nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

HPAT Vs The Leaving Cert. Posts moved from LC results thread

bleg

<moderator note. I've moved a load of threads from the leaving cert thread into this new thread, as we were going off on a tangent discussing the merits of the HPAT. Tallaght01>

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/high-achievers-doctor-dreams-dashed-over-aptitude-test-score-1861720.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

rois!

ouch...

knuck

Larianne wrote: »

"I think HPAT is a bit unfair. I just don't think it is a good assessment of what a good doctor you are going to be." But if you get 600 points in the leaving should you not then get a good result in the HPAT or was she like one of many who just learn off essays etc. ?

I still believe it should all be done like in the UK with personal statements and work experience etc.

Why did they decide to bring the HPAT in here anyway? Uni of Ulster uses it but no other UK college.

I got into Physio this year after years of wanting to do it and getting rejected last year. I cried and then danced around like a loon.

All Uk Universities admit students to medicine based on a combination of A-level results, UKCAT Tests (which is the UK version of the HPAT), Personal Statement and Interviews.

I think it is a fair fairer system all round. HPAT and UKCAT exams test one's natural intelligence and aptitude. Not how good they are at cramming their short term memories and regurgitating a raft of often pointless information (i.e. home economic and agricultural science) in a long winded and overloaded leaving cert system.

I also feel the English system of doing 3 or 4 A-levels to a higher standard is a better system, than ramming Irish, English, Math and French down students throats. Let people specialise in the subjects they are interested in and are naturally capable at, that also lead into their chosen carrier path. For example, biology, chemistry and possibly math for a career in medicine.

rois!

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

Even if it did, it wouldn't matter.

You just reminded me of someone with the worst bedside manner possible. As in completely tactless. I think that no matter what the news, getting it from her could make it so much worse.

But you're unlikely to be so disrespectful in front of patient as everything you'd need to say would be context driven.

So keep, saying the silly things (even in front of patients*, it'll probably bring a smile to their faces ), just keep the medical matters serious and all will be well.

*=but only to a certain extent

hold on a sec...i was gonna just let this slide and say nothing but the more i think of it the more outta line u seem, how dare u assume im completely tactless or disrespectful. you dont even know me, you've never met me and clearly you've never seen me in front of a patient so dont assume i won't be able to talk to them. im not a confrontational person but when people make wild assumptions and accusations towards people theyve never actually met i think a little self-defence is well deserved.

there u go, didnt even say like once...shows how mad i am...

ergo

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

Even if it did, it wouldn't matter.

You just reminded me of someone with the worst bedside manner possible. As in completely tactless. I think that no matter what the news, getting it from her could make it so much worse.

rois! wrote: »

hold on a sec...i was gonna just let this slide and say nothing but the more i think of it the more outta line u seem, how dare u assume im completely tactless or disrespectful. you dont even know me, you've never met me and clearly you've never seen me in front of a patient so dont assume i won't be able to talk to them. im not a confrontational person but when people make wild assumptions and accusations towards people theyve never actually met i think a little self-defence is well deserved.

there u go, didnt even say like once...shows how mad i am...

ok, calm down here, I agree with Rois, the top post was over the top. I don't think you can make a judgement on bedside manner such as the one above based on a couple of posts on boards, especially having never met the poster

So, maybe back on topic.....

tallaght01

yea, c'mon, leave rois alone. This is supposed to be a nice thread about nice things

2Scoops

ergo wrote: »

and IMHO 600 points in the LC does not necessarily equate with being a good doctor, hence the HPAT I suppose (conspiracy theories of evening up the M:F ratios aside...)

Hardly a conspiracy theory when it is being openly admitted. :pac:

nesf

rois! I was only having a bit of fun with the "like" comment btw, though you're right when you're typing it out you know you've got a problem

(says the Cork man..)

tallaght01

Another kid in the paper with 580 points who didn't get into medicine because of the HPAT.

I do genuinely think it's bad for the profession not to let these kids in.

http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/controversial-aptitude-test-shatters-gabrielles-dream-of-medical-school-1863060.html

bleg

I dunno tallaght. I really think each case needs to be taken in isolation. Somebody that did really well in the HPAT but not so good points wise is bound to make a better doctor than somebody who repeats the leaving studying easier subjects like Ag. Science which have no relevance to med at all.

When I was filling out my UCAS forms I remember thinking their method of assigning places was far better than the CAO. They took the personal statement into account and gave you a target to aim for. However it also has the problem of introducing favoritism. If the UCAS method could be done anonymously I reckon it would solve a lot of the current problems.

knuck

Piste wrote: »

As far as I know, UKCAT has a science side, which tests actual knowledge, which is unlike the HPAT, as that tests "latent ability".

I don't see how the HPAT qualifies anyone to do medicine more than the LC. I just can't see how a high score in the HPAT translates to succeeding in Med School.

The UKCAT has no knowledge based element, it is purely aptitude based. Verbal reasoning, Quantitative reasoning, Abstract reasoning, and Decision Analysis are the four main sections of the test.

I simply feel that the leaving cert is suited to people who have a certain 'book-worm' ability. People don't have to be incredibily bright to slog away all day and all night cramming information, which can be relayed word for word in an exam. It places more emphasis on effort over intelligence.

Aptitude tests provide a counter balance to this, and simply catch out people who may not be that naturally perceptive, and able to think on their feet.

Therefore a combination of the two tests, in my opinion, is a fairer and more rounded method of assessing someones ability to study and then work in the medical profession.

The HPAT is here to stay.

In fact aptitude tests should be expanded and incorporated into the overall leaving cert process for ALL careers and entry into third level education, similar to SAT's in the States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT

ZorbaTehZ

SATs can't be compared with the HPAT at all tbh... SATs are curriculum based, HPAT is a general aptitude test.

tallaght01

I personally think people are underestimating the importance of a work ethic in medicine.

A kid who has 550 points can pass a medical degree. But what do we know about them? We know they've seen a target (med school) and they've decided they're going to go for it, and nail it. They've worked their nuts off all through school, in the face of a lot of temptation to do otherwise. And they've done the job.

This is what medicine is about. There's no question a person who has 550 points has the ability for med school. But the people that are REALLY useful in medicine are the people who are focussed and driven. The membership exams won't give a hoot about your "aptitude". Those exams involve just learning reams of information, and there's a 30-40% failure rate.

I would definitely want a hard slogger with less of a "natural aptitude" for the HPAT (which is what it is, as opposed to a natural aptitude for medicine) than someone who could nail the HPAT because they have good logical reasoning.

I like how they're using a comination of the two. But I think they're getting something wrong when a kid who's worked hard enough to get 600 points can't go to med school.

Amnesiac_ie

I think it's odd that the powers that be have decided that students wishing to pursue medicine have to undergo an "aptitude test" but not students choosing nursing, OT, speech and language therapy, pharmacy etc.

Personally I'm a big fan of the much maligned CAO points system. As much as is possible it anonymised applicants meaning there was no scope for nepotism. To do well in the Leaving Cert and scoring a lot of points generally meant being naturally bright and working hard to achieve good results. The skills needed to amass 600 points across subjects as diverse as Maths, Sciences, languages and music are quite diverse.

I also get a bit offended when media reports suggest students who scored 600 points are a bunch of elitist eggheads with no social skills or human emotion.

There is no perfect method for selecting medical students. I don't think HPAT was necessary but ultimately I'm sure the vast majority of successful applicants this year would also have succeeded under the old rules.

And for those who missed out... trust me, it may well be for the best!

tallaght01

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

I think it's odd that the powers that be have decided that students wishing to pursue medicine have to undergo an "aptitude test" but not students choosing nursing, OT, speech and language therapy, pharmacy etc.

!

This has completely bewildered me for a while. I don't get it either.

Amnesiac_ie

Actually Tallaght, couldd you enlighten us as to how Australian Unis select their medical students? It's a mix of undergraduates and graduates I understand? Do you think the Australian medical school "population" differs in any substantial way to British/Irish classes?

Carsinian Thau

tallaght01 wrote: »

This has completely bewildered me for a while. I don't get it either.

I think the arguement put forward for that is that the points race for those courses isn't as bad and that the HPAT is designed to try and reduce some of the pressure faced by LC students going for high points courses.

Which I don't think really worked tbh. It sounds as though everyone applying had to go to a lot more hassle this way.

whadabouchasir

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

I think the arguement put forward for that is that the points race for those courses isn't as bad and that the HPAT is designed to try and reduce some of the pressure faced by LC students going for high points courses.

Which I don't think really worked tbh. It sounds as though everyone applying had to go to a lot more hassle this way.

They also wanted to reduce the amount of people getting in with repeat leaving certs,so this is why they now make toy satisfy both the matriculation requirements and the points in the same year.this way you can't drop the subjects you don't like and take up easy ones.

tallaght01

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

Actually Tallaght, couldd you enlighten us as to how Australian Unis select their medical students? It's a mix of undergraduates and graduates I understand? Do you think the Australian medical school "population" differs in any substantial way to British/Irish classes?

In the uni that feeds my hospital, we get graduates only. So, they all have a degree before they get into med school.

I'm gonna be controversial and say their system has only convinced me more of the benefits of the CAO. You don't have to be that bright to get a 2:1 in a science degree, which is what most of them have. I do a lot of student teaching, and they're just a class below the students in the UK who were a very bright subset of the population.

It's made me very much against making medicine a graduate only career. Having said that, the super smart ones go on to get first class honours in their BSc and then do med. I think if they're going to make it graduate only then they should increase the requirement to a 1:1

Carsinian Thau

whadabouchasir wrote: »

They also wanted to reduce the amount of people getting in with repeat leaving certs,so this is why they now make toy satisfy both the matriculation requirements and the points in the same year.this way you can't drop the subjects you don't like and take up easy ones.

That too.

I wonder if it could be said that the number of repeat students created the points race to begin with?

I know that almost all the repeat students in my year came in on 590/600 which probably made it that bit harder for the people doing it for the first time and who weren't able to get such high points.

whadabouchasir

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

That too.

I wonder if it could be said that the number of repeat students created the points race to begin with?

I'd say it probably is,because medicine is the only course in the country that has this rule.It also has the highest points.In the U.K for example they are only interested in your exam results in your first sitting.I don't think that they would bring this in here though.Then the Independent and Liveline would have a field day.

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

I personally think people are underestimating the importance of a work ethic in medicine.

A kid who has 550 points can pass a medical degree. But what do we know about them? We know they've seen a target (med school) and they've decided they're going to go for it, and nail it. They've worked their nuts off all through school, in the face of a lot of temptation to do otherwise. And they've done the job.

This is what medicine is about. There's no question a person who has 550 points has the ability for med school. But the people that are REALLY useful in medicine are the people who are focussed and driven. The membership exams won't give a hoot about your "aptitude". Those exams involve just learning reams of information, and there's a 30-40% failure rate.

I would definitely want a hard slogger with less of a "natural aptitude" for the HPAT (which is what it is, as opposed to a natural aptitude for medicine) than someone who could nail the HPAT because they have good logical reasoning.

I like how they're using a comination of the two. But I think they're getting something wrong when a kid who's worked hard enough to get 600 points can't go to med school.

Conversely I'd take a good logician over a pure hard slogger any day as a doctor. I agree that work ethic is crucial to medicine, as a discipline it requires most practitioners to absorb huge amounts of information to be able to do their jobs properly, but we shouldn't lose sight either of how being able to remember facts is **** all use if you're not very bright to begin with. I'm all for any system that maximises the intelligence of med school entrants because bluntly I'd prefer my doctor to way past the minimum ability levels to do what they do. The ability to reason logically at a high level is rather useful in any science career which medicine is part of.

Edit:

Ok the following may be controversial but I don't mean it as a put-down to people who've done or have finished med school:

Medicine isn't intellectually that challenging a degree. The work load is insane but the material doesn't require you to be in the top 0.5-0.1% of the population to do well with it. Other degrees like Physics or Maths are different in that that the work is very intellectually challenging but the workload isn't anywhere as close. Personally if I was to "build" the perfect doctor I'd like someone who was capable of a First in both types of degrees. I think work ethic is extremely important but I think people can forget at times that medicine once you get past the workload (which, let's be blunt only a fraction of the population would be capable of doing, myself not one of them) isn't a hugely challenging degree.

tallaght01

On a background of brightness, I think hard slog is the single most important trait in someone going to train as a doc, with a few notable exceptions.

I've never met one of the super smart kids at med school who didn't have decent problem solving skills. I think it's doing them a disservice to think that they're dumb kids who can just remember lots of facts. Apart from being untrue, recall of lots of facts under a lot of pressure is something you have to be good at as a doc.

You can't work out what's wrong with the patient if you don't know the theory, and there's shed loads of theory to learn. I don't think the logic of medicine is the toughest bit. I think it's the volume.

2Scoops

tallaght01 wrote: »

Another kid in the paper with 580 points who didn't get into medicine because of the HPAT.

I do genuinely think it's bad for the profession not to let these kids in.

As someone who did a biomedical degree before medicine, I'm curious what your LC points were, Tallaght01? I assume < 550? Will you be do the honorable thing and resign your position to someone who did marginally better in the LC, possibly by leaving out the hard subjects? After all, it's bad for the profession to have you in it... :pac:

joking... but, seriously, I would like to hear your comments on this!

tallaght01

2Scoops wrote: »

As someone who did a biomedical degree before medicine, I'm curious what your LC points were, Tallaght01? I assume < 550? Will you be do the honorable thing and resign your position to someone who did marginally better in the LC, possibly by leaving out the hard subjects? After all, it's bad for the profession to have you in it... :pac:

joking... but, seriously, I would like to hear your comments on this!

Dude, I will fully admit that a profession full of tallaght01s would not be good for medicine as a whole. I don't have that real intellectual edge that someone who could nail 600 points does.

When I got in, I had come 2nd in my graduating class and there were only a handful of spaces for mature applicants, so realistically everyone had a first.

Of the 9 of us in my year, 5 could have done medicine straight from school.

But, given the choice between me and a 600 pointer, I don't think I would have been the best candidate.

Piste

nesf wrote: »

Medicine isn't intellectually that challenging a degree. The work load is insane but the material doesn't require you to be in the top 0.5-0.1% of the population to do well with it. Other degrees like Physics or Maths are different in that that the work is very intellectually challenging but the workload isn't anywhere as close. Personally if I was to "build" the perfect doctor I'd like someone who was capable of a First in both types of degrees. I think work ethic is extremely important but I think people can forget at times that medicine once you get past the workload (which, let's be blunt only a fraction of the population would be capable of doing, myself not one of them) isn't a hugely challenging degree.

Why do you think a "perfect" doctor should be able to do well in a maths degree?

Carsinian Thau

Piste wrote: »

Why do you think a "perfect" doctor should be able to do well in a maths degree?

Perhaps because it would show an ability to engage in very complex thinking?

Although, with regard to medical degrees not being that intellectually challenging. I have found some of the stuff from the preclincal science to be very difficult. Not in terms of workload (which nearly overwhelmed me this year tbh) but in terms of how many "wtf does this mean?!" moments I had during the year.
Maybe that's just me?

Tim Robbins

bleg wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/high-achievers-doctor-dreams-dashed-over-aptitude-test-score-1861720.html

Interesting she did pass Maths. I would have thought logical reasoning would be important for medicine. Honours maths should be a must imo.

Carsinian Thau

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Interesting she did pass Maths. I would have thought logical reasoning would be important for medicine. Honours maths should be a must imo.

But a lot of people can reason logically even if they couldn't do honours maths.

I always think that honours maths involves a lot of abstract reasoning so that's what makes it so difficult but may not necessitate it for medicine.

Tim Robbins

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

But a lot of people can reason logically even if they couldn't do honours maths.

Doubt it. Maths is pure deductive logic. With very little, waffle and jargon.

I always think that honours maths involves a lot of abstract reasoning so that's what makes it so difficult but may not necessitate it for medicine.

Things like Software Architecture or Theoritical Physics would be far more abstract logic. Or even Maths at Uni Level.

The logic is Leaving Cert maths is very concrete.

I woud have serious doubts about any Dr. problem diagnosis ability who wasn't strong with logic.

tech77

nesf wrote: »

Conversely I'd take a good logician over a pure hard slogger any day as a doctor. I agree that work ethic is crucial to medicine, as a discipline it requires most practitioners to absorb huge amounts of information to be able to do their jobs properly, but we shouldn't lose sight either of how being able to remember facts is **** all use if you're not very bright to begin with. I'm all for any system that maximises the intelligence of med school entrants because bluntly I'd prefer my doctor to way past the minimum ability levels to do what they do. The ability to reason logically at a high level is rather useful in any science career which medicine is part of.

Edit:

Ok the following may be controversial but I don't mean it as a put-down to people who've done or have finished med school:

Medicine isn't intellectually that challenging a degree. The work load is insane but the material doesn't require you to be in the top 0.5-0.1% of the population to do well with it. Other degrees like Physics or Maths are different in that that the work is very intellectually challenging but the workload isn't anywhere as close. Personally if I was to "build" the perfect doctor I'd like someone who was capable of a First in both types of degrees. I think work ethic is extremely important but I think people can forget at times that medicine once you get past the workload (which, let's be blunt only a fraction of the population would be capable of doing, myself not one of them) isn't a hugely challenging degree.

That's not controversial.
It's hard to get into Med but the degree itself basically requires, as you say, an ability to assimilate vast amounts of info.

Having said that, in Final Med when it all comes together, there is a demand for more hypothetico-deductive reasoning (the ddx and management of cases) so it's not all about learning off the info.