Even one star at A level could be "too little, too late" for medical student selection
© McManus et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
Received: 17 August 2007
Accepted: 07 April 2008
Published: 07 April 2008
More and more medical school applicants in England and Wales are gaining the maximum grade at A level of AAA, and the UK Government has now agreed to pilot the introduction of a new A* grade. This study assessed the likely utility of additional grades of A* or of A**.
Statistical analysis of university selection data collected by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), consisting of data from 1,484,650 applicants to UCAS for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, of whom 23,628 were medical school applicants, and of these 14,510 were medical school entrants from the UK, aged under 21, and with three or four A level results. The main outcome measure was the number of points scored by applicants in their best three A level subjects.
Censored normal distributions showed a good fit to the data using maximum likelihood modelling. If it were the case that A* grades had already been introduced, then at present about 11% of medical school applicants and 18% of entrants would achieve the maximum score of 3 A*s. Projections for the years 2010, 2015 and 2020 suggest that about 26%, 35% and 46% of medical school entrants would have 3 A* grades.
Although A* grades at A level will help in medical student selection, within a decade, a third of medical students will gain maximum grades. While revising the A level system there is a strong argument, as proposed in the Tomlinson Report, for introducing an A** grade.
Selection of university students, particularly for the most competitive and academically demanding subjects, has become more and more difficult during the past decade and a half, as students have attained higher and higher A level grades.
15% of university applicants with three or more A levels now gain the maximum possible mark of three As, making selection increasingly problematic, particularly in subjects such as medicine, where 43% of applicants and 61% of entrants now gain AAA. The result is that many medical schools are now using tests of general intellectual ability for selection for which until recently there was little evidence of predictive validity (although the assessments are reliable and have some construct validity) . Since submission of the first draft of this paper, BMAT has provided some evidence for predictive validity for BMAT's Section 2 (Scientific Knowledge and Applications) on academic examinations .
Currently students must achieve 80–100% on the UMS [uniform mark scale] to achieve an A grade, 70–79 for a B, 60–69 for a C, 50–59 for a D and 40–49 for an E . In March 2007, the then Education Secretary Alan Johnson agreed the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's recommendations to award an A* grade to "those students who have achieved a grade A at A level and who have achieved at least 90% of their UMS [uniform mark scale]on the aggregation of their A2 units" . This system will be piloted with students starting their A levels in September 2008. In 2004 the Tomlinson Report  had not only suggested an A* grade at A level, but also a grade of A**. Here we suggest that a single additional grade of A* will soon be of little help to medical educators, and that a higher grade of A** should be introduced as the system is being revised.
UCAS provided data on all 1,484,650 university applicants for the years 2003 to 2005, of whom 528,691 applicants were home applicants aged under 21 who had attained three or four A levels, excluding General Studies (3 A levels, n = 473,781; 4 A levels, n = 54,910). A level scores were calculated on the basis of A = 10, B = 8, C = 6, D = 4 and E = 2, with the highest three of the grades being scored for those with four A levels. Data on medical school applicants were also available for 13,377 medical school applicants in 1996 and 1997 aged under 21 who had taken A levels. Statistical analysis used SPSS 11.5, with maximum likelihood modelling of censored distributions carried out using a purpose-written Excel spreadsheet (see Additional File 1).
Applicants to Medicine
Figures 1b and 1c show the A level grades of 23,628 applicants and 14,510 acceptances at medical school, 44.9% and 61.9% having AAA (30 points). Fitting a censored normal distribution estimates the true mean (SD) A level points as 28.3 (5.5) for applicants and 30.1 (4.5) for acceptances, with 11% and 18% currently expected to gain 36 or more points (i.e. 3 A*s or better).
Trend across years
41.6%, 42.5% and 44.1% of medical applicants in 2003, 2004 and 2005 scored 30 points, as compared with 30.6% in 1996 and 1997. 54.9%, 60.3%, and 66.1% of entrants in 2003–5 scored 30 points.
One in seven of all university applicants and nearly a half of medical school applicants currently gain maximum marks at A level, making selection difficult when about 60% of medical applicants are accepted. Estimation of censored distributions however allows prediction of the likely achievement of candidates currently at the ceiling of AAA. Grades A* are scaled similarly to the current A, B, C, D and E and assuming the same is true of A** grades, then only 11% of medical school applicants and 18% of entrants would gain 3 A* grades or better, improving the process of selection.
For whatever reasons, inflation of A level grades continues to occur, with 25.3% of all scripts in 2007 gaining an A grade . The proportion of AAA grades is increasing at about 1.6% per annum in medical applicants, with a higher rate in entrants. Projecting forward on the basis of such figures (see Additional Files 1 and 2 for details) suggests that about 17%, 22% and 29% of applicants and 26%, 35% and 46% of entrants will have 3 A*s by 2010, 2015 and 2020.
Although A levels are used for selection, the justification for that use comes from being valid predictors of outcome in and beyond medical school [1, 7]. Validation however is difficult to obtain when most students gain maximum marks (although shown in Additional Files 1 and 3, recent students with grades of AAB, ABB and BBB do still perform less well than those with AAA). The introduction of A** grades would allow the predictive validity of A levels to continue to be assessed properly. It should also be emphasised that validity is not something that can be assumed for all tests for all times. Tests and times change, and validity needs therefore to routinely monitored for any selection method. Predictive validity should also be examined broadly, not merely for examination success, but for other aspects of real-world clinical practice in working doctors.
While A levels are being revised to include a grade of A* it would therefore be prudent also to include a grade of A**, as Tomlinson suggested 4, to allow the system to continue to work effectively in the future.
- McManus IC, Powis DA, Wakeford R, Ferguson E, James D, Richards P: Intellectual aptitude tests and A levels for selecting UK school leaver entrants for medical school. Brit Med J. 2005, 331: 555-559. 10.1136/bmj.331.7516.555.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- BMAT. Background to BMAT. [http://www.bmat.org.uk/background.html]
- Qualifications and Curriculum Agency: How do marks become grades?. Accessed 16th August 2007, [http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_4133.aspx]
- Boston K: Letter to Alan Johnson. 22nd March 2007. Accessed 16th August 2007, [http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/Ken_Boston_to_Alan_Johnson_22_03_2007.pdf]
- Working group on 14–19 reform. 14–19 Curriculum and qualifications reform: Final report of the working party on 14–19 reform [The Tomlinson Report]. 2004, Nottingham: DfES Publication
- BBC News: Increase in top grades at A-level. Accessed 16th August 2007, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6949084.stm]
- McManus IC, Smithers E, Partridge P, Keeling A, Fleming PR: A levels and intelligence as predictors of medical careers in UK doctors: 20 year prospective study. Brit Med J. 2003, 327: 139-142. 10.1136/bmj.327.7407.139.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/8/16/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.