Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New Medicine route required...
Comments
-
-
We're starting to argue on a matter of opinion here - which is that I think the fundamentals of who you are as a person do affect your HPAT result and you argue the opposite. There is currently much study done into the HPAT (and this year candidates who undertook the HPAT were asked to fill out a survey on prep courses, as you probably know) and unfortunately we are pretty much guinea pigs at the moment.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.
However, a few points:
"the skills you possessed in 2009 do not change"
Of course they do. Are you saying that if I started learning how to play golf in 2009, spent night and day practicing it, I would not be better at golf in 2010? Or if I started to come out of my shell in 2009 and speak to people, my communication skills would not improve over time? Skills always change - you rarely remain bad at something forever unless you don't refine it.
Now what skills do the HPAT measure? In section 1, your critical thinking, standard English comprehension, arithmetic, etc. These are things which aren't really thought in school (except for English comprehension), but you learn them in life. They cannot be thought in school, imo. They are simply not them kinda skills.
In section 2, interpersonal understanding (and once again, English comprehension). I think my point is obvious enough here - you can't get better at communicating and understand people in a day. It's a skill you build up over life.
Section 3 however, is, by ACER's own admission (or at least, by the man over the UCD admission office - who's name eludes me now) causing some trouble. The evidence for this is mixed. I know this because the aforementioned UCD admission guy gave a lecture about the HPAT at the UCD open day earlier this year. That's also how I know about what the HPAT seeks (but does it succeed?) to measure.
There is nothing anyone can do, however, by people feeling more comfortable taking the HPAT for a second time than they did the first time and improving their score.
*Hopes after I submit this post there isn't another 300 I need to reply to*
The "ridiculous time constaints" only exist if you place an equal amount of time on every question. In section 1 and 2, there are some short questions with very little reading material - you cannot spend more than, say, 45/50 seconds doing these questions, so that you'll save time for the longer questions.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
0 -
-
"the skills you possessed in 2009 do not change"
Of course they do. Are you saying that if I started learning how to play golf in 2009, spent night and day practicing it, I would not be better at golf in 2010? Or if I started to come out of my shell in 2009 and speak to people, my communication skills would not improve over time? Skills always change - you rarely remain bad at something forever unless you don't refine it.
*Hopes after I submit this post there isn't another 300 I need to reply to*
Really liked the last part haha
Ok so lets say we agree that your skills can get better with time and experience. Therefore, by your own admission, you can get better at being a doctor. You can become better at critical thinking by repeated exposure to situations which require it. Your interpersonal skills can get better by dealing with more and more people of all different mental and personal states.
With this in mind, is the HPAT rendered useless in the respect that it claims to test your suitability when, in fact, your suitability can be learned/honed with experience?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
As i see it the problem is they need more available places. Why are they afraid to let more people in? if they are suited they will pass the exams and if not they would most probably faulter at the 1st or 2nd semester.
How many people actually want to be a doctor out of our population of 4.5 million and have the means and time to attend college? We need more doctors we have a shortage.
What is the cost of allowing more students to enter? An average of less than 40% of students complete their courses and if you presume that the people who you allow in who have not met the criteria will have a higher fail rate (maybe, maybe not
) would be less likely to attend etc (if thats what you believe) then that percentage will be further reduced. The Lecturers are there anyway....the buildings are there anyway......would the colleges even need extra lecturers or classes?
What would happen if you left the door open and said "come ahead if you think you have what it takes to be a doctor"? The only problem I can see is the medical professional who would probably not wish to have their "skills" devalued but what are they afraid of if these uneligable people are deemed by them not capable of completing a medicine course. The benefits could be enormous, I don`t see a problem.
I would like more available doctors, more choice and more variety in the medical profession.0 -
As i see it the problem is they need more available places. Why are they afraid to let more people in? if they are suited they will pass the exams and if not they would most probably faulter at the 1st or 2nd semester.
How many people actually want to be a doctor out of our population of 4.5 million and have the means and time to attend college? We need more doctors we have a shortage.
What is the cost of allowing more students to enter? An average of less than 40% of students complete their courses and if you presume that the people who you allow in who have not met the criteria will have a higher fail rate (maybe, maybe not) would be less likely to attend etc (if thats what you believe) then that percentage will be further reduced. The Lecturers are there anyway....the buildings are there anyway......would the colleges even need extra lecturers or classes?
What would happen if you left the door open and said "come ahead if you think you have what it takes to be a doctor"? The only problem I can see is the medical professional who would probably not wish to have their "skills" devalued but what are they afraid of if these uneligable people are deemed by them not capable of completing a medicine course. The benefits could be enormous, I don`t see a problem.
I would like more available doctors, more choice and more variety in the medical profession.
We have a shortage of Employed doctors. There are more graduates than ever, just no one is hiring them0 -
An article with a rather outdated source (1998) here says that training a medical student in England costs £200,000.As i see it the problem is they need more available places. Why are they afraid to let more people in? if they are suited they will pass the exams and if not they would most probably faulter at the 1st or 2nd semester.
How many people actually want to be a doctor out of our population of 4.5 million and have the means and time to attend college? We need more doctors we have a shortage.
What is the cost of allowing more students to enter? An average of less than 40% of students complete their courses and if you presume that the people who you allow in who have not met the criteria will have a higher fail rate (maybe, maybe not) would be less likely to attend etc (if thats what you believe) then that percentage will be further reduced. The Lecturers are there anyway....the buildings are there anyway......would the colleges even need extra lecturers or classes?
What would happen if you left the door open and said "come ahead if you think you have what it takes to be a doctor"? The only problem I can see is the medical professional who would probably not wish to have their "skills" devalued but what are they afraid of if these uneligable people are deemed by them not capable of completing a medicine course. The benefits could be enormous, I don`t see a problem.
I would like more available doctors, more choice and more variety in the medical profession.
Ireland already trains a record amount of medical students (according to RTÉ news). Unfortunately, most are (rather wisely) going to Australia where working conditions are much better than here in Ireland.
I reckon a time is looming when doctors will have to sign a contract that in return for their education at an Irish medical school, they'll have to spend a period of time working in an Irish hospital as junior doctor.
So basically, the problem isn't numbers, but the fact that graduates are emigrating. Say 60% of all medical school graduates emigrate. If there are 100 graduating, 40 will stay here and work in Ireland. Now you could increase the numbers so 1000 will graduate, and 400 will stay and work in Ireland. But it could be solved much more simply and far more cheaply by getting them to sign a contract obliging them to work here for a while when they graduate, in return for their education.
In my opinion, the problem is not medical schools, but the conditions for Irish doctors that drive them away from here.
Source for the above: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfeykfcwgbau/rss2/ (which, you may note, is from January - this is a common problem and long-foreseen crisis)0 -
-
There are not much figures in that post at all. :P Excuse me, that was unclear, Ireland trains a record number of graduates - as in, Ireland has never taken in so many medical students and trained them in it's history. It doesn't train a record number against another country (understandable, as Ireland would hardly need as many doctors as the USA or the UK).I`d be very interested in looking at those figures but not at 2am! so tomorrow maybe.
Ireland may TRAIN a record number, although not sure how this is correct, but I`m sure a hefty proportion will be internationals to start with, want to see how many Irish students are getting the opportunity to study medicine.
International (outside the EU) students must pay full fees here in Ireland - and hence actually probably end up reimbursing the State somewhat.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here... By "protectionist agenda," do you mean emigrating?The current conditions are directly related to the current spate of doctors and their protectionist agenda, are they not? so how is more of the same going to resolve the issues. I would prefer doctors to be thick on the ground at least then you may have some chance of getting some kind of quality service. What is "more of the same"? 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
In regards to your keyboard analogy, itsn't applicable to the HPAT since you're supposed to have not seen the test material before. Ideally, it tests how well you cope with a scenario you're not familiar with.
You get better at typing because you become more accustomed to it. Almost everyone could answer every question on the HPAT correctly if given enough time.
Actually it does for the purpose of addressing one users comment about wanting their Doctors being able to make decisions off the cuff. I was not using that analogy to suggest that the more you do it, the better you get because you know how each and every question is structured and thus know how to extract the answer. I was showing that timing can be made more efficient with practise. You become more conscious of time in the HPAT just like you want to type faster on a keyboard. It's not that you get better because you get used to the style of question. Rather it is that you will not allow yourself to spend more time on one question that is quite easy than of that which is harder. But I understand how that analogy may have been misunderstood
I disagree with your belief that the HPAT could be conquered by most people should they be given sufficient time. If the HPAT really is an aptitude test, increasing the amount of time should only make a difference to those who are suitable to be Doctors but who would have fallen to the HPAT because of time (missing qeustions, having to guess because time is running out). If you're not suitable for Medicine, no amount of extra time would change that. You would still be incapable of finding the correct answer. The HPAT is not/should not be about time management. It is to test your "aptutide" for a career in Medicine.0 -
Actually it does for the purpose of addressing one users comment about wanting their Doctors being able to make decisions off the cuff. I was not using that analogy to suggest that the more you do it, the better you get because you know how each and every question is structured and thus know how to extract the answer. I was showing that timing can be made more efficient with practise. You become more conscious of time in the HPAT just like you want to type faster on a keyboard. It's not that you get better because you get used to the style of question. Rather it is that you will not allow yourself to spend more time on one question that is quite easy than of that which is harder. But I understand how that analogy may have been misunderstood
I disagree with your belief that the HPAT could be conquered by most people should they be given sufficient time. If the HPAT really is an aptitude test, increasing the amount of time should only make a difference to those who are suitable to be Doctors but who would have fallen to the HPAT because of time (missing qeustions, having to guess because time is running out). If you're not suitable for Medicine, no amount of extra time would change that. You would still be incapable of finding the correct answer. The HPAT is not/should not be about time management. It is to test your "aptutide" for a career in Medicine.
It's not a belief, it's common sense. If you gave someone, with no timing issues, the HPAT paper and a decade to scutinise their answers they would inevitably perform better than if they took the test in 2.5 hours.
The biggest challenge in the HPAT is quantitative, not qualitative.0 -
It's not a belief, it's common sense. If you gave someone, with no timing issues, the HPAT paper and a decade to scutinise their answers they would inevitably perform better than if they took the test in 2.5 hours.
The biggest challenge in the HPAT is quantitative, not qualitative.
But I never said to give that much time. Obviously there would have to be a limit. But maybe an extra half hour per section would suffice?
I agree you couldnt keep scrutinising over one question for an extended period of time without increasing the liklihood of getting it right. But as it stands, the HPAT exam is placing too much emphasis on time which is not what an aptitude test is about. The fact remains: If you're not suitable for Medicine, you're not suitable for Medicine. Increasing the exam by an hour or an hour and a half should not have that significant of an impact on you're grade. But if you have an aptitude for Medicine and your only issue with the exam is running out of time on questions, then an hour extra could make a huge difference. Do you not agree?
And just incase you return to the arguement of "Doctors need to think fast and make decisions even faster", I'll re-itterate my point: Continuously being placed in situations where you must make decisions/assess a situation quickly will increase your speed....Just incase 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
anybody know where you will get the results tomorrow ? Email is it ? and what time ? Thanks ! Advertisement