Is the UMAT a good indicator?

[Stick]

So after reading some threads in the UMAT section, it got me thinking as to whether the UMAT is really a good test to base medicine admissions on.

I know that the UMAT is required for a variety of health science courses, but I'm going to generalise a bit and just focus on medicine here, for the sake of my argument. I don't think that there is any doubt that the UMAT is an excellent assessment of critical logical thinking. However, I don't think anyone can prove that the UMAT is the best way of finding the best future doctors in our country. It is essential that our doctors have these critical logical thinking and problem solving skills, but there is so much more to the career and in my opinion, nothing on a piece of paper can ever help to truly determine the numerous qualities required for the job. There needs to be a far greater emphasis on the interview, because it is clear that so many good people are falling through the cracks. With an aging population, we cannot simply dismiss intelligent, outgoing, caring and empathetic people because they can't work out a 'pick the middle' problem - nobody really knows how a puzzle could possibly translate to such an important vocation with many mental and emotional challenges. So on its own, I don't think the UMAT is a good test at all. It needs to be used in conjunction with other means to ensure we nurture the best possible doctors we can.

So there's my (poorly worded) two cents here. So what's your view? Does a great UMAT score automatically translate to being a great doctor? What else should we do to make sure the right people are given the opportunity?

[thushan]

The UMAT has its place, to test skills that are not found within the school system.

However, the issue with the UMAT, particularly at certain universities, is that it is given way too high of a "weighting." Some universities use the ATAR as a hurdle, and rank purely on UMAT (Tasmania, QLD). Other universities use ENTIRELY the UMAT (for instance Monash) to select for interview places, meaning if you don't get say 92%ile or higher, there is an absolute zero chance (unless you're rural, Vice Chancellor's, etc) that you can get into Monash Medicine. Given that the UMAT floor is an overall of 150, this is a disparity.

[pi]

Does a great UMAT score automatically translate to being a great doctor?

No it doesn't.

The test isn't perfect, but there isn't much else that is viable (not short answer, not having huge numbers of interviews, etc.).

[HighLatency]

Here are some reasons why it's not:
1. It's multiple choice. I don't think I need to explain further.
2. People are sceptical of E.Q and I.Q tests done individually by professionals, what in gods name does that make the umat?
3. Section 3 for hardcore jigsaw puzzlers.
4. Words on a piece of paper cannot even begin to represent a scenario irl, I don't know if they are trying to make you imagine a scenario from the details given but the sheer amount of variables to be accounted for is far beyond just dialogue on a page.
5. So apparently everyone gets a different series of MC on the umat to prevent cheating and to make it fair. Ironic.

Some reasons it is:
1. Grace under pressure (time constraints).

All in all, they suck. A large number of interviews would be nice but then again it would take too long (I just want one ).

P.S I didn't want to be a doctor anyways   *whiny child noises*

[Limista]

So on its own, I don't think the UMAT is a good test at all. It needs to be used in conjunction with other means to ensure we nurture the best possible doctors we can.

The UMAT is used in conjunction with first-round or second-round interviews - it's not just a 3hr test on a piece of paper. The interview is also given equal weighting compared to the UMAT exam...that sounds pretty fair to me? The ATAR score also plays a "1/3" role, and let's face it, the ATAR score is more or less a representation of how hard you work (quality that doctors need to have) compared to how smart you are.

It's all well and good to say that there are "other means" to pick out potential doctors. The question here is, what would you suggest?

[Stick]

It's not practical, but I don't think the UMAT should be the first hurdle for students to pass either. Perhaps a written application is a start.

[pi]

It's not practical, but I don't think the UMAT should be the first hurdle for students to pass either. Perhaps a written application is a start.

The reason the UMAT is used, is because having manual marking of 25000 (i dunno, is this around the number of UMAT candidates? I'll go with it) written responses, or having the judging of 25000 interviews, etc. is not plausible. It'll take ages and it'll cost heaps.

Furthermore, the training one can do for the UMAT is much less limited than the one they could do for a written response or set of interview questions. And the effectiveness of training is one of issues ACER hopes to address in such a test.

The UMAT is the best we can do.

However, I do think that all med interviews should consider both UMAT and ATAR together (no separate streams).

[Stick]

Well I think a better system needs to be devised ASAP, because this is such an important job and we can't just let this continue on 'because it's easy'. We need to do what is right for health care.

[pi]

Well I think a better system needs to be devised ASAP, because this is such an important job and we can't just let this continue on 'because it's easy'. We need to do what is right for health care.

What do you propose? Is has to be cost effective and can't take ages to mark (the govt doesn't have unlimited funds for this lol).

Furthermore, I think it's wrong to think a lot of planning hasn't been put into the test (ie. it's not being used solely "because it's easy"). Universities don't agree to some random test, it's obviously got some validity which is why it's being used.

[Stick]

I will think of something this evening and overnight and will come up with some sort of solution in the morning (this will give me something to do to cure boredom).

[slothpomba]

The umat is actually a lot more complicated and a lot more research goes into it than you think. For example, each question doesn't equal 1 mark. They use things like item response theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item_response_theory).

I dont think multiple choice is necessarily a bad thing. You could very much enhance written responses with better english skills or bullshit skills than someone else and this shouldn't have a huge weight on who gets in.

It's meant to be something you can't or shouldn't (judgment call) study for but now we have people like medentry preying on peoples hopes.  I even saw like a 14 year old on the medentry forums. People go to insane lengths.

I think it'll be very hard to design a test where something like this couldn't happen, especially without astronomical costs. It really is expensive enough as it is (even if you have a healthcare/concession card).

It's not perfect but could any of us come up with anything better?

[thushan]

14 year olds in the medentry forums? unfortunately, for instance in our community, kids are expected to study (in general) from year 9 onwards

[abeybaby]

i think its a disaster.. sect 1 is a bit like an IQ test, which is pretty good to test logial reasoning
sect 2 i cannot understand for the life of me. how can MC and paper convey emotion properly? its such a different scenario in real life talking to an actual person. if you want to assess someones ability to understand what someone else feels, interview them. and not all doctors have to be able to do that, an anesthetist can read the newspaper and drink coffee during surgeries, and dont do an awful lot of patient interacting.
sect 3 again, i see no use in selecting doctors.. this might just be my ignorance, but i cant see its value.

[thushan]

section 3 has its merits i guess - the ability to see patterns in things, the ability to pick up things, observe things, that most other people wouldn't notice?

section 2...not a fan of it. interviews are better for this.

[mark_alec]

If you want an increase in fairness for admissions, then post-graduate courses fair better. If you want to have better doctors, increase competition in their industry by having more students than placements.