Access Question For MED (1 Viewer)

[bigheadache99]

Anonymous2003,

I understand your feelings concerning the non-academic qualifiers like UMAT (& interviews). Indeed they are nonsense and tantamount to "Affirmative Action" for the academically less-competitive. If it's any consolation, you're part of a growing vocal cohort along with doctors and medical lecturers.

As I've predicted years ago in another now-defunct med forum, non-academic qualifiers will eventually be questioned and downgraded and possibly even phased out. Looks like it's set to happen at most Go8 med schools starting with UQ in 2008 and USyd. I guess the AMA must have tons of members whose brilliant ENTER 99+ kids have been missing out on Medicine in droves.

To date, there isn't a shred of evidence proving that these subjective non-academic qualifiers are able to better select good doctor material. The idea behind the creation of these non-academic qualifiers was also abit of a non-solution to a non-problem (supposedly, kids dropping out, etc). In all, a very expensive, feel-good farcical movement that paid little dividends and caused a new class of inequity. Like all subjective tests, it's a highly abusable system with very little EXTERNAL checks-and-balances.

 

[Season]

^^ I disagree, Australia was simply following the US, Europe and UK lead in introducing interviews.

While there is no evidence that it produces better doctors, conversely there is no evidence that it produces bad doctors either. Plus places like UNSW claiming its attrition rates have been cut by 1/3 since interviews have been introduced means something, even if people like yourself are scoffing at it. Plus this is endorsed bythe people who get in and society. I cannot remember how many times I've been told the average 99.95er probably won't make a good doctor.

Also it does facilitate certain people to be weeded out, kids who went in due to family pressure. I have a friend who went into the interview and the guy was like "so why do you want to do medicine" and she said "I don't, my family just won't take no for an answer".

she is now going to be happily studying law/actuary this year.

I have always thought about the interview as a job interview, should we do away with job interviews as well? I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Wooz]

Anonymous2003,

As I've predicted years ago in another now-defunct med forum, non-academic qualifiers will eventually be questioned and downgraded and possibly even phased out. Looks like it's set to happen at most Go8 med schools starting with UQ in 2008 and USyd. I guess the AMA must have tons of members whose brilliant ENTER 99+ kids have been missing out on Medicine in droves.

To date, there isn't a shred of evidence proving that these subjective non-academic qualifiers are able to better select good doctor material. The idea behind the creation of these non-academic qualifiers was also abit of a non-solution to a non-problem (supposedly, kids dropping out, etc). In all, a very expensive, feel-good farcical movement that paid little dividends and caused a new class of inequity. Like all subjective tests, it's a highly abusable system with very little EXTERNAL checks-and-balances.

I don't think this is the case, i think their will always be a number of non-academic qualifiers or conversion to post-grad med as Umelb have done, esp to stamp out those doing med for the wrong reasons.

UQ was blasted for removing interviews, they claimed they could not stamp out bias in their traditional interviews and did not accept research from Canadian universities which developed the Multi Mini Interview Station interviews. Usyd as far as im aware is still using the MMI, Gamsat and GPA this year. UQ is post-grad so it does not need as stringent an entry procedure such as other uni's esp when QLD has Griffith, Bond and JCU taking most of the med candidature.

There is alot of evidence supporting MMI over normal or standard medical interviews but nothing is non-subjective deal and everything is bias to an extent so deal with it:

The MMI was introduced around 2005 to many post-grad uni's in Australia as research from McMaster and Calgary universities in Canada found they significantly reduced bias and 'preclerkship performance relative to traditional tools designed to assess the noncognitive qualities of applicants'.

Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman Gr, An admissions OSCE: The multiple mini interview, Med Educ 2004; 38(3): 314-326
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2007.02682.x?journalCode=med
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/do...5994.2004.00796.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=imj
http://www.ucalgary.ca/oncampus/weekly/april7-06/11.pdf

But to date there has not been any wide spread research or a study of the effectiveness of umat or gamsat the Federal government pointed out in Aug 06 that more research was needed in the application process of medicine, i haven't seen anything to date.

Also you have the opportunity to go to JCU which doesn't have umat, but it does have a comprehensive interview and application this is to find the best and most suitable candidates for it's tropical medicine tailored program.