*Everything HPAT and Medicine 2015*

donegal262 wrote: »

Just wondering how everyone got on with their mocks? I have to say my results were pretty disheartening for the work I'd put in definitely opened my eyes for what's required in June !anyone else a bit disappointed?

My mocks were on for 2 days before midterm and 4 days after. I think the school does it so you have to study during midterm. I did the first 2 days and they went well enough and I skipped all the rest to study for HPAT. I'm really glad I did that now because those extra study days really helped.

wooitslucy wrote: »

I did my hpat this year in Waterford and everything ran smoothly. Such a shame to hear about that Dublin one! Did anyone find sec1 harder than you thought? I was left to guess some...and also ran out of time in sec3 so had to guess about 10 of them aswel...I'm not sure whether to think this is really bad or if some people are in the same boat..

Yeah unfortunately i felt the same! Section 1 was really focused on problem solving rather than logical reasoning so it was so much harder to keep up time wise! Dont feel like i did myself justice in it at all for section 3 i managed to figure out the fifth in series questions and a few of the missing segments but as usual the pick the middles were lost on me, ran out of time and ended up filling in random circles on the answer sheet for the majority of them its so frustrating because the astract reasoning was my strongest area when i took the dats? Just couldnt seem to grasp it here though

Cynicaldoubt wrote: »

Yup, normally I could take a good stab at most section 3 questions and work out some of the patterns, not this time though..

Yeah I'm pretty sure I guessed the vast majority... I was sure of like, 4, and then got a few more down to 2 so hopefully it will be enough It's always been my worst section though so hopefully even if I get 25% in S3 (which would be lucky ) my other sections will make up for it.. It was so unlike anything I had seen before, I just could not see any patterns

Daisies97 wrote: »

Yeah unfortunately i felt the same! Section 1 was really focused on problem solving rather than logical reasoning so it was so much harder to keep up time wise! Dont feel like i did myself justice in it at all for section 3 i managed to figure out the fifth in series questions and a few of the missing segments but as usual the pick the middles were lost on me, ran out of time and ended up filling in random circles on the answer sheet for the majority of them

Exactly. Was so disappointed I ran short on S1 as I had my timing down to a T. The paper just really didn't 'suit' me and, from what I've heard, a lot of others. I'm good at logical reasoning, data interpretation and some problem solving but, unfortunately, not that b/s that came up Reallyyyyy hoping the points will drop.

As for mocks, I had mine before mid-term and didn't majorly study for them because of the HPAT. However, I didn't 'focus solely on HPAT' as I felt it was too risky seeing as my 2nd choice after med is quite high points. I only have 2 back so far and have done a lot better than expected. (Especially Maths, I had those awful DEB papers)

But yanno, the HPAT makes it or breaks it so it doesn't really make a difference ...

spurious wrote: »

Usually the rule with any mistakes made in exams and tests is that the candidate must not be put at a disadvantage because of a mistake made on the exam paper or by an agent of the examining authority, in this case the invigilator.

Giving a group of candidates less time in one centre compared to all the others is a serious mistake.

I hope those affected have organised themselves in some way, so that if a decision is made for one student, it will apply to all.

I doubt acer will do anything.
Last year I don't even think they made a statement re questions removed.

I'd say it will be getting the axe when it is reviewed.

spurious wrote: »

The very least Acer should do is re-run that test.

Considering how much people invest in trying for medicine (I don't mean money, I mean emotionally), I can't see why there wouldn't be a deluge of solicitor's letters into them tomorrow. If I wanted a place on a course and got (or had) my points and was only let down by a test I had not been given the same amount of time for as everyone else, I'd be bulling and would not let it go.

Obviously Acer are not going to re run the test! The only possible thing I can imagine they would do is weight the earlier Q's more than the latter.

spurious wrote: »

Whatever they do, no-one at the test that finished early can be left at any disadvantage compared to other centres.

I agree it shouldn't happen but I still don't think they would do anything!

But what about the people that actually managed to finish the whole S3 and got all of the answers right? It wouldn't be fair on them if they would repeat.
I think it might be a good idea to send acer the candidate numbers of those who didn't finish and then they'll come up with what they'll do about it.

spurious wrote: »

The very least Acer should do is re-run that test.

Considering how much people invest in trying for medicine (I don't mean money, I mean emotionally), I can't see why there wouldn't be a deluge of solicitor's letters into them tomorrow. If I wanted a place on a course and got (or had) my points and was only let down by a test I had not been given the same amount of time for as everyone else, I'd be bulling and would not let it go.

Since it's a standardised test scored based on curve fitting rather than absolute marks I think it's basically impossible to allow a resit. They would have to give them a different paper which essentially invalidates the entire test; meaning everyone would have to sit it again.

Not to mention the fact they would need to design a new paper since as far as I can tell there has never been a resit in the entire history of the UMAT or HPAT; so it's not like they would have a contingency plan in place.

Chris24oh96 wrote: »

Obviously Acer are not going to re run the test! The only possible thing I can imagine they would do is weight the earlier Q's more than the latter.

Well firstly they explicitly state that all questions are marked equally; but they can and have in the past removed questions from the final marks awarded. The issue here is that not everyone completes the test in the same order; so they can't really determine which questions to remove. In addition it then becomes unfair on the people who have specifically chosen to spend more time on those questions; for example.

Not that I'm an expert in the matter or anything but my feeling is that they'll simply find the section 3 mean across all other test centres and apply some sort of corrective function to everyone who sat the exam in that particular location. So someone who is awful in section 3 may get a slight boost and someone very good a slight decrease; but in the grand scheme of things it should hopefully even out. I'm sure there are plenty of more precise statistical methods they could use but that's just a simple example.

How about they introduce an interview system in Ireland ?
They could really test your empathy/insight and communication skills which are integral qualities for a doctor

futuremedic19 wrote: »

How about they introduce an interview system in Ireland ?
They could really test your empathy/insight and communication skills which are integral qualities for a doctor

ughhh I wish... that's exactly what I'm ''good'' at.. I just can't do patterns and that So unfair

futuremedic19 wrote: »

How about they introduce an interview system in Ireland ?
They could really test your empathy/insight and communication skills which are integral qualities for a doctor

What if they'd be biased towards some people? I mean.. I wouldn't be able to imagine how they'd pick and choose just from the interviews. I think hpat is a good enough system as it is, we're all presented with the same challenge that they can judge us by fairly.

etherealfairy wrote: »

How about they just abolish the HPAT completely????

I wish.

Unfortunately the whole system governing entrance into University for school leavers is based on this idea of freedom from bias. This means they can't use personal statements, essays, etc.

The HPAT's remit is/was to increase the number of people who could potentially get into a Medicine degree; and according to research it has done that. For example in 2010 2/5 of all successful medicine applicants would not have been admitted if they were assessed by LC only. The flip-side of this of course is that some people who would have gained entry based on their LC alone didn't do well enough in their HPAT.

As far as I'm aware the HPAT is here until 2016 no matter what; when another report on its effectiveness will be published by the Irish medical schools.

LauraKc wrote: »

That wouldn't be fair on the people who worked really hard and did well in hpat. I don't think everybody will be happy no matter what they do...

I mean for the future!

LauraKc wrote: »

I think the reason they introduced the HPAT was so that the universities wouldn't have to carry out thousands of interviews every year.

But all of the medical lecturers I've spoken to, (TCD, NUIG, UCD and UCC) as well as consultants have all stated that they believe it is not a fair and accurate way of choosing future doctors.

Think what you want, but this is important to read, in my opinion.


'A few years ago over lunch with a hospital consultant, he mentioned to a somewhat taken aback group of friends that measures were being taken to ‘do something’ about the higher numbers of women entering the medical profession. He complained about the effect on working life in hospitals of maternity leave in particular. Though this sort of rationale for it has been officially denied, the subsequent introduction of the HPAT test – a new IQ test which purports to be about identifying ability in ways other than by Leaving Certificate results (which young women were excelling in) – has indeed resulted in higher numbers of men entering the profession, though in many cases they will not have scored as many points as women in their Leaving Certificate exams. The euphemism for justifying this exercise has been that it is a necessary ‘re-balancing of the gender quota’.

While it has certainly attracted its fair share of criticism I don’t recall anything like the stubborn resistance to this measure among politicians – male or female – as has been evident when the subject of gender quotas for themselves comes up. It also says something about how far feminism has really succeeded in Ireland that no sooner than do women, on the basis of true merit alone, begin to surpass men in any influential walk of life than the general feeling is that something urgently needs to be done to call a halt to it. There are plans afoot to extend the requirement to sit this test into other professions as well.

As Brian Moore, Guidance Counsellor at Oatlands College, Stillorgan put it in an article in the Irish Times in 2009:

“Are we comfortable with a system that actively discriminates against females attaining medical places? Is the medical establishment supporting the change in the admissions system because it fears the feminisation of the medical profession will somehow reduce its status, and thus its financial rewards as it is reputed to have done in teaching and other professions? Are there those within the medical establishment who consider it a waste investing huge resources in training females as doctors if, after a number of years in practice, they decide to leave the active labour force or decide to work on a part-time basis to give time to care for their children? Where are the voices of those who would normally speak out in protection of equality of opportunity for women in the workplace?”

And riddle me this: if there is a concern to ensure a 50/50 gender balance in the medical profession, why is there no corresponding concern to ensure the same balance at the top of that or any other profession – still almost all massively biased towards men?

It seems we can proactively discriminate in favour of men but not women. But this is of course nothing new – only a new way of reviving and redefining the common-or-garden, old-fashioned chauvinism that continues to discriminate against women in any case – albeit generally less obviously so than before.'

SOURCE: https : // theantiroom. wordpress.com /tag/ miriam-ocallaghan/