SUNY Downstate Medical Center - Iatros Yearbook (Brooklyn, NY)

Page 29 text:

coimnittft ' wliilr those rt ' t ' ci iiiii sroics of S.O will be ac-fi ' pted without ir ic In the entire coiiiiiiit- tee. F i()iii tlie aho e it is easiK suniiisetl that mean- ingful participation In- students in the admissions program must include a role in determining this numerical grade. Hovvexer, this past year, each (acuity member decided individually the degree of students were actually unaware of the existence of such a grading system and, in general, there was little understanding of the overall mechanics of ad- mission. general, there was little understanding of the overall mechanics of admission. Despite diese problems, the presence of students at the interviews was successfiil from the point of view of giving the applicant a more pleasant view of Downstate. Time and again the applicants expressed ple;isure at liaving the student present and many questions tliat could be best answered bv ' a student were therefore resolved. But is this the onlv- purpose of student participation in die program, or should some definite program be set up.- ' This c}uestion was partially answered this year with tlie institution of a uniform, orderly program of participation. This program was devised by the members of the admissions committee after consul- Burton Dibble Student MfTiiber ot . dniission-s (. ' oiiiinittee tation with two members of htst year ' s student group. During the 1969-70 year, each participating third-year student will be paired with a member of the admissions committee. Each applicant inter- viewed will be discussed by both members and tlie resulting score will be on the basis of this discus- sion. Students will view meetings of the committee as observers and will also participate in the meet- ings whenever a faculty member feels that the student can add significantly to the presentation, ' fliis situation would most likely develop from a marked difference of opinion concerning the can- didate. The remaining question concerns voting by students on die admissions committee. In order to evaluate this question, a superficial description of tlie meetings is necessary. Each member of die com- mittee comes to each meeting with several applicants that he is ready to present. The presenta- tion includes a review of gi ades, MCAT .scores, recommendations and the interviewers ' rating of the appliciuit. After members of the committee have had a chance to view the application, transcript, etc., for themselves, they enter their own rating on a sheet listing the applicants that will be reviewed for that day. The system appears more intricate when one considers each meeting as a continuum. Each week, applicants are considered in the light of the number of acceptances sent out, the number of places left and the group of applicants being con- sidered in general. In accordance with these factors, the average rating needed to gain acceptance drops from appro.ximately 7.5 to approximately 6.8 by the end of the season. Thus, in order for students to participate in the actual voting, weekly attendance throughout the year would be necessary and this would put a great burden on the students involved. However, the value of the student vote may be unnecessary if there is true cooperation between faculty and students within the guidelines already devised. The members of the class of 1970 who participat- ed in diis program found it a fascinating and valua- ble experience. Although they may have had little impact on the entering class this year, diey did play an important role in laying the foundation for an ex- panded and more meaningful program for the fu- ture. They were also happily surprised to find that although there was skepticism concerning the value of student participation, most of the faculty members were more than willing to accept such participation in the program. It is the hope of the students involved that they have added a new dimension to this huge, complicated and often very impersonal process.

Page 28 text:

In die fall of 1968, the students and the adminis- tration embarked on a new program of student par- ticipation in the admissions program at Downstate. Steve Green, David Slovik, Burt Dibble and Hank Ginsberg were the students involved in the pilot study that year, joining the regular members of the admissions committee in interviewing applicants. Steve and David worked with Drs. Parnell and Pomerantz, respectively, for the first half of the year, while Burt and Hank worked with Drs. Pomerantz and Kydd later in the year. The role played by the students was t vofold. First, they acted as a liason between applicant and faculty member with the hope of relaxing the applicant as well as showing tlie communication be- tween faculty and students at Downstate. In addi- tion, the students hoped to aid in the determination of criteria for admission of potential Downstate students. This last role was not only the most mean- ingful for the participants but also the most difficult to fulfill. The problems of the pilot project were largely caused by a lack of structure in the program. No uniform guidelines were set up and the faculty members involved seemed even less sure of the student ' s role than the student himself The result was a wide range of participation and different degrees of emphasis on a given role. In order to un- derstand the problem better, a description of the admissions committee and the procedures it follows is necessary. The admissions committee consists of nine members of the faculty and administration. They each have three responsibilities concerning the choice of Downstate ' s entering class each year: 1. screening all applications and choosing those applicants they believe worthy of an interview; 2. interviewing applicants; 3. choosing the next entering class from those interviewed. At this point we must delve further into the machinery of the interview. The relative importance of the interview is large in the scheme of admissions criteria. Evaluation of the applicant is in terms of several parameters, but in summary, the membe r of the committee must decide on a numerical grade, based on the inter- view and the other credentials presented. This grading system has a range of 1.0-8.0 with the latter as tlie maximum score. The score is not only part of the presentation of the applicant to the committee, but actually detennines when and whether tlie presentation will occur. Applicants receiving scores of 1.0 or 2.0 will not even be presented to the entire Henry Ginsberg Student Member of .admissions Committee Dorothy Holden, M.D. FacultN Member of Admissions Committee

Page 30 text:

Michael Lebowitz learned of his acceptance at Downstate while on a ship off Gibraltar en route to Bologna for his second ear. Elected as a senior to AOA. Multitudes in the valley of decision Joel: III, 14 Joseph Mangiaracina, alias Boff, is one of the few who have gone through Downstate and left a legend behind. You have to be a little crazy to keep your sanity here.