From Campers to Counselors: a Resource for Prospective Genetic Counseling Students

Genetic counseling certificate program: A program evaluation of undergraduate exposure to genetic counseling

Undergraduate genetic counseling exposure can generate interest in a growing field, help students prepare to apply to graduate‐level programs, and introduce underrepresented populations to the career. One form of exposure that currently exists is the Genetic Counseling Certificate Program (GCCP), which is offered to undergraduate students at Rutgers University. To determine the effectiveness, benefits, and limitations of the GCCP, a program evaluation was conducted. Former GCCP students were surveyed to assess how they perceived the program. Overall, most students thought the program successfully met its objectives and thought their participation in the GCCP was beneficial. Because it is viewed favorably by former students, implementing something similar to the GCCP may be an option for institutions looking to offer additional opportunities to their undergraduates. Not only could creating programs like the GCCP enhance undergraduates’ knowledge of the genetic counseling profession, but it could also contribute toward diversification of the field.

Genetic counseling student demographics: an empirical comparison of two cohorts

Genetic counseling student characteristics may be evolving with the expansion and diversification of the genetic counseling field. We compared characteristics and previously accrued experiences of genetic counseling students enrolled in the 2018-2019 academic year with genetic counseling students surveyed by Lega et al. (Journal of Genetic Counseling, 14, 395; 2005). Four-hundred thirty students completed a survey (60% response rate) assessing demographics, select application experiences, encouragement and discouragement to apply to genetic counseling programs, and career certainty and motivations. Data analyses comprised descriptive statistics, content analysis of open-ended responses, and t tests and chi-square tests to compare responses to variables also assessed by Lega et al. Similarities between the two cohorts included most students being female, White/Caucasian, and biology majors; they reported a similar amount and type of support and discouragement; and they had strong career certainty. Salient group differences included the current cohort having a larger proportion of males (8% versus 3%; p=.007), greater percentage of parent(s) with a high socioeconomic status (SES; 31% versus 17%; p=.005), a lower first application cycle acceptance rate (71% versus 80%; p<.001), and they were more strongly influenced to pursue genetic counseling by future income (p<.001), desire to help others (p=.002), the profession's prestige (p<.001), and programs' 2-year duration (p<.001). Students applied to an average of six programs during their first application cycle and paid, on average, $1,648 for all application and interview expenses in their acceptance year. A vast majority (99%) had advocacy experiences (most commonly crisis intervention) and shadowing opportunities (94%), and 26% worked as genetic counseling assistants prior to their acceptance. Most students were interested primarily in cancer genetics at the time of survey completion. The genetic counseling field should continue efforts to improve racial and gender diversity and identify ways to increase program accessibility/affordability for individuals at all SES levels.