Objective: This study compared the academic performance of graduate- and undergraduate-entry medical students completing the same pre-clinical curriculum and assessment at a large metropolitan university. Arguments have been made for the relative merits of both graduate- and undergraduate-entry medical programmes. However, data on the academic performance of graduate and undergraduate entrants are relatively scarce.
Methods: This retrospective study adopted a quasi-experimental design to compare data from assessments of bioscience knowledge and clinical skills undertaken across 2 years for four cohorts of medical students (who commenced their studies between 2002 and 2005). Percentage final results for four bioscience knowledge subjects and four clinical skills assessments (based on objective structured clinical examination [OSCE] results) were compared for 240 graduates and 464 undergraduates using multivariate analysis of variance (manova).
Results: Graduate-entry students performed marginally better than undergraduate-entry students on all four bioscience knowledge assessments (partial eta-squared [n(p)(2)], n(p)(2)=0.04) and also on early clinical skills assessments (n(p)(2)=0.06).
Conclusions: Graduate-entry students had a marginal academic performance advantage during the early years of this medical course. Most graduate-entry students had a first degree in a science discipline; thus their advantage may be explained by prior bioscience knowledge. Their performance advantage in clinical skills is less easily attributed to prior learning. Instead, this result provides some evidence for a possible advantage related to age. The marginal differences in early academic and clinical performance probably suggest that both graduate and undergraduate entry should exist in parallel to preserve multiple points of entry to the medical profession.