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

Piste

I think the thinking required for honours maths and everyday logical situations are entirely different. For example, I was just OK at honours maths, I got a B2 which is alright but nothing outstanding. However I can do sudoku and those logic puzzles (you know, the "who owns the green dog" type ones) without too much hassle. My abstract reasoning's pretty bad, in the HPAT the weird shapes section threw me almost completely, I just couldn't see patterns.

So I don't think maths is a true reflection of a person's ability to reason in practical scenarios.

bleg

Anybody have an example of a HPAT?

nesf

Piste wrote: »

I think the thinking required for honours maths and everyday logical situations are entirely different. For example, I was just OK at honours maths, I got a B2 which is alright but nothing outstanding. However I can do sudoku and those logic puzzles (you know, the "who owns the green dog" type ones) without too much hassle. My abstract reasoning's pretty bad, in the HPAT the weird shapes section threw me almost completely, I just couldn't see patterns.

So I don't think maths is a true reflection of a person's ability to reason in practical scenarios.

No! You're making a common misconception, someone's Leaving Cert score doesn't dictate their ability to reason. It's someone capacity to do Honours Maths and grasp it rather than their ability to do well in Maths exams that is what's at question.

Also, the weird shapes stuff isn't abstract reasoning in the same line as mathematics would be, most of those are about a person's capability to spot patterns and/or manipulate objects in 3d mentally which are different skills.

nesf

tech77 wrote: »

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-dedeuctive reasoning (the ddx and management of cases) so it's not all about learning off the info.

Nah, I was tagging it as controversial in an effort so that people wouldn't think I was deliberately putting down Medicine by calling it not very intellectually challenging. Some people are extremely sensitive if you criticise their degree for some reason that I've never understood (well, no I understand it, people identify too much of themselves with the degree they've done for some reason, I've just never understood why people set themselves up in such a way).

Carsinian Thau

bleg wrote: »

Anybody have an example of a HPAT?

I don't think those are allowed to be released to the public domain.

I heard that those that take the test have to sign non disclosure agreements before being allowed to proceed.

nesf

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

I don't think those are allowed to be released to the public domain.

I heard that those that take the test have to sign non disclosure agreements before being allowed to proceed.

There are some sample questions available for download from the official site here: http://www.****-hpat.ie/downloads.asp

ZorbaTehZ

Piste wrote: »

I think the thinking required for honours maths and everyday logical situations are entirely different. For example, I was just OK at honours maths, I got a B2 which is alright but nothing outstanding. However I can do sudoku and those logic puzzles (you know, the "who owns the green dog" type ones) without too much hassle. My abstract reasoning's pretty bad, in the HPAT the weird shapes section threw me almost completely, I just couldn't see patterns.

Hate to be the pedant, but sudoku, crosswords, logic puzzles, etc. are not an indicator of ones ability to be logical or good at reasoning, these types of things can be almost entirely mastered by experience alone and being familiar with common patterns.


Although I really think demanding of students to do honours maths is massive overkill, and I say this as a medical student who got an A1 in honours. The type of reasoning that makes a good doctor is very very different from the type of reasoning used in maths and of minimal practical use really.

ZorbaTehZ

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 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.

+1

That girl who had a column in the Times demonstrated just how ridiculous the situation was, albeit to an extreme. One of the best choices they made in my opinion was making it a requirement that grades/points need to be attained in the same year as HPAT results.

nesf

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

Although I really think demanding of students to do honours maths is massive overkill, and I say this as a medical student who got an A1 in honours. The type of reasoning that makes a good doctor is very very different from the type of reasoning used in maths and of minimal practical use really.

Hate to be the pedant but..

What's being talked of, by me anyway, isn't the specific type of reasoning used in mathematics being useful (otherwise we'd want more maths modules in medicine which would be obviously silly), it's that the general capacity for logical reasoning is very important to a doctor trying to make a diagnosis and that the capacity to do higher level maths is one (incomplete and not absolute) aspect of this more general ability.

tallaght01

I would have to say, purely anecdotally, that my diagnostic skills are as good as most in my job, and I never did honours maths.

I think the course tests your skills at "applied" biochemistry/anatomy/physiology sufficiently to make sure you have the capacity to be a decent diagnostician.

My problem has always been the volume, as opposed to the concepts, and I would have failed honours maths bigtime.

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

I would have to say, purely anecdotally, that my diagnostic skills are as good as most in my job, and I never did honours maths.

I think the course tests your skills at "applied" biochemistry/anatomy/physiology sufficiently to make sure you have the capacity to be a decent diagnostician.

My problem has always been the volume, as opposed to the concepts, and I would have failed honours maths bigtime.

Which is why I qualified the above observation with mathematics being an incomplete representation of this general skill.

Also anecdotally: I've friends who went into Economics who did Pass Maths and were convinced they were bad at it but who found once they hit the more complex mathematics of the discipline (which get very very abstract and non-trivial) they were more than able for it. Someone's LC score, or even the level of Maths they took, is meaningless really because someone could end up in Pass Maths for reasons totally different to ability (like laziness, bad teachers etc etc).

Echani

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.

I did pass maths, purely due to a teacher in 4th year who had absolutely no interest in working my class hard enough to pass the exams. The highest score in our Christmas exams was 29% - we were all bumped down to pass without discussion, and it was deemed unrealistic that we try to make up for how far we'd fallen behind the previous term. It's not always the student's inability.

tallaght01 wrote:

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

Again, I didn't get a 1:1 in my first degree. I worked my arse off for my finals because I knew getting my foot in the door of graduate entry medicine depended on it, but I was still short of it. Probably because I was not well suited to that particular subject (hence the choice to go back and pursue med), and probably because it's not really that easy to score a first in it either.

When you're accepting graduates from all fields, there needs to be some allowance for different degrees being either marked harder or just being harder in themselves. If you don't, everyone who didn't get in through the LC will just sit the course who gives out the most 1:1s rather than doing something they're interested in doing in the interim.

So despite neither being a 1st class honours graduate nor being an honours maths student, I seem to be doing just fine surrounded by those 600 pointers and first class science graduates.

ZorbaTehZ

Well I'd like a doctor who did honours French/German because that demonstrates an ability with languages and thus may mean they're better communicators... extrapolate with [insert subject] ad nauseum. One can get into all the nuances of why some aspect of some certain subject may be beneficial to being a doctor, it's all superfluous to the discusion really, I'm simply pointing out that it's absurd to suggest making honours maths a requirement.

tallaght01

Echani wrote: »

I did pass maths, purely due to a teacher in 4th year who had absolutely no interest in working my class hard enough to pass the exams. The highest score in our Christmas exams was 29% - we were all bumped down to pass without discussion, and it was deemed unrealistic that we try to make up for how far we'd fallen behind the previous term. It's not always the student's inability.


Again, I didn't get a 1:1 in my first degree. I worked my arse off for my finals because I knew getting my foot in the door of graduate entry medicine depended on it, but I was still short of it. Probably because I was not well suited to that particular subject (hence the choice to go back and pursue med), and probably because it's not really that easy to score a first in it either.

When you're accepting graduates from all fields, there needs to be some allowance for different degrees being either marked harder or just being harder in themselves. If you don't, everyone who didn't get in through the LC will just sit the course who gives out the most 1:1s rather than doing something they're interested in doing in the interim.

So despite neither being a 1st class honours graduate nor being an honours maths student, I seem to be doing just fine surrounded by those 600 pointers and first class science graduates.

The point I'm making is not that you will be able to complete med school. The point I'm making, and it is gonna sound harsh, is that I would prefer my doctor to be a 600 pointer.

I think to say the leaving cert score is meaningless is just wrong. You've given a kid a target that's bloody hard to reach, in a set time frame at an age where it's very easy to get sidetracked. They work hard and they do it. I'm convinced this is the best quality that is demonstrable, which we can ask of our potential doctors.

Echani

tallaght01 wrote:

The point I'm making is not that you will be able to complete med school. The point I'm making, and it is gonna sound harsh, is that I would prefer my doctor to be a 600 pointer.

Fair enough, but I'd rather have the doctor who was top of their class in med school, and that's not necessarily someone who got 600 points.

nesf

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

Well I'd like a doctor who did honours French/German because that demonstrates an ability with languages and thus may mean they're better communicators... extrapolate with [insert subject] ad nauseum. One can get into all the nuances of why some aspect of some certain subject may be beneficial to being a doctor, it's all superfluous to the discusion really, I'm simply pointing out that it's absurd to suggest making honours maths a requirement.

Eh, mate someone's foreign language ability doesn't indicate their ability as communicators, two utterly different skills. It's a fallacy of marketing that being ""multi-lingual"" (double scare marks on purpose) makes someone a good communicator.

ergo

tallaght01 wrote: »

The point I'm making, and it is gonna sound harsh, is that I would prefer my doctor to be a 600 pointer.

I think to say the leaving cert score is meaningless is just wrong. You've given a kid a target that's bloody hard to reach, in a set time frame at an age where it's very easy to get sidetracked. They work hard and they do it. I'm convinced this is the best quality that is demonstrable, which we can ask of our potential doctors.

I have to disagree with you on this one

for example, in my med class, well, you didn't normally know everyone else's LC points total, except for the super bright people who could memorise phone books and win all the medal exams - well you imagined that they would have gotten the maximum points

in my own class I remember a girl who got accepted into first med quite late - 4th round or something (if that even existed) - basically got in by the skin of her teeth so obviously her points were at the lowest end in the year. But she turned out to be one of the better doctors in the year - never had a problem with her exams - getting honours in finals etc - and went to US getting the USMLE's first time too

I would be delighted to have her as my physician or GP, ahead of most of the medal winners in the class (I am also basing this on the fact that I have worked with her and had been in same tutorial groups for several years)

BUT I wouldn't want her as my surgeon, no matter how good her memory and bedside manner etc is if she can't cut/operate etc then I'd prefer to leave that for those with those fine motor skills - not sure where the HPAT comes in on that one....


there certainly is more to a "good doctor" than a 600 point LC - having looked at some of those HPAT sample questions I do think it is a good idea to include this aspect of assessment - I'm not sure how I would have answered some of them as a 17 year old mind you!

regarding position in the class in med school I know of another doc who seemed to be weak enough in the initial few years in terms of presentations etc. but this individual ended up in the top 5 of the class in final med - however, I would not like to have this individual as my own doctor, due to this person's complete lack of social/people skills

tallaght01

When I say a "600 pointer", I wouldn't really differentiate those people from the 560+brigade. I'm trying to differentiate those extremely high achievers from people who got an average LC. Sure, there will be exceptions. BUt if you're an exception, you should be nailing a first in your BSc.

I don't know why it's better take someone who's got 400 points and a 2.1 in science over someone who has 570 points and, given the chance, would probably get a 1:1 in science.

We can all talk about a mate who bucks the trend. But, to me, the cleverest guys in my class are the best doctors now. BUT, most people in my class has exceptional school exams.

From my point of view, there is a huge difference between teaching the GEM guys and the students back in the UK who were both naturally bright and were hard workers.

I think if you have, say, 430 points in your leaving and you want to show that you're more deserving of a place than someone who got 600 points, then you should have to get a 1:1 in a relevant subject.

This isn't about whether those people would be able to complete a medical degree or not. It's about who would be better for the profession and who deserves it more. For me, it says a lot about a kid who's given up their teenage years to get 570 points in their leaving cert. That's the type of punter I'd want treating me me. Not everyone will agree with that. HPAT is not known to improve the standard of docs. But Ireland is known to produce very good medical graduates. They're very highly thought of. I just don't now why that system has to be messed with.

nesf

ergo wrote: »

in my own class I remember a girl who got accepted into first med quite late - 4th round or something (if that even existed) - basically got in by the skin of her teeth so obviously her points were at the lowest end in the year. But she turned out to be one of the better doctors in the year - never had a problem with her exams - getting honours in finals etc - and went to US getting the USMLE's first time too

Here's the thing, and this is a general observation on memory as much as anything else, you remember precisely because she exceeded expectations so much. If she struggled or was a middling student you probably wouldn't have remembered her but because she was an exception she stuck vividly in your mind.

It's because of things like this that the dodgier alternative medicines are so persuasive, everyone remembers the exception the treatment works for and never the legions for whom it did nothing.

ZorbaTehZ

nesf wrote: »

Eh, mate someone's foreign language ability doesn't indicate their ability as communicators, two utterly different skills. It's a fallacy of marketing that being ""multi-lingual"" (double scare marks on purpose) makes someone a good communicator.

You're missing the point, not to imply that I agree with the assertion I made, I'm simply trying to demonstrate the absurdity of most of the arguments above, RE claiming that X subject could give you a leg-up.

Echani

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think if you have, say, 430 points in your leaving and you want to show that you're more deserving of a place than someone who got 600 points, then you should have to get a 1:1 in a relevant subject.

How about a good GAMSAT score?

tallaght01 wrote:

This isn't about whether those people would be able to complete a medical degree or not. It's about who would be better for the profession and who deserves it more. For me, it says a lot about a kid who's given up their teenage years to get 570 points in their leaving cert. That's the type of punter I'd want treating me me. Not everyone will agree with that. HPAT is not known to improve the standard of docs. But Ireland is known to produce very good medical graduates. They're very highly thought of. I just don't now why that system has to be messed with.

As for who deserves it more - don't you think it says something that after spending 3-4+ years in college, a student would be willing to pick up a pile of books on subjects they may have never done before and teach themselves what they need to know to excel in an extremely difficult entrance exam with the express purpose of getting into medicine? I know the LC is tough as nails, but the fact remains that there are some people who put medicine as their #1 choice simply because it's one of the hardest courses to get into, not because it's what they really, really want to do.

I'm probably starting to sound defensive, but implying that the people in my class (including me) who work their asses off day-in day-out are in any way less deserving of their place in college just annoys me a bit. I don't know what sort of students are in GEM in Oz, but apparently there's a pretty substantial difference in the ones over here.

tallaght01

I'm not saying you're less deserving because of any lack of effort on your part. I'm saying that these kids haven't had the chance to do any of that uni stuff that you (and me) had the chance to do.

GAMSAT is fine. But as far as I know it's same exam as the Australians take. Same exact paper as far as I know. I think it's easier for an older graduate to do well in GAMSAT than it is for a kid to get 550+ points in their leaving cert. I think 550+ points in the leaving cert shows real exceptional ability. My experience (and that's all it is) of GAMSAT is that getting the grades means you're clever.

I think when it comes to your membership exams, then I'd prefer the chances of someone who's exceptionally bright. I would say (and perhaps others wouldn't agree with me) but the docs in hospital that are really really great are also really really clever.

But there's no need to get "annoyed" at the fact that I have an informed opinion. It's not like I'm just mouthing off baseless opinion. Plus I've admitted that I think people like me shouldn't be the predominant type of medical student.

It's my opinion. I think I'm right. You disagree. Of course you do. I'm absolutely willing to admit I may well be wrong. No-one will know for a log time. But I can assure you a lot of doctors hold the same opinion as I do.

tech77

Echani wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'd rather have the doctor who was top of their class in med school, and that's not necessarily someone who got 600 points.

It often is tbh.

Echani

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's my opinion. I think I'm right. You disagree. Of course you do. I'm absolutely willing to admit I may well be wrong. No-one will know for a log time. But I can assure you a lot of doctors hold the same opinion as I do.

Well, I can't change an opinion that's been formed from years of experience with students from all backgrounds, but I really hope you come across some GEM students who make enough of an impact to change your mind.

tech77 wrote:

It often is tbh.

Yep, but not always.

UCCmed09

tallaght01 wrote: »

The point I'm making is not that you will be able to complete med school. The point I'm making, and it is gonna sound harsh, is that I would prefer my doctor to be a 600 pointer.

I think to say the leaving cert score is meaningless is just wrong. You've given a kid a target that's bloody hard to reach, in a set time frame at an age where it's very easy to get sidetracked. They work hard and they do it. I'm convinced this is the best quality that is demonstrable, which we can ask of our potential doctors.

Yet the elusive 600points can be a matter of luck at the end of the day....could you say that a person who got 89.555% in Irish is going to make a better doctor than someone who got say...90%?

tallaght01

UCCmed09 wrote: »

Yet the elusive 600points can be a matter of luck at the end of the day....could you say that a person who got 89.555% in Irish is going to make a better doctor than someone who got say...90%?

I said that when I was talking about a 600 pointer, I was using the term interchangeably with anyone who nailed 550+ points. Poor wording on my part initially, but I did clarify it.

UCCmed09

tallaght01 wrote: »

I said that when I was talking about a 600 pointer, I was using the term interchangeably with anyone who nailed 550+ points. Poor wording on my part initially, but I did clarify it.

sorry i missed that!oh in that case i definitely agree with you!but i would think 540+ should be the cut-off....for the poor misfortune who might potentially get 89% in every single subject lol!

tallaght01

UCCmed09 wrote: »

sorry i missed that!oh in that case i definitely agree with you!but i would think 540+ should be the cut-off....for the poor misfortune who might potentially get 89% in every single subject lol!

I do take your point. I'll revise my strict criteria :P 540 it is!

Chunky Monkey

finty wrote: »

At least with an exam, you get what you get based on your ability and nothing else. Except for the grind schools and study courses which do help those with more money to spend on their kids education.

Precisely why I'm against the points system. I witnessed the direct effect grind schools had on students in my home town. It is not a fair system.

dudara wrote: »

Was discussing this point with someone last night. While I do broadly think that the HPAT is a good idea, he came up with the point that a 600 point student is clearly used to methodical study which can only be a good thing when studying medicine.

Will that student be able to keep this up though outside the spoon fed security of secondary school and pushy parents?

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

You use "like" a lot. It's a very Cork thing. I wouldn't be offended. Ireland is Ireland after all.

Always thought that was a D4 thing...:p

knuck wrote: »

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.

I think I've said this before somewhere but I really think having a two tier system where students had the choice to do either the broader LC or specialise with A-levels would be much fairer.

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

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.

At my interview, the interviewers didn't know our names and hadn't read our applications. All they had was a piece of paper with the questions they had to ask. Each element of the application was assessed separately and the results of each then examined together by a team. Seems like a good way of going about it, though you're right having connections would probably still be a problem.

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.

The most sociable girl in our year was also the only one to score 600 points in her leaving and went on to do drama. No exaggeration!

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

...may be the best for now...I'm really glad I didn't get in the first and second time I applied. Grew up a lot in that time. If you are certain it is what you want to do don't be so quick to give up (or to listen to the cynics, had to ignore quite a few of those).

tallaght01 wrote: »

The point I'm making is not that you will be able to complete med school. The point I'm making, and it is gonna sound harsh, is that I would prefer my doctor to be a 600 pointer.

I think to say the leaving cert score is meaningless is just wrong. You've given a kid a target that's bloody hard to reach, in a set time frame at an age where it's very easy to get sidetracked. They work hard and they do it. I'm convinced this is the best quality that is demonstrable, which we can ask of our potential doctors.

Thing is a lot of them (though of course I am not saying all of them) work hard with a metaphorical gun behind their backs.

Surely it's good to have a mix of the diligent 600 pointers and the naturally smart 500 pointers. I would have thought the nature of post-grad medicine requires both types of student, though please correct me if I'm wrong?

I got 505 points the second time I did the leaving cert. And I'm bloody proud I managed to get into medicine with that as it feels like a big f&%* you to a messed up system. I got A1s in relevant subjects and in not-so-normal circumstances and I'm eternally grateful to the admissions people who took all this into account, which the Irish system doesn't. Also, as to how I'm coping with the course, I've scored above average in all my exams. Don't mean to boast but so far it seems having 'only' 505 points hasn't proved a disadvantage.

Anyway, a big congratulations to those of you who got in! I wanna know what people did when they got their offers too. I ran in circles round my room screaming and jumping on the chair Discovered it by accident during a random check too which was a nice surprise!

One tip...make sure that you do keep a balance between your social life and your work but do work from the start! You have a lot of material to learn and you don't want old work catching up on you when you're supposed to be learning something new. And don't listen to people who say they aren't studying, you're entering a very competitive field. And most importantly, enjoy it, this is a big part of your life after all

To those of you who didn't get in this time round, try not to let it bring you down. I know that feeling of disappointment you get when you realise you haven't got in for the second time, despite working very hard. But where there's a will there's a way, trust me.

PM me for more pep talk

tallaght01

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

, I've scored above average in all my exams. Don't mean to boast but so far it seems having 'only' 505 points hasn't proved a disadvantage.

I don't want to keep dwelling on this. But the issue was never about whether you could pass medicine exams. The issue is A) why do you deserve it more than a kid who got 560 points first time round and why would you be better for medicine than that kid.

That's the bit I'm having difficulty getting my head around