HPAT

JW91 wrote: »

Cantona56,
You seem to have taken great offence to my post. Fair play to you for working and whatever but the reality is that if you did bad in the HPAT it probably means you aren't intelligent enough for medicine.

Your no better than the guy that brings notes into the exam hall and looks at them during the tests. And in fact I have more respect for the guy that brings in the notes as doing that takes serious guts.

let me just say that the 2.5 hours went well for some not for others, that can easily happen. what if someone's not sleeping well since their grandmother died the week before or they have a flu or they're wrecked from the mocks or they ran over their dog on the way to the test??? how could you be so callous as to insult someone you don't know like that and automatically assume they had the same chance as everyone else despite the fact that you don't know them. i did ok in the hpat but i am grateful i didn't have a headcold or too much drama in my life etc. everyone who did very well should be. the margin is TINY in fairness, and it was multiple choice so odds are some got unlucky while others got lucky.

if u were to be so harsh, judgemental and assuming with patients, you'd be given a land if not struck off eventually.

yes, some people want med who won't be able for it ever but it's not your place to tell them, especially if don't know them, and ESPECIALLY based on the friggin hpat results.

i also quoted the bit where you showed respect for those who actually cheat. cheating is very unethical, correct? it's recognised by all authorities as very serious. i know from having applied to med schools in the uk that if they detected that you held those sentiments, they wouldn't accept you. doctors should be law-abiding, honest citizens who understand the code of ethics and have utmost respect for human rights.

i'm not accusing you of not being a law abiding citizen or anything of the sort (how would i know?!), but i am accusing you of running your mouth without thinkning, being ott, cruel, discriminatory and just plain rude.

this is why they invented bells.

Whoa.

Talk about hostilities!

:eek:

holadivaldfe wrote: »

i know!! i've been trying to keep it as light as possible but i feel compelled to stand up for the insulted and degraded. i actually always do this, my parents want me to do law. no thank you though, i like my blood pressure as it is!

anyways the thread is way off topic now, partly my fault, sorry!

so back to the hpat.... or shall we just stay sane and forget about it untill august?!

haha i know the feeling- the debating mentality starts to kick in! got to stick up for the little guys:D
yeah everything about the hpat just depresses me now! and to think, merely a few days ago it represented hope....i have now come to the conclusion that hope is a myth! and yet i still come onto this thread everytime i get the chance lol.
ahh no, i'm disappointed but not depressed- i'm a firm believer in the 'everything happens for the better/when God closes a door, he opens a window' kind of philosophy, so we'll see what happens!:)

medcon wrote: »

Straight_As,

I'm just after finishing another year of medicine, and I'd like to give you an insight into what is actually involved in doing the course in college. What is wrong with learning by heart? Medicine is a career that is based upon knowledge, and that knowledge, like it or not, can only be obtained by learning off by heart. You need to have the ability to learn off and reproduce on paper pages upon pages of drugs, diseases and diagnoses. From your first day in medical school until the day you retire from practicing medicine you need to be able to remember seemingly useless facts. You won't need to indicate which shape comes next in a series of four.

Of course you need intelligence, but your problem solving ability is limited by the extent of your knowledge - which of course has been learned off by heart.

Therefore I believe that the leaving cert is a perfectly sufficient measure of one's aptitude for medicine. What for you contributes to an actual aptitude for medicine?

Please explain in greater detail how the leaving cert English course is an adequate gauge of one's interpersonal abilities? Communicating on paper is not the same as communicating in person - I know one or two "lab-rats" out there who got A1s in LC English.

Regards,

medcon

Well, I'm not in university yet, so my opinions are based on various accounts I've heard, and also my perceptions only on my educational experience thus far.

If you check my previous posts, you'll see that my opinions used to be very much in line with those of you yourself. I believed, naively, that the ability to vomit information onto a page was the ultimate necessity for a medical career, that understanding was futile when one could 'eat the book'.

I was always told of the excruciating difficulty of the LC, and how any subject that encourages intuition, such as maths, app maths, chemistry, physics, even some of the systems in biology (despite the fact these subjects are mostly oversimplified for LC), was impossible.

This, however, is not the case. The difficulty of the scientific subjects is such that as one's UNDERSTANDING increases, the amount and accuracy of what needs to be learned decreases. Certainly, detail is necessary, but detail, without a contextualizing understanding, is pointless, not applicable, and frankly, displays a lack discernment for the relevance and importance of the studied material. I think it may have been on this board but I once read something which, in essence, stated that if one understands something, they know it for life. Obviously, this understanding would be of little help when listing medicines, but at the same time, to administer and prescribe these medicines, a cumulative understanding of the disease mechanism, the patient's history and also the EFFECT of the drug (not just its name) and reasons for the effects, is required. Speaking as an onlooker, and that's all I am yet, I would classify these key traits as having twice the importance of the clerical competency required in correctly naming a drug.

I am planning on sitting the UKCAT soon and I recently read an interesting analysis of the relevance of its abstract reasoning section, or as you say, which shape comes next. To surmise the rather wordy paragraph, basically, the UCKAT tests abstract reasoning as such aptitudes are seen as important in acknowledging patterns in patients' conditions and recognition of relevant data. Now, granted, to apply this whilst diagnosing, one must have knowledge of disease and symptoms, but to belittle its importance is extremely ignorant.
The piece further continues, saying that abstract reasoning is key in medical research, citing an ability to recognise patterns as important in establishing links between various scientific parameters, from which a discovery or well thought-out conclusion can be drawn.

My opinions are also based on the numerous other students I know personally who want to study medicine. The overwhelming majority have little to none scientific, or indeed, rational intuition. Most learn English and Irish essays verbatim, and what's worse, they think it classifies them as proficient, or hilariously, some think it shows them to be gifted! The time they spend learning these essays is insane. If they spent these hours drafting ideas, insights, and most importantly, their opinions on the material, they would increase their chances of getting an A1. This aside, and probably most important, they would be affording themselves a real education, which would be of life time benefit, not one custom built for the LC and derived from the IOE's predictions.

For many, maths, chem and physics are no-goes. These subjects require some logical thought in explaining ideas and so, many med applicants I know, suck at these. Instead,they see the mission of these subjects is solely matriculation based.

Finally, medcon, may I say that just because you are, or are training to be, a doctor, does not mean you are more capable than some students who failed to get into the course because they respect and value self directed thought more than parroting. I have met some doctors who obviously got 600 points in the LC but due to their ignorance in thoroughly understanding the chemical and physiological nature of medicine, instead seeing it as giant hackable exam, have had severe negative impacts on my family.

I truly hope that aspiring medics of 2009 remember this: your mandate is to help people through a thorough comprehension of science, not through passing some arbitrary test.

PS: If -JammyDodger- decided to become a doctor, his integrity, helpfulness and genuine capacity to understand complex data would, in my eyes, far out-qualify him to study medicine, compared to any other applicants posting on this board. His attitude is what you all should be aspiring to.

straight_As wrote: »

PS: If -JammyDodger- decided to become a doctor, his integrity, helpfulness and genuine capacity to understand complex data would, in my eyes, far out-qualify him to study medicine, compared to any other applicants posting on this board. His attitude is what you all should be aspiring to.

sheesh why don't you just go and make out with him?!;)

haha

straight_As wrote: »

Well, I'm not in university yet, so my opinions are based on various accounts I've heard, and also my perceptions only on my educational experience thus far.

If you check my previous posts, you'll see that my opinions used to be very much in line with those of you yourself. I believed, naively, that the ability to vomit information onto a page was the ultimate necessity for a medical career, that understanding was futile when one could 'eat the book'.

I was always told of the excruciating difficulty of the LC, and how any subject that encourages intuition, such as maths, app maths, chemistry, physics, even some of the systems in biology (despite the fact these subjects are mostly oversimplified for LC), was impossible.

This, however, is not the case. The difficulty of the scientific subjects is such that as one's UNDERSTANDING increases, the amount and accuracy of what needs to be learned decreases. Certainly, detail is necessary, but detail, without a contextualizing understanding, is pointless, not applicable, and frankly, displays a lack discernment for the relevance and importance of the studied material. I think it may have been on this board but I once read something which, in essence, stated that if one understands something, they know it for life. Obviously, this understanding would be of little help when listing medicines, but at the same time, to administer and prescribe these medicines, a cumulative understanding of the disease mechanism, the patient's history and also the EFFECT of the drug (not just its name) and reasons for the effects, is required. Speaking as an onlooker, and that's all I am yet, I would classify these key traits as having twice the importance of the clerical competency required in correctly naming a drug.

I am planning on sitting the UKCAT soon and I recently read an interesting analysis of the relevance of its abstract reasoning section, or as you say, which shape comes next. To surmise the rather wordy paragraph, basically, the UCKAT tests abstract reasoning as such aptitudes are seen as important in acknowledging patterns in patients' conditions and recognition of relevant data. Now, granted, to apply this whilst diagnosing, one must have knowledge of disease and symptoms, but to belittle its importance is extremely ignorant.
The piece further continues, saying that abstract reasoning is key in medical research, citing an ability to recognise patterns as important in establishing links between various scientific parameters, from which a discovery or well thought-out conclusion can be drawn.

My opinions are also based on the numerous other students I know personally who want to study medicine. The overwhelming majority have little to none scientific, or indeed, rational intuition. Most learn English and Irish essays verbatim, and what's worse, they think it classifies them as proficient, or hilariously, some think it shows them to be gifted! The time they spend learning these essays is insane. If they spent these hours drafting ideas, insights, and most importantly, their opinions on the material, they would increase their chances of getting an A1. This aside, and probably most important, they would be affording themselves a real education, which would be of life time benefit, not one custom built for the LC and derived from the IOE's predictions.

For many, maths, chem and physics are no-goes. These subjects require some logical thought in explaining ideas and so, many med applicants I know, suck at these. Instead,they see the mission of these subjects is solely matriculation based.

Finally, medcon, may I say that just because you are, or are training to be, a doctor, does not mean you are more capable than some students who failed to get into the course because they respect and value self directed thought more than parroting. I have met some doctors who obviously got 600 points in the LC but due to their ignorance in thoroughly understanding the chemical and physiological nature of medicine, instead seeing it as giant hackable exam, have had severe negative impacts on my family.

I truly hope that aspiring medics of 2009 remember this: your mandate is to help people through a thorough comprehension of science, not through passing some arbitrary test.

PS: If -JammyDodger- decided to become a doctor, his integrity, helpfulness and genuine capacity to understand complex data would, in my eyes, far out-qualify him to study medicine, compared to any other applicants posting on this board. His attitude is what you all should be aspiring to.

Straight_As

Of course an inherent understanding of the material to be learnt decreases the amount of hours spent studying and allows one to excel without the huge work load that I imagine would be required to learn off information that one does not understand. However, the fact that even at leaving cert this is true, only further proves my point: the leaving cert is an exam which adequately examines ones aptitude to study medicine. If one cannot grasp, comprehend, commit to memory and consequently reproduce leaving cert material, then perhaps medicine is not for them. The ability to do the above, in my experience anyhow, is enough to carry one through medical school.

And as for your point about abstract reasoning, I actually believe that it goes against the point of medicine, as reasoning, when involving a patient's health, should always be more than abstract and should come from a sound foundation of knowledge and experience. Just because something appears to make sense does not always mean that it actually does.

medcon

straight_As wrote: »

Well, I'm not in university yet, so my opinions are based on various accounts I've heard, and also my perceptions only on my educational experience thus far.

If you check my previous posts, you'll see that my opinions used to be very much in line with those of you yourself. I believed, naively, that the ability to vomit information onto a page was the ultimate necessity for a medical career, that understanding was futile when one could 'eat the book'.

I was always told of the excruciating difficulty of the LC, and how any subject that encourages intuition, such as maths, app maths, chemistry, physics, even some of the systems in biology (despite the fact these subjects are mostly oversimplified for LC), was impossible.

This, however, is not the case. The difficulty of the scientific subjects is such that as one's UNDERSTANDING increases, the amount and accuracy of what needs to be learned decreases. Certainly, detail is necessary, but detail, without a contextualizing understanding, is pointless, not applicable, and frankly, displays a lack discernment for the relevance and importance of the studied material. I think it may have been on this board but I once read something which, in essence, stated that if one understands something, they know it for life. Obviously, this understanding would be of little help when listing medicines, but at the same time, to administer and prescribe these medicines, a cumulative understanding of the disease mechanism, the patient's history and also the EFFECT of the drug (not just its name) and reasons for the effects, is required. Speaking as an onlooker, and that's all I am yet, I would classify these key traits as having twice the importance of the clerical competency required in correctly naming a drug.

I am planning on sitting the UKCAT soon and I recently read an interesting analysis of the relevance of its abstract reasoning section, or as you say, which shape comes next. To surmise the rather wordy paragraph, basically, the UCKAT tests abstract reasoning as such aptitudes are seen as important in acknowledging patterns in patients' conditions and recognition of relevant data. Now, granted, to apply this whilst diagnosing, one must have knowledge of disease and symptoms, but to belittle its importance is extremely ignorant.
The piece further continues, saying that abstract reasoning is key in medical research, citing an ability to recognise patterns as important in establishing links between various scientific parameters, from which a discovery or well thought-out conclusion can be drawn.

My opinions are also based on the numerous other students I know personally who want to study medicine. The overwhelming majority have little to none scientific, or indeed, rational intuition. Most learn English and Irish essays verbatim, and what's worse, they think it classifies them as proficient, or hilariously, some think it shows them to be gifted! The time they spend learning these essays is insane. If they spent these hours drafting ideas, insights, and most importantly, their opinions on the material, they would increase their chances of getting an A1. This aside, and probably most important, they would be affording themselves a real education, which would be of life time benefit, not one custom built for the LC and derived from the IOE's predictions.

For many, maths, chem and physics are no-goes. These subjects require some logical thought in explaining ideas and so, many med applicants I know, suck at these. Instead,they see the mission of these subjects is solely matriculation based.

Finally, medcon, may I say that just because you are, or are training to be, a doctor, does not mean you are more capable than some students who failed to get into the course because they respect and value self directed thought more than parroting. I have met some doctors who obviously got 600 points in the LC but due to their ignorance in thoroughly understanding the chemical and physiological nature of medicine, instead seeing it as giant hackable exam, have had severe negative impacts on my family.

I truly hope that aspiring medics of 2009 remember this: your mandate is to help people through a thorough comprehension of science, not through passing some arbitrary test.

PS: If -JammyDodger- decided to become a doctor, his integrity, helpfulness and genuine capacity to understand complex data would, in my eyes, far out-qualify him to study medicine, compared to any other applicants posting on this board. His attitude is what you all should be aspiring to.

It's the most excruciatingly diffficult exam you sit...until you get to college. Then you'll see what it's like to tackle a test in a very hard subject without the rampant spoon feeding of secondary school.

OK this off topic tangent has gone on long enough. Everyone please get back on topic and keep this discussion about the HPATs.

If someone wants to start an argument about the flaws of the LC system and whether rote-learning essays is acceptable or not, start another thread.

Anymore off topic posting and this thread will be locked.

Thank you.

*sigh*

After two clear warnings about off topic posting we have....

JW91 wrote:

However I think several people on this forum would make terrible doctors anyway and I wouldn't like them to be my doctor.
The reasons being:
.....

...off topic posting.


I think this thread has run it's course.