A few days ago, my MD conditional offer was turned into a firm offer, and I was notified through email. It was something I expected to happen, since my GPA after 3 years was almost identical to just after semester 1 of third year (decrease by 0.01 points under the way I think they calculate it), but confirmation is always good.
My Working With Children Check card also came by mail recently, which is good.
Right now, I'm up in Queensland. I'm planning to check out a few medical schools (UQ, Griffith, Bond) among other things. I'm actually in UQ Ipswich right now to see what all the fuss is about. There's plants inside the library haha.
Meanwhile, in admissions related news, GEMSAS seems to have released a few more offers within the past few days.
Showing posts with label GPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GPA. Show all posts
Monday, January 9, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
UQ admission irregularity
Recently it has been in the news that a relative of Vice Chancellor Paul Greenfield was accepted into a program without satisfying the same requirements of other applicants. On the 9th of December, UQ released a memorandum detailing the offers of undergraduate-entry MBBS applicants (which I read from Paging Dr), and it included talk of the irregularity. http://www.uq.edu.au/about/planning-docs/2011-mbbs-program-admissions/
Regarding the irregularity itself, it seems like the Vice Chancellor and his deputy have both paid the price and stood down. Then there is debate on whether the relative who was given the irregular offer should keep their place or not. Personally, I don't have a very strong view on this.
In that memorandum, there was also noticeably a mention of people with Vice Chancellor scholarships (by achieving an ATAR of 99.95; the highest possible rank) who did not do well on the UMAT but still got irregular offers. This has never been the official policy of UQ to give such offers in such circumstances, but it should be noted that this is very similar to what is done in Melbourne (needing 99.90 and above) and USyd (needing 99.95). The main difference between Melb and USyd compared to UQ is just that UQ didn't interview for this, but UQ doesn't interview anyone except ATSI applicants anyway. It does raise eyebrows when UQ does things not in their official policy though, and it seems like they won't be doing such a thing next year. I think they could be justified if they made giving medicine places to people with Vice Chancellor scholarships regardless of UMAT official policy though.
This raises another issue. Is using UMAT a good system to select applicants? I personally do not think so, and so far the evidence seems to suggest that UMAT doesn't predict medical school performance well at all, although others have criticized the study because it possibly has "ceiling effects" there. I don't think that UMAT is any better than still using academic achievement (ATAR) even at the high levels, although I have some issues with English being compulsory primary 4 in ATAR calculations in Victoria and NSW (but not some other states; in some it is not even compulsory in year 12), without Math being compulsory at all in some states (including VIC and NSW), let alone primary 4.
Similar criticisms are sometimes applied to the GAMSAT, and I don't think the GAMSAT is as optimal as it can be either, however it does test science unlike UMAT, and that section has some modest predictive value. The MCAT in North America seems to have more solid evidence behind it though, so perhaps if we modify the GAMSAT to be more of that style then it can probably predict medical school performance better. However, it will probably also disadvantage non-science background students, so if unis here think that that type of diversity is important, then such a change in the test probably can't happen. I think a standardized test like the MCAT or GAMSAT with some science is justified in selecting med school applicants for graduate entry, especially because for GPA there hardly any scaling for differentiating between subjects which are easier or harder to score highly in, between different unis and within them.
On the other hand, for ATAR, at least in most states, there is scaling to take into account differences in difficulty between subjects, and in most cases standardized exams for most of the marks going towards a subject. So there is less need for a standardized test including a science section; it would seem to just duplicate whatever assessment is done at school, especially if chemistry is a prerequisite (as it is in some unis for medicine including Monash but not all. Funnily, biology is not a required prerequisite anywhere in Australia for undergraduate entry, and I didn't do year 12 level bio in high school, but that's a discussion for another day).
It has been argued that ATAR discriminates against people of lower socioeconomic status. This may be true, but it is also true that UMAT preparation courses are expensive, and it is hard for people of low socioeconomic status to afford those too. I think if we want to get people of low socioeconomic status into medicine and other uni courses, then we should have some sort of affirmative action instead of using some dubious selection tools which may add more noise into the selection process and being not very useful predictors.
Regarding the irregularity itself, it seems like the Vice Chancellor and his deputy have both paid the price and stood down. Then there is debate on whether the relative who was given the irregular offer should keep their place or not. Personally, I don't have a very strong view on this.
In that memorandum, there was also noticeably a mention of people with Vice Chancellor scholarships (by achieving an ATAR of 99.95; the highest possible rank) who did not do well on the UMAT but still got irregular offers. This has never been the official policy of UQ to give such offers in such circumstances, but it should be noted that this is very similar to what is done in Melbourne (needing 99.90 and above) and USyd (needing 99.95). The main difference between Melb and USyd compared to UQ is just that UQ didn't interview for this, but UQ doesn't interview anyone except ATSI applicants anyway. It does raise eyebrows when UQ does things not in their official policy though, and it seems like they won't be doing such a thing next year. I think they could be justified if they made giving medicine places to people with Vice Chancellor scholarships regardless of UMAT official policy though.
This raises another issue. Is using UMAT a good system to select applicants? I personally do not think so, and so far the evidence seems to suggest that UMAT doesn't predict medical school performance well at all, although others have criticized the study because it possibly has "ceiling effects" there. I don't think that UMAT is any better than still using academic achievement (ATAR) even at the high levels, although I have some issues with English being compulsory primary 4 in ATAR calculations in Victoria and NSW (but not some other states; in some it is not even compulsory in year 12), without Math being compulsory at all in some states (including VIC and NSW), let alone primary 4.
Similar criticisms are sometimes applied to the GAMSAT, and I don't think the GAMSAT is as optimal as it can be either, however it does test science unlike UMAT, and that section has some modest predictive value. The MCAT in North America seems to have more solid evidence behind it though, so perhaps if we modify the GAMSAT to be more of that style then it can probably predict medical school performance better. However, it will probably also disadvantage non-science background students, so if unis here think that that type of diversity is important, then such a change in the test probably can't happen. I think a standardized test like the MCAT or GAMSAT with some science is justified in selecting med school applicants for graduate entry, especially because for GPA there hardly any scaling for differentiating between subjects which are easier or harder to score highly in, between different unis and within them.
On the other hand, for ATAR, at least in most states, there is scaling to take into account differences in difficulty between subjects, and in most cases standardized exams for most of the marks going towards a subject. So there is less need for a standardized test including a science section; it would seem to just duplicate whatever assessment is done at school, especially if chemistry is a prerequisite (as it is in some unis for medicine including Monash but not all. Funnily, biology is not a required prerequisite anywhere in Australia for undergraduate entry, and I didn't do year 12 level bio in high school, but that's a discussion for another day).
It has been argued that ATAR discriminates against people of lower socioeconomic status. This may be true, but it is also true that UMAT preparation courses are expensive, and it is hard for people of low socioeconomic status to afford those too. I think if we want to get people of low socioeconomic status into medicine and other uni courses, then we should have some sort of affirmative action instead of using some dubious selection tools which may add more noise into the selection process and being not very useful predictors.
Friday, December 2, 2011
[update] Final biomed semester results
Today, all my results for semester two were unofficially released through the Study Plan. (Note: in Melbourne, results are released when finalized, rather than on one specific day, and they are often out through the Study Plan a day earlier than the "results service" page. This year, all results should be released by 9 December. Also, for Melbourne students, a tip to note if you don't want to keep clicking on the Study Plan to check if a result is up and let it take its time to load, the results being put up on the study plan coincides with the subject coming off the list on the portal home page or admin tab, so you only need to check when a subject disappears off the enrolled subject list).
Anyway, I got two H1 and one H2A. I expected more than that H2A to be honest (it was a bare H2A too; 75), but ah well. Essays are subjective I guess. It probably doesn't help that I write in pencil for all of them either, where they don't specify what to use, and my handwriting being not that neat. I think I'll try using pen next year. It probably also didn't help that I was a bit lazy revising throughout the semester, an excuse being the interviews, but then again I only had three subjects this semester. So I have finished my biomed with a weighted GPA of 6.79, and an unweighted GPA of 6.75, on the GEMSA scale.
It seems like I have passed well, and barring administrative errors, I should be eligible to graduate. I just ordered the rental for the academic gown today. I think my performance in this semester should be enough to satisfy the "maintain current academic standard" criteria for turning the conditional MD offer into a firm offer, so I'll be waiting for that in a week or two probably.
Anyway, I got two H1 and one H2A. I expected more than that H2A to be honest (it was a bare H2A too; 75), but ah well. Essays are subjective I guess. It probably doesn't help that I write in pencil for all of them either, where they don't specify what to use, and my handwriting being not that neat. I think I'll try using pen next year. It probably also didn't help that I was a bit lazy revising throughout the semester, an excuse being the interviews, but then again I only had three subjects this semester. So I have finished my biomed with a weighted GPA of 6.79, and an unweighted GPA of 6.75, on the GEMSA scale.
It seems like I have passed well, and barring administrative errors, I should be eligible to graduate. I just ordered the rental for the academic gown today. I think my performance in this semester should be enough to satisfy the "maintain current academic standard" criteria for turning the conditional MD offer into a firm offer, so I'll be waiting for that in a week or two probably.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
[update] GEMSAS offers in one week? or two weeks?
After almost five weeks since Melbourne interviews, we're almost there now! GEMSAS offers are expected in 9-16 November, which is in 7-14 days; 1-2 weeks!
I hope that I will receive a CSP offer from Melbourne. This is what all the effort was put in for. Melbourne is my first preference and UQ is my second. If UQ was my first preference, then I should not have bothered to repeat the GAMSAT (although a few people in my biomed cohort sometimes enjoy talking about and comparing marks including GAMSAT and I don't mind joining in too). I also would not need to do all this interview preparation, or apply to USyd for any backup or interview preparation.
There would also be less pressure on grades, and although I now feel that I should study well in the core subjects regardless, because it will be beneficial for medicine in the future. However, if I applied to a GPA hurdle uni as first preference, maybe I could dedicate my breadth subjects to subjects I always thought were good to learn like Chinese rather than playing it safe with my strengths. It would probably not be possible to use a "science GPA" in Australia like they sometimes do in the US though, even if it's a better predictor of med school achievement than normal GPA or non-science GPA, because in Australia not everyone does science subjects in their degree.
Anyway. I've started revising some lecture notes now, in preparation for the exams. The exams, as I said before, will be after the first round offers for GEMSAS... hopefully I get the good news before them.
I hope that I will receive a CSP offer from Melbourne. This is what all the effort was put in for. Melbourne is my first preference and UQ is my second. If UQ was my first preference, then I should not have bothered to repeat the GAMSAT (although a few people in my biomed cohort sometimes enjoy talking about and comparing marks including GAMSAT and I don't mind joining in too). I also would not need to do all this interview preparation, or apply to USyd for any backup or interview preparation.
There would also be less pressure on grades, and although I now feel that I should study well in the core subjects regardless, because it will be beneficial for medicine in the future. However, if I applied to a GPA hurdle uni as first preference, maybe I could dedicate my breadth subjects to subjects I always thought were good to learn like Chinese rather than playing it safe with my strengths. It would probably not be possible to use a "science GPA" in Australia like they sometimes do in the US though, even if it's a better predictor of med school achievement than normal GPA or non-science GPA, because in Australia not everyone does science subjects in their degree.
Anyway. I've started revising some lecture notes now, in preparation for the exams. The exams, as I said before, will be after the first round offers for GEMSAS... hopefully I get the good news before them.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
[update] Midsemester break! (2011 semester 2)
Today is the start of the midsemester break for semester 2, 2011. In UniMelb, this break is two weeks long.
Anyway, this means that there are no more university classes until the interviews. The interviews are on the second week of the break. I've prepared some more during the semester, but I can always do more. My skills still are not the best, although I think they have improved a bit. Also, Unimelb's interviews are a bit different to USyd's ones. They have more variety, instead of just scenarios.
I'm not sure which situation was better though. With USyd, my GAMSAT score was 83 and they apparently made GAMSAT 50% and interview 50% (although they used raw percentages to rank instead of some z-score calc, so in fact the interview explained more variance of the rank list score than GAMSAT scores under the USyd method, unlike if they used z-scores). With Unimelb, I'm not sure what they use to rank in terms of z-scores, percentages or adding up ranks on rank lists, but broadly it's 1/3 GPA, 1/3 GAMSAT (but equal weighted) and 1/3 interview.
Anyway, on face value, I have an above average GPA and GAMSAT, but my GPA isn't 7 (it is about 6.8) and my GAMSAT mark is brought down significantly due to the Melbourne's GAMSAT equal weighting instead of weighting S3 doubly (down to 77 from 83). It would seem that it's common for scores to go down after using Melbourne's GAMSAT weighting, because most people applying to med school (and especially Melbourne because of the prerequisites) have a science background. However, they probably won't go down as much as mine usually. In any case, I feel my rank before the interview is lower with Melb's entry criteria compared to USyd, although it is still very good for Melb, and the interview isn't weighted as much for Melb. So I'm not that sure which one I'd need a lower interview score to get into an unbonded place.
Ah well. The best option is just to keep working on interview skills and do as well as I can on the day. And the aim shouldn't just to scrape in an unbonded place either, it should be to get a place in my preferred clinical zone. Anyway, it seems like my interview is in about one and a half to two weeks. Closing in...
Anyway, this means that there are no more university classes until the interviews. The interviews are on the second week of the break. I've prepared some more during the semester, but I can always do more. My skills still are not the best, although I think they have improved a bit. Also, Unimelb's interviews are a bit different to USyd's ones. They have more variety, instead of just scenarios.
I'm not sure which situation was better though. With USyd, my GAMSAT score was 83 and they apparently made GAMSAT 50% and interview 50% (although they used raw percentages to rank instead of some z-score calc, so in fact the interview explained more variance of the rank list score than GAMSAT scores under the USyd method, unlike if they used z-scores). With Unimelb, I'm not sure what they use to rank in terms of z-scores, percentages or adding up ranks on rank lists, but broadly it's 1/3 GPA, 1/3 GAMSAT (but equal weighted) and 1/3 interview.
Anyway, on face value, I have an above average GPA and GAMSAT, but my GPA isn't 7 (it is about 6.8) and my GAMSAT mark is brought down significantly due to the Melbourne's GAMSAT equal weighting instead of weighting S3 doubly (down to 77 from 83). It would seem that it's common for scores to go down after using Melbourne's GAMSAT weighting, because most people applying to med school (and especially Melbourne because of the prerequisites) have a science background. However, they probably won't go down as much as mine usually. In any case, I feel my rank before the interview is lower with Melb's entry criteria compared to USyd, although it is still very good for Melb, and the interview isn't weighted as much for Melb. So I'm not that sure which one I'd need a lower interview score to get into an unbonded place.
Ah well. The best option is just to keep working on interview skills and do as well as I can on the day. And the aim shouldn't just to scrape in an unbonded place either, it should be to get a place in my preferred clinical zone. Anyway, it seems like my interview is in about one and a half to two weeks. Closing in...
Saturday, July 2, 2011
[update] Semester one results released.
Yesterday my results were released for semester one. I got 3 subjects 80+ which all have a GAMSA grade of 7.0 (two barely) and one 75-79 with a GAMSA grade of 6.5. While I would have liked all H1, I am OK with this. This makes my weighted GPA about 6.8 after semester one. I guess all I would need was a pass for semester 1 and sem 2 for USyd or UQ as GPA is only a hurdle there (5.5 or 5.0 unweighted), although Melbourne is my first preference so I am still trying to get 80+ marks for everything.
Ironically, the subject which I did worst in had the most multiple choice and the one I did best in had no multiple choice in midsems and exams, and they were essay type questions. However I guess I was the most confident in that subject's subject material.
Anyway... so I passed everything by quite a margin like I expected myself to do, and things seem to be going quite smoothly so far. It's good that I have received my semester results before my interview. Next week I will be having a USyd medical interview. I'm not 100% confident, much less so than for the GAMSAT. I hope I can pass this thing too. Hopefully all the preparation that I have done will become useful in the end.
Ironically, the subject which I did worst in had the most multiple choice and the one I did best in had no multiple choice in midsems and exams, and they were essay type questions. However I guess I was the most confident in that subject's subject material.
Anyway... so I passed everything by quite a margin like I expected myself to do, and things seem to be going quite smoothly so far. It's good that I have received my semester results before my interview. Next week I will be having a USyd medical interview. I'm not 100% confident, much less so than for the GAMSAT. I hope I can pass this thing too. Hopefully all the preparation that I have done will become useful in the end.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Hello, welcome to my blog.
Hello everyone. As you probably can guess from my title, I am currently going through the process of applying to graduate entry medicine in Australia. Right now, I have just completed my second year biomed exams.
Second year has been much harder than first year in terms of the core subjects. However, everything we learnt this year would be quite useful for medicine. Anyway, I think I did reasonably well and I'll get my results in a few weeks.
I plan to apply to the University of Melbourne's new "MD" medicine program as a first preference next year. This is although my best chance under the current entry criteria would be to preference UQ first, since they don't have an interview and only have a hurdle GPA which I could pass simply by passing every subject with a 50 from now on at uni (although the UQ selection criteria is speculated to change to "GPA rank" in the future) and rank 100% by GAMSAT score. I pass this year's threshold with a high margin.
My current GPA is not bad (above average relative to people who get into medicine graduate entry), but not as high as many of my peers. My GAMSAT, although very good for most unis, has some shine taken away from it due to Melbourne's "equal weighting" of sections instead of having a double weighted science section like most unis. I'm not sure why Melbourne would think that weighting "reasoning in humanities and social science" and "written communication" on par with "reasoning in biological and social sciences" would increase predictive ability (2/3 arts weighting!!!) but I guess that's how it is.
My main concern is the interview though. It's better than in the past where Melbourne weighted the interview 100%, but I still would have liked the interview to be foregone, since the other aspects of my application are much better.
Anyway, for a view of predictability of GPA, GAMSAT and Interview, here's a study by UQ. Note that they used a panel interview though, rather than a multi-mini interview. The MMI format was designed to eliminate interviewer bias and effects due to first impressions which are hard to overcome, and "halo" effects, so that the result should be more accurate. Nevertheless, the GAMSAT and interview were not very strong predictors compared to GPA: [1]
I don't particularly like interviews being part of the selection process, although others have discussed that topic a lot. I don't particularly think that the formation of a standardized test for selecting medical school applicants is a bad thing though; I consider exams to be a "gold standard" if the exam content is right. It does seem like the MCAT in the USA has relatively good predictive ability[2]. However, I think the GAMSAT under-emphasizes the value of remembering facts in science; being a reasoning test for the most part. Of course, reasoning is a good skill to have, but I think the most difficult part of studying is remembering everything. Perhaps that is why GAMSAT isn't such a good predictor.
It would seem like the "fairest" way to select people would be to just use the GPA to rank people, and disregard GAMSAT and interview. However, there are two problems I can see with that:
1. Universities other than Melbourne do not require prerequisites for graduate entry medicine. There at least needs to be a screening test to determine if applicants have enough science knowledge to succeed in a 4-year course; less time than the 5 or 6 year MBBS courses that undergrads do.
2. Grading practices are not equal for all subjects, or degrees, or universities. University of Melbourne is trying to address this by using their MAGPA in the future, although without standardization comparing against other unis as well, this may not be as effective as it can be[3]. But without such standardization, akin to scaling in VCE or HSC, there is no real fair comparison between different degrees or simply different subjects.
Of course, another solution to improve predictability would be to make the GAMSAT more like the MCAT, although that would disadvantage people from non-science backgrounds especially. Also the high predictability of the MCAT in the USA for medical school performance is from a background where most universities require science prerequisites for medical school admission, so the predictability may not be so great in Australia where that is not the case. However, I contend that the predictability would probably be better than the GAMSAT is right now.
Anyway, that's all for now. Enjoy reading!
From nucleophilic addition-elimination
Second year has been much harder than first year in terms of the core subjects. However, everything we learnt this year would be quite useful for medicine. Anyway, I think I did reasonably well and I'll get my results in a few weeks.
I plan to apply to the University of Melbourne's new "MD" medicine program as a first preference next year. This is although my best chance under the current entry criteria would be to preference UQ first, since they don't have an interview and only have a hurdle GPA which I could pass simply by passing every subject with a 50 from now on at uni (although the UQ selection criteria is speculated to change to "GPA rank" in the future) and rank 100% by GAMSAT score. I pass this year's threshold with a high margin.
My current GPA is not bad (above average relative to people who get into medicine graduate entry), but not as high as many of my peers. My GAMSAT, although very good for most unis, has some shine taken away from it due to Melbourne's "equal weighting" of sections instead of having a double weighted science section like most unis. I'm not sure why Melbourne would think that weighting "reasoning in humanities and social science" and "written communication" on par with "reasoning in biological and social sciences" would increase predictive ability (2/3 arts weighting!!!) but I guess that's how it is.
My main concern is the interview though. It's better than in the past where Melbourne weighted the interview 100%, but I still would have liked the interview to be foregone, since the other aspects of my application are much better.
Anyway, for a view of predictability of GPA, GAMSAT and Interview, here's a study by UQ. Note that they used a panel interview though, rather than a multi-mini interview. The MMI format was designed to eliminate interviewer bias and effects due to first impressions which are hard to overcome, and "halo" effects, so that the result should be more accurate. Nevertheless, the GAMSAT and interview were not very strong predictors compared to GPA: [1]
I don't particularly like interviews being part of the selection process, although others have discussed that topic a lot. I don't particularly think that the formation of a standardized test for selecting medical school applicants is a bad thing though; I consider exams to be a "gold standard" if the exam content is right. It does seem like the MCAT in the USA has relatively good predictive ability[2]. However, I think the GAMSAT under-emphasizes the value of remembering facts in science; being a reasoning test for the most part. Of course, reasoning is a good skill to have, but I think the most difficult part of studying is remembering everything. Perhaps that is why GAMSAT isn't such a good predictor.
It would seem like the "fairest" way to select people would be to just use the GPA to rank people, and disregard GAMSAT and interview. However, there are two problems I can see with that:
1. Universities other than Melbourne do not require prerequisites for graduate entry medicine. There at least needs to be a screening test to determine if applicants have enough science knowledge to succeed in a 4-year course; less time than the 5 or 6 year MBBS courses that undergrads do.
2. Grading practices are not equal for all subjects, or degrees, or universities. University of Melbourne is trying to address this by using their MAGPA in the future, although without standardization comparing against other unis as well, this may not be as effective as it can be[3]. But without such standardization, akin to scaling in VCE or HSC, there is no real fair comparison between different degrees or simply different subjects.
Of course, another solution to improve predictability would be to make the GAMSAT more like the MCAT, although that would disadvantage people from non-science backgrounds especially. Also the high predictability of the MCAT in the USA for medical school performance is from a background where most universities require science prerequisites for medical school admission, so the predictability may not be so great in Australia where that is not the case. However, I contend that the predictability would probably be better than the GAMSAT is right now.
Anyway, that's all for now. Enjoy reading!
From nucleophilic addition-elimination
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)