Is the UMAT a good indicator?

[thushan]

That doesn't work too well. Given the amount of money governments subsidise for medical students (medical school is fkn expensive), it would be a massive waste of an investment if we have more students than internship places.

[mark_alec]

That doesn't work too well. Given the amount of money governments subsidise for medical students (medical school is fkn expensive), it would be a massive waste of an investment if we have more students than internship places.

Of course it wouldn't work, and the AMA would never allow such a thing to happen.

[thushan]

The UK BMAT would have been a good idea imo...but then again that requires a knowledge of Bio, Chem and Physics. :/

[HERculina]

Any test HERculina fails, is never a good one.
Nah jks
I reckon UMAT can be a good indicator, all the guys i know who have gotten really good for it are smart people anyway.
However, the fact that people have gone from 70th percentil to over 90th after doing it another year, kind of says that the ones who do do bad the first time shouldn't be straight away be classified as those who are not capable of med. Umat should play some factor into selection into med, but not the whole if you don't get a good umat, you can't get an interview, no chance of undergrad in melbourne for you.  That should be more ATAR based, me thinks.

[Russ]

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.

Why is the current system 'wrong' for health care? Do you think that the quality of doctor produced would differ if we changed the system?

[Stick]

I think it's wrong because it plays into the hands of people with good logical reasoning skills, rather than those who would potentially make good doctors on the whole. All I'm saying is that good reasoning skills/good UMAT score =/= good doctor, so I don't see why the current system relies so heavily on it. So yes, I do think there would be an improvement if things were changed.

After some extensive pondering over the matter, I have yet to come up with a truly accessible solution. I guess a big problem is that people are not sure what constitutes a good doctor and whether or not they meet the criteria, but are still commencing studies in the field for other reasons (money, pressure etc.). It certainly makes for some good food for thought.

[Russ]

No, you misunderstand me, I was saying that is it not reasonable to consider that after 5 years at medical school, the end product will be identical in terms of ability and training and thus actually impact health care?

Assuming there is some bias in the UMAT, do you think this makes a difference to the end product?

[slothpomba]

I think it's wrong because it plays into the hands of people with good logical reasoning skills...

Afterall, its not like you'd ever need to diagnose something. Can't see that comming up...like ever

It's infinitely easy to break something down but building something up is harder.

-----

In the end, it will be based on academics, at least in part, because it should be.

Medicine is a hard course, there is a lot of work and things to absorb in such a short time. We'd be totally crazy to throw an academic measure out the window. No one really wants med-school drop outs or people scraping with passes.

A 99.95 signals something about the person. They obviously have great study skills and an above average level of dedication. Most people don't necessarily disagree with this. The disagreement lies in the fact that is there much of a difference in these things between 99.95 vs 95.00 vs 90 ? We can already tell they're probably academically capable but will choosing someone in the extreme upper range (98-99) produce better doctors than someone in the 95s or 90s?

The umat, despite all those who study for it and really (again just a judgement call) shouldn't, is a psychometric test. It measures things about you as a person. It's not perfect but its better than ATAR alone. If you lock yourself away and studied every waking hour to get a 99.95 and had a gazillion tutors, that might not make you a better doctor. If you game the system and choose high scaling subjects, that might not allow you to be a better doctor either. The umat is a bit more of a level playing field.

It's not the best but its better than atar alone. I haven't seen all that many great alternatives suggested here (its harder than it seems).

[Stick]

:S I'm still not sure if I'm following, to be perfectly honest. I think ability and training is certainly one major extent of being a doctor, but so are interpersonal skills - which cannot be 'taught' to someone, nor can they be tested on a piece of paper. As we have seen with MedEntry and other organisations, logical reasoning can be developed over time. The UMAT often distinguishes those with good logical skills first, and then interpersonal qualities are explored, when I believe it somewhat needs to be completed the other way around if we are going to find the right type of person.

It definitely is complex and I am willing to stand corrected if necessary. But despite all the research into this, no one can ever really prove the UMAT is the best way to find the doctors of the future.

[pi]

:S I'm still not sure if I'm following, to be perfectly honest. I think ability and training is certainly one major extent of being a doctor, but so are interpersonal skills - which cannot be 'taught' to someone, nor can they be tested on a piece of paper. As we have seen with MedEntry and other organisations, logical reasoning can be developed over time. The UMAT often distinguishes those with good logical skills first, and then interpersonal qualities are explored, when I believe it somewhat needs to be completed the other way around if we are going to find the right type of person.

No-one is going to say it's perfect, so what's your viable alternative?

[Stick]

I don't have one. I don't really buy into the "Well what do you propose?" argument, though. Why don't we use this thread in a more constructive manner to find a solution?

[pi]

Well, we've suggested interviews and written responses. And we've covered why both wouldn't be suitable for various reasons.

The only semi-viable alternate I have (other than all interviews being ATAR+UMAT) is mixing the UMAT with the GAT, so that everyone takes it, with some parts being GAT-only, some being UMAT-only, and some being a mix of both. Students wouldn't know what is what. It would have MCQ and writing, a better balance than now.

Problems I see with it is that it'd be a huge test and it would waste the time of people not at all interested in the health sciences. Also, ACER makes a lot of money from the UMAT (or at least I think they do), offering it for free wouldn't work with them either.

[watto_22]

If you game the system and choose high scaling subjects, that might not allow you to be a better doctor either.

I agree here, why is it that someone who does languages or spesh should have more chance to get into Med based off ATAR?

In other countries, especially Europe, languages are crucial because patients may speak any one of English/French/German/Italian/Spanish/Greek/Portuguese or whatever - but here in Australia, there is only need for English. Thus doing LOTEs to boost your ATAR to get into Med seems a bit dodgy when nothing of the course is related to LOTEs.

To a lesser extent, surely there is not much relevance of the spesh course in terms of the skills required for Med
(not exactly sure here, since I haven't done spesh nor Med)

Instead, wouldn't subjects like Chemistry/Biology/Psych/Health&HD be more relevant.
Why not use scores for these subjects individually as a means of selecting entries into Med

[thushan]

BMAT? Look at the UK BMAT and see what you think of it.

[pi]

Instead, wouldn't subjects like Chemistry/Biology/Psych/Health&HD be more relevant.
Why not use scores for these subjects individually as a means of selecting entries into Med

Because you don't want people getting lower ATARs but beasting those few subjects, it's all about being all-round good. Whilst med doesn't need spesh or languages or commerce subs, that shouldn't restrict applicants form doing them if they have an interest in them.

As for the spesh/LOTE being unfair to ATAR, that is a different story. But they are scaled above 50 because they are the hardest conceptually for the vast majority of students.