Selective Entry Accelerated Learning Programs

When I was in grade six, along with about 100 people, I sat a test to get into the accelerated learning program at a high school. I got in, and a quarter of the test takers would later form an accelerated class at our school.

At my high school, the structure was such that we did year 8 maths (and some covered year 7 and a bit of year 8 of other core subjects like English and science) in year 7, year 9 maths in year 8 (covering the rest of year 8 science and year 9 science, and up to year 9 English), skipping year 9 and doing almost the same things as all the other year 10 classes in year 10 if we decided to stay on at the school and not go to Melbourne High School (MHS) or Mac.Robertson Girls' High School (MacRob) for example.

From then, we had the opportunity to do "two year VCE" if we wanted to, to finish high school a year earlier, or "three year VCE" if we wanted to use up a year "saved" to try to get a better mark in VCE. I took up the "two year VCE" option, like a lot of my peers, and subsequently successfully completed VCE, completed Biomedicine in the usual time, and I'm now in medicine.

However, after my year level went straight to year 10 and skipped year 9, the school decided to change the arrangements of the accelerated program for future year levels. Instead of skipping year 9, you did mainly year 10 core subjects in year 9. In "year 10", students were required to take up year 11 English, History and Mathematical Methods (mid-level VCE maths). Due to the inflexibility of the subjects possible for electives, it effectively forced people to undergo "three year VCE", with the first year being year 10.

To be honest, I was quite baffled with their change in policy at the school. I personally did not feel that there was much wrong with the old "two year VCE" after acceleration system. What was so wrong about people leaving school one year early, when they were entirely capable of doing so and able to study at university? Surely going to university would be more effective use of their time than staying back at school for another year.

The stated reason from the school seemed to be due to concerns about the maturity about the students leaving. There was concern that the people undergoing two year VCE after being in the accelerated learning program would not be mature enough to go to university because they were one year younger. While this is a point which may be true for some people, I don't think it is a good reason to keep everyone back. Myself and many others who have done "two year VCE" after being part of the accelerated program have managed to successfully complete a bachelor degree within the normal time frame. (In hindsight, maybe I could have skipped two years too, seeing that my GAMSAT score in 2010 was still clearly enough for UQ medicine for a CSP place for 2011 entry, or 2012 entry for that matter, without an interview.) Furthermore, for those who may not be ready for university that early, they still did have the option of "three year VCE" to use up their "saved" year.

Furthermore, being unable to skip a year anymore at my high school (which has a lower SES on average) removes one of the advantages of staying on at the school. Before, the advantage of staying on meant that you got to skip straight from "year 8" to year 10 and finish a year earlier, which you couldn't do if you went to MHS or MacRob for example. Now though, that option does not exist, so there is less of a reason to stay on at the school and not move to MHS or MacRob.

Sometimes I wonder if the school had another motive for changing the system. Was it to try to lift up the proportion of 40+ (top 9%) study scores in their statistics? I'm not sure if it was a reason, but if it was, then it was not really to the benefit of the students who could have started their bachelor degree a year earlier.

Review of decisions of the past year

Today I've been thinking of the various decisions that I have made with respect to medical school admission in the past year. While ultimately I will get a clearer picture at the end of the year, here are my thoughts right now:

Firstly, it was the correct decision to repeat the GAMSAT, despite my score last year being "high". My mark improved by 6 on the "normal" weighted scale, and 7 on the weird "equal weighting" used by UniMelb. I do predict that the Melbourne cutoff will rise this year because of the increase in biomed graduates, and any higher score is useful. Furthermore, the USyd experience has shown that my interview ability is rather weak like I thought it was, so a higher GAMSAT would be a very useful buffer in the selection overall score, especially for UniMelb where they don't have a minimum interview score required unlike USyd.

Secondly, it was the correct decision to apply to USyd. Although it hasn't offered me a safety net like I hoped it might, applying there required me to think about some MMI questions. I also got some real MMI experience too and have identified some things to work on for next time. This can only help for a possible Melbourne interview.

As for the other decisions, it is impossible to tell if I made the right decision right now. If the UQ issue has been resolved, then the GEMSAS preference list that I drew up is the correct one. However, if it has not been resolved, and if I also happen to not get into UniMelb, then it may not have been the right one (although it also means that I should have tried harder for practicing for the interview for Melbourne).

Apart from that, if both the UQ issue is not resolved, and I did not get into Melbourne, then it may mean that I should have applied to dentistry in Melbourne (no interview). To be honest, it was only during this year when I seriously considered dentistry, sparked by the lecture that the dentistry guy gave during the DPhysio/MD/DDS info session (he was pretty funny and perhaps his speech was rather unconventional). I have become more and more interested about the OMS (oral/maxillofacial surgery) specialization which requires both medicine and dentistry this year, partially because I like being at uni (and without wasting time either), and partially because both medicine and dentistry seem interesting. But if I do get into medicine, then not applying would have been the right decision, since then I wouldn't need to pay $100 in application fees this year.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see. Or rather not. I guess I'll have to practice for the interview. That is best thing that I can do now.

Graduate entry vs undergraduate entry

In Australia, there are two methods of entry into medicine available. Some people get in straight out of high school, into a 5 or 6 year undergraduate entry program. Others get in after completing a bachelor degree first, and then complete a 4 year graduate entry medicine program. The undergraduate program has been criticized for having less mature applicants in recent times, which has lead to many universities switching from the traditional undergraduate entry in Australia to graduate entry medicine.

Undergraduate medicine gives those who are relatively sure that medicine is the right career path for them the chance to get straight into the degree, having the least amount of time required studying at university before graduating with a medicine degree. It is perhaps the most cost-effective of the options too, both for the student and the university, as the student can practice sooner and the university does not need to use as many years of resources to teach the student. So for people who are sure that medicine is right for them, this path is very good for them.

However, there are quite a number of people who claim that graduate entry medicine is much better than undergraduate entry. The reasons given are often because of higher levels of maturity due to the applicants being older and having a bachelor degree already, and perhaps more life experience too. Also, the graduate entry program has less dropouts and more diversity of applicants.

It may be the case that graduate entry applicants are more mature at the start of the medicine degree. Perhaps a lot of undergraduate entry medicine students may not be perceived mature enough to be interns at the start of the medicine degree, while graduate entry students may be. However, 5 or 6 years is a long time to mature, and it is after those years when undergraduate medicine students will be interns; not at the start of the degree. Furthermore, a range of studies have indicated that age is inversely correlated to grades at medical school. Also, it is more economical to train younger students who can practice for many years compared to older applicants who cannot do so.

Graduate entry applicants may have prior knowledge in areas such as biomedicine that can lead to a deeper understanding of the key concepts compared to undergraduate entry applicants. However, in most universities, there is no such requirement. Unless there is a requirement to have prerequisites, the prior knowledge of some applicants may not help that much, and the course will not use the full potential of the students given their prior knowledge.

It may be the case that graduate entry applicants are more mature and diverse, but at the cost of having less years of practice. The undergraduate entry is perhaps more cost effective for those who want to do medicine out of high school, but has higher dropouts. However, unless there is a need for more knowledgeable graduates, where graduate entry with prerequisites makes sense, there does not seem to be a compelling reason not to have undergraduate entry medicine.


[note: I did try to get into undergraduate entry medicine but my UMAT score was not high enough for an interview. I don't think the UMAT does its job well. However, unless graduate entry programs require prerequisites and train to a higher standard than undergraduate medicine, I don't see a compelling reason for undergraduate medicine not to exist.]