Debates in Standardized Testing and its Effects on Diversity in Medicine: Understanding the Experience of Premedical Students Through Bourdieu’s Forms of Capital

Debates about gatekeeping for medical training have expanded in recent years around whether measures like the medical college admission test (MCAT) are keeping out those who lack the aptitude for academic success, or are discriminatory measures hindering people from certain demographics from becoming doctors. The history of the MCAT and debates around standardized testing show repeatedly that students of racialized communities, minority genders, and economically disadvantaged communities persistently score lower on the MCAT in its various versions. This study examines the ways students’ access to preparatory resources for the MCAT affects their experiences and scores on the exam and acceptance to medical school. Students whose parents are doctors, or whose parents are wealthy, are more likely to have access to connections, mentorships, and academic resources, like tutoring, that cost thousands of dollars. This thesis seeks to understand how students from different backgrounds prepare themselves for the medical school application process. Methodologically, I interviewed three medical students and one premedical student in order to understand their personal narratives about their decision to pursue medicine, their process of preparing for the MCAT, their experiences taking the test, and their admission process to medical school. Additionally, I interviewed one pre-medical advisor to understand their views and reflections on different preparation strategies among students who have familial and social ties with physicians and those who approach the process without close networks and the advantages these can provide. The literature and the interviews were analyzed using Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts about capital and gave greater meaning to the necessity of understanding barriers to Medical Education.Bachelor of Art