Lessons From Organic Chemistry: The Case for Considering Both High Standards and Equity in Assessment.

In this commentary, the authors explore the tension of balancing high performance standards in medical education with the acceptability of those standards to stakeholders (e.g., learners and patients). The authors then offer a lens through which this tension might be considered and ways forward that focus on both patient outcomes and learner needs.In examining this phenomenon, the authors argue that high performance standards are often necessary. Societal accountability is key to medical education, with the public demanding that training programs prepare physicians to provide high-quality care. Medical schools and residency programs, therefore, require rigorous standards to ensure graduates are ready to care for patients. At the same time, learners' experience is important to consider. Making sure that performance standards are acceptable to stakeholders supports the validity of assessment decisions.Equity should also be central to program evaluation and validity arguments when considering performance standards. Currently, learners across the continuum are variably prepared for the next phase in training and often face inequities in resource availability to meet high passing standards, which may lead to learner attrition. Many students who face these inequities come from underrepresented or disadvantaged backgrounds and are essential to ensuring a diverse medical workforce to meet the needs of patients and society. When these students struggle, it contributes to the leaky pipeline of more socioeconomically and racially diverse applicants.The authors posit that 4 key factors can balance the tension between high performance standards and stakeholder acceptability: standards that are acceptable and defensible, progression that is time variable, requisite support structures that are uniquely tailored for each learner, and assessment systems that are equitably designed.