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

Chunky Monkey

What are the options now for the people who got high points but didn't do well in the HPAT...can they take a gap year and just repeat the HPAT?

Chunky Monkey

I think they should increase the grade requirements for the sciences ie rather than only looking for a C2 in chemistry or whatever it is now, they should require say an A2 (or even an A1) in both chemistry and biology and a decent grade in maths.

Perhaps then there will be less people getting in who only put it on their CAO as they figured they could get the points and there would be less screwing over of the truly dedicated applicants who couldn't get the points in the other subjects they had to do eg French, business etc.

I have no idea if those grades are actually needed for medicine but then again do you need an A1 in agricultural studies or geography either. Just another way of getting past the competition.

The specific grade requirements in the UK are a lot higher than in Ireland. Why is that?

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

I have several times.

You haven't really, you've quite rightly pointed out that the cleverest doctors tend to be the best doctors and I've not seen any good argument against this but you then assume that a high LC score will select for cleverness which isn't necessarily the case.

I honestly don't see a good option to the LC or a combination of HPAT and LC for a variety of reasons, which is why I don't really disagree with you all that much but a high LC score like an IQ test only shows that one is good at taking those tests. Yes some of the best LC scores will belong to some of the cleverest people but that doesn't necessarily mean that the LC actively selects for such people.

imported_guy

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

I think they should increase the grade requirements for the sciences ie rather than only looking for a C2 in chemistry or whatever it is now, they should require say an A2 (or even an A1) in both chemistry and biology and a decent grade in maths.

Perhaps then there will be less people getting in who only put it on their CAO as they figured they could get the points and there would be less screwing over of the truly dedicated applicants who couldn't get the points in the other subjects they had to do eg French, business etc.

I have no idea if those grades are actually needed for medicine but then again do you need an A1 in agricultural studies or geography either. Just another way of getting past the competition.

The specific grade requirements in the UK are a lot higher than in Ireland. Why is that?

this is a VERY good idea, i think a requirement should be like 6As, or 5 a1s and 1 b1, or something, and any subject you attempt must be honours and you must get a c3 in it.

drrkpd

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

I

.

The specific grade requirements in the UK are a lot higher than in Ireland. Why is that?

Actually they are not higher grade requirements-
1. Most students do a maximum of 4 A Levels- not 7 subjects as here
2 English Maths and or course Irish are not essential- so if you are good at Science you simply do Science A Levels
3 Getting an A is much easier

A-level results released today showed a record 26.7% of papers awarded an A grade – up 0.8 percentage points on last year – and a 97.5% pass rate. For the first time, three-quarters of entries were awarded a C or better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/20/a-levels-record-results1

and up to 50% of students in independent ie private schools get an A!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/interactive/2009/aug/20/a-levels

So the LC student with an A here has a harder task to get it!!

imported_guy

drrkpd wrote: »

Actually they are not higher grade requirements-
1. Most students do a maximum of 4 A Levels- not 7 subjects as here
2 English Maths and or course Irish are not essential- so if you are good at Science you simply do Science A Levels
3 Getting an A is much easier

A-level results released today showed a record 26.7% of papers awarded an A grade – up 0.8 percentage points on last year – and a 97.5% pass rate. For the first time, three-quarters of entries were awarded a C or better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/20/a-levels-record-results1

and up to 50% of students in independent ie private schools get an A!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/interactive/2009/aug/20/a-levels

So the LC student with an A here has a harder task to get it!!

i agree on that too LC is way to hard compared to the A levels (okay maybe one can argue A levels is more detailed in the subjects you study, like the math is way harder than the LC, but on the other hand its 3 subjects that yo uneed to do)

drrkpd

Can I repeat myself?-

drrkpd wrote: »

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.[/QUOTE


First time LC getting into medicine have increased from 59% in 2008 to 83% in 2009!!!!!!
Does anyone know the % of first time LC doing the LC???
in fact it is just over 90%!!!

you have to matriculate now and bring your points as people know- despite all the arguments surely the above is fairer??

In 2008 and before new system that meant 41% of places went to Repeat LC and in some cases I know 16% of admissions were on their 3rd LC!!!!

Certainly shows stamina and persistence but was it a level Playing field-I don't think so>

I don"t know shy people call HPAT an "aptitude" test. It is a psychometric intelligence test at speed with only Section 2 any resemblance to medicine!

We can argue all day about LC and new system but was a system where 90% of the students ie first time LC were only getting 59% of places fair???
Now they get 83%- less than their numbers but a 24% improvement.

With so much (understandable) fuss about an 8% swing in favour of men why does this point never get the coverage it deserves??
And this favours first time LC male AND female!!

ZorbaTehZ

drrkpd wrote:

...why does this point never get the coverage it deserves??

Well it's because it's easier for the likes of the Independant to run some emotion-filled garbage piece than to actually do some research.

nesf

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

Well it's because it's easier for the likes of the Independant to run some emotion-filled garbage piece than to actually do some research.

Sir, your blackening of the Independent's name is reprehensible! One must merely look at their detailed, nuanced and utterly unbiased political coverage to see it is a truly superb broadsheet that would never sink to filling column inches in the manner you suggest!

drrkpd

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

Well it's because it's easier for the likes of the Independant to run some emotion-filled garbage piece than to actually do some research.

but I suppose First time Leaving Certs -

aren't as clearly identified group as male or female

Maybe like me until these figures were published THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!!

tallaght01

nesf wrote: »

You haven't really, you've quite rightly pointed out that the cleverest doctors tend to be the best doctors and I've not seen any good argument against this but you then assume that a high LC score will select for cleverness which isn't necessarily the case.

I never actually said that. The HPAT may well pick the cleverest doctors. But the LC assesses cleverness AND work ethic. I think the LC selects for the people with the type of cleverness that's more pertinent to medicine (ie to learn shed loads of information that's reasonably complicated). In the context of my clinical practice I stand by that. Most of my colleagues want to see more of those kids coming through (although we're comparing mostly with the GEM guys, who are as a group, much less impressive than the real bright sparks who I was used to in the UK).

I just don't see what the HPAT adds. If someone could say for sure it selects for good doctors, I'd be a bit more convinced. But i don't think that's the case. I defo want a really really clever person treating me in hospital.

tallaght01

I would add that I agree with the repeat LC issue. But i don't think HPAT is the only way to deal with it. I have long thought that there should be x number of places available for first time LC sitters, and they compete for these against other first time LC students. Then there should be a much smaller number of places available for repeat students, for which they should compete with each other.

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

I never actually said that. The HPAT may well pick the cleverest doctors. But the LC assesses cleverness AND work ethic. I think the LC selects for the people with the type of cleverness that's more pertinent to medicine (ie to learn shed loads of information that's reasonably complicated). In the context of my clinical practice I stand by that. Most of my colleagues want to see more of those kids coming through (although we're comparing mostly with the GEM guys, who are as a group, much less impressive than the real bright sparks who I was used to in the UK).

I just don't see what the HPAT adds. If someone could say for sure it selects for good doctors, I'd be a bit more convinced. But i don't think that's the case. I defo want a really really clever person treating me in hospital.

I disagree that the LC really selects for cleverness, it's quite easy to pick LC subjects to maximise points where the quality of your grey matter won't make much of a difference so long as you're above average. The subjects in the LC that are intellectually challenging (and with the constant reducing of the difficulty of the LC this list is getting shorter and shorter) can be gotten around. An A1 in Biology doesn't require anything special intelligence wise just a work ethic, ditto for Geography, Chemistry, Business etc etc. Actually beyond Honours Maths, I'm struggling to think of subjects where you'd need to be clever to get top marks, most of them just require you to put in the work and not get unlucky on the day.

Clever people will do well in the LC but to do well in the LC does not require one to be very clever and for reference I'm talking top 1% or 0.5% of the population here for very clever. And let's be honest here, the really clever doctors that you and I are talking about are really better than top 0.1% people, probably 0.05% or something silly like that. (Bearing in mind that in IQ terms Mensa accepts those in the top 2%, so 1 in 50, which isn't that special compared to the guys we're talking about)

Edit: Actually, almost as important as work ethic is knowing how the exams work. If you can find out how they mark them getting high marks becomes much much easier.

2Scoops

I would guess that someone with a 550 pt LC with a stellar HPAT is cleverer compared with someone who got 580 LC pts with an abysmal HPAT. Which is, essentially, what the new system is giving us.

nesf

2Scoops wrote: »

I would guess that someone with a 550 pt LC with a stellar HPAT is cleverer compared with someone who got 580 LC pts with an abysmal HPAT. Which is, essentially, what the new system is giving us.

Actually, honestly, if the new system can weed out those who get 580 but can only perform average or below average on an aptitude test, is this not a good thing? I mean, I look at the HPAT sample questions and I don't really see anything that very clever person should have any trouble with. Maybe they're far far simpler than the real thing though.

tallaght01

2Scoops wrote: »

I would guess that someone with a 550 pt LC with a stellar HPAT is cleverer compared with someone who got 580 LC pts with an abysmal HPAT. Which is, essentially, what the new system is giving us.

I think that's a very good point. I've thought about it in this context, That's why i said we should have a point where everyone is deemed equal. 550....580 I don't think there's much difference there. I think the profession loses out when we refuse straight A students. I don't know how many points that is. But I would argue that there is a significant difference between a 600 point student and a 530 point student.

I would take your point more if we had any evidence that HPAT produces good doctors. We know the LC produces people who make excellent graduates, by and large.

Nesf, I think you are grossly misepresenting the difficulty of the LC. Not a single person in my school got straight As the year I did it. I worked my absolute ghoulies off for the LC, and didn't break the 500 mark.I specifically remember my biology teacher telling us he wouldn't even be guaranteed an A1 if he took the paper.

The concepts in the leaving can be pretty challenging for 16-18 year olds. I know the grinds schools do well. BUt wander round any of the schools in the greater Dublin area and see how many students are getting As across the board. There's not many. It's always nice to come on and say that you're so clever you didn't find the LC challenging. But these kids have to work damn hard to get 550+ points. They don't seem to have to work so hard to do well at HPAT. And this was my point. The LC tests work ethic AND intelligence. Whereas the HPAT tests intelligence (or aptitude or something. I'm not sure).

There are bundles of kids who have the potential to get 550 points in their leaving. But very very few do. Doing well as a youngster involves you giving up 2 years of your life, when your mates are out getting locked and getting felt up :P It's not easy to turn that down when you're 30, let along when you're a schoolkid.

I think if they have a problem with logic or whatever, then they should test it on the LC, and give the hard working kids the chance to prepare for it. There's very little in medicine that you can't prepare for by hard work. BUt there's lots of way clever people with a poor work ethic can cock up.

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

Nesf, I think you are grossly misepresenting the difficulty of the LC. Not a single person in my school got straight As the year I did it. I worked my absolute ghoulies off for the LC, and didn't break the 500 mark.I specifically remember my biology teacher telling us he wouldn't even be guaranteed an A1 if he took the paper.

Maybe. I broke 500 without doing anything much study wise (and I really mean this, I started studying a week before the exams) and missing an obscene amount of school due to health problems. (The lack of study was down to mental health issues rather than by choice)

I don't think we're talking about the average 18 year old here but the cream of the crop intellect wise. I'm also not saying that getting straight A1s is easy, it most certainly is not, but its difficulty comes from sheer volume of work levels rather than intellect per se. I also concur that lack of work ethic is crippling in medicine, this is why I'm not totally against the LC as a part of a system for choosing who goes to med school. Ditto for people like me with memory issues, we'd make potentially disastrous doctors imho!

tallaght01

nesf wrote: »

Maybe. I broke 500 without doing anything much study wise (and I really mean this, I started studying a week before the exams) and missing an obscene amount of school due to health problems. (The lack of study was down to mental health issues rather than by choice)

I don't think we're talking about the average 18 year old here but the cream of the crop intellect wise. I'm also not saying that getting straight A1s is easy, it most certainly is not, but its difficulty comes from sheer volume of work levels rather than intellect per se. I also concur that lack of work ethic is crippling in medicine, this is why I'm not totally against the LC as a part of a system for choosing who goes to med school. Ditto for people like me with memory issues, we'd make potentially disastrous doctors imho!

I don;t understand how you can think that HPAT is the way to go if we're looking for people with work ethic. Though I may be misrepresenting your opinion. I would argue you're the exception in terms of your LC. I'm not a teacher, but I don't know how you reconcile the idea of you doing a week of work for the leaving and doing well, with it being about sheer volume.

Again, I'm not educationalist, but I'd argue most of the kids who nail 550+ in the leaving worked their nuts off. And they tend to bring that work ethic to med school with them.

Having said that, I'm speaking from a position of some ignorance, in that the HPAT may be based in sound educational science. I have to admit I don't know. But they haven't told medics much about it, if they've found some kind of apitude panacea.

A Neurotic

tallaght01, you're currently in Australia, yes? For how long has the HPAT (or Aus. equivalent) system been in use over there? Is it as controversial there as here? Have any entrants with the aptitude test system graduated yet, and if so has there been any noticeable difference (better or worse) in the standard of graduates?

tallaght01

Australia have a thing called UMAT.

Most of the students locally here happen to be GEM students. I think they're definitely of a lower standard than the students I'd be used to back in the UK.

It's only opinion, but I think Aussie docs and students are not as good as what I got used to in the UK.

Actually, let me rephrase that. I work with some amazing docs in Oz. But there also seem to be a higher proportion that I don't think are that good. Now, that is a very biased opinion on which to base anything. I may have been unlucky, or it may be true. There are the same guys who you get wherever. My last resident was an exceptionally clever guy.Stayed late with me all the time, and worked his ass off. That's how he was at school, I'd imagine. My previous resident was a computer science/maths joint honours graduate. He was bright enough, but not much of a slogger, and had scraped through uni, as he said he struggled with the volume of work. We're actually good mates now. He's a gem of a bloke. But he should be a registrar now. He knows and everyone else knows he's not ready. It's all very awkward.
My previous reg to that was a graduate in some art history kinda thing. She was a disaster.

But my main problem with the students here is that they don't work as hard as the guys in the UK. The school leavers aren't getting in with poor grades.Now, this may be due to the chilled Aussie way of life. There are other people who would say Aussie students are as good as Irish/British ones. So, it's very difficult to say.

I would point out, though, that the ozzies LOVE Irish and British docs. We have a VERY good reputation here.

ergo

Ok, been following this thread for a while, a few points I want to make here

(and my background includes working in health services in Ireland (mostly) but also in Australia and in UK)

tallaght you make a lot of the work ethic required to get the maximum Leaving cert or close to it

however, having worked as an intern with someone who I know was extremely bright (based on their LC results as well as their college performance) but was also incredibly lazy - I can think of a few of these people - commonly regarded among the other interns as the last person you wanted to be on call in combination with - because a lot of the work would end up being dumped on you - so getting maximum LC does not necessarily mean life long strong work ethic

for my LC I made the small sacrifice of giving up sport for the year, the only year of my entire life that I gave up team sport, previously and subsequently have been involved 3-5 times per week. I wish that i didn't have to make that sacrifice. I would prefer my doctor to be someone who got a more rounded complete experience involving sport/extra-curricular stuff etc rather than be stuck in a room studying for the year (though I did go out from time to time I must admit... :rolleyes: )

at least the HPAT takes the pressure off the LC a little bit and could maybe give people the freedom to carry on with their extra-curricular stuff

making something like an A1 in higher Chemistry compluslory would be completely pointless and this subject and the ability to do well in it is a million miles removed from being a good doctor - and why add more pressure to to the sitting of the LC by making a certain subject mandatory A1...?

and as an aside, if someone is a Biology teacher I think they should be confident of gettig at least an A in the paper if they were made to sit it - it's not that unpredictable

Aussie graduates that I have worked with both in Australia and Ireland have been very good - I always thought of them as being very much comparable with Irish/UK ones - you get the odd weaker one but that happens anywhere

A Neurotic

I was talking to a GP earlier today about the new system. His accent was unusual but at a guess I'd say he was Australian. He said he welcomed the HPAT system in Ireland, mainly on account of the gender issue. It seems to me like a strange reason to support it.

More females were gaining entry to medicine as a result of their higher Leaving Cert scores. Why was this an issue to begin with? Why is it so desirable to have a 50/50 split in medicine graduates? Lots of careers are dominated by one gender over the other. If this was part of the reasoning for bringing in the HPAT, I don't understand it at all.

EDIT: By the way, his reasons were along the lines of women having babies and being less dedicated doctors, quite disgraceful in this day and age, no!?

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don;t understand how you can think that HPAT is the way to go if we're looking for people with work ethic. Though I may be misrepresenting your opinion. I would argue you're the exception in terms of your LC. I'm not a teacher, but I don't know how you reconcile the idea of you doing a week of work for the leaving and doing well, with it being about sheer volume.

Again, I'm not educationalist, but I'd argue most of the kids who nail 550+ in the leaving worked their nuts off. And they tend to bring that work ethic to med school with them.

Having said that, I'm speaking from a position of some ignorance, in that the HPAT may be based in sound educational science. I have to admit I don't know. But they haven't told medics much about it, if they've found some kind of apitude panacea.

I never at any point said the HPAT was the way to go when we're looking for people with a good work ethic. I merely said that the LC selects for work ethic rather than cleverness. I've never at any point said we should stop using the LC as part of the selection process, only that on its own we couldn't expect the LC to provide the cleverest people, it will provide those with the best work ethic and as I've previously said I agree with you on the importance of the latter in medicine.

Chunky Monkey

drrkpd wrote: »

Actually they are not higher grade requirements-
1. Most students do a maximum of 4 A Levels- not 7 subjects as here
2 English Maths and or course Irish are not essential- so if you are good at Science you simply do Science A Levels
3 Getting an A is much easier

A-level results released today showed a record 26.7% of papers awarded an A grade – up 0.8 percentage points on last year – and a 97.5% pass rate. For the first time, three-quarters of entries were awarded a C or better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/aug/20/a-levels-record-results1

and up to 50% of students in independent ie private schools get an A!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/interactive/2009/aug/20/a-levels

So the LC student with an A here has a harder task to get it!!

Ye I've heard that about the A levels. Apparently that's why a lot of schools do the IB instead now. I've heard that one is particularly horrendous.

Sorry I meant for the people applying with the leaving cert. Most places seem to look for an A grade in at least two sciences. Some places, like Cardiff, look for physics, chemistry and biology. As imported_guy sarcastically mentioned (no need for that mate) the requirement in Ireland is C3 in honours for chemistry and something similar for maths. What do people think about increasing that requirement?

nesf

A Neurotic wrote: »

I was talking to a GP earlier today about the new system. His accent was unusual but at a guess I'd say he was Australian. He said he welcomed the HPAT system in Ireland, mainly on account of the gender issue. It seems to me like a strange reason to support it.

More females were gaining entry to medicine as a result of their higher Leaving Cert scores. Why was this an issue to begin with? Why is it so desirable to have a 50/50 split in medicine graduates? Lots of careers are dominated by one gender over the other. If this was part of the reasoning for bringing in the HPAT, I don't understand it at all.

EDIT: By the way, his reasons were along the lines of women having babies and being less dedicated doctors, quite disgraceful in this day and age, no!?

Well, arguably one could construe an argument that the advantage that women have in academics diminishes as people hit their 20s and both sexes start performing at a closer level.

Still seems silly to me to care overly about this.

nesf

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

Ye I've heard that about the A levels. Apparently that's why a lot of schools do the IB instead now. I've heard that one is particularly horrendous.

Sorry I meant for the people applying with the leaving cert. Most places seem to look for an A grade in at least two sciences. Some places, like Cardiff, look for physics, chemistry and biology. As imported_guy sarcastically mentioned (no need for that mate) the requirement in Ireland is C3 in honours for chemistry and something similar for maths. What do people think about increasing that requirement?

I think requiring a B3 minimum in Biology and Chemistry wouldn't be a bad idea. Setting the requirement too high is dangerous because you could cut out a lot of potential students because of a nasty paper (it happens occasionally), so something like a B3 is safe, it forces people to take certain subjects but is an almost guaranteed mark for anyone with any aptitude in the area assuming they put in some work.

Chunky Monkey

tallaght01 wrote: »

But the LC assesses cleverness AND work ethic.

Fair enough, I'm inclined to agree with you there but

I think the LC selects for the people with the type of cleverness that's more pertinent to medicine (ie to learn shed loads of information that's reasonably complicated).

That's not necessarily the case. You can get your C3 in chemistry and maths (there's your complicated info) and then A1's in subjects that are a lot less difficult. Then again perhaps that shows the cleverness...'work smart, not hard'

ergo wrote: »

making something like an A1 in higher Chemistry compluslory would be completely pointless and this subject and the ability to do well in it is a million miles removed from being a good doctor - and why add more pressure to to the sitting of the LC by making a certain subject mandatory A1...?

Of course, but there's not many other ways to distinguish between the immense amount of applicants. Getting an A1 in business is hardly needed to be good doctor either (unless you're going for a management job I guess).

Why make more pressure? Because there are people putting medicine down on their CAO's just because they can get the points and not out of any sincere interest. Sure perhaps these people will make good doctors, the initial motivation doesn't often matter, but when so many people are applying, why should they get a place over someone who really does want to do it (and has the ability)?

nesf wrote: »

I think requiring a B3 minimum in Biology and Chemistry wouldn't be a bad idea. Setting the requirement too high is dangerous because you could cut out a lot of potential students because of a nasty paper (it happens occasionally), so something like a B3 is safe, it forces people to take certain subjects but is an almost guaranteed mark for anyone with any aptitude in the area assuming they put in some work.

I can see your point for chemistry (I was so damn lucky with my paper the second time, some really nasty past papers though) but perhaps higher in biology as that's a relatively easy subject.

nesf

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

I can see your point for chemistry (I was so damn lucky with my paper the second time, some really nasty past papers though) but perhaps higher in biology as that's a relatively easy subject.

It's still risky because these requirements are fixed and cannot be gotten around if there happens to be a nasty paper and a very low number of high grades one year. Requiring a B standard isn't that demanding but it forces people to take relevant subjects for the LC which is in my view what we're really aiming for here. The idea of someone going into Medicine without taking Biology for the Leaving bemuses me (yes, Biology at LC is trivial compared to Biology courses taken in Medicine but every little helps and all that).

Chunky Monkey

nesf wrote: »

It's still risky because these requirements are fixed and cannot be gotten around if there happens to be a nasty paper and a very low number of high grades one year. Requiring a B standard isn't that demanding but it forces people to take relevant subjects for the LC which is in my view what we're really aiming for here. The idea of someone going into Medicine without taking Biology for the Leaving bemuses me (yes, Biology at LC is trivial compared to Biology courses taken in Medicine but every little helps and all that).

So far (just finished first year) I've found biology to be essential, would seriously struggle without it. Not saying it's difficult but, time wise, it really helps to have it.

To be honest, I'm one of those not very bright (chemistry was bloody hard!) but has strong work ethic people that the LC favours. But I'm still against it as people with money can do better at it than people without.

Would be interesting to see the results of a study on the socio-economic backgrounds of the people who do get in with the very high points.

whadabouchasir

nesf wrote: »

Maybe they're far far simpler than the real thing though.

They are,if I got the same score in the real thing as I did in the practice test then i would have gotten the highest mark in the country.