The topic of veterinary selection usually draws robust debate among veterinarians, since most of them have an opinion on the best way to select students into the veterinary program. Some would suggest that selection should be on entirely academic merit due to its perceived objectivity, while others would favor an entirely subjective assessment, and most would prefer something in between. Everyone knows someone who should, or perhaps more importantly should not, have been admitted to a veterinary program, and the blame generally falls at the feet of the admission committee.

One might argue that the selection assessment process may be the single most important assessment that a school conducts (Eva et al., 2004; Greenhill et al., 2015), since attrition rates in the health professions are generally low, so selected applicants usually graduate (Prideaux et al., 2011). Thus, the selection committees determine not only who becomes a veterinary student, but ultimately who might become a veterinarian.

Because of the high level of competition for places in medical training programs, where applicant numbers greatly exceed available places (Prideaux et al., 2011; Salvatori, 2001), it is increasingly important that the selection processes used are appropriate.

There are multiple stakeholders of healthcare selection, including but not limited to the applicant, the institution, the profession, the public, and in some cases the government (Patterson et al., 2012; Salvatori, 2001). Admission committees of health professions programs have a relatively formidable task to balance their responsibilities to all these respective stakeholders.

For the applicants, admission processes need to be fair and consistently applied, so that there can be confidence that selection decisions reflect the performance of the applicants, rather than the personal preferences of the admission committee members. Admission committees generally aim to select students who are likely to succeed not only in the program, but also in the profession (Salvatori, 2001; Kogan et al., 2009). For programs funded with public funds, there is also responsibility to the public and to the appropriate government funding body to utilize those funds appropriately and judiciously (Salvatori, 2001).

If you accept the idea that veterinary programs are the gateway to the profession (Kogan and McConnell, 2001), and that selection committees have multiple stakeholders to whom they are responsible, then it follows that veterinary admission processes need to be evidence based, with decisions made utilizing reliable and valid tools. In the 2010 Ottawa Conference consensus statement on assessment for selection for the healthcare professions, it states that “selection processes therefore need to be credible, fair, valid and reliable, and above all publicly defensible, and should follow the same quality assurance processes as in course assessment” (Prideaux et al., 2011). Currently in many institutions, the veterinary selection process is based more on historical decisions rather than research-led and evidence-based decisions.

In this chapter, we explore the state of current admissions processes globally, discuss the common selection tools being utilized and highlight their evidence basis, consider diversity from a global perspective, and offer a guide to reviewing the institutional veterinary selection process.

Given the large number of veterinary programs globally, this chapter will focus on those that are accredited by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA, 2015). When assessed against the medical selection literature, there is substantially less published research regarding veterinary selection. As such, this chapter will draw on both medical and veterinary literature.

Prior to proceeding, a brief clarification on terminology is pertinent. Traditionally, selection criteria have been divided into cognitive and noncognitive. Cognitive usually includes measures such as grade point average (GPA) and standardized testing, while the term noncognitive is typically used to encapsulate all the other desired qualities that may be assessed in applicants (Eva et al., 2009; Prideaux et al., 2011). While some authors have disagreed with these terms, they have largely continued to be utilized in the literature (Prideaux et al., 2011; Kreiter, 2016). However, we feel uncomfortable with using the term noncognitive, as it suggests that these other desirable attributes have no cognitive component. In this chapter we will not use these terms, and will instead discuss criteria as measures of academic and nonacademic performance, with the latter including assessments of personal attributes.

Just as veterinary selection is not one size fits all, neither is the model of veterinary education. While variable, the pathways to veterinary qualification can largely be categorized as either postgraduate or undergraduate models of professional training. It should be emphasized that while different, both models can lead to AVMA-accredited veterinary degrees and both have respective advantages. The way in which individuals apply for selection also varies, from centralized application services such as the Veterinary Medical College Application Service (VMCAS) to individual, direct application to the desired institutions.

The diversity of the members of medical professions and students in medical training is a source of interest globally (Razack et al., 2015), as the benefits of diversity are substantial. On an individual level, interacting with a more diverse peer group increases students’ cultural competence (Whitla et al., 2003). Additionally, a more diverse student group may have a direct impact on learning cultural values within a curriculum, preparing students to succeed not only on a local level, but globally as well. To better reflect society and local communities, it is essential to have diverse representation within the veterinary profession. Members of the public feel a greater level of satisfaction when they can choose a medical professional who is ethnically similar to themselves (LaVeist and Nuru-Jeter, 2002). More diverse representation within the veterinary profession that better reflects societal demographics should translate to better outcomes for both people and the animals for which they have stewardship.

Historically, many medical training programs have weighted academic performance heavily or even relied on it as the sole determinant of selection (Patterson, Zibarras, and Ashworth, 2016). However, it has been identified that personal characteristics other than academic ability are required for veterinary economic and career success (Conlon, Hecker, and Sabatini, 2012). There is general agreement in the literature that in light of this, both cognitive (academic) and noncognitive (nonacademic) characteristics should be included in the assessment of applicants (Salvatori, 2001).

Within the United States and Canada, the application process of most institutions usually includes academic and nonacademic criteria. However, outside of these countries many institutions still focus heavily on academic performance in the selection of veterinary applicants. This will likely change for AVMA-accredited programs over the coming years, as Standard 7 of the AVMA/COE accreditation guidelines states: “factors other than academic achievement must be considered for admission criteria” (AVMA, 2015). However, the question remains as to what the most appropriate “other factors” to consider would be.

One admission process will not fit all institutions, since the goals of every institution vary. So while no selection process is perfect, or could be expected to be, selection decisions need to be made utilizing reliable and valid tools to minimize the level of imperfection. Institutions that desire fair, defensible selection policies need to conduct analyses of their own data. This is also increasingly important for outcomes assessment of admission required for AVMA accreditation.

In this section we discuss the more common application assessments of academic performance, standardized testing, prior experience (veterinary, animal, and/or research), personal statements, references, and interviews. A recent review article succinctly summarized some of the characteristics of the assessment tools that we discuss here, as shown in Box 31.2.