Things that are LESS boring than Medicine

[greenbeans]

i think it's brilliant that they test to see if you have communication skills. it's pointless having a doctor that's a brilliant mind when you can't communicate to them!

[pi]

i think it's brilliant that they test to see if you have communication skills. it's pointless having a doctor that's a brilliant mind when you can't communicate to them!

+1, but I still don't like the UMAT much. It's got way too much luck involved to be reliable imo. I know that Monash has stats to back-up interview selection via UMAT only, but I still don't like it

[totaled]

i think it's brilliant that they test to see if you have communication skills. it's pointless having a doctor that's a brilliant mind when you can't communicate to them!

+1, but I still don't like the UMAT much. It's got way too much luck involved to be reliable imo. I know that Monash has stats to back-up interview selection via UMAT only, but I still don't like it

i reckon its a good test, generally those who are very good do very good. However, all the scores are too close together. While someone who can do well is supposed to say get 95+, a lot of luck determines whether they get a 95, or whether they get a 100. Same goes with say from 85-95. Like I said, something needs to be done with how close the scores are, such as running two-three tests, given how important it is on the future of many, many people vying for medicine/health science places in university.

Moderator action: removed real name, sorry for the inconvenience

[happycat]

I have absolutely nothing to do with UMAT and even I say it shit. Did doctors in the past have to go through it or is it just in our day and age?

[totaled]

I have absolutely nothing to do with UMAT and even I say it shit. Did doctors in the past have to go through it or is it just in our day and age?

I think it's their attempt to show the public that we are breeding doctors who aren't just studiousl, and can relate to people. There has been growing pressure on the fact that academic ability isnt the only ability to govern the ability/potential of a doctor. However, the only section in the UMAT actually reflects this is section 2, the one section which i feel is blantantly stupid. The most social people I've known, and the most heartwarming people who truly understand my feelings did poorly, while some kids who, from my point of view don't really understand people that well (say if they've had limited experience in social interaction, or may even be quite quirky) have scored amazing on this section.

[pi]

Well an inherent problem with part 2 is you don't need to be able to interact well, you just need to be able to analyse well -> only half of the patient / docter relationship

I don't even think that helps, you need a fair amount of good luck for s2. Usually, you can get up to the stage whereby there are two that you can't choose between, and that's where luck comes into it.

[funkyducky]

^ which is why we have interviews. To show that we can interact with people at an acceptable level.

[fuzzylogic]

As a thought-experiment, I wonder what would happen if they decided to give interviews to everyone who applied for medicine (yeah, very expensive I know and not feasible at all, but that's why it's a thought-experiment) and then got those who 'passed' the interview to sit the umat.

[pi]

As a thought-experiment, I wonder what would happen if they decided to give interviews to everyone who applied for medicine (yeah, very expensive I know and not feasible at all, but that's why it's a thought-experiment) and then got those who 'passed' the interview to sit the umat.

Another experiment I'd like to see: How about making 100 or so senior/respected doctors sit the UMAT as well? Just to see if it works effectively?

[Russ]

The UMAT isn't meant to select doctors, so that wouldn't prove much either way

[pi]

The UMAT isn't meant to select doctors, so that wouldn't prove much either way

Well, it does in a way. Doing "badly" (even 85th %ile) in the UMAT doesn't get you an interview in most medical schools atm.


edit: referring to undergrad only

[Russ]

My point was more that the skillset a doctor has is not the skillset that the UMAT selects for. I'd still expect doctors to perform reasonably well on it, but if you're expecting them to get top 10% or so I think that's a little broad or shortsighted

[Mariammm]

The question is ... Is there a method of determining whether a person has the qualities to be a successful doctor
This may sound really farfetched and stupid ... But the best and the worst of people is exposed in extreme conditions...
So, if we got a bunch of potential med-students and chucked them on a deserted island we could test
Section 1 - reasoning and logic
Who can come up with the best survival techniques? Under pressure, who can think clearly...
Section 2 - relating to people
Who will share the coconut? Who will be understanding and sympathetic and who will become the resident bitch ?
Section 3   - I dont see how that relates to med anyway
But idk maybe rope tying and raft making ?
Of course its nt realistic, but I think when put in that life or death situation the truth is sure to come out..

[Planck's constant]

Who will share the coconut?

A Commerce student would answer :

'Of course we can share, but 51% is mine !'

[Mariammm]

Who will share the coconut?

A Commerce student would answer :

'Of course we can share, but 51% is mine !'

LOL