This
opinion was published in McGill Daily (September 2005) and censored by the
Reporter. A full version (limitation of
words in Daily) can be see below this article:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hyde Park: McGill’s Faculty of Medicine needs urgent attention
By Slawomir Poplawski
Our medical school is the strongest pillar supporting the
weighty image of McGill as the best Canadian
University in international
rankings. This explains the eagerness of our Public Relations Office to
devote stories to the faculty. The recently created administrative online
newsletter Voilà had an article in July
called “Stop, look & listen” which presented a “success story” about
“30 new medical doctors [being] sworn in as members of the Collège des Médecins du Québec on June 30.” The event should not be used
this year to promote McGill’s fame when our community needs urgently to
discuss the dramatically deteriorating quality of education in the Faculty
of Medicine. Voilà failed to tell us about
the 14 family-medicine students who failed this exam.
In the Voilà we were fed the pompous
remarks of Dean Fuks delivered at the ceremony
for the 30 new doctors. Yet, in July the French media and the Gazette
exposed our internal problems. At the same time, “the usual failure rate at
Quebec’s four medical schools
ranges from zero to 10 per cent.” The Gazette. also
informed its readers that “language [was] not at issue in this case” as
“the licensing exam [was] given to anglophone
candidates in English, by the Quebec College of Physicians.” The Gazette’s
editorial optimistically thought the reasons would soon be found, because
McGill had “launched an internal investigation”.
Unfortunately, “launching investigations” at McGill
University can also mean just a
way of buying time and distracting the public’s attention. Our duty is to
demand that the Administration give us the names of those involved in the
McGill investigation. Let’s be sure from the beginning that nobody in this
commission is in a conflict of interest.
The outside world is losing its trust in, and respect for, our
Administration. This spring, Maclean’s
publicly requested McGill to provide less manipulated statistics for their
ranking classification. Maclean’s found
our medical records suspicious—somehow forecasting the June collapse. We
need to defend the good name of our university by preventing administrators
from misleading the public at the expense of our reputation. McGill’s
community must always be informed first, because once the falsely-boosted
myth of top standards at this University starts to collapse, it will
trigger a damaging domino effect. The only good “medical remedy” is to
start the internal healing process as soon as possible.
The most likely explanation for this unprecedented 36 per cent failure rate
at the Faculty of Medicine: the opaque recruitment system. Recently, a more
complex formula for grade evaluation was introduced. It provides more
competitive candidates, but still allows for other games in the MD and CM
programs. Our problem is that the people in charge of selecting medical
students at McGill are always the same and have the same subjective
evaluation of the letters of recommendation or the psychological
interviews. This sort of shadowy system for pre-selecting future physicians
needs a good shake-up.
The provincial licensing exams are considered to be less predictable and
routine than the national test for our Canadian medical establishment. In
fact we should be grateful for more testing of our best-paid doctors. Those
guarding our health must really be the best: their grades from their
medical studies should be made accessible to patients, as is already quite
common in the U.S.
Also important is demanding from our physicians to be re-qualified for the
specialist exam every seven years to keep their professional knowledge
always updated at times when so many new medical technologies and drugs are
introduced every year. Good universities must not only provide the
first-class training for the future MDs but also make them “knowledge
addicted”.
We need to have the details about this medical scandal in order to find the
best remedy. In the meantime, let next year’s selection committee for our
medical students include members from other hospitals and universities
chosen randomly just before the entrance exams.
Slawomir Poplawski is a staff member
for the Mining, Materials and Metals Department
|
|
|
|
A full version:
McGill’s troubled Faculty of Medicine urgently needs our
attention
Our medical
school is the strongest pillar supporting the weighty image of McGill as the
best Canadian University in international rankings. This explains the eagerness of our Public
Relations Office to devote stories to the faculty. The recently created administrative
online newsletter Voilà had an article in July called Stop,
look & listen (http://www.mcgill.ca/voila/2005/07-12/),
which presented a “success story” about “30 new medical doctors [being] sworn in as members of the
Collège des Médecins du Québec on June 30”. The event should not be used this year to
promote McGill’s fame when our community needs urgently to discuss the
dramatically deteriorating quality of education in the Faculty of
Medicine. It seems that the Voilà
reporter was not allowed to tell us about the 14 family-medicine students who failed this exam and the editor of
this newsletter isn’t authorized publishing letters from our
community. It
would be wise for the Vice-Principal of Communication not to say much about the
swearing-in ceremony, because she de
facto censored the shocking failure rate
among McGill University's
family-medicine students, just as she hid many other controversial developments
at McGill.
The “Reporter” from August and September consistently ignores this
important issue. In the Voilà we were fed the pompous remarks of Dean Fuks delivered at the
ceremony for the 30 new doctors, yet in July the French media and even the
Gazette exposed our internal problems “with the failure of more than one-third of [McGill’s] new
family-medicine graduates”. At the same time, “59 out of 60 U de M students
passed the same provincial exam” when
“the usual failure rate at Quebec's
four medical schools ranges from zero to 10 per cent”. The Gazette also informed
its readers (with somewhat more respect than is usually shown by the PRO to us
here at McGill), that “language [was] not at issue in this case” as “the licensing exam [was] given to
anglophone candidates in English, by the Quebec College of Physicians”. The Gazette’s editorial optimistically thought the reasons would soon be
found, because McGill had “launched
an internal investigation”.
Unfortunately, “launching investigations”
at McGill University can also mean just a way of buying time and distracting the
public’s attention. Our duty is to
demand that the Administration formally inform about this problem and give us
the names of those involved in the McGill investigation. Not long ago, the Faculty of Medicine set up
an internal commission to look into the suicides of two unfairly treated
medical researchers. Finally, the public learned that a son of the chief
investigator was studying at McGill at the time. So, let’s be sure from the beginning that nobody in this commission isn’t in a conflict of interest.
The outside world is losing its trust in
and respect for our Administration. This
spring, McLean’s publicly requested McGill to provide less
manipulated statistics for their ranking classification. McLean’s found our medical records suspicious—somehow
forecasting the June’s collapse. We need
to defend the good name of our university by preventing administrators from
misleading the public at the expense of our reputation. McGill’s community must always be informed
first, because once the falsely-boosted myth of top standards at this
University starts to collapse, it will trigger a damaging domino effect. The only good “medical remedy” is to start
the internal healing process as soon as possible.
After Mrs. Peggy
Sheppard’s trial revelations,
it is easier to discuss the most likely explanation for this unprecedented 36 per cent failure
rate at the Faculty of Medicine: The opaque recruitment system. Some years ago, for over 1000 pre-selected
candidates to Med-P Program with only about 40 to be finally admitted, it was
established that only those with grades of 80% and up would be in the final
selection of about forty students.
At the information session for potential medical students and their
parents, very ambiguous “reasons” were given for the extra four personal
interviews. Instead of stating what the
criteria were for these behind-closed-doors “examinations”, the admissions
officers referred to the importance of checking the personalities, hobbies and
experience of the candidates, saying these were very important factors in
determining their natural predispositions to become doctors. This means that in this fierce competition,
it was possible for a student with a total score of only 80% to get up an extra
20% and be sure of a place at McGill.
Thus many well-connected applicants with not necessarily the best marks
became medical students. After two or
three years of studying, the son/daughter of a friend of mine told me that many
fellow students were from the local establishment circle. In most cases they were not bright enough or
diligent enough, and were being given many additional chances to pass
exams. This is statistically obvious if
one compares the small number of well-connected candidates from the medical
establishment to the total number. This
is why a certain amount of students from visual minorities is always accepted,
in order to fake social diversity and sneak in more sons and daughters of the
establishment. Recently, a more complex formula for grade evaluation was introduced
with CRC, GPA and MCAT scores. It
provides more competitive candidates to the Med-P sector, but still allows for
other games in the M.D. and C.M. programs. Our problem is that the
people in charge of selecting medical students at McGill are always the same,
and have the same subjective evaluation of the letters of recommendation or the
psychological interviews. This sort of
shadowy system for pre-selecting future physicians needs a good shake-up. The recent Fabricant-style “shooting” at our
Medical Faculty by the external provincial examiners provided a true internal
picture, and should initiate reforms at McGill, as happened at Concordia after
the real shooting in the extremely corrupt institution over ten years ago.
The provincial
licensing exams are considered to be less
predictable and routine than the national test for our Canadian medical establishment.
In fact we should be grateful for more testing of our best-paid doctors
in a profession immune to market fluctuations.
Those guarding our health must be really the best: their grades from
their medical studies should be made accessible to patients, as is already
quite common in the US. Also important is demanding from
our physicians to be re-qualified for the specialist exam every seven years to
keep their professional knowledge always updated at times when so many new
medical technologies and drugs are introduced every year. Good universities must not only provide the
first-class training for the future MDs but also make them “knowledge
addicted”. A continuous maintaining of
medical proficiency is very important now when even the simple microorganisms
are learning fast how to outsmart our latest antibiotics. These are the next level’s topics for our
further discussion.
Right now we must humbly
assume that U de M, with only one student who failed the provincial exam, and many
other universities with a less than 10% failure rate, are selecting their
students more honestly and monitoring their studies more objectively than at
McGill. It is our duty to insist that
this sort of truth is going to be considered by our internal medical
specialists, who are nominated by our long-serving Dean of the Faculty of
Medicine. We need to have the details
about this medical scandal for enriching our reflections and finding the best
remedies. In the meantime, let next
year’s selection committee for our medical students include members from other
hospitals and universities chosen randomly just before the entrance exams.
Slawomir Poplawski
