UMAT

[ninwa]

Sorry if this sounds stupid but can someone whose gotten an ENTER of 60, hypothetically speaking, pass the UMAT and do medicine.

Most likely not, you'd need probably around 90+ (BA22 I know you said ppl have got in with 88 or something but I'm speaking in general )
Also there's no such thing as "pass"-ing the UMAT

[beezy4eva]

Sorry if this sounds stupid but can someone whose gotten an ENTER of 60, hypothetically speaking, pass the UMAT and do medicine.

I doubt it. I think most unis select people based on UMAT score, ENTER score and an interview. You' have to do fairly well in all 3 to get in.

[ganges]

Not unless the person gets like 299 on UMAT and gets a  UMAT scholarship.....

[hard]

do you need to take the UMAT even if your applying for pharmacy?

[ganges]

YES!!!

[BA22]

Generally speaking, about 95-98 is the kind of ENTER you'd be aiming for, of course, the higher the better.

Interview is quite important although

[xox.happy1.xox]

Just stopping by to wish everyone luck for the upcoming UMAT, and hope everyone achieves their desired grades

[Glockmeister]

do you need to take the UMAT even if your applying for pharmacy?

For Monash, yes. There are universities that don't require UMAT for pharmacy, but the majority are overseas.

[doboman]

Latrobe uni doesnt need the UMAT for pharmacy, as well as *a number of* interstate unis- Just another option
*edit

[Glockmeister]

i wrote overseas... i meant interstate

lol!

[Mao]

Hey thanks toothpick for the solutions. I don't know how you guys manage to do them!
A few more questions:

Same booklet Volume 1:
Q4.
Section 1: Q5 (I am stumped! Where do I begin with this one??)
The number of adult smokers in Australia has dropped markedly over the past few decades. While one thrid of the population smoked in 1985, by 1995 the number had shrunk to one quarter. Particularly significant is the drop in numbers for male smokers: down from 72% in 1945 to 27% in 1995. However, the proportion of female smokers has hardly changed over the years (down from 26% in 1945 to 23% in 1996). Whilst the population doubled between 1945 and 1995, the proportion of males to females was about equal over the same period. The Australian population in 1995 was 18 million.
According to this information, which of the following is the best conclusions?

A. In 1985 only about 18% of Australian males were non-smokers.
B. It is likely that in 1985 more than 4 million Australian females smoked.
C. There were actually more male smokers in Australia in 1995 than in 1945.
D. It is reasonable to assume that about 40% of males smoked in Australia in 1985.

a bit late, but I don't think the answer is A as ganges suggested

as said by the question, about 1/3 of population smoked.
also, male population ~ female population, and %female smokers is about 25%

hence, of the 50% female [of total], 25% smoked, i.e. ~12.5% of smokers are females
==> ~20% smokers are males [of total population]
==> ~40% males are smokers [of the 50% male population of total]
==> %non-male-smokers ~ 60%, not 18%

B is also false, assuming population growth is roughly linear
growth in 50 years is 9 million
growth in 10 years (from 85 to 95) is ~2 million
i.e. female population ~8 million in 1985
==> %female smokers = 25% * 8 million ~ 2 million (not 4)

C is false.
72% * 4.5 million (1945) = 36% * 9 million > 27% * 9 million (1995)

which leaves D, and it is fairly reasonable [well, at least within parameters]

[Toothpaste]

Hey thanks toothpick for the solutions. I don't know how you guys manage to do them!
A few more questions:

Same booklet Volume 1:
Q4.
Section 1: Q5 (I am stumped! Where do I begin with this one??)
The number of adult smokers in Australia has dropped markedly over the past few decades. While one thrid of the population smoked in 1985, by 1995 the number had shrunk to one quarter. Particularly significant is the drop in numbers for male smokers: down from 72% in 1945 to 27% in 1995. However, the proportion of female smokers has hardly changed over the years (down from 26% in 1945 to 23% in 1996). Whilst the population doubled between 1945 and 1995, the proportion of males to females was about equal over the same period. The Australian population in 1995 was 18 million.
According to this information, which of the following is the best conclusions?

A. In 1985 only about 18% of Australian males were non-smokers.
B. It is likely that in 1985 more than 4 million Australian females smoked.
C. There were actually more male smokers in Australia in 1995 than in 1945.
D. It is reasonable to assume that about 40% of males smoked in Australia in 1985.

a bit late, but I don't think the answer is A as ganges suggested

as said by the question, about 1/3 of population smoked.
also, male population ~ female population, and %female smokers is about 25%

hence, of the 50% female [of total], 25% smoked, i.e. ~12.5% of smokers are females
==> ~20% smokers are males [of total population]
==> ~40% males are smokers [of the 50% male population of total]
==> %non-male-smokers ~ 60%, not 18%

B is also false, assuming population growth is roughly linear
growth in 50 years is 9 million
growth in 10 years (from 85 to 95) is ~2 million
i.e. female population ~8 million in 1985
==> %female smokers = 25% * 8 million ~ 2 million (not 4)

C is false.
72% * 4.5 million (1945) = 36% * 9 million > 27% * 9 million (1995)

which leaves D, and it is fairly reasonable [well, at least within parameters]

The answer at the back of the book says D too.

[costargh]

if someone got

50 chem
50 physics
50 spesh
50 methods
50 english
50 language (any)
ENTER 99.95

but fucked up on UMAT really bad.. like was worse than average result.... can they get into med?

[xox.happy1.xox]

I think it really depends on the interview. Most universities though (particularly Monash) necessitate on UMAT scores, since they examine practical skills and qualities like that.

So, I guess to get into prestigious universities, the answer is no?

But 99.95 is the best ENTER... If I had a university, they would be accepted automatically, regardless of UMAT simply based on that excellent result

[cara.mel]

I would question why there is such a big discrepancy in results

Eg, to me it would imply they are perfect at memorising stuff, and fail at using 'common sense' or whatever to new situations. And thus med is definitely NOT the way they should be going


But I have no idea to answer your theoretical example