Monash cut-off info and predictions?

[tea.squaredd]

If percentiles are lower for the same raw score, shouldn't the cut off be HIGHER?

i.e. hypothetically:
2010: Overall 60 -> 90%ile
2011: Overall 60 -> 88%ile

Wouldn't that mean more people got higher Overall Scores in 2011? ..making the cut off higher?

[Romperait]

hmm yea that is pretty valid. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see, not much point speculating with not fully certain information even if it was from a fairly reliable source.

[Jdog]

yeah, i agree with tea.towel


if only your careers counsellor was correct! haha

[thushan]

so if someone had really beast scores in section 1 and 3 but low scores for section 2 (<50) and even tho they get 98 percentile, they can't get a monash interview?

Yes he/she can. Total 150, not 50-50-50.

[paulsterio]

The 50/50/50 rule applies only at UQ, that I know of
Even if you get 100th percentile, you won't get in unless you get 50/50/50

But anyway, my prediction on the UMAT for this year would probably be higher cut-off for the Main Interviews, purely because there's less spaces, but I'm not a huge fan of the whole new ATAR/UMAT stream, it sounds a tad bit far-fetched to me, and I think we all feel the same way about anything after the Main Round being "dodgy" in some sense

I think that if they do intend to have a stream to cater for those with high ATAR's yet low UMAT's, they should just have an ATAR + Interview, and disregard UMAT, possibly reduce their 99.95 for the ATAR stream down to like 99.75 and chuck an interview in there

With UMAT, there's always those that are a fan of it, because doing well on it compensates for doing well on the ATAR, and there's always those that hate it because they did badly on it and now they won't get a place even if their ATAR is good.

So, the only real way that will please everyone is to have two completely different streams, one normal one, and one based on ATAR/Interview only.
My suggestion is to make all the Bonded Medical Places into ATAR Only - that seems reasonable - it's about 1/3 of their places

[costa94]

The 50/50/50 rule applies only at UQ, that I know of
Even if you get 100th percentile, you won't get in unless you get 50/50/50

But anyway, my prediction on the UMAT for this year would probably be higher cut-off for the Main Interviews, purely because there's less spaces, but I'm not a huge fan of the whole new ATAR/UMAT stream, it sounds a tad bit far-fetched to me, and I think we all feel the same way about anything after the Main Round being "dodgy" in some sense

I think that if they do intend to have a stream to cater for those with high ATAR's yet low UMAT's, they should just have an ATAR + Interview, and disregard UMAT, possibly reduce their 99.95 for the ATAR stream down to like 99.75 and chuck an interview in there

With UMAT, there's always those that are a fan of it, because doing well on it compensates for doing well on the ATAR, and there's always those that hate it because they did badly on it and now they won't get a place even if their ATAR is good.

So, the only real way that will please everyone is to have two completely different streams, one normal one, and one based on ATAR/Interview only.
My suggestion is to make all the Bonded Medical Places into ATAR Only - that seems reasonable - it's about 1/3 of their places

it should be ATAR only anyway
the whole UMAT concept is ridiculous and "far-fetched" in itself, something which you spend two years working towards (VCE) should count for much more than monash allows it to. sure you can go on about how UMAT details a person's 'ability to learn', though evidence of how they've actually learnt through their schooling should be seen as a better example.

[Russ]

My suggestion is to make all the Bonded Medical Places into ATAR Only - that seems reasonable - it's about 1/3 of their places

You being serious here?
(it's also one quarter, that's the government stipulation)

[pi]

If percentiles are lower for the same raw score, shouldn't the cut off be HIGHER?

i.e. hypothetically:
2010: Overall 60 -> 90%ile
2011: Overall 60 -> 88%ile

Wouldn't that mean more people got higher Overall Scores in 2011? ..making the cut off higher?

Note that just because someone got 60 overall, that doesn't mean they got a certain percentile. I know of a case where the same total score (I think it was 200) meant percentiles of 3 apart (96 and 99). So percentiles aren't a good measure on cut-offs, and Monash has said they won't be using them (using overall score total instead -not the average score that I referred to earlier in my posts).

[paulsterio]

You being serious here?
(it's also one quarter, that's the government stipulation)

It was a joke at the time, but now that I think about it, I think the idea doesn't sound too bad!

it should be ATAR only anyway
the whole UMAT concept is ridiculous and "far-fetched" in itself, something which you spend two years working towards (VCE) should count for much more than monash allows it to. sure you can go on about how UMAT details a person's 'ability to learn', though evidence of how they've actually learnt through their schooling should be seen as a better example.

i don't think they're looking so much for academic ability, but rather, they are trying to select who will become a better doctor
the truth is, i personally don't think that the UMAT really reflects on how good of a doctor people will be, considering many people just take prep courses

but i do admit, with the UMAT, it has opened up the door to a lot more students, who may not have had the opportunity to get in before, possibly because their background knowledge and foundations are weaker and they can't get an extremely high (99+) atar. the UMAT in its own right, is actually quite fair, because it supposedly relies on no exterior knowledge, but rather just thinking skills and life skills

[Jdog]

The 50/50/50 rule applies only at UQ, that I know of
Even if you get 100th percentile, you won't get in unless you get 50/50/50

But anyway, my prediction on the UMAT for this year would probably be higher cut-off for the Main Interviews, purely because there's less spaces, but I'm not a huge fan of the whole new ATAR/UMAT stream, it sounds a tad bit far-fetched to me, and I think we all feel the same way about anything after the Main Round being "dodgy" in some sense

I think that if they do intend to have a stream to cater for those with high ATAR's yet low UMAT's, they should just have an ATAR + Interview, and disregard UMAT, possibly reduce their 99.95 for the ATAR stream down to like 99.75 and chuck an interview in there

With UMAT, there's always those that are a fan of it, because doing well on it compensates for doing well on the ATAR, and there's always those that hate it because they did badly on it and now they won't get a place even if their ATAR is good.

So, the only real way that will please everyone is to have two completely different streams, one normal one, and one based on ATAR/Interview only.
My suggestion is to make all the Bonded Medical Places into ATAR Only - that seems reasonable - it's about 1/3 of their places

I definately don't agree with you when you say its dodgy. I am probably biased here because my 92nd percentile is only probably good enough for the atar/umat, but are you really telling me a person one below the cutoff is going to make a terrible doctor or is dodgy? Of course , I understand the nature of cutoffs and that some will be hard done by, but having something like a medicine course and not even offering a chance to those who were just off would be unfair. I mean last year, I know of a person who got 90 on their umat and 99.9. Do you think this person is rendred illegitimate to become study medicine, immediately, without being offered an interview but a person who got 93 but with an atar of 98 has an opportunity is fair?


of course i am biased here, because i am relying on one of these interviews, but i hav spoken to numerous high scoring umat guys who believe the same thing

[paulsterio]

I definately don't agree with you when you say its dodgy. I am probably biased here because my 92nd percentile is only probably good enough for the atar/umat, but are you really telling me a person one below the cutoff is going to make a terrible doctor or is dodgy? Of course , I understand the nature of cutoffs and that some will be hard done by, but having something like a medicine course and not even offering a chance to those who were just off would be unfair. I mean last year, I know of a person who got 90 on their umat and 99.9. Do you think this person is rendred illegitimate to become study medicine, immediately, without being offered an interview but a person who got 93 but with an atar of 98 has an opportunity is fair?

of course i am biased here, because i am relying on one of these interviews, but i hav spoken to numerous high scoring umat guys who believe the same thing

LOL! no no, i'm not saying that they're dodgy because the people they take in are dodgy, in no way do I believe that anybody below the cut off will make a bad doctor

when I said dodgy, I meant more as in, there's not many details about how many places are actually available for this stream as well as the details being quite sketchy, i meant that monash is being dodgy in not having much formal info on it

sorry, on reading again, i see how i could have been misunderstood

[D27RII]

Guys, yes for the past few years the UMAT cut-off had been increasing, but by general rule of thumb it usually hovered in the 60-61 region. Monash usually accepted people with a percentile of 90-91 and over

HOWEVER, the reason there is an impression that the UMAT cut-offs are increasing moreso than they probably would is because last year Monash's cut-off took an untrendy leap to 92-93 percentile cutoff.

Hence it seems logical for many people to cause some panic by making suggestion such as the cut-off possibly being a drastic 94 percentile high.

So let me remind you all WHY the cut-off last year was unnaturally high, It was becuase Monash cut down their interviewee numbers from 750 to approximately 610 - hence, about 150 UMAT applicants had missed out where in previous years they would have gotten an interview (this change was due to the new MMI interviews being so long and taking a whopping 90 minutes to conduct)

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Yes there will be a natural (probably, cannot guarantee this) increase in the UMAT cut-off as there has been in many previous years, BUTBUTBUT, the increase will be nowhere near as radical as last year's.

So my guess is that, as far as the overall picture goes, the UMAT cut-off may probably be just around the 91-92 range. If you got a 93 percentile and missed out I would think you were unlucky :S

So my final opinion is that 94 should be enough, 93 should shopefully get you in and 92 will probably still be the cut-off

So I think it will be 92/93

[Russ]

What the hell were Monash doing that their MMI took 90 minutes to sit?

[REBORN]

9 stations 10minutes each isn't it?

[luken93]

What the hell were Monash doing that their MMI took 90 minutes to sit?

9 stations, 8 minutes each, 2 minute break between I think?