university students and their attitudes to dentistry as a career

Australian Dental Journal, October, 1972 375

University students and their attitudes to dentistry as a career’

B. T. Homant and B. J. Krugert

Thore are international shortages of dentists, and current enrolments in dental schools are not likely to resolve the situation. Notwithstanding the restrictions to growth incurred by quotas, inadequate facilities, and numbers of teachers, there have been decreasing enrolments over the past decade in those dental schools which do not have quota restrictions on first yea- entrance, for example, the University of Queensland. This has occuned during a period of overall growth within universities and at a time when first year enrolments in many other professional faculties have more than doubled. Why do current dental students choose dentistry as a career ? Why do other students who have satisfied matriculation requirements for Dentistry, choose not to study Dentistry? These seemed to be pertinent basic questions to the general problem of recruit- ment to Dentistry and were the primary motive for undertakinp this study.

Material and method

There are seven courses within the University of Queensland whose matriculation requirements are similar to Dentistry : Agricultural Science, Engin- eering, Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, the Therapies (Occupational Therapy, Physiotherapy), and Veterinary Science. It was therefore decided to study all dental undergraduate students and a random selection of non-dental students in these seven courses.

With the assistance of the University’s Data Processing Officer, and by means of existing computer programmes, 50 students were randomly chosen from all first year students currently enrolled for the first time in each of these courses. There

This study was supported by Grant 397800 (Bristol Myers)

t Senior Lecturer in Social and Preventive Dentistry,

: Reader in Oral Biology, University of Queensland. Received for publication November, 1971.

of the University of Queensland.

University of Queensland.

were only 45 eligible students enrolled in Agri- cultural Science I.

On the 19th March, 1971, a copy of the questionnaire* and a covering letter were sent to each of these students. Iteplies were sought on the priority order of courses in which the student wished to enrol, the Secondary School attended, the type of financial assistance, whether Dentistry was considered as a possible career, and the information that was available about Dentistry when the utiiversity course was chosen.

Questionnaires were numbered, and one follow-up request was sent to non-responders on 7th April. Each student’s record card listed the grades he obtained in the subjects taken for the Senior Public Examination, together with a computed matriculation score of his best five grades.

A modified questionnaire+ was used for dentul students. In addition to the information sought from other students, each dental student was asked about factors influencing his decision to enrol in Dentistry, his awareness of employment opportunities, and his satisfaction with the choice of Dentistry &s a career. All dental students (Dentistry I-V inclusive) were asked to complete a questionnaire at lecture periods during the first two weeks of March. It was therefore not necessary to number these questionnaires, and all replies were completely anonymous.

Results There was an excellent response from the

participants : 100 per cent in each year of Dentistry and an average of 87 per cent over the other seven courses. This response in the latter group ranged from 76 per cent for Agricultural Science to 94 per cent for both Medicine and Pharmacy.

* Copies are available on application to the authors. t Copies are available on application to the authors.

3 76

18

6

11 13 16 12 17

Australian Dental Journal, October, I972

___-

19

~~

5 9 4

2 6 1

3 -

TABLE 1 Dktribution by age, sex, and course of the students responding to the queationnaire

-

1 4

10

Number of Respondents

2 - 3 -

1 I

1

-

_ _ _ ~

Number in

sample

12 13

13

20 7 12

4 20

-

__________

Course M

and F

M F

__ 6 0

11 32 16 40 10

115 ~

16 17 20-24

Agric. Science I . . Engineering I . . Medicine I .. Pharmacy I , . Science I . . . . Therapies I . . Vet. Science I . .

45 50 50 50 49 50 50

28 42 36 15 28 0

35

34 42 47 47 44 40 45

299 ~

19 26 29 26 22 28 17

167 ~

3 2 2 2 2

6

17

-

__ Total . . . . 184

47 33 39 30 39

- 344

54 38 39 34 40

-I-

54 38 39 34 40

205 __

8 5

19

1 14 20 32 36

Dentistry I . . Dentistry I1 . . Dentistry I11 . . Dentistry IV . . Dentistry V . .

Total . . 205 188 17 18 41 32 103

TABLE 2 Dintribution of Secondary Schools attended and mean matriculation scores of respondents i n the $rat year of their

respective courses

School attended* I Number

of schools

Mean Matric. score?

j7 & SE; Course Government

Brisbane Country

I 1 6

_ _ _ ~

~ _ _ _

Private Other

Agric. Science I . . Engineering I . . Medicine I . . . . Pharmacy I . . . . Science I . . . .

Vet. Science I . .

Dentistry I . . . .

Therapies I . . . .

25.7*0.51 28.9 + O . 48 27.9 & 0.39 25- 2 1 0 . 3 4 26.7 0.55 25.7&0.37 25.8*0.41

26.2 * O . 55

30 29 31 33 36 18 36

34

5 3 5 2 5 4

11

13

12 13 6 14 6 9

11 13

6 7

4

* Including schools attended t Grades in Senior Public Examination ranee from 0 to 7 : mean matriculation score is calculated over

ir part only of Secondary schooling.

best 'five subjects (maximum score is 35). -

Table 1 summarizes the distribution of sex and age amongst the groups responding to the questionnaire. About one-quarter of the students from first year Medicine and Veterinary Science were girls. There were no girls in the sample from Engineering, and only six in Agricultural Science. On the other hand, 100 per cent of the sample from the Therapies, almost 70 per cent of Pharmacy, and 35 per cent of the Science samples were girls. Dentistry falls well below Therapies, Pharmacy, Science, and Medicine in female enrolments, as only seven girls (approximately 10 per cent) were enrolled in Dentistry I.

There was no significant difference in the mean age or range of ages of students in this group of first year courses at the University of Queensland. The great majority of the students entered the University immediately after completing secondary school and were 17 or 18 years of age a t enrolment.

As can be seen from Table 2, they came from all four broad categories of secondary schools in the State : Brisbane and country, Government and private. Half of the students in Medicine 1 and Pharmacy I, and almost half in Dentistry I and the Therapies I completed secondary school studies in private schools in Brisbane. While these Brisbane


Common- wealth

Scholarship

377

State Fellowship

or Scholarship

TABLE 3 Number of students receiving financial assistance

-

163

13 12 19 19 17

80

____ 10

2 2 9

10 8

31 -

I1

45 16

14

18

111

_____ 51 3

21

15 27

6 3 3

I 2

7 31 5

40 41 - - - _

Type of assistance Receiving assistance

Course Number Number Per cent

Other

Agric. Science I . . Engineering I . . Medicine I . . . . Pharmacy I . . . . Science I . . . . Therapies I . . . . Vet. Science I . .

34 42 47 47 44 40 46

26 40 36 25 31 20 27

76.5 95.2 76.6 53.2 70.5 50 .0 60.0

.- ;; I 2 33 1 22 -

4

22 2 ;: 1 1

Total . . . . 299 205 68.6 32

54 38 39 34 40

Dentistry I . . Dentistry I1 . . Dentistry I11 . . Dentistry IV . . Dentistry V . . -

Total . . . .

15 20 29 32 37

133

27 .8 52.6 74,4 94.1 92 .5

64.9

- 6 1 3

12*

22 205

* Includes eight Armed Services Scholarships held by Den

TABLE 4 Use qf information sources about Dentistry by respondents before choosing a University course . -

Other courses (per cent)*

Jhntistry (per cent)* Information

source - Ther.

__ 45

8

10

10

13

8 -

9gric. Engin Med.

- 49 11

23

17

19 17 4

Phar.

__ 32 6

6

13

19

4 -

Sci.

~

50 14

16

14

5 18 -

Vet. Sci.

53 13

7

9

__

13 11 9 -

I

__ 54 19

32

24

48 - -

IV

__ 24

3

12

6

18 - -

-

V

__ 43 3

10

10

28 - -

----- Pamphlet . . Film . . . . Group talk by

Dentist . . Static display on

Dentistry . . Guided tour of

Dental School, clinic or practice . . . .

None available Not interested

6 I 10

* Since more than one choice was permitted, course totals may exceed 100 per cent.

private schools were also major sources of supply to the other Faculties listed, their contribution in these areas was matched by the State High Schools in the Brisbane area.

Table 2 also includes the mean matriculation scores of the students in the sample. Engineerinp I stands out in the array with a mean matriculation score of 28.9. Medicine I is second with a mean score of 27.9, and all of the rest fall between this mean score and 25.7.

Commonwealth Scholarships were awarded to only 24 per cent of Dentistry I students, compared

with 38 per cent of Therapy students and 70 per cent of students in Medicine I and Engineering I. When this assistance was combined with other types, it was noted that 69 per cent of the non-dental students were receiving financial support, compared with 28 per cent of Dentistry I students (Table 3).

Table 4 shows that such information sources about Dentistry as pamphlets, films, group talks, and ststic displays were equally available to dental and non-dental students. However, there was a marked difference in the availability of a guided tour of the Dental School, a clinic, or tt practice, being 48 per

3 78

Definite rejec-


Definite alternative - I-- -- _~

First alternative 1 Second alternative Third alternative

TABLE 5 Priority of Dentistry as an alternative career by respondents enrolled i n another Faculty

tion

~~

25 26 18 34 21 31 30

185 ~-

-

N O .

- 34 42 47 4 1 44 40 45

299 -

-

- M

- -

7

1 - -

8

-

~

Priority of Dentistry as an alternative career

Phar.

10

8

2 1 5 -

~ ~~

Total

-~ Sci.

-___ 6

3

3 1 2 1

Course __

M and F

_ _ _ ~ M

F and M

_____ 4

3 5 7 4

-

F M

and F

M

Agric. Science I Engineering I . . Medicine I . . Pharmacy I . . Science I . . Therapies I . . Vet. Science I

4 5 4 9 2 3 5

32 __

4 8

20 10 4 8

10

62

5 2

717 Total 2 10 13

TABLE 6 Comments about Dentistry as a career from respondents in other Faculties

I Faculty

Agric. I- Comment Total

48

46

18 11 8 7

Engin. Med.

9

5

9 1

3 -

-

Ther.

9

1

- -

1 -

Vet. Sci.

3

10

- 3 - -

Not interesting . . .. Dislike of dentists, dent-

istry, hurting people, working in mouths . .

Limited employment op-

Lack of information . . Unsuitable for girls . . Lacks prestige and status

portunities . . . .

4

s 3 3

1 -

7

5

1 2

2 -

I

cent for Dentistry I students and a mean of 12 per cent for non-dental students. A substantial number of non-dental students claimed that no information on Dentistry was available to them, but this claim was not made by any dental student or by any student doing Pharmacy or a Therapy course.

The priority of Dentistry (Table 5 ) and comments about Dentistry (Table 6) among non-dental students were revealing. Only 10 students out of the 299 respondents regarded Dentistry as a first alternative, and nine of these were in Medicine I. Only 62 students were prepared to consider it even to the third alternative level, and half of these had chosen to pursue either Medicine or Pharmacy. On the other hand, 185, or 62 per cent, were prepared to reject Dentistry as a possible career. The reasons for this rejection were a belief that Dentistry was not interesting and a dislike of dentists or their type of work. To a lesser extent some studenh cited limited employment opportunities, lack of

information, its unsuitability for girls, or a lack of prestige as their reason for rejection.

Nor had Dentistry been an automatic first choice for dental students (Table 7). I n fact, it was a second choice for 22 per cent of current dental undergraduates, and among these the predominant first choice was Medicine.

Approximately half the dental students had received advice about Dentistry (Table 8) from a dentist or 8 parent, and slightly fewer from a vocational guidance officer. Approximately one- quarter had received advice from a dental student. The most common factor infiuencing the choice of Dentistry (Table 9) was the type of work, followed by the anticipation of a satisfactory income and working with people. Numerous other factors were cited as a major influence among 25 per cent of dental students.

Having decided to undertake the dental course, the primary employment attraction was either

Australian Dental Journal, October, I972 3 79

TABLE 7 Number of dental students for whom Dentistry was not the $rat choice as a career, and the careers of preference

Number with Dentistry as second choice

54 38 39 34 i 40

Course of first choice Total

___-

12 11

46 ~~

Course ~

Agric.

6 - 9 - 8 -

1 1

2

No.

Engin.

- -

1 1 1

-- Med.

~~

4 7 4 6 8

67 133 41 19 5 2 4

21 29 2

32.7 64.9 20.0 9.3 2.4 1.0 2.0

10.2 14-1 1.0

-- Sci. Ther.

-I-

Dentistry I . . Dentistry I1 . . Dentistry 111 . . Dentistry I V . . Dentistry V . .

~

Total . . 1 205 3 1 29 1 / 8

TABLE 8 Persona from whom advice was received before enrolment i n Dentistry

Year of Dentistry Total Person

I I1 I11 I V ~~ ~

112 103 86 56 26 29

Dentist .. .. . . Parent . . . . . . . . Vocational guidance officer . . Dental student . . . . Lecturer at Dental School . . Other . . . . . . . .

36 34 21 17 10 3

18 18 12 10 4 7

21 20 22 12

4 6

14 12 16 9 6 6

23 19 15 8 2 7

TABLE 9 Factors influencing zz, zzz, zv, V )

Total

oice of Dentistry as a c

Major influence

eer (summary Dentistry

Secondary influence

Numberl Per cent Factor

Number Per cent Number Per cent

63 34 33 14 9 8 8 7 4 3

30.7 16.6 16.1 6.8 4.4 3 .9 3.9 3.4 2.0 1.5

130 167 74 33 14 10 12 28 33 5

63.4 81.5 36.1 16.1 6.8 4 . 9 5.9

13.7 16.1 2.4

Type of work . . .. Satisfactory income . . Working with people . . Dentist a relative or friend Frtilure in Medicine . . Advice from parent . . Scientific course . . . . Community status . . Offer of scholarship . .

Independence . . . .

general or specialist practice for 63 per cent in Dentistry I, 82 per cent in Dentistry 11, 51 per cent in Dentistry 111, 79 per cent in Dentistry IV, and 66 per cent in Dentistry V (Table 10). Public Dental Service was a consistent attraction for about 15 per cent of students in all years of the course.

The progress in time towards their respective goals (Table 11) showed that considerable numbers had been required to repeat a year. The percentage of such students from Dentistry I through to Dentistry V was 17, 58, 33, 47, and 60 per cent respectively.

Against this performance, satisfaction with the choice of Dentistry (Table 12) was sustained by a mean 82 per cent of all students. Of the remainder, 30 students spread through all years of the course were undecided, 4 students were dissatisfied, and 2 students failed to reply. The possible relationship of doing Dentistry as a second choice with current indecision or dissatisfaction with this choice was studied further. On the one hand, 36 out of 46 students, for whom Dentistry was a second choice, are now satisfied with their choice. Of the other 10, 8 preferred Medicine, 1 Mathematics, and 1

380

~- Dentistry Dentistry

I1 I11

57.9 33.3 23.7 18.0 15.8 12-8 0 5.1 0 5.1 2.6 0 0 10.3 0 2.6 0 12.8


Dentistry IV

50 29.4 17.7 0 2.9 0 0 0 0

TABLE 10 T h e primary attraction of various employment opportunities in Dentistry

Course Year

Dentistry I . .

Dentistry I11 . . Dentistry IV . . Dentistry I1 . .

Dentistry V . .

Primary employment attraction

Total number

of students

54 38 39 34 40

General practice . . Specialist practice Public Dental Services Armed Forces . . University teaching Research . . . . Work overseas . . Postgraduate studies No answer . .

Number

45 16 26 18 16

~

. . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . ..

. . . .

. . . . . . . .

.. . .

~ _ _ _ _

Per cent

83 42 67 53 40

____

Dent istry I

44.4 18.5 13 11.1 0 3.7 5.6 3.7 0

TABLE 11 Percentage of dental students proceeding in minimal

time towards graduation I I

Marine Biology. On the other hand, 24 out of 34 students who are now undecided or dissatisfied had Dentistry as a first choice. These students consistently claimed that the factors that influenced their choice of Dentistry were adequate income, security, status, regular hours, and acceptance of advice from a parent rather than such professional motives as type of work and pleasure from working with people.

Discussion The mean matriculation scores of first year

students at the University of Queensland would suggest that over all the performance by Dentistry I in the Senior Public Examination was a t least as good as that of five of the other courses sampled. However, this impression is not supported by performance on an individual basis. Only 28 per cent of students in Dentistry I were individually awarded some form of scholarship. For the other seven courses, the percentage of students in first year receiving financial assistance ranged from 50 for Therapies to 95 for Engineering. Unfortunately, in a static survey of this type it is not possible to generalize about the implications of this on performance, particularly a t the first and second year levels, in which the highest failure rates occur.

Dentistry V

45 20 20 10 0 0 2.5 2.5 0

Much has been written about the disturbing nature of failure rates within the University. It has not been the subject of any searching enquiry in Australian Dental Schools, and there would seem to be a need to examine the relationship between performance a t matriculation and factors affecting performance in the various years of a dental course.

A very disturbing feature of the results in this study is the relatively large number of students who are dissatisfied or undecided about the choice of Dentistry as a career. Students undertake their first clinical work in third year, and it could be that the students have their first real opportunity to assess the choice of Dentistry as a career at that time. Previous studiedl) (21 ( 8 ) have also found that some Australian dental students have shown dissatisfaction or indecision with their choice. At least one-fifth of the senior dental students at the University of Queensland are disenchanted with Dentistry as a career. It would seem highly desirable that there should be a careful analysis of this and of any relationship between it and teaching or course structure. This possibility was not tested in the present study. There are, on the other hand, good indications that the dissatisfied students were motivated to enter dentistry because of the influence of a parent or because of p o d income, regular hours, or professional status. Not one of these dissatisfied students expressed any interest in the type of work or pleasure from working with people. Yet these two qualities rate highest amongst satisfied students who had Dentistry as a first choice.

Since 3 per cent of the sample of non-dental students had considered Dentistry as a first

”’Barnard, P. D., Wearn, D. I., Dowsett, M. H., and Siu, S. K.-The Australian dental student. Survey of Australian dental students 1964. Austral. D. J., 12 : 2, 127-139 (Apr.) 1967.

~1 Appointments Board of the University of Sydney-Annual Report t o June 30, 1870.

‘3’Kruger B. J.-The deiital student at the University of Queehsland. Austral. 1). J., 7 : 4, 318-323 (Aug.) 1962.


No.

47 34 29 27 32

169

38 I

Per cent No. Per cent No. Per cent

87.0 - - 6 11-1 89.5 - - 4 10.5 74.3 1 2 .6 9 23.0 79.4 - - 7 20.6 80.0 7 . 5 4 10.0

82.4 2 . 0 30 I 14.6

TABLE 12 Number of dental students who are satisfied with the choice of Dentistry as a career

Course Year

Dentistry I . . Dentistry I1 . . Dentistry 111 .. Dentistry IV .. Dentistry V ..

Total

Satisfaction with choice

No. Satisfied (<Zatisfied 1 Undecided

54 38 39 34 40

205

alternative, there may always be a pool of potential dental students, who might respond to some encouragement. Whatever form that encouragement takes, however, it should be directed a t stimulating any latent interest in the type of work involved in Dentistry and in the pleasures that can be derived from working with people.

Similar motivations to study dentistry have been claimed by dental students in other parts of Aust,ralia and overseas,(1) “1 ( 6 ) (0 and are similar to answers given by Queensland dental students in an earlier study.‘8) Almost exactly opposite views were taken by many of the students enrolled in other Faculties- a not surprising conflict. There was, however, one surprising observation from eight Pharmacy students that Dentistry was “unsuitable for girls ”. Yet, since 1903, 100 women dentists have registered in Queensland. The large numbers of women in Dentistry in many European countries also show this to be invalid.“) There would seem to be a need for attempting to change this attitude as there is no reason to believe that Dentistry is any less suitable a career for girls than Medicine, Pharmacy, or the Therapies.‘a) 1’)

In Queensland, a t present, relatively fewer dental students come from State high schools and private girls’ schools in Brisbane than from the private boys’ secondary schools. Supply of information to these schools could be strengthened. It would seem that career pamphlets, films, group talks, and

“ 8 Martin, R. T.-An investigation of the attitude and adjust- ment of practising dentists and dental students to their profession. Sydney, The Dental Health Education and Research Foundation of the University of Sydney, 1970.

(‘I Richards, L. G. , and Lefcowitz, 111. J.-Interest in Dentistry: a pilot study of high school students. 11. Effect of occupational values and ideal job characteristics. J. D. Educ., 31 : 2, 195-208 (June) 1957.

In8 Western, J. C., and Anderson, D. S.-The dental profession and oublic attitudes. Austral. D. J.. 14 : 3. 199-204

NO answer

static displays were as readily available to non- dental students as they were to dental students, and presumably were not influential in motivating non-dental students to consider Dentistry. While there is no reason to discontinue their use, greater emphasis should be given to encouraging guided tours of the Dental School (in Brisbane) and of Government clinics and private practices in all parts of the State. There were significant differences between the claims of non-dental and dental students on the availability of such tours. It would probably be advantageous for tours to be part of an overall information service developed in co- operation with teachers acting as vocational guidance officers in the schools or with the officers of the responsible Government Departments.

Conclusion Based on mean matriculation scores, the quality

of students enrolling in Dentistry a t the University of Queensland is similar to that of students in most other biological courses, with the exception of Medicine.

Not all dental students enter Dentistry as a first choice, and by fifth year some are still undecided about it as a career.

Dentistry should be attracting more students from Government high schools in country districts of Queensland.

It is desirable for prospective dental students to have access to consultative advice from vocational guidance officers and dentists. This should be supported by career information and guided tours of a Dental School, clinic, or practice, to help students decide if they would gain satisfaction from Dentistry as a career.

Dental School, University of Queensland,

Turbot Street, Brisbane, Q’land. 4000.

university students and their attitudes to dentistry as a career

Documents