中华医学教育杂志

中华医学教育杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (5): 405-408.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115259-20211129-01459

• 招生与就业 • 上一篇    下一篇

北京某高校附属医院学术学位博士研究生生源特征分析

霍刚1, 张华2, 张爱京1, 袁文青1, 谷士贤1   

  1. 1北京大学第三医院教育处,北京 100091;
    2北京大学第三医院临床流行病学研究中心,北京 100191
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-29 出版日期:2022-05-01 发布日期:2022-04-28
  • 通讯作者: 谷士贤, Email: gsxbetty_82@126.com
  • 基金资助:
    2020年度北京大学医学部教育教学研究课题(2020YB37)

Analysis on the characteristics of students for academic doctor degree at a university hospital in Beijing

Huo Gang1, Zhang Hua2, Zhang Aijing1, Yuan Wenqing1, Gu Shixian1   

  1. 1Department of Education, Third Hospital, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China;
    2Clinical Epidemiology Research Center, Third Hospital,Peking University, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2021-11-29 Online:2022-05-01 Published:2022-04-28
  • Contact: Gu Shixian, Email: gsxbetty_82@126.com
  • Supported by:
    Education Research Project of Peking University Health Science Center in 2020 (2020YB37)

PDF (PC)

48

摘要： 目的 通过分析北京某高校附属医院学术学位博士究生的报考和招录情况,探索其关联因素,对招生录取工作提出建议。方法 采用回顾性研究方法,选择2014至2019年1 028名申请考核制学术学位博士研究生,将其分为A组(报考未复试组,560人)、B组(复试未录取组,260人)和C组(录取组,208人),了解其毕业院校、英语水平、学术成果和综合素质。采用卡方检验和Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验,比较组间差异。结果 A、B、C三组学生毕业于“双一流”建设高校的占比分别为53.5%(299/560)、61.2%(159/260)和65.9%(137/208);英语水平优良者占比分别为25.2%(141/560)、23.1%(60/260)和30.2%(63/208);学术成果评分分别为1(0,5)分、1(0,8)分和2(0,27)分;B组和C组学生综合素质评分分别为43.8(40,50)分和48.8(43.8,56.3)分。其差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论 在申请考核制的招生方式下,学术学位博士研究生参加复试和被录取情况与毕业院校、英语水平、学术成果、综合素质方面相关,上述方面优秀的学生更容易被录取。建议在招录过程中加强综合素质的考核,筛选出心理健康、人格健全、抗压能力强的生源。

关键词: 学生, 博士研究生, 生源质量, 申请考核制, 分析

Abstract: Objective To evaluate candidates for academic doctor degree in the view points of their application and entrance process in a university hospital in Beijing and to explore the related factors, so to provide suggestions to improve the quality of students. Methods A retrospective study was conducted covering 1 028 academic doctoral degree candidates from 2014 to 2019. According to the examination results and admission threshold, they were divided into group A (failed to pass first examination, 560 students), group B (failed to pass retrial, 260 students) and group C (admitted group, 208 students). The graduated school, English language proficiency, academic achievements and comprehensive quality were analyzed. Variance analysis and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test were used to compare the differences among each group. Results The proportion of students in groups A, B and C who graduated from “double first-class” colleges and universities were 53.5% (299/560), 61.2% (159/260) and 65.9% (137/208) respectively; the percentage of those with excellent English proficiency were 25.2% (141/560), 23.1% (60/260) and 30.2% (63/208), respectively; the academic achievement scores were 1(0,5), 1(0,8) and 2(0,27) points; the comprehensive quality scores of students in group B and group C were 43.8(40,50) points and 48.8(43.8,56.3) points respectively. The differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). Conclusions In current admission system, the thresholds of re-examination and matriculation are significantly related to the graduate school, English level, academic achievements and comprehensive quality. Outstanding students in the above aspects are more likely to be admitted. It is suggested to focus on strengthen the assessment of comprehensive quality to screen out students with mental health, sound personality and strong ability to resist pressure    

Key words: Students, Doctoral candidate, Quality of students, Application assessment system, Analyze

中图分类号: