New Medicine route required...

LittleMissLost

I know someone who got 600 points and did the HPAT but did not get into medicine.

That person is now doing dentistry in Trinity.. just sayin' ..

2Scoops

Dr. Ring wrote: »

But therein lies my point: Poor preperation. You should not have to prepare for the HPAT in any way, shape or form if it's underlying principles are to test someone's suitability.

It's easy to misunderstand the power of the HPAT, or any test, to measure 'innate' qualities. With preparation, the scores will plateau; that means if everyone prepared equally well, some would still never get a good score. The value of the HPAT is predicate on people preparing properly and they have never suggested otherwise, though I readily admit it's the common perception.

Dr. Ring

kellogscoffey wrote: »

Have to say i disagree fundamentally with this. 3 good friends of mine are applying for Med, and each of them is capable of 600 points, and put in enough work to deserve 600. I know these 3 would make excellent doctors and are all excellent communicators themselves. Its easy to claim that academic excellence fosters a social ineptitude or some form of communication deficieny, but in reality, it doesn't.

Also, I personally think the minimum requirement of 480 points is too low. Medicine is among the most highly contested courses - its not unreasonable to think it should command an exceptional level of special treatment. I've no problem with the HPAT lowering the minimum points requirement, but in reality, noone is getting in to medicine with <530/540 points. I don't think asking for a minimum of 530/540 is unreasonable, given the prestige associated with the medicine.

But that's just me :P

I agree 480 is too low. And just to clarify, I did say "for the most part" when referring to socially awkward, 600 point Doctors. There are some out there who are very intelligent but at the same time are lovely, caring people. But have you never had an experience with one of those Doctors who cannot look you in the eye, keeps scribbling down their notes and is generally difficult to have a conversation with?

Personally I have (one in the last 3 months) and I have to admit that it made an already tense/anxiety-filled situation ten times worse. I was far more reluctant to reveal any information to that Doctor because I felt as though I was inconveniencing him by being in his presence or requiring his help.

2Scoops

Dr. Ring wrote: »

But do you not see how someone who gets 515 in the LC having to repeat is an absolute joke?

I agree, but the CAO is operating a meritocracy - how can you justify giving a place to someone with less points than another?

Dr. Ring

2Scoops wrote: »

I would much rather a 520 pointer with a stellar HPAT than a 600 pointer who can't get answer a few straight forward questions.

Straight forward? Have you actually seen some of the questions the HPAT boasts? Some are quite difficult at the best of times to deduce. Add that to the fact that you may only have 1-2 minutes to answer and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Dr. Ring

NotExactly wrote: »

You would think that but no. You can improve yourself at everything. When you're born you're not born to be a doctor. You can improve at IQ tests if you keep practicing them, there's tonnes of more of examples.

So therefore your point is you can increase your aptitude for being a Doctor with lots of practise? Does that in itself not tell you that the HPAT is flawed?

With the HPAT, the idea is either you have it or you dont. Yet your saying that you can get better with practise? Surely that supports my point that it's not working?

Dr. Ring

2Scoops wrote: »

It's easy to misunderstand the power of the HPAT, or any test, to measure 'innate' qualities. With preparation, the scores will plateau; that means if everyone prepared equally well, some would still never get a good score. The value of the HPAT is predicate on people preparing properly and they have never suggested otherwise, though I readily admit it's the common perception.

Yes but the point you made suggested that those who did not prepare for the HPAT generally did worse than those who did. Not pondering what would happen if everyone did the same preperation.

2Scoops

Dr. Ring wrote: »

Straight forward? Have you actually seen some of the questions the HPAT boasts? Some are quite difficult at the best of times to deduce. Add that to the fact that you may only have 1-2 minutes to answer and it's a disaster waiting to happen.

I have seen them, and they make sense for the most part. People who do poorly are people who can't see through the questions and those are people with lower reading comprehension and situational awareness. And the purpose of the test is to stratify people on these qualities.

LilMissCiara

Dr. Ring wrote: »

So therefore your point is you can increase your aptitude for being a Doctor with lots of practise? Does that in itself not tell you that the HPAT is flawed?

With the HPAT, the idea is either you have it or you dont. Yet your saying that you can get better with practise? Surely that supports my point that it's not working?

Wouldn't a limit on taking the test twice solve this problem (I say twice rather than once because a person's performance may be greatly effected the first time (by a bereavement, illness etc.) so a 2nd chance option should be in place.

2Scoops

Dr. Ring wrote: »

Yes but the point you made suggested that those who did not prepare for the HPAT generally did worse than those who did. Not pondering what would happen if everyone did the same preperation.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I readily admit that preparation affects HPAT score. But I also accept the validity of HPAT in those who prepare properly. There is no contradiction, except to those who believe the test result should be same regardless of preparation.

Dr. Ring

2Scoops wrote: »

I agree, but the CAO is operating a meritocracy - how can you justify giving a place to someone with less points than another?

I cant and I'm not trying to. The HPAT was designed to give a chance to those who would generally fall short of Medicine's demanding points requirements. 480 is currently the threshold for eligibility (albeit too low). 515 is an excellent Leaving Cert score yet because this person did worse than someone who spent money on prep courses and did better, they lost out. Both applicant may have been just as suitable to start with but the prep course gave the latter the edge. Thus the HPAT is failing. That's all I'm saying buddy.

2Scoops

Dr. Ring wrote: »

I cant and I'm not trying to. The HPAT was designed to give a chance to those who would generally fall short of Medicine's demanding points requirements. 480 is currently the threshold for eligibility (albeit too low). 515 is an excellent Leaving Cert score yet because this person did worse than someone who spent money on prep courses and did better, they lost out. Both applicant may have been just as suitable to start with but the prep course gave the latter the edge. Thus the HPAT is failing. That's all I'm saying buddy.

Good preparation does not need a prep course, as some have already pointed out. Prepare properly once and it won't matter what everyone else is doing. The HPAT isn't perfect, but I don't believe it's failing. It's certainly an improvement on LC alone.

Dr. Ring

2Scoops wrote: »

I have seen them, and they make sense for the most part. People who do poorly are people who can't see through the questions and those are people with lower reading comprehension and situational awareness. And the purpose of the test is to stratify people on these qualities.

But the foundation for their reading comprehension was sewn in Leaving Cert when they had to read as much as possible, read the question and extract the answer. You dont have time for all that in the HPAT. So to do well, you have to completely change the way you approach comprehension-based tasks, effectively learning all over again ("learning through experience").

Situational awareness is a fair point and I agree totally. You have to be able to assess the situation you are in and address it accordingly. But how easily is that done in 2 minutes? I know you may say that a second can be the difference between life or death in the medical proffession but again, you learn these things as you are exposed to the real Medical world. You get faster on your feet, assessing situations becomes easier...

Dr. Ring

LilMissCiara wrote: »

Wouldn't a limit on taking the test twice solve this problem (I say twice rather than once because a person's performance may be greatly effected the first time (by a bereavement, illness etc.) so a 2nd chance option should be in place.

But then you essentially make the HPAT the bases for entry to Medicine. You can do as well as you want in the LC but if you do moderately or poorly in the HPAT you're essentially scr**ed.

Dr. Ring

2Scoops wrote: »

It's certainly an improvement on LC alone.

I totally agree. It is certainly a step in the right direction.

2Scoops

Dr. Ring wrote: »

But the foundation for their reading comprehension was sewn in Leaving Cert when they had to read as much as possible, read the question and extract the answer. You dont have time for all that in the HPAT. So to do well, you have to completely change the way you approach comprehension-based tasks, effectively learning all over again ("learning through experience").

I actually disagree that the LC is a rigorous test of reading comprehension. It's far too easy to latch on to a few key words in LC exams and commence the waffling. Literacy in Irish students is at rock bottom (as anyone in 3rd level education can tell you) precisely because the of the LC.

2 min is enough time to answer HPAT questions. They're not impossible. Yes, it requires you stop thinking in the lazy way that the LC rewards. But clearly many students are able for it. The ones who don't do well, even if good preparation, will have to ask serious questions of themselves.

LilMissCiara

Dr. Ring wrote: »

But then you essentially make the HPAT the bases for entry to Medicine. You can do as well as you want in the LC but if you do moderately or poorly in the HPAT you're essentially scr**ed.

Yeah, which means you don't have an aptitude for medicine so you shouldn't be getting the course!

It allows the HPAT to be more of an aptitude test than a test you can study for and keep trying.

Dr. Ring

LilMissCiara wrote: »

Yeah, which means you don't have an aptitude for medicine so you shouldn't be getting the course!

It allows the HPAT to be more of an aptitude test than a test you can study for and keep trying.

But because you can get better by doing it again/preparing for it, it's success as an aptitute test is diminished. By placing a cap on the number of times one can sit the exam, all you're doing is preventing them from getting better at it. But that does not mean that their first or second attempt is a true representation of how good/bad a doctor they would be.

Essentially, if it was an accurate aptitude test, you should get roughly the same result one year as you would the next. You're either good and suitable or you're not. But, as we've seen, people have proven (by repeating the HPAT) that they can do better so it therefore cannot be classed as an accurate aptitude test through which prospective Medical students can be decided.

jumpguy

Dr. Ring wrote: »

Essentially, if it was an accurate aptitude test, you should get roughly the same result one year as you would the next. You're either good and suitable or you're not. But, as we've seen, people have proven (by repeating the HPAT) that they can do better so it therefore cannot be classed as an accurate aptitude test through which prospective Medical students can be decided.

The HPAT supposedly depends on skills you build up over the course of your life. In my opinion, sitting the HPAT itself and doing the exam in actual test conditions is quite an experience, as it the LC itself. There's quite a lot of learning and personality-developing to be done in a year, especially when you're young.

You're assuming if someone sits the HPAT in 2009, they will be the exact same type of person sitting the HPAT in 2010. To truly test this idea, you would have to get a person sitting the HPAT one day, then sitting a different HPAT the next day.

Dr. Ring

2Scoops wrote: »

I actually disagree that the LC is a rigorous test of reading comprehension. It's far too easy to latch on to a few key words in LC exams and commence the waffling. Literacy in Irish students is at rock bottom (as anyone in 3rd level education can tell you) precisely because the of the LC.

2 min is enough time to answer HPAT questions. They're not impossible. Yes, it requires you stop thinking in the lazy way that the LC rewards. But clearly many students are able for it. The ones who don't do well, even if good preparation, will have to ask serious questions of themselves.

Ok. That's a fair point. But you're swimming in murky waters there.

I think we all agree that the LC needs serious revamping, especially in the area you've mentioned. However, the HPAT expects a level of comprehension-ability completely different to that of the "lazy" Leaving Certificate. So how can it be fair to everyone? For 5/6 years, they have been allowed to get "lazy" and then they are simply expected to have a much higher ability at comprehensions in order to excel in the HPAT. In order for everyone to have a fair shot at the HPAT, they way comprehensions are addressed in the LC needs to be modified. Agreed or disagreed?

electrictrad

The salient point here is that there is a limited number of places in medicine in Ireland. We need to pick the most suitable, not the smartest, nor the person who wants it the most. The HPAT is the best way we have to distinguish between the small percentage of hopefuls who can attain the necessary points, and have thus proven academically their capability for the course.

The big problem used to be that potentially excellent doctors lost out to genii who might have been better suited to maths and science pursuits. The HPAT remedies this to an extent. Nothing is perfect. But this is a hell of a lot closer than what came before it.

Dr. Ring

jumpguy wrote: »

You're assuming if someone sits the HPAT in 2009, they will be the exact same type of person sitting the HPAT in 2010. To truly test this idea, you would have to get a person sitting the HPAT one day, then sitting a different HPAT the next day.

No I'm not. The fundamentals of who a person is are in no way related to the HPAT. It is the skills they possess which are saught in the HPAT and thats what we're talking about. You could be the most arrogant pr**k in 2009 and after a harsh dose of humility, be the nicest, most caring person in the world in 2010. But still, the skills you possessed in 2009 do not change. You can become more conscious of time, see trends in question patterns...but you're no more "suitable" as you were the year before. You've merely learned from your first experience how to deal with the exam.

With your point about sitting a different HPAT a different day, is an aptitude test not an aptitude test? Your personality will not change your result.

2Scoops

Dr. Ring wrote: »

Ok. That's a fair point. But you're swimming in murky waters there.

I think we all agree that the LC needs serious revamping, especially in the area you've mentioned. However, the HPAT expects a level of comprehension-ability completely different to that of the "lazy" Leaving Certificate. So how can it be fair to everyone? For 5/6 years, they have been allowed to get "lazy" and then they are simply expected to have a much higher ability at comprehensions in order to excel in the HPAT. In order for everyone to have a fair shot at the HPAT, they way comprehensions are addressed in the LC needs to be modified. Agreed or disagreed?

Everyone is schooled for the LC, so there shouldn't be any bias over and above the pre-existing differences in the standard of education between schools/teachers/SE status. But I certainly agree that the LC needs a dramatic re-emphasis on reading comprehension and grammar, completely independent of any potential effects on HPAT scores it might have down the road.

jumpguy

2Scoops wrote: »

I actually disagree that the LC is a rigorous test of reading comprehension. It's far too easy to latch on to a few key words in LC exams and commence the waffling. Literacy in Irish students is at rock bottom (as anyone in 3rd level education can tell you) precisely because the of the LC.

2 min is enough time to answer HPAT questions. They're not impossible. Yes, it requires you stop thinking in the lazy way that the LC rewards. But clearly many students are able for it. The ones who don't do well, even if good preparation, will have to ask serious questions of themselves.

I disagree. Irish literacy levels have slipped in recently, but they still rank among the best in the world (17th). "Rock bottom" is surely a bit of hyperbole on your behalf.

I don't think this slip has much to do with the LC - especially considering the LC hasn't changed all that much in the last 20 or so years (the literacy rates fell from 5th to 17th globally from 2000 to 2009). The studies done into this suggest it's not due to the LC exam itself at all - but higher retention rates in schools (basically, less students leaving schools).

Read all about it:
http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/irelands-literacy-and-numeracy-ranking-falls-154553.html

Dr. Ring wrote: »

I think we all agree that the LC needs serious revamping, especially in the area you've mentioned. However, the HPAT expects a level of comprehension-ability completely different to that of the "lazy" Leaving Certificate. So how can it be fair to everyone? For 5/6 years, they have been allowed to get "lazy" and then they are simply expected to have a much higher ability at comprehensions in order to excel in the HPAT. In order for everyone to have a fair shot at the HPAT, they way comprehensions are addressed in the LC needs to be modified. Agreed or disagreed?

The LC is getting serious revamping, as is the JC atm. Comprehension here has little to do with the HPAT - attention span does. I found one difficulty when I was practicing for the HPAT was that I'd get bored half-way through a passage, not absorb a sentence or two, then go "oh damn" and have to re-read them. I could understand the sentence fine. If you can't comprehend English, then you're in for a bit of trouble when talking to patients and reading medical charts/histories.

I disagree, and I think it's an argument for students who want to blame the system, and not themselves.

JamJamJamJam

electrictrad wrote: »

The salient point here is that there is a limited number of places in medicine in Ireland. We need to pick the most suitable, not the smartest, nor the person who wants it the most. The HPAT is the best way we have to distinguish between the small percentage of hopefuls who can attain the necessary points, and have thus proven academically their capability for the course.

The big problem used to be that potentially excellent doctors lost out to genii who might have been better suited to maths and science pursuits. The HPAT remedies this to an extent. Nothing is perfect. But this is a hell of a lot closer than what came before it.

I agree that we have to pick the most suitable applicants. And the introduction of the HPAT, I'm sure, is progress in attempting to do so. The UK system combines aptitude test results, A-level results, a personal statement, a reference from the school and interviews. Without a doubt, that's a far more comprehensive way to judge an applicant. So in addition to the HPAT (or something like it), maaaybe we should move towards a more broad system similar to that in the UK (although it has its own flaws too, I'm sure).

2Scoops

electrictrad wrote: »

The big problem used to be that potentially excellent doctors lost out to genii who might have been better suited to maths and science pursuits.

I think you'll find the genii were better suited to LC poetry and geography! :pac:

Dr. Ring

electrictrad wrote: »

The salient point here is that there is a limited number of places in medicine in Ireland. We need to pick the most suitable, not the smartest, nor the person who wants it the most. The HPAT is the best way we have to distinguish between the small percentage of hopefuls who can attain the necessary points, and have thus proven academically their capability for the course.

The big problem used to be that potentially excellent doctors lost out to genii who might have been better suited to maths and science pursuits. The HPAT remedies this to an extent. Nothing is perfect. But this is a hell of a lot closer than what came before it.

Agreed. Nothing is perfect and it is currently better than basing the whole selection process on LC points alone.

But is it still rewarding those "genii" you speak of.

E.g. Someone gets 600 LC points and gets an average HPAT: 560 + 160 = 720

In comparison, someone gets an excellent HPAT and LC: 530 + 185 = 715.

The latter has done better in the "aptitude" test and but has lost out because of the "genni" who got 600 points.

DarraghMcK

The truth is medicine just is not for everyone. Its still highly competitive and the only way they can keep it as fair as possible is to have high requirements. If they were very easily achieved then anyone could waltz in and be a doctor. True the HPAT has lessened the chances of some of the semi autistic emotionally braindead 600 pointers of yore, but from doing some of the tests myself I can tell you that if you can't hack it then you can't hack it. It's an extremely tough job, you can't have people either not willing to do the work or not intelligent enough in charge of people's lives. Then people would complain about that next. I will admit their is advantage to be gained from the practise tests yeah but if you don't have a decent cop on it doesn't matter how much coaching the Independent Academy or the Institute give you, you just won't cut it.
What I'd really like to see is an overhaul of the leaving cert system as a whole. This mindless mostly rote learning crap has no place in the modern world

2Scoops

jumpguy wrote: »

"Rock bottom" is surely a bit of hyperbole on your behalf.

I don't think this slip has much to do with the LC - especially considering the LC hasn't changed all that much in the last 20 or so years (the literacy rates fell from 5th to 17th globally from 2000 to 2009). The studies done into this suggest it's not due to the LC exam itself at all - but higher retention rates in schools (basically, less students leaving schools).

Interesting link, thanks. I am prone to a bit of hyperbole :pac: but I believe that, relative to our recent past, we are at a very low ebb. Say what you like about retention rates and immigration, the fact is that the quality of written English by Irish students in 3rd level has reached frighteningly low levels. The LC mightn't look like it has changed that much, but a blind eye is turned to poor sentence construction and spelling all the way through school. Different priorities (and abilities) of teachers.

Dr. Ring

jumpguy wrote: »

The LC is getting serious revamping, as is the JC atm. Comprehension here has little to do with the HPAT - attention span does. I found one difficulty when I was practicing for the HPAT was that I'd get bored half-way through a passage, not absorb a sentence or two, then go "oh damn" and have to re-read them. I could understand the sentence fine. If you can't comprehend English, then you're in for a bit of trouble when talking to patients and reading medical charts/histories.

I disagree, and I think it's an argument for students who want to blame the system, and not themselves.

Ya but that's you. I never said we could not understand the passage. But under the ridiculous time conraints placed on each question, it is very difficult to retrieve the correct answer when we've been taught to read passively and search for key words in the LC. The HPAT is not like that. You have to read, assess and deduce in ~2 minutes. Until the HPAT, students we're not typically put in situation like that.

That was my point