Quality

I must say I was slightly excited when I talked to my friend. After the examination, on my way home, when I thought of my argument again, I became less confident.

It goes like this: Let's take aside the scenario of monopoly in medical education (as in City M) and consider the situation of competition between two or more medical schools in the same place. On the face of it, a medical school that puts more effort on education and have graduates of a better quality should, in the long run, have the lead: their graduates would be more successful in their career. They are more likely to take up important administrative positions and to make big money and come back as important donors. In short, Mr Market will give the reward.

But, hang on. There is a catch: The quality of medical graduates, by and large, does not depend on the effort or quality of teaching in their medical school, but, rather, the a priori character of the students. (For example, KL, our dean, always says that his degree is Bachelor of Self Learning Medicine and Surgery [內外全科自學士]. Or, as Immanuel Kant said, genius does not need education.) The question therefore boils down to: How to attract good students?

Yes, a medical school with brilliant graduates does count, but it is more a self-fulfilling prophecy or vicious cycle. The sobering truth is, many students choose which medical school to study by their ranking or fame, which depends on their research output - as well as marketing strategy and public relation.

I shall not elaborate further.