One Year On from the HPAT: Women still kicking ass.

Jane5

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/1109/1224282943597.html

:D:D

The above is worth a look. I especially like this quote:

"Another interesting feature of the UCD figures is the return to dominance of female candidates, after only one year of the new system. One of the concerns of many in the medical establishment, which led to the introduction of the HPat test in the first place, was the dominance of females in the old points race for medicine.
The figures for 2010 show that if female applicants were caught unprepared for HPat in 2009, they weren’t long in rectifying that situation. They have now, in the case of UCD at least, re-established their two-to-one ratio of success in securing undergraduate places."

Whatever will they do about forcing the folk with uteruses (uteri?) out now? I mean, they introduced an extra hurdle designed to favour men with the expressed intent of more boys succeeding at the expense of girls-and the girls are STILL doing better.

The only option now is out and out sexism. They will have to simply tell girls they cannot become doctors because they are girls, and might someday cost the State 26 weeks of maternity leave giving birth to a good little taxpayer.

candlegrease

Jane5 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/1109/1224282943597.html

:D:D

The above is worth a look. I especially like this quote:

"Another interesting feature of the UCD figures is the return to dominance of female candidates, after only one year of the new system. One of the concerns of many in the medical establishment, which led to the introduction of the HPat test in the first place, was the dominance of females in the old points race for medicine.
The figures for 2010 show that if female applicants were caught unprepared for HPat in 2009, they weren’t long in rectifying that situation. They have now, in the case of UCD at least, re-established their two-to-one ratio of success in securing undergraduate places."

Whatever will they do about forcing the folk with uteruses (uteri?) out now? I mean, they introduced an extra hurdle designed to favour men with the expressed intent of more boys succeeding at the expense of girls-and the girls are STILL doing better.

The only option now is out and out sexism. They will have to simply tell girls they cannot become doctors because they are girls, and might someday cost the State 26 weeks of maternity leave giving birth to a good little taxpayer.

Pretty bitter post.

I think if women are doing better and taking up more spots, then that's because they obviously are better on average.

I don't see a need to balance it. If women make better doctors, then they should get more places.

Chuchoter

That was a rather offensive post. Its not my fault if the men can't get the requirements. An increased female work force will only require the system to become more life friendly. Everyone benefits.

Sid_Justice

what med school are you in? (or what hospital do you work in)?

if you think maternity leave is a trivial issue in actually important jobs you're very deluded.

Piste

I think the main problem with there being so many female Dr's is that many of them leave the system in their 30s to start families, leaving time-intensive slots unfilled. Of course the typical Irish solution to an Irish problem was to of course change the system so that there would be fewer female doctors in years to come, as opposed to change the system to make it more conducive to having a family. Hopefully the powers that be will see that the change hasn't worked and will instead look at WHY so many women leave the health system when they begin to have kids, and what can be done to solve it.

ORLY?

candlegrease wrote: »

If women make better doctors, then they should get more places.

Whether or not women or men make better doctors is not indicated by leaving cert results or either gender's ability to get into or in fact, out of, med school.

There are other factors beyond maternity. Women will always be more likely to go for GP no matter what changes are made because as independent contractors they have far more flexibility than any other doctors and hence it is more suited to family life. Without some effort at gender balancing, other specialities will suffer.

Also, even within GP having a severe dominance of women isn't good. Some patients prefer to see a doctor of their own gender.

Also, it is known that the system has favoured women getting in but this is not to say that the leaving cert +/- the HPAT is the best system for choosing candidates and that the candidates it chooses are the best suited.

It may turn out too that the bonus points for honours maths may end up giving another helping hand to the lads.

Jane5

I'm not bitter, far from it! I was gloating at the fact that they tried to bring in something blatantly discriminatory, and actually stated outright that they were making getting into medicine different from getting into all other university courses because they didn't want girls getting in all the time, and then it backfired on them. And when they award bonus points for maths, it will backfire AGAIN. And again.

I'm not suggesting women are superior, or that men or inferior or anything silly like that.

What I am suggesting is that people, male or female, will do what it takes to get what they want in life, and if they want to be doctors, they are usually highly motivated, and they will do what it takes to get there.

The fact is more women want to be doctors than men. More men want to be electrical engineers than women, however, curiously I saw no hand wringing and gnashing of teeth to bring gender balance to electrical engineering. Why?

The poster above who stated that medicine will have to become like other jobs and have options for normal everyday people who have families is correct. Medicine is not and should not be like joining the priesthood (or more appropriately, a nunnery )It should be possible to have a life and be normal, healthy and well adjusted while working as a doctor. It is in many other countries.

Baggly

Jane5 wrote: »

I'm not bitter, far from it! I was gloating at the fact that they tried to bring in something blatantly discriminatory, and actually stated outright that they were making getting into medicine different from getting into all other university courses because they didn't want girls getting in all the time, and then it backfired on them. And when they award bonus points for maths, it will backfire AGAIN. And again.

I'm not suggesting women are superior, or that men or inferior or anything silly like that.

What I am suggesting is that people, male or female, will do what it takes to get what they want in life, and if they want to be doctors, they are usually highly motivated, and they will do what it takes to get there.

The fact is more women want to be doctors than men. More men want to be electrical engineers than women, however, curiously I saw no hand wringing and gnashing of teeth to bring gender balance to electrical engineering. Why?

The poster above who stated that medicine will have to become like other jobs and have options for normal everyday people who have families is correct. Medicine is not and should not be like joining the priesthood (or more appropriately, a nunnery )It should be possible to have a life and be normal, healthy and well adjusted while working as a doctor. It is in many other countries.

One would perhaps put forward that no-one is paying any attention to getting ANYONE into engineering at the moment.

I would equate this to the rumor that has been going around the last few years that the state are crying out for male primary school teachers. Sometimes gender balance IS good, IMO. Discrimination obviously isn't, ill agree. But then i think the leaving cert and points system is pants when it comes to medicine. I don't think the current system is fair on anyone.

ORLY?

Jane5 wrote: »

The fact is more women want to be doctors than men.

Really? I can't offer any evidence one way or the other on this but what evidence do you have?

Jane5 wrote: »

More men want to be electrical engineers than women, however, curiously I saw no hand wringing and gnashing of teeth to bring gender balance to electrical engineering. Why?

There have been numerous attempts to get more women into engineering.

The below is part of a wider campaign to get more women into engineering.

http://www.eastchance.com/anunt.asp?q=339,eu,sch

Granted, the attempt is pretty feeble but the SFI, the government, IRCSET and a whole host of other people have been going on for years about evening things up. I'm not sure as to why it is necessary really, I can see the need in medicine due to the gender divides in specialities and in the desire to allow patients have some choice, especially at GP level.

Anyway, entry into engineering is different as it is vastly easier than getting into medicine and there is no question that the system is making it too difficult for one gender to get in.

That doubt is there with medicine.

Jane5 wrote:

The poster above who stated that medicine will have to become like other jobs and have options for normal everyday people who have families is correct.

Medicine does need to be less life consuming but it will not nor should it ever be as flexible as your standard 9-5 type job. It never can be.
Also, as you have said, "people, will do what it takes to get what they want in life, and if they want to be doctors, they are usually highly motivated, and they will do what it takes to get there". Maybe doing "what it takes" to be a successful doctor in some specialities involves not being a "normal everyday person".

was gloating at the fact that they tried to bring in something blatantly discriminatory

Is the leaving cert discriminating against men by hindering those that would make very good doctors from getting in in favour of women?

Jane5

Engineering requires very high LC points, and honours maths. Not any easier to get into than medicine now, except there is no corresponding "EngPAT" additional exam required.

How in the name of all that is holy can the Leaving Cert be discriminating against men?? Even if we were to assume that for some reason rote learning, which there can be a lot of in the LC cannot be achieved by men (and hence they would be likely to do poorly as doctors anyway) there are numerous subjects that are considered to be more suited to male brains.

They could do Physics, Honours Maths, Chemistry, Business Studies, and the obligatory Irish, English and one foreign language. They could do bloody Tech Drawing. Why is that choice of subjects any more suited to women than it is to men?

That whole argument is completely fallacious. You know who the LC is skewed towards? Academically gifted people. Like all other exams. The un-PC thing here is that medicine needs academically gifted people. Stupid doctors kill people, no matter how sweet and pleasant and well rounded they are while they do it.

My point is that, for whatever reason, more women are choosing to become doctors than men. No matter what the entry criteria.

Also, interestingly, I have known of two male doctors in the last six months who threw in the towel because of the lifestyle, one who left hospital medicine to do GP, and one who left medicine altogether because the hours were incompatible with their having a family and a life. It's not all the wimmin that leave just because they want babies.

Baggly

Engineering requires high points, medicine requires a perfect score. There is a difference.

Men and women develop at different paces during puberty. Males do get high scores and females do get high scores, but females perform better.

So, hypothethically, if a male comes into full mental prowess two years after the LC, their futures should still be determined by a test of how developed they were academically two years ago?

Personally id love to see a minimum age introduced across both genders for entry into medicine. Prove yourself at college level; when hormones are less prevalent as a factor, and then apply based on life experience, aptitude tests and academic tests. Difficult to implement but surely a little more rounded a measure.

j.mcdrmd

Pter wrote: »

Personally id love to see a minimum age introduced across both genders for entry into medicine. Prove yourself at college level; when hormones are less prevalent as a factor, and then apply based on life experience, aptitude tests and academic tests. Difficult to implement but surely a little more rounded a measure.

This would probably upset the gender balance in medicine.

Both genders would graduate later with huge student loans to pay off. But it would not suit most of those women who wish to have a family. Nor those of either gender capable of getting in after leaving cert.

Baggly

Or (assuming the country gets back on its feet), money can be saved up and a decent credit rating can be established. We have less people going for medicine just because they have the aptitude for LC exams, and we have more people who are SURE that being a doctor is the LIFE for them and not just the career. A problem mentioned above.

ORLY?

Jane5 wrote: »

Engineering requires very high LC points, and honours maths. Not any easier to get into than medicine now

It's way easier to get into engineering than medicine, way way easier. Many engineering courses that would have required min 450 points before now only require around 380 and a C3 in honours maths. That's not to say that these are easy courses, many are more difficult than medicine but they definitely are way easier to get into.

Jane5 wrote:

How in the name of all that is holy can the Leaving Cert be discriminating against men??

I never said that it was. What some people would argue is that boys are naturally more easily distracted at 16/17 and not as focussed. I have no idea if this is true. I just aksed the question.

How is HPAT discriminatory? You haven't shown that it is.

My point is that, for whatever reason, more women are choosing to become doctors than men. No matter what the entry criteria.

Are they? Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, what evidence do you have for this?

ORLY?

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

But it would not suit most of those women who wish to have a family. Nor those of either gender capable of getting in after leaving cert.

Is this not the system in America and Canada? What is the gender balance like there?

Scambuster

The leaving certificate does discriminate against men.
Languages are over represented compared to numerical subjects which favours girls. Men are more likely to be participate in sport at that age which also goes against them.

j.mcdrmd

Pter wrote: »

We have less people going for medicine just because they have the aptitude for LC exams, and we have more people who are SURE that being a doctor is the LIFE for them and not just the career. A problem mentioned above.

I am noticing a move against the academic person of either gender who happens to bother to study very hard, and/or those who are gifted enough to have a life and get points. What exactly is wrong with them?

Some people seem to think that if you are clever you cannot be social, they are wrong. Some would be more social than others, granted, but you get that in most careers.

Not all doctors are working on the front line dealing with patients. What about research? Do you want a nice social type chatting over coffee or a cure for whatever disease.

Being SURE that being a doctor is the LIFE for a person does not always translate into actually getting down to doing the work to make if possible.

Baggly

Im suggesting both should be present, not one or the other.

What im suggesting is we employ a system that allows for the person to figure out if they have the will to do it as well as the inclination.

Nothing against academics (im one myself). I just know, from my own experience, i would do things much differently now when you compare it to 18 and i daresay im a smarter and more balanced individual to make that kind of decision to boot.

j.mcdrmd

ORLY? wrote: »

Is this not the system in America and Canada? What is the gender balance like there?

Oh yeah, it is the system in both places. Don't know the gender balance, but I am guessing close to the usual 50/50 maybe?

BUT, the system there is that you go to college and rack up the debts, then go to grad school and rack up some more. Is that what you really want?

The system here uses what I regard as a much fairer way. It taxes people who are earning and then has "free" access to education for those who prove that they can benefit from it. Well at least it is trying to do this.

The system you advocate will be absolutely great for those with money and can pay the fees, but terrible for those without.

I favour meritocary myself.

Baggly

And then the free education recipients move abroad due to lack of hiring in the HSE.

EDIT: Sorry for the ninja edit.


Acknowledging of course not all doctors will elect to work for the HSE

j.mcdrmd

Pter wrote: »

And then the free education recipients move abroad due to lack of hiring in the HSE.

Acknowledging of course not all doctors will elect to work for the HSE

You are correct they are leaving and it is a stupid waste of resources.

It is not due to the lack of hiring by the HSE though, anything but, they cannot get enough applicants for NCHD jobs.

Why is this? I can give you four reasons for starters:-

1. They are paying less than the minimum wage for hour worked in some hospitals. (How can they live and repay loans?)

2. They are not able to provide adequate patient care because lots of jobs are unfilled and they have not got time. (Would you be scared?)

3. They are not getting proper training because there is no time available from their superiors. (Would you want adequate training?)

4. They are working such long hours that they are constantly exhausted. (Would that be your life style choice?)

Baggly

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

You are correct they are leaving and it is a stupid waste of resources.

It is not due to the lack of hiring by the HSE though, anything but, they cannot get enough applicants for NCHD jobs.

Why is this? I can give you four reasons for starters:-

1. They are paying less than the minimum wage for hour worked in some hospitals. (How can they live and repay loans?)

2. They are not able to provide adequate patient care because lots of jobs are unfilled and they have not got time. (Would you be scared?)

3. They are not getting proper training because there is no time available from their superiors. (Would you want adequate training?)

4. They are working such long hours that they are constantly exhausted. (Would that be your life style choice?)

I think we are straying from the original point that the powers that be are screwing women out of places they earn by merit.

Ill admit, in the current system, women are kicking ass at the exam they are being asked to sit. And im jealous of that. Lord knows id love to have been smart enough at 17 to go for medicine. Ive chosen a different path; thats fine.

What i am saying is that rather than discriminate one way or another, why not change the system. The reason the courses are so long in other countries and the reason you pile grad school (and the corresponding fees) on top of college is that the job and career they are electing to persue involved life and death (be it research or frontline, they deal with how people live or die). And with the greatest amount of respect to any young person aspiring to become a doctor, the older you are, the more experience you have and the more life experience you have, the happier patients will be.

I do think that you are thinking far too short term. Yes, it is tough for doctors at the start of their career. Yes their social life will suffer and they will wrack up debts, but being a doctor is a life long vocation! I think, while your friends may have left, the majority of doctors are in it for the long haul. And as such, they stand to make money down the line. I would imagine a lot of doctors see this long game.

Paying for fees may block some of the lower earning families from sending children to become doctors, but no system is perfect, and as you readily admit yourself, people are being educated for free and leaving. They thereby cannot add to the pool of people 'who can pay'.

I understand and respect your argument, but we are leaving the debate of gender balance for medicine students and tip-toeing, i think, towards whether doctors should pay fees and what is an appropriate system of tax to pay for that.

ORLY?

j.mcdrmd wrote: »

BUT, the system there is that you go to college and rack up the debts, then go to grad school and rack up some more. Is that what you really want?

The system you advocate will be absolutely great for those with money and can pay the fees, but terrible for those without.

I favour meritocary myself.

I was merely asking if the two degree system in the States and Canada had lead to gender imbalance as you said it would in Ireland.

I don't know if there is an imbalance over there or not, that's why I was asking.

Funding of education etc. is suited to a different thread. For what its worth, I believe that all possibilities should be open to everyone based on merit.

Anthony16

Jane5 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2010/1109/1224282943597.html

:D:D

The above is worth a look. I especially like this quote:

"Another interesting feature of the UCD figures is the return to dominance of female candidates, after only one year of the new system. One of the concerns of many in the medical establishment, which led to the introduction of the HPat test in the first place, was the dominance of females in the old points race for medicine.
The figures for 2010 show that if female applicants were caught unprepared for HPat in 2009, they weren’t long in rectifying that situation. They have now, in the case of UCD at least, re-established their two-to-one ratio of success in securing undergraduate places."

Whatever will they do about forcing the folk with uteruses (uteri?) out now? I mean, they introduced an extra hurdle designed to favour men with the expressed intent of more boys succeeding at the expense of girls-and the girls are STILL doing better.

The only option now is out and out sexism. They will have to simply tell girls they cannot become doctors because they are girls, and might someday cost the State 26 weeks of maternity leave giving birth to a good little taxpayer.

I agree.I was delighted when i found out that all the preparation they did for the 2nd year of the hpat worked.There are a few in my class though who missed out on medicine and they really should be there

Piste

Jane5 wrote: »

The fact is more women want to be doctors than men. More men want to be electrical engineers than women, however, curiously I saw no hand wringing and gnashing of teeth to bring gender balance to electrical engineering. Why?

In fairness, SFI does run scholarship schemes for girls going into engineering/computer science courses who get A1s in maths and physics, it's a pretty decent package too, you get money, a laptop and internships in respected industries, so yes there is some effort to increase the number of women in Engineering.

Scambuster wrote: »

The leaving certificate does discriminate against men.
Languages are over represented compared to numerical subjects which favours girls. Men are more likely to be participate in sport at that age which also goes against them.

Sport are optional though, it's a guy's choice if he wants to pursue sports at the expense of his grades. I agree that languages are overrepresented, but that's because all the EU languages have to be examinable, as well as languages like Arabic, Chinese and Russian for all the native speakers here. it's possible to do a Leaving Cert suited towards your abilities if you're a scientific/maths type person.

Pter wrote: »

What i am saying is that rather than discriminate one way or another, why not change the system. The reason the courses are so long in other countries and the reason you pile grad school (and the corresponding fees) on top of college is that the job and career they are electing to persue involved life and death (be it research or frontline, they deal with how people live or die). And with the greatest amount of respect to any young person aspiring to become a doctor, the older you are, the more experience you have and the more life experience you have, the happier patients will be.

I do think that you are thinking far too short term. Yes, it is tough for doctors at the start of their career. Yes their social life will suffer and they will wrack up debts, but being a doctor is a life long vocation! I think, while your friends may have left, the majority of doctors are in it for the long haul. And as such, they stand to make money down the line. I would imagine a lot of doctors see this long game.

But will this ensure a better class of graduate? In the US and Canada students go to med school 4 years later than they do here, I've seen no evidence that their standard of doctor is superior to ours, though it would be an interesting area to look into. I'm doing undergrad medicine and can hold my own in exams against people who have science undergraduate degrees already, having a degree prior to entering medicine doesn't necessarily make you more likely to be a better student/doctor.

Chuchoter

Scambuster wrote: »

The leaving certificate does discriminate against men.
Languages are over represented compared to numerical subjects which favours girls. Men are more likely to be participate in sport at that age which also goes against them.

Generalization. There are plenty of numerical subjects (and I should know, I take all three sciences and applied maths) and if you want to take them you can. English is mandatory because frankly if you can't think, formulate and express your own opinions you're not going to do brilliantly later on. Irish...yeah fine its stupid and the foreign language is pretty standard requirement. I'd also like to point out that I'm a girl and I do sport and like these subjects. I'd like to do more sport but get this I have a leaving cert to study for.

bohemian2010

As a final year male medical student, prob playing devils advocate but feel i have to respond to 1 or 2 of the 1st posters who seem to think women make better doctors based on their performance in the leaving cert. All the leaving cert is is a test of your ability to rote learn material and subsequently regurgitate it onto paper, preclinical medicine is mostly that aswell...and predictably females in my year also performed better than their male counterparts on these memory tests. however (and this is where i predict i will be incur wrath) when in clinical medicine a noticeable shift occurred, previous "average" students (mostly but not exclusively male) who prob didnt spend as much time rote learning facts in preclinical started to outperform these previous high flyers....in terms of their ability to ellicit symptoms on history, physical signs on examination and correlate it with a list of possible conditions causing the findings, and devise a plan re investigations and therapeutic options... rotelearning things out of books is one thing..something which females are better at evidently however when it comes to performance on the wards/clinics/theatre theres a noticeable equalisation of performance between the sexes...as an aside one of our professors of surgery (an international expert in his chosen field) told us that he graduated with a pass degree...whilst his classmate who received the gold medal is now working part time as a GP.......

tallaght01

bohemian2010 wrote: »

As a final year male medical student, prob playing devils advocate but feel i have to respond to 1 or 2 of the 1st posters who seem to think women make better doctors based on their performance in the leaving cert. All the leaving cert is is a test of your ability to rote learn material and subsequently regurgitate it onto paper, preclinical medicine is mostly that aswell...and predictably females in my year also performed better than their male counterparts on these memory tests. however (and this is where i predict i will be incur wrath) when in clinical medicine a noticeable shift occurred, previous "average" students (mostly but not exclusively male) who prob didnt spend as much time rote learning facts in preclinical started to outperform these previous high flyers....in terms of their ability to ellicit symptoms on history, physical signs on examination and correlate it with a list of possible conditions causing the findings, and devise a plan re investigations and therapeutic options... rotelearning things out of books is one thing..something which females are better at evidently however when it comes to performance on the wards/clinics/theatre theres a noticeable equalisation of performance between the sexes...as an aside one of our professors of surgery (an international expert in his chosen field) told us that he graduated with a pass degree...whilst his classmate who received the gold medal is now working part time as a GP.......

Surgeons wouldn't generally be thought of as being the most academic docs in the hospital, in fairness :P And there's nothing wrong with being a GP. Some of the finest dos I've ever met are GPs. In fact, the 2 most inspirational docs I met in my junior years were GPs. med students have tis notion that GP is easy, whereas the reality is the being a good quality generalist is every bit as hard as any other specialty. Being a GP is the one specialty I wouldn't be confident trying.

And despite your anecdotes, the only exam shown to correlate well with med school results (all the way through) has been the A-levels, but presumably the same would be seen if someone looked at the LC.

As the medical educationalists say "the best predictor of future performance is past performance".

2Scoops

tallaght01 wrote: »

And despite your anecdotes, the only exam shown to correlate well with med school results (all the way through) has been the A-levels, but presumably the same would be seen if someone looked at the LC.

I'd like to see the source for the A-level part... but even if it's true, the LC is completely different to A-levels, so I wouldn't presume any equivalence.

bohemian2010

Surgeons wouldn't generally be thought of as being the most academic docs in the hospital, in fairness

I think all the trainee surgeons who are currently doing 3/4 year research pHDs and have been published multiple times in international journals in an effort to get on HST schemes might disagree
just finished a colorectal/general surgical rotation where funnily enough the consultant was a female (excellent surgeon btw) and she was prob the most academic consultant ive met - completely obsessed about academic research (another anecdote i know ).

And there's nothing wrong with being a GP. Some of the finest dos I've ever met are GPs. In fact, the 2 most inspirational docs I met in my junior years were GPs. med students have tis notion that GP is easy, whereas the reality is the being a good quality generalist is every bit as hard as any other specialty. Being a GP is the one specialty I wouldn't be confident trying.

I think I phrased myself badly sorry, ive the height of respect for GPs i hope it didnt come across as if i didnt, i agree completely my own gp is a credit to the medical profession and prob works more hours than most consultants too...my supervising gp on my GP/primary care rotation also was an extremely motivated and competent physician...when the surgeon was telling us that story he prob was using stereotypes to illustrate his point but his main arguement that so much of where you go in medicine depends on variables other than exam results....he was just saying that he wouldnt of been the "brightest" student in his class but once qualified he put his shoulder to the wheel and ground out a successfull career....in saying that the part time GP prob had more sense...the surgeon prob would swap careers .

And despite your anecdotes, the only exam shown to correlate well with med school results (all the way through) has been the A-levels, but presumably the same would be seen if someone looked at the LC.

fair point id suspect there is a corellation but correlation being a quantitative measurement how much of an r value? is there a strong correlation r = 0.9? moderate correlation r = 0.5? weak correlation r = 0.2? dont want to be pedantic about this but how conclusive is correlation anyways, have they established causation? have they normalised other variables....statistical tests can be (as you well know im sure) misleading and can be manipulated? and anyways im not saying every average student outperformed academic high fliers in clinical i was just saying that there was a significant narrowing in the gap and im sure when we qualify other variables will kick in i.e ability to work well with team members, relationship with consultants re job references, confidence and sheer bloody mindedness!

As the medical educationalists say "the best predictor of future performance is past performance".

Couldnt agree more....past performance in exams which measure how good your ability to rote learn is the best predictor of future performance in exams which measure how good your ability to rote learn is..I'm not disputing that! However does past performance in these exams accurately predict how well you're going to do re working successfully in a team, completing independent original research (not rote learning), building rapport with patients, presenting case studies in an articulate manner at conferences...I suspect not

HQvhs

http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7407/139.full

http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7343/952.full

http://www.bmj.com/content/293/6539/124.abstract

http://www.bmj.com/content/316/7128/345.abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1991.tb00076.x/full

Intrigued by tallaght01's claim about A-levels being a predictor I did a quick search for evidence and these are the first few papers I came across, one of which is a systematic review. Now this wasn't a very thorough search, and I didn't analyse in detail each paper (I don't have that kind of time on my hands!) but they were interesting nonetheless, and I think everyone should have a quick peek at them.

Basically, A-Level results aren't a perfect predictor of med school exam success but there is a slight correlation. But this doesn't hold for post-graduate success.

Personally, I don't think the LC is any better or worse than the HPAT at selecting candidates for med school. It is basically a test of rote-learning. True, you need that, but as these papers show there is so much more to being a good doctor than simply memorising facts. However, I'm not sure the HPAT really adds too much.

Besides, on a more basic level, there is something fundamentally wrong with an entrance system that discriminates against 50% of the population. Before the HPAT, the female:male ratio in Irish med schools was over 70:30. There is no data out there to support the fact that women are much better doctors than men, but it is known that the LC suits women better. I think that is the issue that needs to be addressed. Stop-gap measures such as the HPAT aren't sufficient. The LC and second-level education needs to be reformed in order to figure out why men are underperforming relative to women. We must ensure that we have the best possible candidates entering all paths of life, not just medicine. And I simply don't believe that 70% of the best possible candidates are women, and only 30% are men. I think it lies closer to 50:50 because we're not all that different at the end of the day.

The same, of course, applies to any course. The points for medicine may have been high (570+), but other courses also have high points which favour women over men for no reason other than the fact that women are better at the LC, but not necessarily better people.