UMAT - Subtle Discrimination Against Asians? (2 Viewers)

[veridis]

a few facts about immigration to australia to dispel the popular myths that overseas born = aisan as seems to be a given around here

total immigration in 2002-2003(the latest year on gov site) = 93k
born in UK = 12.5k
born in NZ = 12.3k
born in china = 6.6k
born in india = 5.7k
next is south africa = 4.6k
indonesia and phillipines are in 3ks
iraq = 2.8k
sudan= 2.7k
malaysia = 2.6k
vietnam = 2.5k
other countries over 1.5k are serbia, singapore, lebanon, fiji, sri lanka

i dont know how you count a majority but i sure dont see an asian majority there.
overseas born does not mean asian and the assumption that it does by many arguing in here reveals just how racist this thread is. you cant ligitimately argue racism against yourself when your own arguments are based upon racist suppositions.

from http://www.immi.gov.au/statistics/stat_info/oad/settlers/setdatb.htm

 

[funnybunny]

Moron, i am not saying the majority of immigrants are asians (besides it still would be since india is also counted to be asiasm) I am saying that the majority of ppl trying out for medicine are asians

 

[veridis]

Actually, you've missed my point. When I said that the UMAT could potentially be a tool to discriminate against certain races, it is not due to any deficiencies of those races, but rather due to the subjective nature of the UMAT's interview component. Admission of students is based solely on the discretion of those panels of interviewers. It's arbitrary, uncomparable with other people, and not transparent. This is unlike the HSC, where everybody gets the same questions, and where everyone is marked according to the same standardised guidelines. So why isn't that nationwide, transparent examination adequate enough as a selection tool for the people applying for med/dent places?

UMAT has no interview componant. it is an objective test, moreso than HSC given the lack of an internal thus teacher influenced mark.
the interview in the selection process may be subjective but as mentioned earlier to presume this means discrimination and to presume it is only against asians is absurd and reflective of an inferiority complex. there are many interviewers that are asian, and of many other ethnicities other than anglo. to claim someone is racist merely because they are not asian is racist in itself

NO...some non-asians are smarter than asians in english and thus have a greater advantage in the umat (so tehy deliberatley introudced it)

and some asians are better than sone non asians, i dont see your point that UMAT is bad because it only lets the smart people through

he majority of asians TRY OUT FOR MEDICINE not the majority of imigrants are asians

haha you are digging your hole arent you. can you not make an argument that doesnt show you to be racist? are you seriously trying to say that more than 50% of asian background student apply to do medicine? racist stereotypes anyone?

 

[veridis]

Moron, i am not saying the majority of immigrants are asians (besides it still would be since india is also counted to be asiasm)

i think you're the moron. 5+6(india+china) equals 11. UK alone in 12 as is NZ, so 24 in total. even with asian countries like iraq and lebanon which i dont think we are referring to in this discussion("asian" usualy means SE-Asian in australian conversation) then asian immigration is nowhere near a majority. so you're bad at english and maths, yet complain about UMAT?

I am saying that the majority of ppl trying out for medicine are asians

and the majority that get in are. i fail to see the discrimination

 

[funnybunny]

Moron me thinks you are. I mean asians versus individual courntries. Besides you missed my main point, that we are talking, most ppl trying out for medicine are asians, yet you tryt to twist this unwittingly since you mention "which i dont think we are referring to in this discussion" but go on to talk about immigrants from otehr countrey

 

[epsilon]

veridis, maybe you should read this article again.

Quotes from the article:

"But Australian-born students still dominate medical schools, contrary to widespread belief about the ascendancy of Chinese-born locals."

Implying that this article is aimed at the issue of Asian-born students.

"The study shows almost 60 per cent of local students in dentistry and optometry courses last year were born overseas or spoke a language other than English at home, and about half of them were of Asian origin."

I don't think many overseas-born students from the UK/NZ/South Africa speaks a language other than English (ok, maybe SA).

And doesn't this quote:

"The introduction of "selection filters by medical schools in recent years may partly explain the results", Dr Birrell said."

Imply that the UMAT does filter out students of Asian descent?

""These figures do not support the supposition that overseas-born or second-generation students are dominating entry into the medical profession," the study says."

Ahh, and I wonder why is that so....

And furthermore, why is that study carried out in the first place? Why does it have to do a racial breakdown of the students in med/dent/opt? What does it matter if there are a significant number of Australians doing med/dent that are of Asian descent? The fact that studies such as these are even carried out indicates that Australia is still very much aware of the issue of race in society, and of an underlying Anglo-Saxon inferiority complex against the 'Asian hordes' in relation to securing places in med/dent/phar/opt schools.

 

[veridis]

Moron me thinks you are. I mean asians versus individual courntries. Besides you missed my main point, that we are talking, most ppl trying out for medicine are asians, yet you tryt to twist this unwittingly since you mention "which i dont think we are referring to in this discussion" but go on to talk about immigrants from otehr countrey

no you are still the moron. you said majority, that means 50% +1 not more than any other individual country
by saying "which i dont think we are referring to in this discussion" i was pointing out the racism evident when this discussion considers asian to mean SE-Asian not the true meaning of the word.
i will stop talking to you and only reply to epsilon as at least he makes logical sense even if he is mistaken on a number of issues.

 

[veridis]

Quotes from the article:

"But Australian-born students still dominate medical schools, contrary to widespread belief about the ascendancy of Chinese-born locals."

Implying that this article is aimed at the issue of Asian-born students.

but this discussion is about asian students in general, including Australian born

"The study shows almost 60 per cent of local students in dentistry and optometry courses last year were born overseas or spoke a language other than English at home, and about half of them were of Asian origin."

I don't think many overseas-born students from the UK/NZ/South Africa speaks a language other than English (ok, maybe SA).

i bold the clever use of OR by the journalist. it fooled you into reading it as and, no doubt what the journalist mean. but dont be mistake that 60% includes immigrants who did speak english in their home country as well as australian born students who speak a language other than english, meaning euro and african as well as asian, at home

And doesn't this quote:

"The introduction of "selection filters by medical schools in recent years may partly explain the results", Dr Birrell said."

Imply that the UMAT does filter out students of Asian descent?

no it implies it filters out those with bad english skills

""These figures do not support the supposition that overseas-born or second-generation students are dominating entry into the medical profession," the study says."

Ahh, and I wonder why is that so....

And furthermore, why is that study carried out in the first place? Why does it have to do a racial breakdown of the students in med/dent/opt? What does it matter if there are a significant number of Australians doing med/dent that are of Asian descent? The fact that studies such as these are even carried out indicates that Australia is still very much aware of the issue of race in society, and of an underlying Anglo-Saxon inferiority complex against the 'Asian hordes' in relation to securing places in med/dent/phar/opt schools.

i agree why does it matter? it doesnt. but by claiming discrimination you are saying that the non-asian section of the med community think it does. a point i wish to refute. i say there is no discrimination and that the high number of asian students is due to the fact that those students are hard worknig and capable and is not a reflection of their ethnicity.
the article you quote likes to use the words asian, immigrant, and overseas born as synonyms. i put to you that they are not. the article is misleading and downright deceptive. it twists the facts to make a point and it has fooled you in the process. if you read it again and think asian only where it says asian, and this immigrant from anywhere when it says that, then you will get a very different impression.
yes the fact these studies were carried out indicate a certain element of racial awareness. but what makes you think that it was instigated by an anglo researcher or written by an anglo journalist. nothing but your own racial preconceptions and you inferiority complex. what drives your claims of racial discrimination? your awareness of racial issues and your racist view. you say Australia yet lay blame only on the "Anglo-Saxon inferiority complex". are you saying only anglo's are australian? you're just as racist as any of them. racism flows both ways.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Why is only med/dent singled out for this?

cos med/dent are the primary subjects that use the UMAT

In fact, what proof do you have that med/dent minus the UMAT resembles Year 12 work?

I said nothing like that. What I implied was that Med/Dent now are nothing lik yr 12 so u cant use yr 12 results as a good judge of medical entrance or what medical work is like. The UMAT was to give a broad spectrum of skills to get further assessed.

Especially regarding rote learning its just not good for clinical skills.

And what do you mean by the realities of medicine and dentistry?

its called clinical practice. book smart pays little dividends here.

I don't think the UMAT tests candidates on those things at all. I was under the impression that med students get a dose of that during their internship stints.

They are there to sort out extra skills that yr 12 doesnt test. You have a better idea of a test to figure out if a person would make a good doctor?

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

epsilon: I suspect only you and funnybunny think there is a conspiracy.

but the truth is:
-UMAT was introduced because of the new self-directed learning courses. which requires different skills to yr 12 work or typical university courses.
-There are interviews as there is also a shift towards heavy litigation in the medico-legal scene from poor communication. That's why we have more communications classes too.
-UAI is not a great indicator of medical school performance as its not the same kind of work.
-UMAT is to increase the assessment of a persons skill range and reasoning skills. It was to follow the LSAT and MCAT style of the US when they got PBL courses.
-Medicine is bloody expensive to run compared to Law. So they need to make sure that you finish it at least.

Asian students are also smart. They realise that being paid 42K base salary is not what people do after 5-6 yrs of uni.
Only retarded asians lik me, Bob.J, inasero and lexi thought it would be fun.

so STFU.. stop arguing for a minority... cos chances are they are playing the game.. regardless.

 

[+:: $i[Q]u3 ::+]

This thread is stupid.

 

[funnybunny]

no you are still the moron. you said majority, that means 50% +1 not more than any other individual country
by saying "which i dont think we are referring to in this discussion" i was pointing out the racism evident when this discussion considers asian to mean SE-Asian not the true meaning of the word.
i will stop talking to you and only reply to epsilon as at least he makes logical sense even if he is mistaken on a number of issues.

Maybe you should read posts in the context of the thread (i hope you know what this means). I mean asians as in from asian countries(china, india etc) vs individual countries e.g UK etc. by talking about the umat the majority of peopole are SE asians, and you are ignoring teh context of this discussion. Besides why drag this conversation towards a totally different issue that doesn't really answer the question. I don't really care if you don't post back, because although you do make logical posts, those posts do not really address the question, as indicated when no one really replies to your posts after making the migrant remarks.

Pointdexter, i believe there are lots of people that think the same, with SIQ... i agree, this thread stupid, it has already been discussed.

 

[veridis]

that is what you mean now. i have taken each of your comments as you explained them at the time, you keep changing what you mean specificaly and i keep refuting your corrections. i dont see how asia as a whole(which i see again you consider SE-Asia not the whole continent) verses individual countries is a useful comparison for anything. "by talking about the umat the majority of peopole are SE asians" that is just plainly a lie. of those born overseas or of non-english speaking background the article states "about half of them were of Asian origin". of australian born students of english speaking background the proportion would be lower. you are talking only of your experiences in sydney, a city with a larger asian population than anywhere else. UMAT is a nationwide test including many areas where the asian population isnt as noticable.
the reason i bring up these issues is that the article used decptive language to make it appear as if they are talking about Asian students in general when they quote statistics from a variety of different groups, ones i noticed were overseas born(shown to be predominantly non-asian), non-english speaking background (again not just asian) and these were contrasted to Australian born students, many of whom are from an asian background. while i did post in more detail than needed it was because i was constantly refuted with false information and had to clarify that the article was obviously misleading, in what can only be described as a calculated and manipulative way. given the article was the basis of many of the claims and constantly referred to incorrectly i felt it appropriate to show it false.

also the main question had already been answered, UMAT does not discriminate against asians, just those with bad coomunication skills. communication skills that are needed for a carreer in medicine and that show little correlation with ethnic background.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

I believe there are lots of people that think the same

If you mean that there is a conspiracy... then im guessing its ppl who miss out or barely make it into medicine or dent.

 

[Estel]

This thread is stupid.

The only post that I read in its entirety.

 

[funnybunny]

If you mean that there is a conspiracy... then im guessing its ppl who miss out or barely make it into medicine or dent.

so does that mean their views are less valid than others who have made it into med?

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

so does that mean their views are less valid than others who have made it into med?

If it were supported by good evidence then no otherwise yes.

 

[Skywalker]

This thread is stupid.

Bazing!

 

[aaaman]

Hello guys. I have posted the above-titled thread previously in the General section about a month ago. You can see that thread here. I was wondering whether you guys who are currently doing medicine/dentistry or who have applied for it previously have seen that thread before. I would really like to hear your opinions on this matter, since this issue concerns you guys the most and since you guys have first-hand experience on this matter.

Do you agree with my views on this? If not, why do you disagree? What exactly is the point for the introduction of UMAT, interviews and all? Was there really an epidemic of 'terrible bedside manners' doctors and dentists when the decision to implement UMAT was taken? What was wrong with the previous medical/dent selection process when only one's UAI were taken into account? Do you agree that the UMAT/interviews are subjective, arbitrary, and un-transparent selection tests? And why are only entry into medicine/dent subjected to these additional tests? Why isn't there a screening test for potential law students as well, for example? By all means, aren't one's interpersonal skills more important if one wants to become a lawyer, as oppose to a doctor/dentist? Could this be because Law isn't as in demand by Asian students yet, compared to med/dent?

Is it then that ludicrious to venture a suggestion that the UMAT could possibly be introduced to serve as an unfair screening mechanism to limit/control the number of Asian students who get into medicine/dent? And if so, why are we Australians, who are suppose to pride ourselves for our egalitarian society, supporting this injustice?

Your opinions on these issues are very much appreciated.

ur gotta be really fucking stupid, the system is working

 

[pravski]

JUST TO CLEAR EVERYTHING UP

In UNSW Med, finding a non-asian is like playing Where's Wally.

UMAT checks if you have comprehension skills and the interview checks whether the interviewer likes you...i mean 'whether you have communication skills'

Based on this evidence, one could (and has) argued UMAT favours asians.