*Everything HPAT and Medicine 2012*

Mad Shark wrote: »

Thanks for that - I see where you are coming from so do you think then overall points will go up by about 5 to 8 pts for each college? or perhaps the gap between the colleges will get closer and NIUG will jump perhaps 10 or 12 pts since there will be a lot more hovering around the 550 mark this year ??

yes, i agree with you.it's going to be much tighter betweed tcd and ucg this year. i predict the minimum for ucg this year will be 741/742 ,for the reason you give. my reasoning for this is on my previous post on 15/july 17.33 and on 30/june 00.01.
i'm hoping i am wrong,and you can tell me why my reasoning is wrong ?
remember ,what happened other years is completely irrelevant.

MtHanrahan wrote: »

I doubt the gap between NUIG and TCD will change much, points may certainly rise but the gap won't change because of the Hpat. The Hpat really has become a nuisance for getting into Med and it isn't serving it's purpose. It should be scrapped in my opinion. http://mthanrahan.blogspot.ie/2012/07/the-hpat-should-be-scrapped.html

I disagree. Who says you can't cheat the leaving cert in the same sense also? Grinds, courses, students paying to study extra subjects outside school just for the points?

Why should a students ability to (sometimes mindlessly) memorise loads of information be valued over their ability to think logically/critically and empathise with people? No test in the world is completely study proof unless its one in which nobody knows the actual subject matter. If someone put extra effort into the hpat why shouldn't they be rewarded similar to putting extra effort into the leaving? Tests are still a lot more objective than interviews/references where a lot of bias could come into play.

And the hpat only significantly reduces points for people who do absolutely outstanding in the hpat, but someone who can get 530 points + still should have the aptitude for medicine.

Patchy~ wrote: »

It's possible from what I've heard, and I think it's 5 (might have been 3?) years for a LC and 2 for a HPAT. I'm not a medicine person though so someone else might know more.

Thanks anyway Patchy this has been really confusing me!

Darksider wrote: »

MtHanrahan wrote: »

I doubt the gap between NUIG and TCD will change much, points may certainly rise but the gap won't change because of the Hpat. The Hpat really has become a nuisance for getting into Med and it isn't serving it's purpose. It should be scrapped in my opinion. http://mthanrahan.blogspot.ie/2012/07/the-hpat-should-be-scrapped.html

I disagree. Who says you can't cheat the leaving cert in the same sense also? Grinds, courses, students paying to study extra subjects outside school just for the points?

Why should a students ability to (sometimes mindlessly) memorise loads of information be valued over their ability to think logically/critically and empathise with people? No test in the world is completely study proof unless its one in which nobody knows the actual subject matter. If someone put extra effort into the hpat why shouldn't they be rewarded similar to putting extra effort into the leaving? Tests are still a lot more objective than interviews/references where a lot of bias could come into play.

And the hpat only significantly reduces points for people who do absolutely outstanding in the hpat, but someone who can get 530 points + still should have the aptitude for medicine.

Of course students cheat the leaving cert. itself all the time as you've mentioned. That's why the Hpat was introduced. But as you said yourself students can perform mindlessly, and that's what is happening in the Hpat too. However the leaving cert is a test of knowledge, not ability.

Imagine you wanted to find out your IQ. The first time you did the test you score 115. Then you decide to do another IQ test of equal difficulty and different questions and score 130. You score higher because the questions seem familiar. But which represents your ability better?
By this logic you could then go and actually study for the IQ test for a year and possibly score 160. Does this make you a genius?

My real problem with the Hpat is with the repeats (if you haven't noticed). I've written about the Hpat and the leaving cert. and grinds before on my blog

The hpat should be scrapped, but we need something else here like interviews. I absolutely detest the hpat but it has to be better than the old system.

We cannot have it based solely on the leaving cert as the leaving cert tests memory not intelligence.

I also think its a good thing that people are getting in with less points, because anyone with around 500 points is able for medicine you should not have to get the full 600 like the old system.

Sunny!! wrote: »

oh sorry i phrased it wrong, of course memory is essential for medicine, but intelligence is more important.

They're not mutually exclusive though. I wouldn't call someone who scored over 550 in the LC unintelligent. The opposite in fact. A lot of doctors themselves say that memory skills are most useful when studying medicine.

jumpguy wrote: »

I think that the HPAT is along the right track as to where we need to go - I do think section 3 needs to go or be changed though, I really do feel it's easy to prepare for and do well in with enough practice (and, I'm saying this as it was my best section and I did prep.)

You suggest in your blog post a log-book system where you have to do a week's medical work experience. That would be disastrous, since those who have parents as doctors or in other hospital positions would have a massive leg-up. Even if we developed a fair system where every student had an equal chance to gain hospital experience, it would become a burden on the hospitals which they don't need. Can you imagine them having to deal with a bunch of underage teenagers milling around the hospital trying to fill a log book? It'd be a nightmare from the point of view of infection risk, patient comfort, and the safety of the youngins too.

A return to Leaving Cert only would just be trading the new problems for the old, which is not acceptable. Top-tier Leaving Certers don't necessarily make good doctors, and I think the HPAT broadens the variety of personalities that enter medicine.

I was hoping for a report on the HPAT this year, but I heard on the grapevine they're waiting for 5 years data now. I'm fairly sure it'll earmark section 3 for the chop.

I never meant for it to be hospital experience and I never meant that it should be worth anything to give anyone a leg-up. Anything would suffice just to show that you have a genuine interest in medicine which is really all you need to be a good doctor. High leaving cert and hpat is just to beat competition.

In england it is virtually impossible to be considered for medicine unless you've shown prior interest by doing some form of work-experience.

The log-book was just to get you thinking by having to write things down. We have learning logs in UCC which are nothing but an assessment of your handwriting. No marks are awarded for it but it is mandatory, so it just gets you thinking about what you've done in college and how you can improve. yes it can be cheated but effort is still required.

Its too late for a return to LC only, I agree with that, but if the Hpat isn't doing its job, then it needs to be revisited.

MtHanrahan wrote: »

Its too late for a return to LC only, I agree with that, but if the Hpat isn't doing its job, then it needs to be revisited.

The log book idea is then flimsy. You could easily get your friendly local GP to sign you off, which'd be unfair to those who genuinely try to get the necessary experience. It'd be a pointless piece of bureaucracy.

In reality, the job of the HPAT was to balance the male-female ratio entering medicine, which it succeeded at. I also think it adds an element of ability-under-stress to the assessment.

I am concerned about how people repeating the HPAT fare better much of the time, and that's one issue I'd definitely like to see sorted. Sitting the HPAT for the first time shouldn't put you at a major disadvantage compared to veteran sitters. I suspect the reason the HPAT scores this year didn't rise is because the turnover of repeats sitting the HPAT has now stabilised. I also suspect section 3 is at the heart of many problems with the HPAT, but the people with all the answers will be those with access to the statistics on score and score rises in repeats. No real conclusion can be made until a report is released.

I think assessment will have to stay quite anonymous, given that we have the unique problem compared to the UK of being a small, quite well-connected nation with culture that often promotes the individual good over the common good. It's not as easy as "we'll do the same thing they do there!" Besides, the UK system suffers from its own flaws, even with their population being roughly 10 times greater than ours.

dcam wrote: »

I'm delighted someone else agrees that the leaving cert is not just a memory test. I did four Hl languages for the leaving besides English and to say that you can rote learn for these exams is just ridiculous, you are required to manipulate spontaneously and have a real understanding of grammar. Of course there are some subjects which can be rote learned like Patchy said but in my opinion this only applies to a minority of subjects. In terms of the HPAT I agree that it should be scrapped it's just ridiculous that someone with 600 points might not get a place in medicine due to their HPAT score. I agree that the old system was not flawless and appreciate that the HPAT is supposed to broaden the personality types getting into medicine but overall I think the old system was fairer especially for the very high achievers who have enough points for any other course apart from medicine. In my opinion it's a disgrace that choosing the next picture in a series determines who will get a place in undergraduate medicine.

If someone chose biology, ag science, chemistry, business, irish, french, maths, english they could essentially rote learn their way to a very high leaving. besides maths, the other 7 subjects benefit HUGELY from an ability to memorise large amounts of info.

though the 600 points not getting into medicine is a good point. that could possibly be helped by raising the ceiling to 575 in which case someone with 600 would only need a hpat score in the 70th percentile, which IMO is certainly reasonable to expect from someone looking to get into medicine.

Darksider wrote: »

though the 600 points not getting into medicine is a good point. that could possibly be helped by raising the ceiling to 575 in which case someone with 600 would only need a hpat score in the 70th percentile, which IMO is certainly reasonable to expect from someone looking to get into medicine.

This would certainly be an improvement Darksider, but in my opinion 70th percentile is still quite difficult to obtain, and taking into account that some of the country's best doctors wouldn't manage this and that prep courses have been shown to be capable of significantly increasing an individual's percentiles, I still think scrapping the HPAT is the best option.

Patchy~ wrote: »

I think a very fair idea for Medicine would be to increase the value of certain grades. Someone who gets a C3 in chemistry probably shouldn't be there over someone who got an A1, more points could be awarded for higher grades in the candidate's best scoring 2 science subjects, but only 2, to prevent unfair advantages if someone happened to do physics/ag science too. Then again, people complain about the HL maths points so maybe not.

I completely agree Patchy. People should be capable of getting a high grade in science subjects if they are expected to make it through med. As regards HL maths bonus points I think people would have less of a reason to complain about your suggestion than maths bonus points as the maths bonus points can be used for any course, even if they are entirely unrelated to maths, whereas your suggestion would just concern med applicants and of course science subjects are very relevant to med.

sparagon wrote: »

Darksider wrote: »

If someone chose biology, ag science, chemistry, business, irish, french, maths, english they could essentially rote learn their way to a very high leaving. besides maths, the other 7 subjects benefit HUGELY from an ability to memorise large amounts of info.

Darksider if you think people can rote learn and thus do well in Irish, French, English and Chemistry then you clearly don'#t have a great knowledge of the LC or at least those subjects. For Irish and French you need to fully understand the know;edge to manipulate and apply it in/to new situations, in English you need to have a deep understanding of your pieces, aswell as be able to develop your own opinion and have a flair. And as for chemistry it is basically ALL understanding and application

I'm only familiar with the older honours Irish course so it may have changed, but people who could learn off a bunch of essays had a huge advantage.

Learning notes off is also a big part of english for many people. You could be an expert writer but if you don't have the memory to remember the ridiculous amount of info on a single text, 3 comparative texts and several poets then you will suffer. the comparatives are basically learned off and just manipulated on the day.

chemistry is made much easier by an ability to understand the concepts but if you were able to just rote learn everything yoh would only suffer in a small number of areas (more difficult calculations and maybe a few abstract questions)

not sure why I inclured french though, French doesnt involve any rote learning imo.


I'm not saying these subjects can be flown through by anyone with just a decent memory, but if you take someone with the time, ability and dedication to rote learn massive amounts of info they will still do quite well, regardless of their ability in other areas

Taco Chips wrote: »

Which is an integral part of learning for many people. Rote learning is important. Often understanding of topics comes after a heap of information has been committed to memory. Rote learning large volumes of information is also key to succeeding in medicine.

I agree, I just don't think that the leaving cert should be the only criteria for acceptance to medicine, since I don't believe it comprehensively assesses enough of the qualities a doctor should have. The HPAT hits on some more of these qualities (particularly sections 1 and 2).

In theory, interviews could be a good addition too but I think that would introduce a lot of bias. My favourite part of the UCAS system is that people need to show an actual interest in medicine by doing work experience in a similar field. That shows bias too though, as some students will easily be able to get a position through connections whilst others will struggle to get a work experience position.

The reality is that there will never be a perfect or ideal system for allocating med school places but I think the way it is currently is at least an improvement over the previous system.

Darksider wrote: »

I agree, I just don't think that the leaving cert should be the only criteria for acceptance to medicine, since I don't believe it comprehensively assesses enough of the qualities a doctor should have. The HPAT hits on some more of these qualities (particularly sections 1 and 2).

In theory, interviews could be a good addition too but I think that would introduce a lot of bias. My favourite part of the UCAS system is that people need to show an actual interest in medicine by doing work experience in a similar field. That shows bias too though, as some students will easily be able to get a position through connections whilst others will struggle to get a work experience position.

The reality is that there will never be a perfect or ideal system for allocating med school places but I think the way it is currently is at least an improvement over the previous system.

Totally agree with you no perfect system and this is the best attempt so far - perhaps bring in some interview process once you get to a certain level of LC and HPAT combined??