UMAT - Subtle Discrimination Against Asians? (1 Viewer)

[epsilon]

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.

 

[Hurri]

lol i wrote a huge response to this but firefox crashed and theres no way im retyping it. heres the gist:

To say that UMAT is discriminating against Asians, then you are also saying that Asians lack some sort of skill required for the UMAT that everyone else seems to have.

Plenty of Asians do well in UMAT.

Took a look at Med student numbers and their races, you'll find that the number of Asians are still much higher than the population average.

Why do you sound so bitter? and re-doing the exact same topic?

 

[tkdwhiz1188]

I'm asian...and i didn't feel disadvantaged because of my race while sitting the UMAT. I also happen to know quite a few asians who did FREAKING well in the UMAT. If the UMAT was intended to discriminate against asians...then its doing a dreadful job.

 

[sikeveo]

a guy who is majorly fobby (asian) at my school for 295 percentiles, so i dont think race comes into it

 

[garbagedump]

"To say that UMAT is discriminating against Asians, then you are also saying that Asians lack some sort of skill required for the UMAT that everyone else seems to have." Your assumptions are wild, however the UMAT can also be considered to let more Australian born students into medical school. Before the umat was introduced students with good science and maths results, therefore mostly asians. They also had resonable results in english or it would be extremely difficult for tehm to get 99.7+. Thus they introduced the UMAT so that an additional requiement is needed, and only students extremely good at english succeeded. It is obvious you need sound english skills to suceed in medicine, however what's really the point of favouring a person excellent at english. but poor at science subjects over someone very good in english and excellent in the sciences. Of course it's to increase angols in the medicine program.
ill required for the UMAT that everyone else seems to have.

Plenty of Asians do well in UMAT." Unforunately for the people who introduced the umat, preparation courses were introduced and asians started attending them.

ook a look at Med student numbers and their races, you'll find that the number of Asians are still much higher than the population average." See above, it's because they did prep courses to get in

"a guy who is majorly fobby (asian) at my school for 295 percentiles, so i dont think race comes into it" People i know do like 2+ prep courses.

There will always be discrimmination, but luckily there are things like prep courses to level the field....yeah i know this is ironic

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

from my experience thats not true

UMAT - Subtle Discrimination Against People with Rote Skills and No Actual Aptitude for Health Sciences.

that was the goal because of the changes in curriculum to make it less like yr 12 work and more like the reality of medicine and dentistry.

 

[funnybunny]

Pointdecter, it's incredulous to say that it discriminates people against ther health sciences, when there are no sciene related questions in the UMAT. In fact the paper is like another english competition so obviously people with very good english skills will excel unlike people with good english skills (that probably will allow you to be successful in medicine).

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

I said Aptitude...its the skills and inherent ability to learn it.

sect 3 is important med/dent for radiography... if u ever saw certain CT's like of the inner ear u have to match shapes and make sense of it.. by rotating and looking for familiar patterns
http://www.dzu.at/img/ct_schlaefe1_gr.jpg (here is one that is suppose to be easy :S)

basically sect 2 is ure ability to make health care like decision quickly..

to reiterate ... i meant the skills that u use in health sciences for problem solving.. not the science part... anyone can rote learn science

also i dun actually think the UMAT is perfect ... far from.

 

[john31459]

lol talk about leading questions.

If you want to get into Medicine bad enough, you will - period.

And doesn't the UMAT have ethical questions, and reasoning as well as puzzles?

 

[funnybunny]

basically sect 2 is ure ability to make decision quickly..

Based on your reading ability and thus english skills.

to reiterate ... i meant the skills that u use in health sciences for problem solving.. not the science part... anyone can rote learn scien

I meant UMAT with sciene realted quesitons like in Gamsat, where there are informaiton about a particular area of science then you must analyse it and then reach a decision. This must be more siginificant as teh ability to understand and comprehend science is much more important than testing one's ability in speed reading or skills to rotate for medicine

said Aptitude...its the skills and inherent ability to learn

Sorry i misread your post. However i belive the importance of testing science skills whether they have been rote learnt or not. I mean you can learn the skills you refer to later on. This is because many people have redone the umat after doing many prepartion courses and significianlty improved. Which obviously means you can learn these skills.

 

[funnybunny]

what about nursing/physiotherapy/

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

well no
using an example
.. see rote is.. like.. 9x9= 81.. u know it regardless

but 111x111 = 12321 is a pattern skill
and 123 x 523= ?? is another skill .. ppl can do it.. but can u do it quickly?
that u get from practising..

I dun doubt that u can learn a skill like multiplying.. but to rote learn all the times tables till 523 times table is crazy..

rote is know stuff without being able derive.. its lik memorising..

ure english skills thing is correct but only for sect 1.. section2 is the ethical/empathy one..
..and internationals at certain unis enter via a slightly different method to locals..

I dunno about you but I have found all skills necessary for medicine at this stage.. I have to read quickly.. and find whats relevant..and I also have to read xrays and CTs and MRIs.. by figuring out wat i am looking at..

be warned thinking that medicine is based on science might lead u astray a lil its still a fine art to be a good practitioner which I am not even close to perfecting

prep courses are only good if you practise.. and that again relies on u working... sect 2.. isnt realli practisable since its healthcare decision making and another persons guess realli is only as good as ures.. but i think learning a method to sect 1 and 3 are handy..

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Theres a difference with Medicine having the Selection Process and Law not having it. If you realise, Medicine involves treating people. Indirectly, many doctors hold the lives of their patients in their hands. Surgeons directly also do. So if we were to just let anybody do Medicine, many students with psychological problems that may hinder their ability to effectively treat a patient may cause a problem if just selected by UAI.

I think the dean of law at Usyd wanted to change that ... because they werent gettin as many good law grads as they wanted.. but this i was a while back ..

actually the UMAT doesnt do tat.. the state medical board assesses to see if ure "fit and proper" ... in NSW all students are registered.. they will let u in med.. let u study it.. but if u f*ck up they wont let u register

 

[funnybunny]

well no
using an example
.. see rote is.. like.. 9x9= 81.. u know it regardless

but 111x111 = 12321 is a pattern skill
and 123 x 523= ?? is another skill .. ppl can do it.. but can u do it quickly?
that u get from practising..

I dun doubt that u can learn a skill like multiplying.. but to rote learn all the times tables till 523 times table is crazy..

rote is know stuff without being able derive.. its lik memorising.. autistic kids would be good at that

Well yeah ...but i mean science quesitons should be in the UMAT..just like GAMSAT I think. You can't rote learn science for UMAT tests, since you relli gont know what area it comes fromm. Besides it's the dedcutive resoning relating to science you will be doing.
"section2 is the ethical/empathy one.." YEAH but speed reading will help in sec 2, and this can be done thourhg courses
"ep courses are only good if you practise.. and that again relies on u working... sect 2.."
so? these prep courses allow most to improve their skills so whats the point of testing then? working is also needede to rote learn info

 

[Bob.J]

DUDE!!!!!

you can't compare law to med. There are many many factors you havent taken into account as to why law doesnt have a stiff entry system like med.

Your post was so fuking stupid i won't even explain why it's so flawed

i can't believe there are so many posts

but yes, the umat/interview method is weeding out the people who can't communicate very well with others or are insanely arrogant and piss off the interviewers. Whatever the reason, it just happens that lots of asians want to do med, but who else doesnt?

i wont go any further

this is a racist thread btw, it's getting no where. Everyone is just 'speculating'. Maybe it's a huge conspiracy by the govt to prevent an asian invasion of fob doctors who are all geeky and talk like the jap people on the simpsons who call Homer 'Mr. Sparkle!'

ARGHHHH

this is so stupid

 

[veridis]

a counter question, why does HSC discriminate against non-asians. i see asian students excelling well above population average, can i complain that theres something sinister in that too?

why is it a given in your arguments that asian students are bad at english? why is it a given that science skills are more important than communication in medicine? this thread is based on some dangerous assumptions that show the poster to be much more racist and prejudice than the system is.

while the interview system may be counted as subjective and if you have a chip on your shoulder you can claim discrimination there but UMAT as a system is perfectly fair to all participants. they do the test, are marked the same and whoever gets more right gets a better score. if you did crap you did crap, dont blame it on your ethnicity.

as for the comparison to law the sticter entry on med is due to numbers. there are many many lawyers out there, if they're crap they dont get work, if they're crap they get stuck doing desk jobs with low pay, with med you have to stuff up really bad to lose your qualifications and lose your position of power

i also love the assumption that equates "overseas born" to asian in your other thread, way to go being racist towards all other immigrants there, since you obviously are of the opinion that none of them could ever get into courses such as dent or opt.

just cause you're arguing for a minority doesnt give you a right to spout racist bullshit

 

[funnybunny]

"a counter question, why does HSC discriminate against non-asians. i see asian students excelling well above population average, can i complain that theres something sinister in that too?" The UMAT was INTRODUCED to the selcection precdures, after apparently 2many asians were getting into medicine as the thread starter says.

"
why is it a given in your arguments that asian students are bad at english? " No one is saying asian studetns are bad at english, however some non-asians are better in english than asians are.

"as for the comparison to law the sticter entry on med is due to numbers. there are many many lawyers out there, if they're crap they dont get work, if they're crap they get stuck doing desk jobs with low pay, with med you have to stuff up really bad to lose your qualifications and lose your position of power" ur point is?

"i also love the assumption that equates "overseas born" to asian in your other thread, way to go being racist towards all other immigrants there, since you obviously are of the opinion that none of them could ever get into courses such as dent or opt." hmm...this is because the MAJORITY are asians

 

[veridis]

The UMAT was INTRODUCED to the selcection precdures, after apparently 2many asians were getting into medicine as the thread starter says.

apparantly, ie unsubstantiated rumours started by the disillusioned with inferiority complexes. it was introduced due to the UAI system letting trough students not suited for the course, as demonstrated by the high dropout rate and the disparity between UAI performance and performance in the Med course. while some of those inappropriate students were asian many more asians still excelled and a number of non asians were in the group disadvantaged

No one is saying asian studetns are bad at english, however some non-asians are better in english than asians are.

that IS what you are saying. you are saying asians are disciminated against cause they are bad ta english. the argument is that people bad at english do bad at UMAT thus asians are disciminated against. as i've said that statement is false on almost every count.

ur point is?

my point is Med entry is entry into the health system, law entry is entry into the law degree. those with bad english skills in law dont succeed in tryin to get jobs after graduating, in med it comes during entry. doctors are very expensive to train and thus unis only want those with the best chance of succeeding

hmm...this is because the MAJORITY are asians

hhhmm....this is because you're making shit up to justify you're own preconcieved ideals.
while i dont have figures and may be wrong i'm reasonably sure that the UK was still the single largest source of immigration to Australia last year.

 

[funnybunny]

"
Quote:
No one is saying asian studetns are bad at english, however some non-asians are better in english than asians are.
that IS what you are saying. you are saying asians are disciminated against cause they are bad ta english. the argument is that people bad at english do bad at UMAT thus asians are disciminated against. as i've said that statement is false on almost every count.
" NO...some non-asians are smarter than asians in english and thus have a greater advantage in the umat (so tehy deliberatley introudced it)

"my point is Med entry is entry into the health system, law entry is entry into the law degree. those with bad english skills in law dont succeed in tryin to get jobs after graduating, in med it comes during entry. doctors are very expensive to train and thus unis only want those with the best chance of succeeding" What baout nurses? bESIDES are you suggesting that the unis of other courses do not want the best ??????

"hhhmm....this is because you're making shit up to justify you're own preconcieved ideals.
while i dont have figures and may be wrong i'm reasonably sure that the UK was still the single largest source of immigration to Australia last year." maybe you should understand this "shit" properly then. The majority of asians TRY OUT FOR MEDICINE not the majority of imigrants are asians

 

[epsilon]

In reply to Hurri, I posted this thread here because it occured to me that it kinda belonged here more than in General. And I'm far from bitter I am merely putting the UMAT under scrutiny as to what actual purpose it serves, and why it's implementation is warranted.

When I refer to the UMAT, I was especially referring to the interview component of it.

To say that UMAT is discriminating against Asians, then you are also saying that Asians lack some sort of skill required for the UMAT that everyone else seems to have.

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?

Plenty of Asians do well in UMAT.

Took a look at Med student numbers and their races, you'll find that the number of Asians are still much higher than the population average.

Be that as it may, that isn't really relevant as to why UMAT needed to be introduced in the first place. Although the number of Asian students might be quite substantial as it is now, the numbers would probably be higher still if entry into those courses were based solely on UAIs.

Theres a difference with Medicine having the Selection Process and Law not having it. If you realise, Medicine involves treating people. Indirectly, many doctors hold the lives of their patients in their hands. Surgeons directly also do. So if we were to just let anybody do Medicine, many students with psychological problems that may hinder their ability to effectively treat a patient may cause a problem if just selected by UAI.

Absolute baldabash. You mean to tell me that you're OK with lawyers with psychological problems defending you in court from charges that could lead you to jail for something you're innocent of? Many lawyers also hold the lives of their clients in their hands, especially those practicing criminal law. Even lawyers who don't directly practice criminal law, many are going to be entrusted by their clients to handle their wealth, property, important contracts, etc, and all I don't think that anyone in their right mind would want lawyers with psychological impairments to handle those things. So where's their filtering test?

UMAT - Subtle Discrimination Against People with Rote Skills and No Actual Aptitude for Health Sciences.

that was the goal because of the changes in curriculum to make it less like yr 12 work and more like the reality of medicine and dentistry.

Why is only med/dent singled out for this? In fact, what proof do you have that med/dent minus the UMAT resembles Year 12 work? And what do you mean by the realities of medicine and dentistry? 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.