– Students of lower SES and of FIF status attending schools situated in poorer geographic locations had limited access to suitable work experience and, despite their participation in gifted and talented classes, were considered to be at greater risk of not achieving the high level of academic achievement required for admission to medical school.
– The participants thought they were clever enough to go to university and become a doctor, and did not express the opinion that medicine was the domain of ‘posh’ people.
– Unlike in other research, there was no sense that pursuing a medical career would threaten working-class identity or that schools were actively discouraging of students. The participants of lower SES and of FIF status had positive aspirations towards university study.
– Career advisors in this study, especially those in schools with those located in poorer areas, indicated they had restricted capacity to always assist all students. These careers advisors are under pressure to intervene in complex and often desperate cases. Students with less immediate needs may incidentally receive less attention.
– Insufficient attainment is one of the primary impediments in the pathway to medicine for students from backgrounds of lower SES and those of FIF status, especially those attending schools located in poorer areas. Even if all these factors coalesce- intellectual and emotional confidence, considered subject selection, commitment to study, early engagement in GAT classes and success in negotiating the multi-pronged and multi-phased university admission processes- students from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely than their socio-economically higher and continuing-generation peers to achieve the ATAR (Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank) required for admission to undergraduate medicine.
2015 - Disadvantage and the ‘Capacity to Aspire’ to Medical School
Academically able high school students (n = 33) from a range of socio-economic backgrounds participated in focus groups. School careers advisors (n = 5) were interviewed. Students discussed their career and education plans and ideas about a medical career. Careers advisors discussed enablers and barriers to a medical career for their students.
Participants were recruited according to a purposive sampling frame in order to ensure that academically able high school students from backgrounds of diverse SES and schools located in areas with different socio-economic profiles participated in the study. Five government high schools located in Australia, were selected.
The study used a focus group methodology with students and one-to-one interviews with careers advisors. A focus group method was used with students to allow them to bounce their ideas, issues and perspectives off their peers through discussion. Focus groups and interviews were guided according to a schedule of questions and prompts. Students were prompted to discuss: the school community; attitudes to school; subject selection; career and postschool education plans; thoughts about a medical career; enablers and barriers to a medical career, and ideas for university initiatives for students considering medicine. The careers advisor interview schedule consisted of similar prompts as well as questions about career education at the school. Focus groups and interviews lasted 40-60 minutes and were conducted at school.
The theoretical approach aligns with a critical interpretive analytic framework that seeks to bring forth
the standpoints of various groups, particularly disadvantaged people. They began with a parent/carer survey to determine the socio-economic and FIF status of the student. Parent/carer survey data were coded for occupational prestige and educational attainment. The results of a factor analysis indicated that these two variables could be combined into a composite measure of SES. The SES measure
was divided into quartiles to give an indicative measure of the SES of each student.