The result quite clearly showed that the selective-admission cohort outperformed the lottery-cohort in study results – although there was no significant difference in time to degree or drop-out. The outperformance was actually more significant in the follow-up study at Master’s level than it already was at Bachelor’s level: selection based on a mix of knowledge, understanding, ability and attitude works; and it works better as the studies go on.
Ms Schreurs – also analysed the added cost – inevitable in a Dutch context – for Maastricht university of the selective admission process. She found that the extra cost was € 139 000 for the cohort of 286 selective admitted students. But this was more than countered by the cost reduction of fewer repeat exams and other benefits resulting from the higher performance of these students: no less than € 207 000 for that same group of 286 students.
One thing Ms Schreurs apparently didn’t look at: Was the selective cohort more or less inclusive (including underrepresented groups) than the lottery-based group? Given the same success rate and time-to-degree, this is relevant if we want medical doctors from all segments of our society.