Mental health conditions can impact college students’ social and academic achievements. As such, students may disclose mental illnesses on medical school applications. Yet, no study has investigated to what extent disclosure of a mental health condition impacts medical school acceptance. We designed an audit study to address this gap. We surveyed 99 potential admissions committee members from at least 43 unique M.D.-granting schools in the U.S. Participants rated a fictitious portion of a medical school application on acceptability, competence, and likeability. They were randomly assigned to a condition: an application that explained a low semester GPA due to a mental health condition, an application that explained a low semester GPA due to a physical health condition, or an application that had a low semester GPA but did not describe any health condition. Using ANOVAs, multinomial regression, and open-coding, we found that committee members do not rate applications lower when a mental health condition is revealed. When asked about their concerns regarding the application, 27.0% of participants who received an application that revealed a mental health condition mentioned it as a concern; 14.7% of participants who received an application that revealed a physical health condition mentioned it as a concern. Committee members were also asked about when revealing a mental health condition would be beneficial and when it would be detrimental. This work indicates that medical school admissions committee members do not exhibit a bias towards mental health conditions and provides recommendations on how to discuss mental illness on medical school applications.

Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education outlined five core concepts intended to guide undergraduate biology education: 1) evolution; 2) structure and function; 3) information flow, exchange, and storage; 4) pathways and transformations of energy and matter; and 5) systems. We have taken these general recommendations and created a Vision and Change BioCore Guide—a set of general principles and specific statements that expand upon the core concepts, creating a framework that biology departments can use to align with the goals of Vision and Change. We used a grassroots approach to generate the BioCore Guide, beginning with faculty ideas as the basis for an iterative process that incorporated feedback from more than 240 biologists and biology educators at a diverse range of academic institutions throughout the United States. The final validation step in this process demonstrated strong national consensus, with more than 90% of respondents agreeing with the importance and scientific accuracy of the statements. It is our hope that the BioCore Guide will serve as an agent of change for biology departments as we move toward transforming undergraduate biology education.

The U.S. scientific research community does not reflect America's diversity. Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans made up 31% of the general population in 2010, but they represented only 18 and 7% of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) bachelor's and doctoral degrees, respectively, and 6% of STEM faculty members (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2013). Equity in the scientific research community is important for a variety of reasons; a diverse community of researchers can minimize the negative influence of bias in scientific reasoning, because people from different backgrounds approach a problem from different perspectives and can raise awareness regarding biases (Intemann, 2009). Additionally, by failing to be attentive to equity, we may exclude some of the best and brightest scientific minds and limit the pool of possible scientists (Intemann, 2009). Given this need for equity, how can our scientific research community become more inclusive?

Women who start college in one of the natural or physical sciences leave in greater proportions than their male peers. The reasons for this difference are complex, and one possible contributing factor is the social environment women experience in the classroom. Using social network analysis, we explore how gender influences the confidence that college-level biology students have in each other’s mastery of biology. Results reveal that males are more likely than females to be named by peers as being knowledgeable about the course content. This effect increases as the term progresses, and persists even after controlling for class performance and outspokenness. The bias in nominations is specifically due to males over-nominating their male peers relative to their performance. The over-nomination of male peers is commensurate with an overestimation of male grades by 0.57 points on a 4 point grade scale, indicating a strong male bias among males when assessing their classmates. Females, in contrast, nominated equitably based on student performance rather than gender, suggesting they lacked gender biases in filling out these surveys. These trends persist across eleven surveys taken in three different iterations of the same Biology course. In every class, the most renowned students are always male. This favoring of males by peers could influence student self-confidence, and thus persistence in this STEM discipline.