Megan E. L. Brown

Introduction Silence is a part of all interactions, yet its potential significance within medical education remains underexplored. Existing literature primarily focuses on its use as a skill, leaving a gap in understanding its broader implications. Emerging evidence from higher education suggests that conceptualising silence as a way of being and becoming could enrich personal and professional growth. Unfolding dialogue on equality, diversity and inclusion suggests that silence on inequity can be oppressive. However, medical education has yet to consider the possible implications of conceptualising silence in this way. Methods We explore silence through the philosophical lens of acknowledgement. Acknowledgement—communicative behaviour that grants attention to others—is a philosophy with roots in phenomenology. It is concerned with being and becoming, and silence can be part of the communicative behaviour that constitutes acknowledgement. Our aim in exploring the ontological nature of silence (silence associated with being) using acknowledgement is to offer a springboard for practitioners, educators, and researchers to consider how silence is connected with our existence as people. Results Positive acknowledgement involves a commitment to turning towards the other and valuing this connection. Silence can be a way of demonstrating this—for example, giving patients the space they need to express their thoughts and emotions. Negative acknowledgement is the opposite and involves dismissing, ignoring or invalidating another's experiences. In the context of silence, negative acknowledgement may involve ignoring a person or group's ideas, or bystander silence when witness to discrimination. Conclusions Within this work, we consider the ramifications of conceptualising silence as ontological, rather than purely a skill to be taught. This is a novel way of conceptualising silence, and there is a pressing need to explore this further to expand our understanding of the impact of silence for diverse groups of learners, educators, practitioners and patients.

Background Inequity in assessment can lead to differential attainment. Degree classifications, such as ‘Honours’, are an assessment outcome used to differentiate students after graduation. However, there are no standardised criteria used to determine what constitutes these awards. Methods We contacted all medical schools in the UK and collected data relating to classifications awarded, criteria used and percentage of students receiving classifications across the 5‐year period prior to the 2019/2020 academic year. Results All 42 UK medical schools responded, and 36 universities provided usable data. Of these 36 universities, 30 (83%) awarded classifications above a ‘Pass’. We identified four classifications above a ‘Pass’, and these were ‘Commendation’, ‘Merit’, ‘Distinction’ and ‘Honours’. Sixteen (44%) universities awarded a single additional classification, and 14 (39%) universities awarded two or more. There was considerable variation in the criteria used by each university to award classifications. For example, 30 (67%) out of 45 classifications were dependent on all examined years, 9 (20%) for a combination of years and 6 (13%) for final year alone. Twenty‐five of 30 universities that awarded classifications provided data on the percentage of students awarded a classification, and a median of 15% of students received any type of classification from their university (range 5.3% to 38%). There was a wide range in the percentage of students awarded each classification type across the universities (e.g. Honours, range = 3.1%–24%). Conclusions We demonstrate considerable variation in the way UK medical degree classifications are awarded—regarding terminology, criteria and percentage of students awarded classifications. We highlight that classifications are another form of inequity in medical education. There is a need to fully evaluate the value of hierarchical degree awards internationally as the consequential validity of these awards is understudied.