The University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT), used for medical school admissions, has removed its abstract reasoning section. This decision was made globally, impacting students in Europe, Asia, and the UK, and aims to address concerns about the section's coachability and its potential to disadvantage certain student groups.
A 2020 study revealed that women, students from outside major cities, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds underperformed on the UCAT. While nearly 50% of candidates received coaching, the study found that coaching did not significantly improve performance. The removal of the abstract reasoning section is intended to mitigate these disparities, as students in metropolitan areas often benefit from informal, peer-based test preparation.
The increased difficulty of securing a spot in medical programs has led universities to re-evaluate their admissions metrics. The removal of abstract reasoning highlights a broader challenge in discerning suitable candidates based solely on test scores. The interview process, which delves into student motivation and aspirations, is considered a more insightful tool for assessing suitability.
While the abstract reasoning component is eliminated, the UCAT continues to be used for medical school admissions, with the remaining sections playing a more crucial role in the selection process. The increased emphasis on interviews suggests a shift towards a holistic evaluation that extends beyond standardized tests.