Qualitative case study reveals strategic gap-year motivations among premedical master's students, highlighting the need for program outcome transparency and structured advising.
PURPOSE: Biomedical and health sciences master's programs are increasingly used by premedical students as transitional pathways to medical school admissions, often as part of a structured gap year. Despite their growing prevalence, little is known about how these programs influence students' career readiness and science identity. This study comprehensively evaluates the experiences of students engaging in a gap year as a pathway to medical school admittance through the lens of career development and science identity. METHOD: Using an exploratory qualitative case study design grounded in Social Cognitive Career Theory and science identity frameworks, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 9 students enrolled in biomedical and health sciences master's programs at a U.S. research-intensive institution in fall 2024. Participants represented both pre-professional and discipline-specific programs. Interview data were analyzed using an iterative coding method to identify patterns related to motivations, career readiness, and science identity. RESULTS: Findings were organized into four themes: (1) leveraging the master's degree for academic and application enhancement, (2) strengthening confidence for medical school, (3) engagement in the pursuit of professional aspirations, and (4) challenges on the career path. Participants primarily framed the master's program as a strategic tool to improve competitiveness for medical school. Motivations were extrinsically driven (e.g., boosting medical school competitiveness) versus intrinsic (e.g., subject interest). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for greater transparency in program outcomes, stronger undergraduate advising, and intentional career development support to ensure meaningful returns on investment for students pursuing medical careers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferguson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: