinical nurses, Routledge, London.
Rosenberg, W and Donald, A (1995). 'Evidence-based medicine: An approach to clinical problem-solving', British Medical Journal, 310,1122-26.
Wiles, R (2002). ‘Researchgovernance’, Physiotherapy, 88, 11, 642-644.
CATHERINE POPE’S assumption thatwe select our students at LeedsMetropolitan University by a ‘lottery’ isstrongly refuted. ‘Lottery’ to the teamhere is a loaded term of chance, whichdoes not do justice to the well-reasonedprocess that was developed andcontinues to evolve among the courseteam here.
Our initial selection of potentialstudents is related to both academicand personal criteria. The latter were formulated afterlengthy consultation with course teammembers and course committeemembers comprising academic staff,clinical representatives andphysiotherapy managers.
The random selection policy,
which was eventually implemented, was agreed by senior university staffwith expertise in statistics andadmissions issues.
Catherine Pope’s point about thesole purpose being to reduce theworkload of the academic staff isimportant. Prioritising work ofteaching staff is an on-going and muchdebated issue. Interviewing severalhundred students a year to assess oraland interpersonal skills is unprovenand time wasting. The staff wouldrather concentrate on crucial issuessuch as improving the existingstudents’ experience through ourteaching methods. We feel it is moreimportant to be doing relevantresearch, encouraging critical thinking
and engendering a commitment andinterest in physiotherapy in thestudents.
We do not exist in an academic ivorytower. The acedemic staff here had atleast seven years’ clinical experiencebefore they moved into education. A large proportion of our time is spentvisiting students on placement, makinglinks with local clinical educators andkeeping abreast of clinicaldevelopments.
It is not clear from Catherine Pope’sletter how she would assess verbal skillsfairly and equitably at interview.Following a thorough literature review,we could not find any supportingevidence for this. We are clear, though,that the team does not wish to spend
Mark Lewis and Susan Smith reply:
HAVING read Lewis and Smith’s paper(November, 2002), I am left with theimpression that selecting physiotherapystudents is reduced to a lottery basedon previous academic achievement, for the sole purpose of reducing theworkload of the academic staff.
While I can sympathise with theirdesire to widen access to physiotherapyand remove potential bias from theirselection process, it seems that theirproject has failed in both these aims.The cohorts of students recruited sincethe changes described are, by theauthors’ own admission, virtuallyidentical to earlier ones in terms ofcomposition. Any bias in the process,rather than being removed, has merelyshifted from those who perform well at interview, to those who completeapplication forms better. So verbalcommunication skills lose out towritten ones, or worse still, to thosewith better advice on completing
applications, which is hardly wideningaccess.
Clearly, if the main success criterionof the selection process is low attritionrates during the course, then academicachievement may well be a reliableindicator, and there may be no furtherinsight gained on this point by aninterview. That is all this study canclaim to show. Whatever happened to the idea that courses should beselecting and producing people whowill make good physiotherapists?
It may upset some of those inacademia to know that physiotherapy isnot purely science-based. The ‘art’ ofphysiotherapy requires practitionershighly skilled in interpersonal andcommunication skills, able toempathise with and motivate peoplefrom all backgrounds. The day we losethese skills is the day we stop treatingpatients as people, but think of them as conditions.
If the authors felt that their interviewprocess failed to recognise theapplicants who possessed these skills,then perhaps they needed to reviewrather than remove it?
A far better indicator of a successfulselection process would be to measurethe satisfaction of employers, patientsand the ex-students themselves oncethey left the university, and are actuallyworking as physiotherapists (or not),although of course these data are notavailable.
Catherine Pope MA MCSPNottingham
Reference
Lewis, M and Smith, S (2002).‘Selection of pre-registrationphysiotherapy students: Changing to amore objective process’, Physiotherapy,88, 11, 688-698.
Student Selection: A lottery in Leeds
