Thought I would also add my bit to the discussion.
The current system expects a lot of blind faith from participating stakeholders' (taxpayers and students), that it "works". The truth of the matter is, this a system that is overwhelmingly subjective and thus, simply too open to abuse by the powers-that-be (admission bodies, faculties, interviewers) - all of which have little or no minority representation.
Take for instance, the UMAT, on top of having to pay lots of money for the "privilege" to undertake it, there is no credible research that indicates the students selected would make better doctors than the old system. Yet, the medical and dental schools here, being places of evidence-based higher learning, have unilaterally adopted this pseudo-scientific, unproven selection filter. Why is that? One thing for sure, the test has lost its equitability claims since a cottage industry in UMAT prep has not only appeared but has been aggressively growing over the years. Thus, those who can afford to pay for prep courses, have just that "edge" no matter how slight, over those who can't afford. This has introduced another level of inequitability.
Then we have this truly subjective selection filter called "interviews". Human beings are emotional creatures and no matter how enlightened, their perceptions are all subject to varying degrees of subtle personal, racial, cultural and religious bias. Such inherent flaws are established facts, yet, why are medical and dental applicants required to bank their futures on a gamble for an exception?
Another thing is, how can a simple 30-45 minute face-to-face interview provide a full character profile and measure on the "suitability" of any applicant to do medicine? The belief that it can, is naive optimistism and if not downright ludicrity. After all, not even professional criminal psychologists can achieve a complete and accurate character/motivation profile of a crim, much less medical/dental school interviewers drawn from the general public, who have undergone only couple of hours of "psychology" training using videotapes.
Furthermore with ridiculous ratios like anything from 3 to 6 interviewees for every 1 place, grading is extremely tight and wholly dependent on how "impressed" the interviewers are with the interviewees. Using the subjective data, our publicly-funded schools get to cherry pick "good" future doctors. It is clear to me that this practice wastes most applicants' time. You don't have to know about casinos to know that a "1 in 6" is lousy odds. Some argue that there is at least a chance to be heard, but lets be honest, only 1 will be selected. Is there a tacit aim to look for the gamblers-type personality in medicine or dentistry?
The previous system of high-school/gpa matriculation was not perfect, but at least it was appreciably transparent. As a result of the current trend of continued scholastic achievement devaluation in preference for subjective and inequitable tests, the ensuing lost of proven objectivity is a cause for real concern.
As a minority stakeholder, I can't help but see the current system for medical/dental admission, a permissible tool for social and professional control.
