Admission to veterinary school is generally based on academic and nonacademic measures. Descriptions of animal or veterinary experience and rural versus urban background are often sought from applicants, but little is objectively known about their impact on admission success or future performance. We evaluated scores from written descriptions from 590 veterinary school applicants for the nature and extent of self-reported animal experience. For those admitted to the program, we compared animal experience and rural versus urban background to performance in discipline-based courses, professional skills courses, clinical rotations, and the North American Veterinary Licensing Exam (NAVLE). More than 98% of applicants reported animal experience, with small animal veterinary experience most reported. There was no difference in animal experience or background between successful and unsuccessful applicants, but rural and urban applicants reported different experiences. There was a small correlation between small animal experience and performance in clinical rotations (.21), a small negative correlation between rural background and NAVLE performance (-.23), but otherwise, no significant correlations between animal experience or background and future performance. These findings suggest that scores of self-reported animal experience do not provide predictive information on applicants, or, alternatively, that the nature and extent of animal experience, the methods used to score these experiences, and/or the measures assessed during veterinary school need to be explicitly defined to ensure that we are capturing the appropriate information. More investigation into the scoring and impact of animal experience and background on applicant performance in the DVM program and success in a veterinary career is warranted.
Keywords: admission criteria; animal experience; diversity; predictive value of preadmission criteria; socio-economic status; veterinary experience; volunteer opportunities; work opportunities.
