Abstract
The purpose of this work is to develop metrics for evaluation of medical physics graduate student performance, assess relationships between success and other quantifiable factors, and determine whether graduate student performance can be accurately predicted by admissions statistics. A cohort of 108 medical physics graduate students from a single institution were rated for performance after matriculation based on final scores in specific courses, first year graduate Grade Point Average (GPA), performance on the program exit exam, performance in oral review sessions, and faculty rating. Admissions statistics including matriculating program (MS vs. PhD); undergraduate degree type, GPA, and country; graduate degree; general and subject GRE scores; traditional vs. nontraditional status; and ranking by admissions committee were evaluated for potential correlation with the performance metrics. GRE verbal and quantitative scores were correlated with higher scores in the most difficult courses in the program and with the program exit exam; however, the GRE section most correlated with overall faculty rating was the analytical writing section. Students with undergraduate degrees in engineering had a higher faculty rating than those from other disciplines and faculty rating was strongly correlated with undergraduate country. Undergraduate GPA was not statistically correlated with any success metrics investigated in this study. However, the high degree of selection on GPA and quantitative GRE scores during the admissions process results in relatively narrow ranges for these quantities. As such, these results do not necessarily imply that one should not strongly consider traditional metrics, such as undergraduate GPA and quantitative GRE score, during the admissions process. They suggest that once applicants have been initially filtered by these metrics, additional selection should be performed via the other metrics shown here to be correlated with success. The parameters used to make admissions decisions for our program are accurate in predicting student success, as illustrated by the very strong statistical correlation between admissions rank and course average, first year graduate GPA, and faculty rating (p < 0.002). Overall, this study indicates that an undergraduate degree in physics should not be considered a fundamental requirement for entry into our program and that within the relatively narrow range of undergraduate GPA and quantitative GRE scores of those admitted into our program, additional variations in these metrics are not important predictors of success. While the high degree of selection on particular statistics involved in the admissions process, along with the relatively small sample size, makes it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about the meaning of correlations here, these results suggest that success in medical physics is based on more than quantitative capabilities. Specifically, they indicate that analytical and communication skills play a major role in student success in our program, as well as predicted future success by program faculty members. Finally, this study confirms that our current admissions process is effective in identifying candidates who will be successful in our program and are expected to be successful after graduation, and provides additional insight useful in improving our admissions selection process.