Oh no it is not! There is still a large element of lottery selection, but because of de-centralisation, under the new rules it is difficult to tell how much more (or less) ‘loting‘ will take place.
In 2012 it looked pretty terminal
“Lottery to be scrapped for medical students, fixed places remain
Friday 17 February 2012
All students who want to study medicine will be allocated a place on the basis of their school exam results and motivation, rather than through a lottery, if health minister Edith Schippers has her way.”
But this was a proposal. The outcome is that ‘loting‘ — use of the lottery IS still being used, if less widely. Ben Willbrink tells me that the new Law passed in 2013 says that
“It is still the case that a number of slots will be filled
a) by candidates with a high GPA 8 and above [direct placement without any form of selection]
b) by a central selection using weighted lottery
c) by decentralised selection using any procedure the particular institution thinks useful and that is not forbidden by law
The ‘decentral’ part makes it particularly difficult to obtain a good impression of admittance to numerus fixus studies in the Netherlands: every institution has its own ways to effect the decentralised selection (even lottery is allowed here). “
More info (in Dutch, Google translate helps a lot) at http://www.ikwildokterworden.nl/loting
Sigh! Yet again an attack by the ignorant leads to a feeble caving in by the administrators. When the Drenth Commission in 1996 put the system under the microscope, they found that the weighted-lottery was sound; all that was needed was INCREASE the chances for the slightly less-well qualified. The result was, unsurprisingly the opposite.
But in other (good) news, allocation of places at schools in Brighton, UK celebrates SIX years of successful lottery use, and ponders how to adapt it to rising numbers: Schools selection lottery under review as part of £24m places boost.