The GP rotation is over, and semester 1 this year is now over! For reasons inside and outside of medicine, this semester was more dramatic than I hoped it would be. But I have made it through, and it is now done.
The GP rotation was my favorite rotation this year so far. Right now, although GP is not my top preference as a future specialty, I think it is a viable option for me. Apart from the coughs and colds, most of the other things in GP land are varied and interesting. GPs are at the front line of cost-effective preventative medicine in Australia. It is also a better lifestyle choice compared to other specialties.
However, the main thing making GP a less attractive option is that it is not as well supported financially compared to other specialties. Furthermore, even now the federal government is trying to cut money to Medicare and charge the GPs a co-payment for "bulk-billing". Unfortunately, this will serve to make it an even less attractive option!
Meanwhile, I am happy with the results of the MCQ progress testing for this semester so far. I have not done as well as towards the end of last year, but I still have one more semester left. I am more concerned about how my OSCEs will go compared to written exams.
We should be getting our scholarly selective (research) supervisor details on Monday. I am hoping to get a cardiology project. Why? I believe that "if you are not interested in cardiology, you have no heart". Well, not exactly, but I do think that cardiology is interesting.
Well, now I have a week break, and then we will have the MD student conference. I'm looking forward to the food, and to the research presentations that this year's MD4s will be giving about their research.
Showing posts with label political issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political issues. Show all posts
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Petition: Stop the co-pay cuts: GPs make the difference
Australian Doctor has started a campaign to hold a petition to oppose the proposed $7 copayment for bulk billing GP visits. Please sign the petition to support primary healthcare in Australia.
http://gpsmakethedifference.com.au/sign-our-petition/
http://gpsmakethedifference.com.au/sign-our-petition/
Saturday, May 24, 2014
#StopTheCoP
In the Federal Budget announced just over two weeks ago, the Abbott government has announced cuts in funding to hospitals and GPs, with an inclusion of $7 copayments for GP visits starting from next year.
GPs are the gatekeeper of the medical system in Australia. They are in the front line of preventative healthcare, and the forefront of prevention, intervention and screening. They do pap smear tests, blood pressure checks and screening for diabetes and high cholesterol, smoking, and excessive alcohol use, where cost effective lifestyle and pharmacological interventions are used to prevent morbidity and mortality.
However, it is known that people from a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to have poor health. The effect of this copayment will be fewer visits to the GP from people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, which are likely to lead in an increase in the overall disease burden. Furthermore, there will be likely an increase in presentations to the emergency department for trivial matters, wasting the resources of the hospital where GPs could have provided appropriate care.
As such, the copayment is opposed by the peak bodies representing doctors in Australia. See what the AMA has to say, or the #StopTheCoP posts on twitter.
GPs are the gatekeeper of the medical system in Australia. They are in the front line of preventative healthcare, and the forefront of prevention, intervention and screening. They do pap smear tests, blood pressure checks and screening for diabetes and high cholesterol, smoking, and excessive alcohol use, where cost effective lifestyle and pharmacological interventions are used to prevent morbidity and mortality.
However, it is known that people from a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to have poor health. The effect of this copayment will be fewer visits to the GP from people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, which are likely to lead in an increase in the overall disease burden. Furthermore, there will be likely an increase in presentations to the emergency department for trivial matters, wasting the resources of the hospital where GPs could have provided appropriate care.
As such, the copayment is opposed by the peak bodies representing doctors in Australia. See what the AMA has to say, or the #StopTheCoP posts on twitter.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
New Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Kevin Rudd resigns as Labor leader.
Today, Tony Abbott was elected as the new Prime Minister of Australia. As a result of this, the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has resigned as the leader of the federal Labor Party to allow for renewal within the Labor Party.
Whilst I disagree with several of the Liberal Party's key policies, most notably their position of "direct action" being more cost-effective than a price on carbon in reducing emissions (which is at odds with most current economic thinking), I note on the medical front that the Liberal Party have maintained a commitment in funding medical research, particularly for Alzheimer's Disease. Alzheimer's Disease has been quite a "black hole" in terms of finding effective disease modifying treatments of late, although a few agents are currently in the clinical trial stage. Let's hope we can get something better than Souvenaid out of this research, which we were talking about for EBM.
I realize that some or even many of you may not want to say anything at all positive with regard to Prime Minister Abbott. However, while I disagree with several of his main policies, there are a few which are commendable. Furthermore, we will be spending at least three years under his government; which will be a long time; unless of course he miscalculates on a double dissolution election repealing the carbon tax. If you really feel strongly about it, then maybe you could join the ALP. I don't know if there is any waiting period, but given the new rules, you may even get a say in who the new leader is. Otherwise, it may be prudent to wait a while for the dust to settle and see if they have ended their bitter infighting and see what their new team and policies are first.
Whilst I disagree with several of the Liberal Party's key policies, most notably their position of "direct action" being more cost-effective than a price on carbon in reducing emissions (which is at odds with most current economic thinking), I note on the medical front that the Liberal Party have maintained a commitment in funding medical research, particularly for Alzheimer's Disease. Alzheimer's Disease has been quite a "black hole" in terms of finding effective disease modifying treatments of late, although a few agents are currently in the clinical trial stage. Let's hope we can get something better than Souvenaid out of this research, which we were talking about for EBM.
I realize that some or even many of you may not want to say anything at all positive with regard to Prime Minister Abbott. However, while I disagree with several of his main policies, there are a few which are commendable. Furthermore, we will be spending at least three years under his government; which will be a long time; unless of course he miscalculates on a double dissolution election repealing the carbon tax. If you really feel strongly about it, then maybe you could join the ALP. I don't know if there is any waiting period, but given the new rules, you may even get a say in who the new leader is. Otherwise, it may be prudent to wait a while for the dust to settle and see if they have ended their bitter infighting and see what their new team and policies are first.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Context is everything - in the economy and in medicine
During the past week, there was the usual bickering of politicians about interest rates policies, with the RBA dropping the overnight cash rate target from 2.75% to 2.5%. As expected, Labor seized the opportunity to announce that the interest rates are lower, which makes it better for working families with home loans; directly contradicting the former coalition government's advertising campaign that interest rates "will always be lower under the coalition". To counter this, the coalition opposition mentions that "context is everything", and the only reason why the interest rates are low is because the "economy is struggling", which is a bad thing.
Now, both these arguments have some element of truth behind them. That said, if the government was to support the economy further, perhaps the only way to do this would be to increase the budget deficit even further, which is not desirable. Now, even for budget debt and deficit is context very important. The coalition talk of debt and deficit as if it is the "be all and end all". However, while it is very true that debt should not be ever increasing, and there should not be continual deficits, it is also true that temporary deficits are justified to support the economy in bad times; to be made up with surpluses when the economy is strong. As such, the government was quite justified in spending in the stimulus package at the peak of the financial crisis in order to support jobs and growth, even though this resulted in a larger deficit for the budget.
One thing I have realized though is that "context is everything" also applies to medicine. I recall an interaction with my CSC (clinical skills coach) tutor, who was quizzing the group about the effects and side effects of certain medications. The interaction was as follows:
CSC: What does aspirin do?
(At this stage, my pharmacology major instincts kicked in)
Me: Aspirin is a non-selective, irreversible cyclooxygenase inhibitor. It inhibits both COX-1 and COX-2, by irreversible acetylation of the active site. This reduces the amount of prostaglandin production. In this case, for this patient, the wanted effect is a decrease in TXA2 to decrease platelet activation, and we want an irreversible inhibitor because platelets don't synthesize new COX and other tissues can...
CSC: What you said was all true, but if you can summarize this in three words, what would you say?
Me: Stops blood clotting?
CSC: Close. "Thins the blood"
Now I was actually quite surprised that we were allowed to use this terminology, because aspirin doesn't actually decrease the viscosity of blood; it just stops the platelets from aggregating. But it seems like it was OK in this circumstance.
Another interaction was with a cardiologist in cardiology outpatients.
Cardiologist: How would you tell the difference between someone with fluid retention due to kidney failure and heart failure?
Me: Heart failure might have displaced apex beat, additional heart sounds, valvular regurgitation, murmur...
(seems like he was after investigations, rather than examination findings)
Me: BNP level...
Cardiologist: The BNP level might give you some idea. But what else?
Me: Echo
Cardiologist: Yes. An echo!
In contrast, there was a question of some similarity but also considerable differences asked in a tutorial I had later in ICU.
Intensivist: How would you assess if his heart and circulation is working well?
(I had the cardiologist experience in my mind)
Me: An echo
Intensivist: Get out. You won't have an echo everywhere you go.
Now it seems like the answer to the same question depends on the context in which it is asked. In pharmacology class, the molecular mechanism is important, but in the clinic, the CSC tutor is after the end broader effect. And in cardiology, the echo is very useful in determining heart failure, but not practical for immediate measurement of cardiac function. So as it is the case in many other things, context is everything in medicine too.
Now, both these arguments have some element of truth behind them. That said, if the government was to support the economy further, perhaps the only way to do this would be to increase the budget deficit even further, which is not desirable. Now, even for budget debt and deficit is context very important. The coalition talk of debt and deficit as if it is the "be all and end all". However, while it is very true that debt should not be ever increasing, and there should not be continual deficits, it is also true that temporary deficits are justified to support the economy in bad times; to be made up with surpluses when the economy is strong. As such, the government was quite justified in spending in the stimulus package at the peak of the financial crisis in order to support jobs and growth, even though this resulted in a larger deficit for the budget.
One thing I have realized though is that "context is everything" also applies to medicine. I recall an interaction with my CSC (clinical skills coach) tutor, who was quizzing the group about the effects and side effects of certain medications. The interaction was as follows:
CSC: What does aspirin do?
(At this stage, my pharmacology major instincts kicked in)
Me: Aspirin is a non-selective, irreversible cyclooxygenase inhibitor. It inhibits both COX-1 and COX-2, by irreversible acetylation of the active site. This reduces the amount of prostaglandin production. In this case, for this patient, the wanted effect is a decrease in TXA2 to decrease platelet activation, and we want an irreversible inhibitor because platelets don't synthesize new COX and other tissues can...
CSC: What you said was all true, but if you can summarize this in three words, what would you say?
Me: Stops blood clotting?
CSC: Close. "Thins the blood"
Now I was actually quite surprised that we were allowed to use this terminology, because aspirin doesn't actually decrease the viscosity of blood; it just stops the platelets from aggregating. But it seems like it was OK in this circumstance.
Another interaction was with a cardiologist in cardiology outpatients.
Cardiologist: How would you tell the difference between someone with fluid retention due to kidney failure and heart failure?
Me: Heart failure might have displaced apex beat, additional heart sounds, valvular regurgitation, murmur...
(seems like he was after investigations, rather than examination findings)
Me: BNP level...
Cardiologist: The BNP level might give you some idea. But what else?
Me: Echo
Cardiologist: Yes. An echo!
In contrast, there was a question of some similarity but also considerable differences asked in a tutorial I had later in ICU.
Intensivist: How would you assess if his heart and circulation is working well?
(I had the cardiologist experience in my mind)
Me: An echo
Intensivist: Get out. You won't have an echo everywhere you go.
Now it seems like the answer to the same question depends on the context in which it is asked. In pharmacology class, the molecular mechanism is important, but in the clinic, the CSC tutor is after the end broader effect. And in cardiology, the echo is very useful in determining heart failure, but not practical for immediate measurement of cardiac function. So as it is the case in many other things, context is everything in medicine too.
Friday, August 2, 2013
$2000 CPD cap deferred for 12 months
The government has decided to defer the $2000 CPD cap for at least 12 months pending further discussion as to the best way to continue to support education without allowing the perceived abuse of the system from using the money for holidays etc too. This is a good move from the Labor government, which is discussed on the Australian Doctor and Medical Observer sites. Now we should hope for a more common sense approach to this matter. Ideally we should see the new policy before the election because as it stands it is not out of the equation for Labor to return to this $2000 cap. But without too much rushing, so that it can be a good policy.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Coalition backs "Scrap the Cap"
Today, the coalition opposition indicated support for the "Scrap the cap" campaign. They have yet to announce their full policy decision, but it seems unlikely that they would do nothing in their policies after they have put their words of support for this campaign. Now it would be good if Labor did the same and reversed their policy of the cap.
For more commentary, see the articles from Medical Observer, #Scrapthecap, or Australian Doctor.
For more commentary, see the articles from Medical Observer, #Scrapthecap, or Australian Doctor.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Kevin Rudd regains Labor leadership 57-45
Today has certainly been a very eventful day in Australian politics. It began with the declaration of two key independents, Oakeshott and Windsor, that they would not seek reelection.
This was followed up with a vote on the Labor leadership at 7 pm tonight. This time, there was a major swing towards Kevin Rudd, with many in the caucus seeing the writing on the wall. Bill Shorten's support, while not sufficient alone, helped Kevin Rudd over the line.
Now the election looks a lot tighter. This will be interesting. Now I hope that Labor under Kevin Rudd will scrap the plans for the $2000 self education cap and the Medicare cuts. It will be interesting to see what his policies will be and who will form the new cabinet.
This was followed up with a vote on the Labor leadership at 7 pm tonight. This time, there was a major swing towards Kevin Rudd, with many in the caucus seeing the writing on the wall. Bill Shorten's support, while not sufficient alone, helped Kevin Rudd over the line.
Now the election looks a lot tighter. This will be interesting. Now I hope that Labor under Kevin Rudd will scrap the plans for the $2000 self education cap and the Medicare cuts. It will be interesting to see what his policies will be and who will form the new cabinet.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Scrap the $2000 Cap on Medical Self-Education
As I mentioned before on this blog, the federal government wants to impose a $2000 cap on self-education. This will be a strong disincentive for doctors hoping to keep up to date with the latest developments in their area of practice.
The Scrap the Cap campaign has been launched as an online petition to raise public and political awareness of the adverse effects that this cap will have. There is a substantial list of supporters:
Founding supporters of the #ScrapTheCap campaign are:
The Scrap the Cap campaign has been launched as an online petition to raise public and political awareness of the adverse effects that this cap will have. There is a substantial list of supporters:
Founding supporters of the #ScrapTheCap campaign are:
- Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM)
- Australian General Practice Network (AGPN)
- Australian Medical Association (AMA)
- Australian Medicare Local Alliance (AMLA)
- General Practice Registrars Australia (GPRA)
- Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)
- Rural Doctors Association of Australia (RDAA)
- Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM)
- Australian Doctor
- Australian General Practice Network (AGPN)
- Australian Medical Association (AMA)
- Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA)
- Australian Medicare Local Alliance (AMLA)
- General Practice Registrars Australia (GPRA)
- General Practice Students Network (GPSN)
- National General Practice Supervisors’ Association (NGPSA)
- Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)
- Rural Doctors Association of Australia (RDAA)
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Labor needs a "fair shake of the sauce bottle" if it is to win the election
At this late stage, Labor are still performing very badly in the polls. To add insult to injury, it seems like Gillard's comment about "men in blue ties" has put male voters offside, resulting in 1/4 of Labor's male vote disappearing, without a significant increase in female voters. Not surprising either. It is hard to imagine how she would not forsee the consequences of saying that, but for some reason she said it.
It seems like a lot of the public think that the current government under Gillard has gone a "bridge too far" on many issues. They've even managed to get doctors offside by cuts to Medicare and a $2000 per year limit on Continuing Professional Development! It is almost certain that if nothing changes, Tony Abbott will be the next prime minister. There is talk of Kevin Rudd getting more support within the Labor caucus, but after last year's endorsement of Gillard by the caucus 71:31, it seems like Rudd does not want to challenge again without the public support of most ministers, while Gillard does not want to give up her position.
It will be interesting to see how things play out. If Labor is to win, they need a "fair shake of the sauce bottle".
It seems like a lot of the public think that the current government under Gillard has gone a "bridge too far" on many issues. They've even managed to get doctors offside by cuts to Medicare and a $2000 per year limit on Continuing Professional Development! It is almost certain that if nothing changes, Tony Abbott will be the next prime minister. There is talk of Kevin Rudd getting more support within the Labor caucus, but after last year's endorsement of Gillard by the caucus 71:31, it seems like Rudd does not want to challenge again without the public support of most ministers, while Gillard does not want to give up her position.
It will be interesting to see how things play out. If Labor is to win, they need a "fair shake of the sauce bottle".
Monday, April 15, 2013
University funding slashed in Labor's "Gonski reform"
On the weekend, Labor announced that they would fund the reforms to school funding by cutting money out of university funding. Here is an article from The Age about it: http://www.theage.com.au/national/university-sector-to-be-hit-in-gonski-reforms-20130413-2hry2.html
I think it is a very silly move. Universities in Australia already are underfunded as they are. They have been relying heavily on full fees from international students for funding for a while, and the reform a few years ago to disallow local students taking full fee undergraduate courses has compounded the impact. Now this hit just adds insult to injury to the university sector. It is counterproductive to cut funding from universities. This will result in a decline in the quality of both teaching and research done in our universities.
Now I don't approve of many of Tony Abbott's policies and views, but this policy by Labor is just silly. Many voters are indeed waiting with their baseball bats for the next election. If Kevin Rudd's government had "lost its way", then the current Labor government under Julia Gillard seems to have found itself stuck in the Southern Ocean in between the Nisshin Maru and a whale about to be harpooned. The Labor caucus had the opportunity last year to choose between Kevin Rudd (who most voters preferred) or Julia Gillard, but Julia Gillard won in a landslide; 71 to 31. Perhaps this is indicative of a more fundamental structure problem with the Labor Party with "faceless men" having too much power, but I don't know enough to comment.
While Prime Minister Gillard had made a few gains in the opinion polls, she has slipped back considerably and there appears very little prospect of gaining back ground before the next election. If nothing changes, it looks almost certain that we will be having an Abbott government after this year's election. And while I don't condone that campaign with Margaret Thatcher's death last week, I would be unsurprised if "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead" shoots up to the music charts in Australia if the current prime minister loses this election in a landslide.
I think it is a very silly move. Universities in Australia already are underfunded as they are. They have been relying heavily on full fees from international students for funding for a while, and the reform a few years ago to disallow local students taking full fee undergraduate courses has compounded the impact. Now this hit just adds insult to injury to the university sector. It is counterproductive to cut funding from universities. This will result in a decline in the quality of both teaching and research done in our universities.
Now I don't approve of many of Tony Abbott's policies and views, but this policy by Labor is just silly. Many voters are indeed waiting with their baseball bats for the next election. If Kevin Rudd's government had "lost its way", then the current Labor government under Julia Gillard seems to have found itself stuck in the Southern Ocean in between the Nisshin Maru and a whale about to be harpooned. The Labor caucus had the opportunity last year to choose between Kevin Rudd (who most voters preferred) or Julia Gillard, but Julia Gillard won in a landslide; 71 to 31. Perhaps this is indicative of a more fundamental structure problem with the Labor Party with "faceless men" having too much power, but I don't know enough to comment.
While Prime Minister Gillard had made a few gains in the opinion polls, she has slipped back considerably and there appears very little prospect of gaining back ground before the next election. If nothing changes, it looks almost certain that we will be having an Abbott government after this year's election. And while I don't condone that campaign with Margaret Thatcher's death last week, I would be unsurprised if "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead" shoots up to the music charts in Australia if the current prime minister loses this election in a landslide.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
[update] Last public transport concession day tomorrow.
Tomorrow will be the last day I am eligible for public transport concession fares. This is because the card entitling the fares expires on the last day of February, in the year after the issue of the card. Since I was a local student and Biomedicine was an undergraduate course last year, I was eligible. However, since the MD is defined as a masters by coursework degree, it is not eligible for public transport concession travel.
Above is the situation of public transport concession travel in different states, from the CAPA website. Only New South Wales and Victoria deny public transport concession travel to postgraduate and international students. All other states and territories allow them to have concession fares, like local undergraduate students. It's a situation I hope will change in the future in Victoria.
As I said before on my blog, I've listed links to an online petition from CAPA on my links page or on the right of the screen. We can also try sending messages to our local state MP or the Transport Minister in Victoria to advocate for change. Concession fares would enable postgraduate students to spend less time working, worrying and struggling to make ends meet, and therefore be able to focus more on their studies or research.
As I said before on my blog, I've listed links to an online petition from CAPA on my links page or on the right of the screen. We can also try sending messages to our local state MP or the Transport Minister in Victoria to advocate for change. Concession fares would enable postgraduate students to spend less time working, worrying and struggling to make ends meet, and therefore be able to focus more on their studies or research.
Gillard 71, Rudd 31
Yesterday, the leadership spill of the ALP occurred. The result was a very comfortable win by Julia Gillard, 71 votes to Kevin Rudd's 31 votes.
This vote highlights the differences in the sentiments in the Labor caucus, the majority of whom prefer Julia Gillard over Kevin Rudd, and the general Australian public, the majority of whom prefer Kevin Rudd over Julia Gillard. It therefore retains this rather strange situation where neither of the major parties is led by a member of parliament in either party who is most preferred (Kevin Rudd from the ALP or Malcolm Turnbull for Liberal), and where the disapproval rate for both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader is above their approval rates.
It seems like Kevin Rudd's style of leadership internally and method of working when he was Prime Minister not liked by a lot of the Labor MPs. It's been a while since then though, and it is an open question on whether or not he would make the same mistakes if he was the PM again.
From here on in, Julia Gillard's victory was so strong in this vote that there does not seem like a high chance of a re-challenge. However, if the public sentiment does not improve leading up to the next election, then I think the ALP might think about it again. Alternatively, it might take them losing the next election before they get shocked into taking action. We'll see.
This vote highlights the differences in the sentiments in the Labor caucus, the majority of whom prefer Julia Gillard over Kevin Rudd, and the general Australian public, the majority of whom prefer Kevin Rudd over Julia Gillard. It therefore retains this rather strange situation where neither of the major parties is led by a member of parliament in either party who is most preferred (Kevin Rudd from the ALP or Malcolm Turnbull for Liberal), and where the disapproval rate for both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader is above their approval rates.
It seems like Kevin Rudd's style of leadership internally and method of working when he was Prime Minister not liked by a lot of the Labor MPs. It's been a while since then though, and it is an open question on whether or not he would make the same mistakes if he was the PM again.
From here on in, Julia Gillard's victory was so strong in this vote that there does not seem like a high chance of a re-challenge. However, if the public sentiment does not improve leading up to the next election, then I think the ALP might think about it again. Alternatively, it might take them losing the next election before they get shocked into taking action. We'll see.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Kevin Rudd resigns as Foreign Minister. Julia Gillard calls for caucus vote for Federal Labor leader.
It's been quite a turbulent few days in national politics. Kevin Rudd was away overseas carrying out his duties as the Foreign Minister, when Simon Crean started the criticism of him as being not a team player. From that, it escalated until 22 February Australian time, when Kevin Rudd announced his resignation as Foreign Minister, saying that it would not be good to continue, as there did not seem to be strong support from the Prime Minister (Julia Gillard), as the Prime Minister did not repudiate any of the attacks on him.
As it stands, the majority of the ministers who have spoken up are in support of the current prime minster. However, Kevin Rudd appears to have the public backing of ministers Martin Ferguson, Chris Bowen and Kim Carr. Of course, it's hard to know where everyone else who didn't comment publicly stands.
As for the public on the other hand, for the past year or so, all the polling seems to suggest that Kevin Rudd is preferred by most people over Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister (and Malcolm Turnbull seems to be preferred over the current opposition leader of Tony Abbott, but that's an aside). Interestingly, I've also noticed that Kevin Rudd has a lot more followers on Twitter than Julia Gillard at the moment. At the time of writing, Kevin Rudd has 1068860 followers, which is more than five times of Julia Gillard's 185968 followers.
This number seems to be inflated very recently however; I suspect due to the recent events. When I checked towards the end of last year, Kevin Rudd had roughly double the followers of Julia Gillard. Either way, having more followers seems to suggest to me that Kevin Rudd might have more people who approve of him on the internet, which is consistent with the news polls. The other possibility of Australians having a very keen interest in Foreign Affairs compared to the Prime Ministership seems unlikely. If anything, under usual circumstances, you would think that more people would be interested in a Prime Minister than a Foreign Minister.
Anyway, it seems like if Kevin Rudd will challenge (which was not said specifically but seems likely from what he has been saying in the media), then we should know the outcome of the caucus vote next Monday. Julia Gillard says that if she loses, then she will retire to the back bench and not challenge again. Kevin Rudd is currently on a plane back to Brisbane and will arrive tomorrow morning. It will be an interesting few days ahead.
As it stands, the majority of the ministers who have spoken up are in support of the current prime minster. However, Kevin Rudd appears to have the public backing of ministers Martin Ferguson, Chris Bowen and Kim Carr. Of course, it's hard to know where everyone else who didn't comment publicly stands.
As for the public on the other hand, for the past year or so, all the polling seems to suggest that Kevin Rudd is preferred by most people over Julia Gillard as the Prime Minister (and Malcolm Turnbull seems to be preferred over the current opposition leader of Tony Abbott, but that's an aside). Interestingly, I've also noticed that Kevin Rudd has a lot more followers on Twitter than Julia Gillard at the moment. At the time of writing, Kevin Rudd has 1068860 followers, which is more than five times of Julia Gillard's 185968 followers.
This number seems to be inflated very recently however; I suspect due to the recent events. When I checked towards the end of last year, Kevin Rudd had roughly double the followers of Julia Gillard. Either way, having more followers seems to suggest to me that Kevin Rudd might have more people who approve of him on the internet, which is consistent with the news polls. The other possibility of Australians having a very keen interest in Foreign Affairs compared to the Prime Ministership seems unlikely. If anything, under usual circumstances, you would think that more people would be interested in a Prime Minister than a Foreign Minister.
Anyway, it seems like if Kevin Rudd will challenge (which was not said specifically but seems likely from what he has been saying in the media), then we should know the outcome of the caucus vote next Monday. Julia Gillard says that if she loses, then she will retire to the back bench and not challenge again. Kevin Rudd is currently on a plane back to Brisbane and will arrive tomorrow morning. It will be an interesting few days ahead.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Reunification (統一)
As a result of conflicts between communist and capitalist forces in the late 1940s and early 1950s, both China and Korea are divided into two parts. Both have been divided for about 60 years now. It's been a long time.
One day I hope there will be reunification of China. However, there are a lot of challenges. There are political challenges, due to the different types of government. And there are economic challenges, since the mainland communist China has a much lower GDP per capita than Taiwan. However, the mainland is catching up very rapidly, with an average of about 9% growth in real GDP per year ever since Deng Xiaoping took over as the de facto leader.
Historically though, this was not the first time that China has been divided. But I hope this situation will be resolved well during my lifetime.
One day I hope there will be reunification of China. However, there are a lot of challenges. There are political challenges, due to the different types of government. And there are economic challenges, since the mainland communist China has a much lower GDP per capita than Taiwan. However, the mainland is catching up very rapidly, with an average of about 9% growth in real GDP per year ever since Deng Xiaoping took over as the de facto leader.
Historically though, this was not the first time that China has been divided. But I hope this situation will be resolved well during my lifetime.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Support concession public transport travel for postgraduate and international students
Some of you who read this blog may have noticed that I have recently put links on the right hand side of my blog. Today, I added two extra links about concession travel on public transport.
How does it relate to my blog? Well, since the University of Melbourne gives an MD for medicine, which is classified as a masters level degree, instead of a MBBS like other unis in Australia, medicine students (and students of other professional degrees) at the University of Melbourne under the Melbourne Model are not eligible for concession travel, even though those at Monash and Deakin (for example) are eligible. Even before the worthy arguments about how "traditional" postgraduate degree students should have concession travel have taken place (which they do in most non-Victorian states), the current discrepancy between professional degrees of the same function in UniMelb and Monash for example, simply because Melbourne calls them "master level degrees", should rightly be addressed. (see http://www.capa.edu.au/transportconcessions)
Now... what can you do about it? I'm not sure how much this will help, but you can help by signing the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations Incorporated petition. You can also contact the transport minister in Victoria, Terry Mulder, through a contact form here. Or you can contact your local MP. That said, the issue has been around for quite some time now, but has not yet been resolved. We can always hope that this worthwhile issue gets attention in the future though.
Thank you for your support.
How does it relate to my blog? Well, since the University of Melbourne gives an MD for medicine, which is classified as a masters level degree, instead of a MBBS like other unis in Australia, medicine students (and students of other professional degrees) at the University of Melbourne under the Melbourne Model are not eligible for concession travel, even though those at Monash and Deakin (for example) are eligible. Even before the worthy arguments about how "traditional" postgraduate degree students should have concession travel have taken place (which they do in most non-Victorian states), the current discrepancy between professional degrees of the same function in UniMelb and Monash for example, simply because Melbourne calls them "master level degrees", should rightly be addressed. (see http://www.capa.edu.au/transportconcessions)
Now... what can you do about it? I'm not sure how much this will help, but you can help by signing the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations Incorporated petition. You can also contact the transport minister in Victoria, Terry Mulder, through a contact form here. Or you can contact your local MP. That said, the issue has been around for quite some time now, but has not yet been resolved. We can always hope that this worthwhile issue gets attention in the future though.
Thank you for your support.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Speed limits for provisional and learner drivers
In Victoria, learner and provisional licence drivers both have the same maximum speed limits as full licence drivers. However, in some other Australian states, such as New South Wales and Tasmania, learner drivers are limited to 80 km/h whenever the posted speed limit is higher and provisional licence (P-plate) drivers also are limited to speeds lower than the posted maximum.
While the rationale for any difference in maximum speeds is because less experienced drivers would find the car easier to control at lower speeds, the difference in speeds in practice causes a situation where full licence drivers repeatedly are required to overtake learner drivers, which increases the risk of crashing. It is usually safest for cars to drive at the same speed as other cars in traffic. As such, it is questionable that different speed limits would actually make the road more safe.
Furthermore, when the provisional licence driver turns into a full licence driver, they would then have a higher maximum speed limit. If they don't have experience driving at those speeds under supervision or while on a provisional licence, it potentially makes it less safe when they first drive at those speeds as a full driver.
The other thing is that it wastes time, not only for the driver, but also for those around the driver who may be required to slow down behind them. 80 km/h is 28% slower than 110 km/h, so driving 330 km would take just over four hours at 80 km/h instead of three hours at 110 km/h. While this effect may be relatively small for short distances, it is considerable at large distances. Given that the safety of such a policy is questionable already, this should also be taken into consideration.
The different speed limits for provisional licence and learner drivers in some non-Victorian states, while designed to make driving safer, may actually make it less safe. The different speeds may lead to more crashes in itself, and the lack of experience from driving at higher speeds as learner or provisional drivers may lead to more dangerous driving at the higher speeds as a new full licence driver. And as 80 km/h is 28% slower than 110 km/h, it also wastes valuable time.
(note: this assumes that people stick to speed limits, which may be more relevant in the Australian context than an American one. I do think that a lot of speed limits in Australia are too low, especially if compared to European ones, but that's another issue. The reason why I thought of this issue now is because of the USyd interviews.)
While the rationale for any difference in maximum speeds is because less experienced drivers would find the car easier to control at lower speeds, the difference in speeds in practice causes a situation where full licence drivers repeatedly are required to overtake learner drivers, which increases the risk of crashing. It is usually safest for cars to drive at the same speed as other cars in traffic. As such, it is questionable that different speed limits would actually make the road more safe.
Furthermore, when the provisional licence driver turns into a full licence driver, they would then have a higher maximum speed limit. If they don't have experience driving at those speeds under supervision or while on a provisional licence, it potentially makes it less safe when they first drive at those speeds as a full driver.
The other thing is that it wastes time, not only for the driver, but also for those around the driver who may be required to slow down behind them. 80 km/h is 28% slower than 110 km/h, so driving 330 km would take just over four hours at 80 km/h instead of three hours at 110 km/h. While this effect may be relatively small for short distances, it is considerable at large distances. Given that the safety of such a policy is questionable already, this should also be taken into consideration.
The different speed limits for provisional licence and learner drivers in some non-Victorian states, while designed to make driving safer, may actually make it less safe. The different speeds may lead to more crashes in itself, and the lack of experience from driving at higher speeds as learner or provisional drivers may lead to more dangerous driving at the higher speeds as a new full licence driver. And as 80 km/h is 28% slower than 110 km/h, it also wastes valuable time.
(note: this assumes that people stick to speed limits, which may be more relevant in the Australian context than an American one. I do think that a lot of speed limits in Australia are too low, especially if compared to European ones, but that's another issue. The reason why I thought of this issue now is because of the USyd interviews.)
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Standardized testing results in education: good or overemphasized?
I recently saw an article in The Age which has criticized the alleged overemphasis of the NAPLAN, the national standardized test for math and English over Australia for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 [Official quits at school's test results spike]. This prompted me to write this essay.
There is no doubt that Australia could do with an increase in literacy and numeracy standards of school pupils. One only has to look at the results of TIMSS to find that Australians do not perform close to the top nations in these areas. Standardized tests are used widely around the world to measure performance in areas. They are a benchmark, with results of people able to be easily compared with one another. As such, they can provide meaningful comparisons between different people who do the same test.
Since standardized tests enable meaningful comparisons, they should be used in education. In the case of Dallas Primary School, they saw an increase in scores for the NAPLAN. The most obvious conclusion, therefore, is that the quality of the students' math and literacy skills has increased. The use of the standardized test has given us a relatively objective measure of this.
However, detractors may argue that the test has been overemphasized. Particularly, that students are trained "just to do well in the test". But this should not be an issue, if the test is written well. If the test covers good math and literacy skills in great detail and depth, then an increase in scores indicates an increase in student ability. Therefore, virtually all the training for students "just to do well in the test" would have the effect of increasing math and literacy skills; the wanted outcome, with the remaining small amount devoted to exam strategy which will become important later on as students move into higher education.
How would you explain a spike in data though? Well, to me, there is no good reason why a real increase in math and literacy skills of the students isn't a good explanation. Two years is a long time, and the students can learn a lot in this time. Especially considering how low Australian math standards are, there is no good reason why students cannot catch up in two years. Of course, there could be other effects too though; more than 30% of people did not sit the test and they could have been low performers. However, a lot of these were excluded due to arriving in Australia for only a short time, and the departmental investigation found no artificial inflation from exclusion from the school. Then again, it's also possible that this is a freak result. We'll find out after the results come out this year. But that doesn't invalidate the test.
As for the "world's best practice" alluded to in the article? Well, just look at the TIMSS results. It seems like the "world's best practice" of numeracy and literacy standards is found in East Asian nations and countries like Singapore. And our Australian performance is not even close! It's not rocket science here, it's not as if we're at the top of the game. If you want "world's best practice", then learn from them. That's what we should be doing.
Standardized testing and aiming to improve upon benchmarks is a great way to increase our literacy and math standards. It is perhaps the only objective way to note improvement. If the test is written well, then most increases in scores would mean increases in real math and literacy skills. However, if the test is not sound, then it should be improved. But they should not be dispensed with completely.
There is no doubt that Australia could do with an increase in literacy and numeracy standards of school pupils. One only has to look at the results of TIMSS to find that Australians do not perform close to the top nations in these areas. Standardized tests are used widely around the world to measure performance in areas. They are a benchmark, with results of people able to be easily compared with one another. As such, they can provide meaningful comparisons between different people who do the same test.
Since standardized tests enable meaningful comparisons, they should be used in education. In the case of Dallas Primary School, they saw an increase in scores for the NAPLAN. The most obvious conclusion, therefore, is that the quality of the students' math and literacy skills has increased. The use of the standardized test has given us a relatively objective measure of this.
However, detractors may argue that the test has been overemphasized. Particularly, that students are trained "just to do well in the test". But this should not be an issue, if the test is written well. If the test covers good math and literacy skills in great detail and depth, then an increase in scores indicates an increase in student ability. Therefore, virtually all the training for students "just to do well in the test" would have the effect of increasing math and literacy skills; the wanted outcome, with the remaining small amount devoted to exam strategy which will become important later on as students move into higher education.
How would you explain a spike in data though? Well, to me, there is no good reason why a real increase in math and literacy skills of the students isn't a good explanation. Two years is a long time, and the students can learn a lot in this time. Especially considering how low Australian math standards are, there is no good reason why students cannot catch up in two years. Of course, there could be other effects too though; more than 30% of people did not sit the test and they could have been low performers. However, a lot of these were excluded due to arriving in Australia for only a short time, and the departmental investigation found no artificial inflation from exclusion from the school. Then again, it's also possible that this is a freak result. We'll find out after the results come out this year. But that doesn't invalidate the test.
As for the "world's best practice" alluded to in the article? Well, just look at the TIMSS results. It seems like the "world's best practice" of numeracy and literacy standards is found in East Asian nations and countries like Singapore. And our Australian performance is not even close! It's not rocket science here, it's not as if we're at the top of the game. If you want "world's best practice", then learn from them. That's what we should be doing.
Standardized testing and aiming to improve upon benchmarks is a great way to increase our literacy and math standards. It is perhaps the only objective way to note improvement. If the test is written well, then most increases in scores would mean increases in real math and literacy skills. However, if the test is not sound, then it should be improved. But they should not be dispensed with completely.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Australia needs to improve its pre-university math and science education
The current state of primary and secondary math and science education is far from ideal. Learning mathematics and science is very slow until the last two years of high school, then the pace picks up enormously in the important last two years before university, and then again in university. As such, the extremely slow pace before year 11 hardly prepares aspiring science university students well for the next 5 or more years of their study.
This can be shown in international benchmark tests such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). According to the TIMSS 2007 Math Report (page 35, 38; 47, 50th in pdf), at year 8 level, Australians perform statistically significantly worse than Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Hungary, England, Russia, the US and Lithuania. Also, a 95th percentile Australian would not even reach the 75th percentile mark in Singapore, Korea or Taiwan; while an average Australian would fall within the bottom quartile in Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. In other words, our supposedly gifted students, those within the top 5%, can not even compare with the top quarter of the top math nations. This is a definite cause for concern.
It is also concerning that Australia is below the United States, despite some of their states having a very poor "fuzzy math" curriculum. Such curriculum had very little emphasis on simple basic techniques such as manipulating fractions or even multiplication or division without a calculator. Such reforms had come because the old regime was not perfect. However, this demonstrates what can happen when reforms go wrong.
It could be said that these East Asian nations have more emphasis on the students doing well in math by parents, as a matter of culture. However, even without this emphasis for some students, the top Australian students, especially those who find the current curriculum up to year 10 unchallenging, could do very well simply with a much stronger curriculum than currently.
Australia is currently in a process of implementing a national curriculum. While a reform of math standards is definitely needed, I find it doubtful that standards will reach those seen in Taiwan, Korea or Singapore. But I do hope so, it is definitely needed here.
This can be shown in international benchmark tests such as TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study). According to the TIMSS 2007 Math Report (page 35, 38; 47, 50th in pdf), at year 8 level, Australians perform statistically significantly worse than Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Hungary, England, Russia, the US and Lithuania. Also, a 95th percentile Australian would not even reach the 75th percentile mark in Singapore, Korea or Taiwan; while an average Australian would fall within the bottom quartile in Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan. In other words, our supposedly gifted students, those within the top 5%, can not even compare with the top quarter of the top math nations. This is a definite cause for concern.
It is also concerning that Australia is below the United States, despite some of their states having a very poor "fuzzy math" curriculum. Such curriculum had very little emphasis on simple basic techniques such as manipulating fractions or even multiplication or division without a calculator. Such reforms had come because the old regime was not perfect. However, this demonstrates what can happen when reforms go wrong.
It could be said that these East Asian nations have more emphasis on the students doing well in math by parents, as a matter of culture. However, even without this emphasis for some students, the top Australian students, especially those who find the current curriculum up to year 10 unchallenging, could do very well simply with a much stronger curriculum than currently.
Australia is currently in a process of implementing a national curriculum. While a reform of math standards is definitely needed, I find it doubtful that standards will reach those seen in Taiwan, Korea or Singapore. But I do hope so, it is definitely needed here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)