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

Traumadoc

A doctor in Australia told me the exam was introduced there as there was an over representation of one ethnic minority.

imported_guy

i dont really understand why people dont get this having 600 points doesn't make you smart

i personally know people who repeated LC more than once., (one girl did it twice, and another guy did it 3 times, lets not mention the guys i know who did it once again and got medicine), alot of these people wouldnt be able to tell a plant cell from an animal cell at the end of the summer after they get their A1 in biology.... so getting 600 points really depends on either how many times you repeated or which grind school you attended (ok lets not genralise this though, i know of a few people myself who got 600 points on their first attempt, going to the local school but the number is pretty small)

and someone mentioned socio-economical background of people doing medicine, lets put it this way, ive never heard of someone applying for a grant/loan when studying medicine (its common in america, but not here), the guys who i mentioned repeated to get into medicine, atleast one of their parents is a doctor, or very rich.

TheJeanGenie

There are a few students on grants/loans but they are rare, you're looking at 6 at most, lol.
It shocked me at first to see the number of students who attended private schools getting the points for med, shows that fee-paying schools really do work as opposed to schools that struggle for funding and encourage the majority of their students too attend PLC courses.

Also in the debate of LC versus HPAT one thing must be mentioned about the LC compared to med school. Most universities assess continuously whilst the LC all happens in one month. If the LC introduced continous assessment it would rule out students who worked hard for a month before the exam and it would pinpoint students who give every task their full attention and effort.

_Whimsical_

imported_guy wrote: »

i dont really understand why people dont get this having 600 points doesn't make you smart

i personally know people who repeated LC more than once., (one girl did it twice, and another guy did it 3 times, lets not mention the guys i know who did it once again and got medicine), alot of these people wouldnt be able to tell a plant cell from an animal cell at the end of the summer after they get their A1 in biology.... so getting 600 points really depends on either how many times you repeated or which grind school you attended (ok lets not genralise this though, i know of a few people myself who got 600 points on their first attempt, going to the local school but the number is pretty small)

and someone mentioned socio-economical background of people doing medicine, lets put it this way, ive never heard of someone applying for a grant/loan when studying medicine (its common in america, but not here), the guys who i mentioned repeated to get into medicine, atleast one of their parents is a doctor, or very rich.

Certainly the graduate entry system based solely on points puts pressure on students and favours certain socioeconomic backgrounds and on that basis is unfair. However in addressing entry procedure to something as critical to all of society as medicine,the question cannot be "what system is fairer to the student?" It has to be "what system makes the best doctors?".

HPAT might measure intelligence but an exam like the LC also reveals the above average academic abilities that are necessary to become a doctor. Where the two radically differ in merit is that very high attainment in the Leaving Cert reflects some of the essential characteristics for a career in medicine that the HPAT cannot quantify. Two years of intensive study is impossible without determination,commitment,a conscientious nature and the ability to work toward long term goals despite what distractions may lure you from your path. A measure of intelligence alone gives no indication of those traits and as such would have to provide a wider variety of personality types, many of whom would not be suitable for such a critical role in society. I think the points system has some inherent radical flaws but I'd worry that the HPAT will not address those flaws without reprecussions for the quality of medical professionals we will produce in the future.

TheJeanGenie

It is a fair point that the LC does test determination, commitment etc however I do know people that when asked why they are studying medicine will answer 'i put it on my cao form, never thought i'd actually get the points'.

Also some students feel that they'll never face a tougher exam than the LC which is ridiculous when studying medicine.

imported_guy

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

There are a few students on grants/loans but they are rare, you're looking at 6 at most, lol.
It shocked me at first to see the number of students who attended private schools getting the points for med, shows that fee-paying schools really do work as opposed to schools that struggle for funding and encourage the majority of their students too attend PLC courses.

Also in the debate of LC versus HPAT one thing must be mentioned about the LC compared to med school. Most universities assess continuously whilst the LC all happens in one month. If the LC introduced continous assessment it would rule out students who worked hard for a month before the exam and it would pinpoint students who give every task their full attention and effort.

this hits the nail on the head... in america when your going into your medschool they look at your cumlative GPA (which is your average in every single test you take in 4 years of pre-med college) and also MCAT (which is like HPAT) and also they do an interview...

i have nothing against HPAT, i welcome it, but it shouldnt "make or break" the entery into medicine, we need to have an assesment which doesnt involve exams after 2 years of study, this is garbage, if you want to se dedication, take a monthly test this will keep people's heads down, and who ever scores the highest average, take them in for med.

imported_guy

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

Also some students feel that they'll never face a tougher exam than the LC which is ridiculous when studying medicine.

thats not really true, there are alot of moron doctors, i know of one personally who didnt know what ENT was... LOL, she some how did manage to survive med school

nesf

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

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.

That's my biggest issue with the LC system. Grind schools take money, I know like most people, my parents could not have afforded it when I did the Leaving and we were middle class (just living in rural Ireland, so Grind School fees + accomodation/travel etc). What it really disadvantages is rural people because they need to come up with accommodation money on top of fees.

nesf

whadabouchasir wrote: »

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.

Practice tests results are meaningless unless sat under exam conditions.

Piste

If the grind schools produce so many people with excellent results, then clearly they're not the "problem", it's the ordinary schools. Maybe the DOE should look at grind schools and try to base the teaching methods and ethoses of ordinary public schools on them (albeit without the fees). In my school everyone is pushed academically and they place a high emphasis on hard work, while supporting sports and music, it's non-fee paying. If my school can do it on a public-school budget then others should too.

tallaght01

Piste wrote: »

If the grind schools produce so many people with excellent results, then clearly they're not the "problem", it's the ordinary schools. Maybe the DOE should look at grind schools and try to base the teaching methods and ethoses of ordinary public schools on them (albeit without the fees). In my school everyone is pushed academically and they place a high emphasis on hard work, while supporting sports and music, it's non-fee paying. If my school can do it on a public-school budget then others should too.

Nail on head. I'll deal with the other issues tomorrw when I've more time.

But put yourself in the position of a kid from tallaght. Look at the options for schools you have locally. They are dire. Rural schooling seems to be a it better. BUt the choice of schools available to kids in less well off areas is appalling. I know my school was like an asylum. It was great fun, but it was a total loony bin. I remember one of the teachers telling my parents that he can't teach, because he's just trying to keep the class under control. He wasn't lying either. We'd learn something new only every 2 or 3 classes. We didn't even get the syllabus covered lol.

Grinds schools are just schools with well behaved, motivated students, and decent teachers.

imported_guy

tallaght01 wrote: »

Grinds schools are just schools with well behaved, motivated students, and decent teachers.

yup these kinds of students need to be rewarded in the public school system, alot of the teachers just F off after 4 o clock and if you need help you cant really get it after 4, your on your own

TheJeanGenie

tallaght01 wrote: »

Nail on head. I'll deal with the other issues tomorrw when I've more time.

But put yourself in the position of a kid from tallaght. Look at the options for schools you have locally. They are dire. Rural schooling seems to be a it better. BUt the choice of schools available to kids in less well off areas is appalling. I know my school was like an asylum. It was great fun, but it was a total loony bin. I remember one of the teachers telling my parents that he can't teach, because he's just trying to keep the class under control. He wasn't lying either. We'd learn something new only every 2 or 3 classes. We didn't even get the syllabus covered lol.

Grinds schools are just schools with well behaved, motivated students, and decent teachers.

I think we may have gone to the same school, lol. There are so many students in this situation that it truly is appalling. More efforts have to be made to pinpoint these schools and offer their students the same support they would get in a fees paying school. Alot of the time I was left without a teacher because they could not deal with the class.

imported_guy

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

I think we may have gone to the same school, lol. There are so many students in this situation that it truly is appalling. More efforts have to be made to pinpoint these schools and offer their students the same support they would get in a fees paying school. Alot of the time I was left without a teacher because they could not deal with the class.

yeah, but i guess in reality, public schools will never be the same quality as grind schools, and HPAT after a few years will have its own grind schools like they have GAMSAT schools in australia, people who want an edge will still go to a grind school in the evening even if they are in the best public school

TheJeanGenie

imported_guy wrote: »

yeah, but i guess in reality, public schools will never be the same quality as grind schools, and HPAT after a few years will have its own grind schools like they have GAMSAT schools in australia, people who want an edge will still go to a grind school in the evening even if they are in the best public school

Unfortunately this is so true. Already some institutions are running prep courses for the HPAT.

This is why continuous assessment should be looked at carefully if they want to even out the playing field. Of course teachers would probably object to it as it would mean more work on their part but I'm sure some teachers would welcome it.

imported_guy

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

Unfortunately this is so true. Already some institutions are running prep courses for the HPAT.

This is why continuous assessment should be looked at carefully if they want to even out the playing field. Of course teachers would probably object to it as it would mean more work on their part but I'm sure some teachers would welcome it.

yeah i outlined the american system here (they do it for college, but i guess it can be done for schools too) http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61812841&postcount=157 it takes the average of every test you have ever taken in college, and they also have a standardised test called MCAT which is like the HPAT and GAMSAT i think

TheJeanGenie

Whilst difficult continous assessment allows you to show more about what kind of student you are, if something goes wrong on one assignment or exam you work twice as hard on the next. Rather than battling against thousands of other people you are just pushing yourself to improve every grade. Having never been assessed like this for the LC I find it a fantastic system in college and it keeps you focused throughout the year.

imported_guy

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

Whilst difficult continous assessment allows you to show more about what kind of student you are, if something goes wrong on one assignment or exam you work twice as hard on the next. Rather than battling against thousands of other people you are just pushing yourself to improve every grade. Having never been assessed like this for the LC I find it a fantastic system in college and it keeps you focused throughout the year.

well its difficult to implement in like "semi-socialist" country like ireland (okay i'll get alot of BS for this but come on), they do it in highschool, like they take their weighted GPA, to secure a place in college, along with an essay and SAT or ACT tests (some states have different ones like one in texas is called TAKS), and for med school or law school they take you weighted GPA from college, along with an essay, interview, your volunteering work (like we do here for mature students, i dont know why we cant do it for LC students :S), and MCAT, its usually not that an MCAT score or essay/interview makes or breaks you, but usually there are minimum standards, like sometimes even people with 4.0 GPA (like 600 points) get refused entery because they did a crap MCAT (you have 3 attempts at it as far as i know)

candlegrease

Here goes.

Having done the HPAT, and having observed the results of many of my friends whom I have known for years, its clear that this test favours those who did honours maths. This should not be the case. Honours maths has nothing to do with being a good doctor. As for the second section, on empathising with patients, it was poorly done, and this skill can't be tested on paper anyway. The only worthwhile section was the first one, which examined logical reasoning and problem solving. Numerous people I know who scored very highly in the HPAT would definitely not make good doctors.

I'm all for a system that puts the emphasis on empathising doctors, but the HPAT cannot achieve this. The LC isnt a perfect system, but it has improved due to the new matriculation requirements. It rewards those with a good work ethic and also a natural intelligence. It cannot be said that a student who gets 600 is not intelligent, and anyone who says so reeks of bitterness. I also resent the fact that many people assume anybody who got 600 must have attended a grind school and must have repeated.

Ideally, we would get rid of the HPAT but change the LC a bit. I think 560+ points should be necessary, but an A2 in chemistry and biology should be required, or maybe at least an A2 and a B1 in them. And keep the new matriculation requirements.

Also, i don't subscribe to this crap about the HPAT giving a chance to the lazy but "gifted" students who get lower points. I don't want a lazy, but supposedly "gifted" doctor, do you? Doing medicine requires a work ethic, and I don't care how smart you are, you need to learn the material.

imported_guy

candlegrease wrote: »

Honours maths has nothing to do with being a good doctor

1) Neurologists who take EEGs (electro-encephalograms) are measuring
brain voltages at various points in the brain to detect how the
voltages surge around. There's normal wave motion, as well as all sorts
of types of epilepsy and other problems that can be detected by this
method. Unfortunately, the data, as they come out of the machine, are
pretty noisy. Various mathematical "filters" must be applied to see the
underlying wave phenomena. This is basically Fourier analysis on wave
forms that shows how the geometry of the complex, noisy forms is
composed of stong, underlying primitive waves.

2) Sometimes you can treat a cancer by irradiating it. Now if you just
shine a powerful beam of radiation straight through the cancer, you'll
kill it, but you'll also kill everything on both sides of it that the
beam passes through. It's much better to have a bunch of beams crossing
in 3 dimensions so that the stuff in each beam isn't killed since the
beams are weak, but all the beams go through the cancer, so it really
gets "toasted."

3) PET scans and NMR scans use many 1-dimensional scans of the body to
reproduce 2-D and 3-D views. Radiologists have to do this all the time
- use math to reconstruct a 3-D view from many 1-D views.

do you even know what Fourier analysis is? no. people who say "doctors dont use math" really grind my gears i didnt even talk about anesthesiologists yet

lets just say if i ever was to have surgery, i would want the anesthesiologist to have honours math, otherwise i'd probably refuse treatment

nesf

imported_guy wrote: »

1) Neurologists who take EEGs (electro-encephalograms) are measuring
brain voltages at various points in the brain to detect how the
voltages surge around. There's normal wave motion, as well as all sorts
of types of epilepsy and other problems that can be detected by this
method. Unfortunately, the data, as they come out of the machine, are
pretty noisy. Various mathematical "filters" must be applied to see the
underlying wave phenomena. This is basically Fourier analysis on wave
forms that shows how the geometry of the complex, noisy forms is
composed of stong, underlying primitive waves.

However, one doesn't need to be able to work out the Fourier Transforms in order to able to read the data. The maths can be dealt with by other people.

TheJeanGenie

Honours maths is undoubtedly a tough subject and requires a colossal amount of work. I think it shows more about students than any other subject. In most honours maths classes in my area there were between 3 and 4 students who actually sat the exam.

candlegrease

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

Honours maths is undoubtedly a tough subject and requires a colossal amount of work. I think it shows more about students than any other subject. In most honours maths classes in my area there were between 3 and 4 students who actually sat the exam.

So? We need good doctors not good mathematicians. One can do hard work without doing maths.

imported_guy

candlegrease wrote: »

So? We need good doctors not good mathematicians. One can do hard work without doing maths.

mate, you need math to survive in life, junior cert math and ordinary level LC math doesnt get you very far...

in all honesty, i think we should have a higher c3 math requirement for medicine, just like all the lvl 8 engineering subjects, most engineers arent mathematicians either.. well none are lol.

TheJeanGenie

You need physics to be a doctor, hence why you have 2 core modules of it in pre-med. There was a physics teacher on the radio, after they announced the no. of students doing higher level maths had gone down, who said that he spends a lot of class time teaching his physics students maths

A Neurotic

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

You need physics to be a doctor, hence why you have 2 core modules of it in pre-med. There was a physics teacher on the radio, after they announced the no. of students doing higher level maths had gone down, who said that he spends a lot of class time teaching his physics students maths

Er, I've never done Physics and I'm starting a 5-year Med course next month (no pre-med)...

candlegrease

imported_guy wrote: »

mate, you need math to survive in life, junior cert math and ordinary level LC math doesnt get you very far...

in all honesty, i think we should have a higher c3 math requirement for medicine, just like all the lvl 8 engineering subjects, most engineers arent mathematicians either.. well none are lol.

Your argument comes down to this.

FAIL.

TheJeanGenie wrote: »

You need physics to be a doctor, hence why you have 2 core modules of it in pre-med. There was a physics teacher on the radio, after they announced the no. of students doing higher level maths had gone down, who said that he spends a lot of class time teaching his physics students maths

I was under the impression we were talking about maths. In any case, I did LC higher Physics and got an A1 in it while doing ordinary maths, so no, Maths is not necessary for Physics.

imported_guy

A Neurotic wrote: »

Er, I've never done Physics and I'm starting a 5-year Med course next month (no pre-med)...

thats funny because we had a RCSI doctor who teaches physics and statistics to doctors come talk to us on bernoulli, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics... (im studying mechanical engineering)

edit: http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&2nID=94&3nID=620&4nID=1333&nID=875 this chap

Chunky Monkey

Non-geniuses with a touch of OCD can do very well in honours maths...learn the formulae and use them in hundreds of sample questions and hey presto, you have a B1/A2 in the bag.

This is how the grind schools work. They dish out notes upon pages of notes and make you learn lots of useless stuff off by heart. That'll get you the results but is that a good way to learn? Give the fishing rod, not the fish and all that jazz.

That's the style of learning that newer med schools are trying to eliminate.

TheJeanGenie

candlegrease wrote: »

Your argument comes down to this.

FAIL.



I was under the impression we were talking about maths. In any case, I did LC higher Physics and got an A1 in it while doing ordinary maths, so no, Maths is not necessary for Physics.

LC Physics has been continually made easier over the years to try and encourage more students to do it. College Physics is a different ball game. But fair play on the A1, i'm not saying it is easy just not as difficult as college. I did no physics for LC but got an A in HL Maths, managed an A and a B in college physics.