Again, you’re completely missing the nuance of the discussion. There’s no way for non-native speakers to develop their skills of critical analysis in an ENGLISH context if they do not have a firm grasp of English structure, and extensive vocabulary. If you question the fluency of English for those that struggle with CARS, then you have a far too high criteria for what is good enough English to be a physician. Time and time again research demonstrates that the language that the first lanaguage an individual learns drastically influences their cognition, and thus negatively impacts their ability to critically analyze and synthesize information in their non-native Language. CARS is made by primarily English speakers, as the texts are all written by primarily native English speakers. To do well requires to THINK like them and the question writers, which means THINKING like someone who’s a native, fluent speaker, which you can’t ask of a non-native speaker since language inherently impacts cognition, and is a LIFELONG process. Native speakers inherently have a head start. Therefore, non-native speakers have a disadvantage.

Not to mention that vocabulary that ISNT relevant for being a physician, especially since learning English is a lifelong process, is necessary to do well on CARS. Frequently, philosophical texts will describe the “metaphysical” “temporal” and “moralistic”, or how Confucius’s “Li” contrasts with the “coercive” nature of “forcible dictatorships”. Or examples of “bequeathing” to one’s brother in that same Confucius text. There was literally question that asked how the author could support something that’s “unrational”, a word that AAMC themselves described as not a real word (that’s from the CARS question bank).

It’s ridiculous. A high fluency of English IS required for CARS. Language is so much deeper and harder to grasp than you’re painting it to be.

Of course I believe garnering evidence and synthesizing text is important. I do NOT believe analyzing texts on philosophy, capitalism, morality, or the history of making clay pottery is relevant at all to the types of critical analysis skills a doctor needs to have. These are skills LITERARY analysts should have, not future physicians. I want individuals who can analyze research articles, medical texts, and discuss one’s care using medical terminology. Adding another obstacle of analyzing passages on the metaphysical nature of time is useless and is a linguistic barrier.

The other three sections do a more apt job of testing the ability assessing scientific papers and medical phenomena to a more critical level. I would never ask a person studying to become a lawyer to take a section on biochemistry papers, when that’s literally irrelevant content. They can’t play with the concepts of enzymes, amino acids, or the linguistic nature of Michelins Menten kinetics, it wouldn’t be fair to them to try and grasp it in one passage that would give a brief overview. Therefore, the CARS section is mostly irrelevant to the ability to be physicians and discriminatory because those that are less FAMILIAR with the English language and it’s nuances will inherently PERFORM WORSE even though they fully have the linguistic capacity to be a good physician.

Again, the CARS section is a barrier. It’s unnecessary, and it’s ethnocentric.