A COMPARISON BETWEEN UNDERGRADUATE POLYTECHNIC AND MEDICAL EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN ROMANIA
AbstractBackground: While medical and polytechnic education systems seem dissimilar in approach, they both share a certain level of difficulty. After graduating, polytechnic students find easy employment in national or multinational companies, whereas medical students are presented with more job opportunities abroad. The purpose of the study was to compare students’ satisfaction with training and career preferences from a technical and a medical perspective. The methods were as follows: the study participants were divided in two samples (polytechnic and medical undergraduates) and asked to fill in a satisfaction questionnaire regarding their professional training. In addition, they were invited to express options about the intended future career. Results: we found no differences between the two samples regarding the participants’ satisfaction with teaching staff and labs. Polytechnic students have more Ph.D. opportunities while medical students were more involved with participation in conferences. Satisfaction with lectures and practical projects was significantly higher among medical students. Conclusions: Both polytechnic and medical students rate their training as satisfying, and half of them consider leaving the country.
Becker H. S., Geer B., Hughes E. C. and Strauss A. L. (2009). Boys in white. Student culture in medical school. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, (Chapter 1).
Billings-Gagliardi S. and Mazor, K. M. (2007). Student Decisions about Lecture Attendance: Do Electronic Course Materials Matter? Academic Medicine, 10, 73-76.
Epstein, R. M. (2007). Assessment in Medical Education. The New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 387-396.
Harden R. M. and Crosby J. (2000). AMEE Guide No 20: The good teacher is more than a lecturer - the twelve roles of the teacher. Medical Teacher, 22, 334-347.
Hojat M., Gonnella J. S., Mangione S., Nasca T. J., Veloski J. J., Erdmann J. B., Callahan, C. A. And Magee, M. (2002). Empathy in medical students as related to academic performance, clinical competence and gender. Medical Education, 36, 522–527.
Kellaghan T., & Greaney V. (2001). Using assessment to improve the quality of education. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
Lizzio, A., Wilson K. and Simons R. (2002). University Students' Perceptions of the Learning Environment and Academic Outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 17-52.
Patel M. S., Lypson M. L. and Davis M. M. (2009). Medical Student Perceptions of Education in Health Care Systems. Academic Medicine, 9, 1301-1306.
Ramsden P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. New York: Routledge, (Chapter 1).
Seymour E. (2001). Tracking the Processes of Change in US Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Sci Ed, 86, 79–105.
Schreiber B. E., Fukuta J. and Gordon, F. (2010). Live lecture versus video podcast in undergraduate medical education: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 10, 1-6.
Struyven K., Dochy F. and Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation and assessment in higher education: a review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 331-347.
Van Vught F. A. and Westerheijden, D. F. (1994). Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 28, 355-371.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0 - CC BY 3.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
email@example.com, www.iseic.cz, ojs.journals.cz