* Everything HPAT and Medicine for 2011 *

Laika_

Bbbbolger wrote: »

There is a reason Maths has an OD3 requirement for Medicine...because proficiency in it is simply not necessary to be a doctor.

Agreed!

ozzz

Bbbbolger wrote: »

There is a reason Maths has an OD3 requirement for Medicine...because proficiency in it is simply not necessary to be a doctor.

Um, Medicine also has an OD3 requirement for English...

randylonghorn

ozzz wrote: »

Um, Medicine also has an OD3 requirement for English...

And ...... ?

jumpguy

ozzz wrote: »

Um, Medicine also has an OD3 requirement for English...

One could then deduce then that proficiency in LC English is also not required to be a doctor. Your Hamlet knowledge matters as much as your calculus knowledge (hint: not at all).

QueenOfLeon

ozzz wrote: »

Um, Medicine also has an OD3 requirement for English...

NO Leaving Cert subject prepares you for medicine. Similiar skills may be needed (ability to learn, apply knowledge, memorise), but at the end of the day not one of them is useful by the time you get in.

Pugzilla

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

Could you point out which of these traits are particularly enhanced if you're good at maths?

Problem solving and analysis, ergo can be extended to medical problems. Would come in handy when conducting research and writing publications (required to get on Higher Specialist Training schemes). Also, can't hurt if you end up in an administrative role.

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

Can I ask if you're studying medicine?

Yes

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

I did honours maths, and I got an A1.

Same here

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

I know people who did pass maths, who are getting similiar results as me, who get on just as well with patients we see as I do, and are just as competent as anyone else who did honours.

You contradicted yourself. Similar =/= just as. For argument's sake I'll take your second statement. So they get the exact same marks, to the last digit? Honours vs pass maths student, considering mathematical ability is intrinsically linked to IQ, who's more intelligent on average?

However, you get diminishing returns as IQ increases so someone with a 125 IQ and the ability to empathise will be a 'better doctor' than an apathetic person with 140 IQ, all other factors like work ethic being equal.

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

NO Leaving Cert subject prepares you for medicine.

That's a blanket statement. Writing a formal letter/email is something your GP does every day of the week.

ladytwink

Thanks Queen of Leon.:) Last question would you recommend psychology biomed or pharmacy as a prelude to medicine?.. I know it all depends on what I feel most comfortable with but to be honest all are just second best for me right now.

QueenOfLeon

Pugzilla wrote: »

You contradicted yourself. Similar =/= just as. For argument's sake I'll take your second statement. So they get the exact same marks, to the last digit? Honours vs pass maths student, considering mathematical ability is intrinsically linked to IQ, who's more intelligent on average?

The whole point is that LC honours maths is not essential for medicine. You can argue intelligence, but as you said in your second point, a "technically" more intelligent person may not be better at studying and practising medicine. And yes, mathematical ability is linked to IQ, but it is not LC honours maths that you are applying in medical situations.

Pugzilla wrote: »

That's a blanket statement. Writing a formal letter/email is something your GP does every day of the week.

The Leaving Cert syllabi are not aimed towards helping you in your future course. The amount of years you spend in education should prepare you in basic skills like writing letters, knowing the difference between 2 and 20, and getting used to memorising and understanding information. You learn the skills you'll need for the future to get through your college course and on to a job, but the actual topics are completely different. Getting an A1 in Honours English will not mean you write better letters than all the other GPs :rolleyes:

jumpguy

Pugzilla wrote: »

You contradicted yourself. Similar =/= just as. For argument's sake I'll take your second statement. So they get the exact same marks, to the last digit? Honours vs pass maths student, considering mathematical ability is intrinsically linked to IQ, who's more intelligent on average?

That's a bit ridiculous, similiar could mean their results were slight above OR slightly below her's, but what would be the chances of them being the exact same? Slight variations must always be accounted for in any argument. There are many types of intelligence, which you should realise by now by looking up and seeing the world the around you - maths or IQ tests do not measure them all, in fact, they measure only a few. A good IQ test =/= a good doctor.

To use Hippocrate's (now rather clichéd) logic - as a doctor you're treating people, not diseases.

QueenOfLeon

jumpguy wrote: »

That's a bit ridiculous, similiar could mean their results were slight above OR slightly below her's, but what would be the chances of them being the exact same? Slight variations must always be accounted for in any argument. There are many types of intelligence, which you should realise by now by looking up and seeing the world the around you - maths or IQ tests do not measure them all, in fact, they measure only a few. A good IQ test =/= a good doctor.

To use Hippocrate's (now rather clichéd) logic - as a doctor you're treating people, not diseases.

I'll elaborate if my point wasn't fully understood. Some people did better than me, and within that there were a mixture of honours/pass maths. Some people did around the same as me, again, a mixture. Some people did worse, again, a mixture. There is no pattern of people who did pass maths for leaving cert performing worse in the course than those who did honours. It goes down to the effort you put into that particular subject at that particular time. The skills being tested are different.

Maybe I'm naive and by the time we get to doing clinical stuff, the pass maths people will fall. But I think its unlikely.

@ladytwink, sorry, didn't see your post I honestly couldn't help you with those, I have no experience of the GAMSAT exam or any of those courses really I know there isn't too much time but there is a well of information on boards, between the university forums (under the Edu tab at the top), the Health Sciences forum and in the Leaving Cert forum Hope you find something that you like and everything works out for you

randylonghorn

Pugzilla wrote: »

You contradicted yourself. Similar =/= just as.

It can also mean "slightly better than".

Pugzilla wrote: »

For argument's sake I'll take your second statement. So they get the exact same marks, to the last digit?

I don't mean to be rude, but who cares?

This is nit-picking pedantry which is actually causing the real point for discussion to be buried under an avalanche of irrelevancy.

Pugzilla wrote: »

Honours vs pass maths student, considering mathematical ability is intrinsically linked to IQ, who's more intelligent on average?

Firstly, you're making the fundamental mistake of equating IQ to intelligence, an assertion which any educational psychologist would be very slow to make. Yes, IQ is one (somewhat flawed) means of measuring one (rather narrow and rigid) understanding of intelligence, but that's all it is.

For one example of a broader understanding of intelligence (and one by no means irrelevant to the question "what makes a good doctor?") have a look at the work of Howard Gardner and Project Zeroth. (By the way, I am by no means promoting this particular set of theories, I am simply suggesting they are a good place to start in terms of critiquing and deconstructing the traditional narrow view of "what is intelligence?".)

theowen

This is getting annoying. In my opinion, a large number of people would be able for honors maths. Why don't they? Because it's difficult. It's not something you can just give 10 minutes a week from first year. It's easy to just not to do, simply. If you're in a bad school, and you have bad teachers and a class of people who largely don't give a ****e about school, you're never going to do well in it, unless you're lucky.

To do well in Medicine, most importantly, you need a good memory. For the most part of medical school, from my experience at least, and I can't see this changing, you're given hundreds and hundreds of pages of lecture notes to learn. You have to be able to remember 5 bullet points from a set of 200 pages of lecture notes. You have to be able to learn quickly, decide what's important and what's useless, have an ease with people and an ability to grasp complicated material quickly enough. Being able to differentiate X+1/who cares isn't going to determine if you're going to be a good doctor.

AdamD

Because its "difficult" and what you're essentially saying: not worth while, they have added 25 points to it. Are these 25 points not making it worth that extra few minutes of study?

teenagedream

AdamD wrote: »

Because its "difficult" and what you're essentially saying: not worth while, they have added 25 points to it. Are these 25 points not making it worth that extra few minutes of study?

This whole 'extra points' bewilders me completely.

spurious

AdamD wrote: »

Because its "difficult" and what you're essentially saying: not worth while, they have added 25 points to it. Are these 25 points not making it worth that extra few minutes of study?

Let's hope there are no 'difficult' cases in anyone's future.

partyatmygaff

AdamD wrote: »

Because its "difficult" and what you're essentially saying: not worth while, they have added 25 points to it. Are these 25 points not making it worth that extra few minutes of study?

Extra few minutes? With the way maths is taught you need to a few extra hours per week dedicated to maths. I literally spent at most 20 hours throughout this entire year on Chemistry. For maths I must have spent at least 200 hours if not more trying to teach myself what I should've been taught at school. Yet I felt far better after the Chemistry exam than after the Maths exam.

AdamD

Then Chemistry and Maths should not receive the same amount of points

sputnick2

Do HPAT candidates notice that there is a major discrepancy between 2010 HPAT scores and HPAT 2011 scores
We cannot find out how marks are calculated for the HPAT test but ACER stated:

"You will receive an Overall Score, and to assist you in evaluating your test performance, you will also be given a percentile ranking for your Overall Score. Note: Overall Scores are calculated by ACER to several decimal places and then rounded. It is not possible for candidates to replicate this process.Scores are reported as scaled rather than raw (number correct) scores. One reason for scaling is to ensure that HPAT-Ireland scores have the same meaning and value from year to year across different test administrations. This is important as HPAT-Ireland scores are valid for 2 years. The scores provide sufficient discrimination between candidates to enable user universities to rank applicants in a meaningful and reliable way.
Candidates will not be provided with any additional information on scores or the scoring process. All information remains the property of ACER and no right of inspection will be deemed to be vested in a candidate".

Have you noticed that in 2010 a score of 161 was in the 67 percentile but in 2011 the same score was in the 53 percentile. Surely if the scores are scaled as they say above, 161 should be in approximately the same percentile each year. In 2009 161 was in approximately the 69 percentile.
Effectively any score below 170 is worthless for getting into medicine this year
How possibly does a test which produces such varying results have any validity or reliability.
Once again students carrying forward HPAT scores from 2010 are discriminated against.

theowen

AdamD wrote: »

Because its "difficult" and what you're essentially saying: not worth while, they have added 25 points to it. Are these 25 points not making it worth that extra few minutes of study?

You're missing the point. Why should someone going for Medicine HAVE to do honors maths? If you really think it's needed, you've no idea what it's like to study Medicine.

AdamD

They don't have to study honors maths. Last time I checked you will still be able to get into medicine with a good LC and HPAT, you wont need 625 points. The people who put the extra effort into Maths, rather than a subject like Chemistry which seemingly takes a lot less effort, will be rewarded for it.

Pugzilla

randylonghorn wrote: »

Firstly, you're making the fundamental mistake of equating IQ to intelligence, an assertion which any educational psychologist would be very slow to make. Yes, IQ is one (somewhat flawed) means of measuring one (rather narrow and rigid) understanding of intelligence, but that's all it is.

Fair enough, but it's still the most studied and reliable measurement of general intelligence and predictor of job performance. The other so-called "intelligences" are very subjective and wish washy.

jumpguy wrote: »

To use Hippocrate's (now rather clichéd) logic - as a doctor you're treating people, not diseases.

Doctors are nonetheless disease oriented while it's the Nurses that are patient oriented and take a more holistic approach. Medical vs Nursing Model

ozzz

randylonghorn wrote: »

And ...... ?

Is that saying doctors don't need to be good at English?

QueenOfLeon

AdamD wrote: »

They don't have to study honors maths. Last time I checked you will still be able to get into medicine with a good LC and HPAT, you wont need 625 points. The people who put the extra effort into Maths, rather than a subject like Chemistry which seemingly takes a lot less effort, will be rewarded for it.

Your original point was that people who are incapable of Honours Maths will be incapable of completing 6 years of medicine. I think its insulting to imply that.

ozzz wrote: »

Is that saying doctors don't need to be good at English?

Speaking and communicating, yes. But there is a low entry requirement (D3 or so) because they are unrelated to learning about poetry and Shakespeare.

theowen

AdamD wrote: »

They don't have to study honors maths. Last time I checked you will still be able to get into medicine with a good LC and HPAT, you wont need 625 points. The people who put the extra effort into Maths, rather than a subject like Chemistry which seemingly takes a lot less effort, will be rewarded for it.

Off the mark again. We're/I'm saying is that with this new rule you'll need honors maths to have a chance of getting med due to the new 25 point rule. And that because one's maths ability determines in no way how one will do in med school, or as a doctor, if someone does pass maths, it shouldn't immediately rule them out of their dream course and job.

Anyway, maths isn't getting these extra points because it's difficult, and I know I used that word. It's getting it because the numbers taking it are too low. And we need people doing maths to enrich out knowledge based economy. But that's tied in to the fact that maths is needed so we have more science graduates. So why shouldn't the extra points only go for courses where maths is actually used?

randylonghorn

Pugzilla wrote: »

Fair enough, but it's still the most studied ...

Yes, probably.

Pugzilla wrote: »

...and reliable measurement of general intelligence ...

Highly contested statement, especially among those who have actually done all that study.

Pugzilla wrote: »

... and predictor of job performance.

Seriously, you need to back that up with some very serious evidence from academic / peer-reviewed journals if you want to convince me, as most of the evidence I have seen from those sources, and indeed, my own personal experience, would indicate otherwise.

Pugzilla wrote: »

The other so-called "intelligences" are very subjective and wish washy.

I would argue that they simply haven't gotten the attention or study as yet, hence why I said that I wasn't promoting those theories as any kind of dogma. What I think such studies have done best so far is to cast doubt on the traditional narrow and dogmatic views of "intelligence" so beloved of people who like to try to reduce human beings to mathematical equations and values.

AdamD

theowen wrote: »

Off the mark again. We're/I'm saying is that with this new rule you'll need honors maths to have a chance of getting med due to the new 25 point rule. And that because one's maths ability determines in no way how one will do in med school, or as a doctor, if someone does pass maths, it shouldn't immediately rule them out of their dream course and job.

Anyway, maths isn't getting these extra points because it's difficult, and I know I used that word. It's getting it because the numbers taking it are too low. And we need people doing maths to enrich out knowledge based economy. But that's tied in to the fact that maths is needed so we have more science graduates. So why shouldn't the extra points only go for courses where maths is actually used?

Quite simply no, no you won't.

Bbbbolger

You might not "need" to do honors Maths to get into Medicine, but with entry into it as tight as it is now you more than likely will have to have it. Now, you technically dont "need" to get over 500 points to get Medicine but there are very few peoiple getting into Medicine without a score in the low to mid 500's. Sure there are some who could get in with 480 or 490 points but for the vast majority it wont happen. The same will most likely happen with honours Maths. You wont need it to get into Medicine and some people will get in without the 25 bonus points. For the vast majority however, bonus points will be a necessity to aquiring a place, as the competition will be too steep from people doing higher Maths.

Pugzilla

randylonghorn wrote: »

Seriously, you need to back that up with some very serious evidence from academic / peer-reviewed journals if you want to convince me, as most of the evidence I have seen from those sources, and indeed, my own personal experience, would indicate otherwise.

Smidth and Hunter concluded that "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/96/1/72/

'Mainstream Science on Intelligence', issued by 52 academic researchers, stated among other things that:

1. "Intelligence is a very general mental capability ... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings ..."
2. "Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments."
3. "While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence."
4. "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measureable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"
5. "A high IQ is an advantage because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making"

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

randylonghorn wrote: »

What I think such studies have done best so far is to cast doubt on the traditional narrow and dogmatic views of "intelligence" so beloved of people who like to try to reduce human beings to mathematical equations and values.

What little understanding we have of neuroscience suggests we can be defined like this. Humans are not exempt from fundamental laws of nature. They're called laws for a reason. We're extremely insignificant in the grand order of the universe, no amount of human exceptionalism or anthropocentrism wil change that. We have no special status.

QueenOfLeon

Pugzilla wrote: »

'Mainstream Science on Intelligence', issued by 52 academic researchers, stated among other things that:

1. "Intelligence is a very general mental capability ... it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings ..."
2. "Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments."
3. "While there are different types of intelligence tests, they all measure the same intelligence."
4. "IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measureable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes ... Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance"
5. "A high IQ is an advantage because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making"

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

And where does sitting the Irish Leaving Cert Honours Maths exam come into all this? Not doing the actual exam for various reasons does not necessarily equal a low IQ, if that is the way you want to moniter "intelligence".

Pugzilla

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

And where does sitting the Irish Leaving Cert Honours Maths exam come into all this? Not doing the actual exam for various reasons does not necessarily equal a low IQ, if that is the way you want to moniter "intelligence".

Randy and I were going off topic, leave us be.