*Everything HPAT and Medicine 2013*

QueenOfLeon

SupDoc wrote: »

I completely support grants and financial support, I stated that earlier.

And yet you complained about people looking for handouts.

SupDoc wrote: »

To be fair it is a point reduction.
It is either the minimum amount of points needed for all candidates or less. I know theoretically they could be the same but we both know that will never happen.

Why wouldn't that ever happen? As Partyatmygaff said, it'd be great if you could explain to us how you think the system works as I'm not entirely sure you know what's going on.

Also, please stop sniping at other posters. You can get your point across without getting personal.

SupDoc

SupDoc wrote: »

I bet it is a really nice feeling sitting in that exam hall knowing you can afford to lose a few points especially while someone like me is sitting beside you and if I make one mistake and lose an A1 or an A2 then my university course is gone. If you can get your required points then have the courage to do it without a safety net. You have to understand how difficult it is for someone to sit in the same class as you for example in dentistry who got 590 points in their LC and you with 530 points. What about the guy then who got 585? He missed the course by 5 points!!! Is he not more suitable for this course than you? He has more points than you? The playing field might be unfair but he does know more about his LC subjects than you.

I am trying to get my points without HEAR. The reason I applied was for financial benefits. I'd really appreciate if you stopped looking down on me simply because I'm eligible for HEAR. You think that because I'm part of HEAR that I'm not aiming for my A1s and A2s?
Well I am. I've been a straight A1 student in 4 of my 7 subjects for the past 2 years. Do you think I'm slacking off because "Oh I will get a place on less points?" Well that's not how it works because we didnt find out if we got accepted to HEAR until AFTER the LC so I did work as hard as everyone else. And if I do get my first choice in August, on reduced points or not, I will know that I deserve my place in college.

SupDoc

Deleted User wrote: »

I am trying to get my points without HEAR. The reason I applied was for financial benefits. I'd really appreciate if you stopped looking down on me simply because I'm eligible for HEAR. You think that because I'm part of HEAR that I'm not aiming for my A1s and A2s?
Well I am. I've been a straight A1 student in 4 of my 7 subjects for the past 2 years. Do you think I'm slacking off because "Oh I will get a place on less points?" Well that's not how it works because we didnt find out if we got accepted to HEAR until AFTER the LC so I did work as hard as everyone else. And if I do get my first choice in August, on reduced points or not, I will know that I deserve my place in college.

If you get in on reduced points..... I don't think you deserve it.

QueenOfLeon

SupDoc wrote: »

If you get in on reduced points..... I don't think you deserve it.

Oh well, luckily your opinion doesn't change the schemes in place!

SupDoc

SupDoc wrote: »

If you get in on reduced points..... I don't think you deserve it.

Well that's fine and while you're busy being mad at the world I'll be enjoying college life and the course that I worked just as hard as you did to get

nogivingup

Looks like someone's bitter that they had to repeat.

SupDoc

nogivingup wrote: »

Looks like someone's bitter that they had to repeat.

A little bit

conradmurph

Lads can ye take this somewhere else or make a new thread tis nothing to do with hpat or medicine 2013

SupDoc

conradmurph wrote: »

Lads can ye take this somewhere else or make a new thread tis nothing to do with hpat or medicine 2013

Sorry, the HEAR students lead me astray with their wicked ways.
GUYS, LETS TAKE THIS OUTSIDE IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM MEET ME BESIDE THE OLD WINDMILL AT NOON AND LETS SETTLE THIS LIKE REAL MEN :cool:

As they say in the mean streets of disadvantaged Dublin, "Be there Boi orrrrrr be a rectangle shape square thing boi".

ITS ON LIKE DONKEYYYYY KONGGGGGG

partyatmygaff

I don't need nor even meet the criteria for HEAR. I know a few who did get in using HEAR and couldn't help but reply.

(And truth be told, the more times my sig pops up in this thread, the better the chance someone might notice it and visit the site and donate)

randylonghorn

SupDoc wrote: »

Do you not think this is discrimination? When two sets of people trying to achieve the same outcome have different rules governing their attempts?

Thing is, they have had different "rules" or at least circumstances governing their attempts since birth.

HEAR isn't always 100% "fair" ... what is?! But it's an attempt to redress an inherent unfairness / inequity in the system, and while it's an imperfect one, the overall result is generally at least nearer to an overall "fair" balance than would be achievable without it.

Let's look at the two extremes in Irish second-level education (and I do mean the extremes, most people fall in the middle).

On the one hand you have the youngsters who grow up in well-off homes, with probably both parents graduates. They went to a pre-school, they went to a "good" primary school, they were shuttled around after school in the SUVs to extra-curricular activities: drama, music, dance, sports, etc., etc. They go on to a private (i.e. fee-paying) school like Clongowes Wood or Belvedere or Blackrock. They get grinds in the evening or on Saturdays in any subject in which they feel the need of extra help. Or perhaps they go to (or repeat in) somewhere like the IoE.

They have every advantage, in other words. Sure, they still have to work; their private tutors can't do the exams for them. But they grow up in a home where progression to third-level is seen as the norm; they go to schools where it is seen as the norm; they live in communities where it is seen as the norm ... and they get every possible help to achieve that norm.

On the other extreme, you have the youngsters who live in areas where far from being the norm, progression to third level is often seen as an aberration. I remember chatting to a couple of lads from Finglas some years ago when I was a youth worker; they were maybe 18 / 19 and were involved as voluntary youth leaders in the area. Both were extremely bright and during the conversation it was obvious that both had a hankering to go on to third level. However, when I asked them they explained that it wasn't encouraged by their families and simply wasn't acceptable at all to their peer group. "Jaysus, no! Sure anyone who suggests going to college is immediately labeled a f*g**t or a bender!"

I suspect that attitude may have broken down a bit over the last few years, but it's still around to an extent. Not exactly encouraging to a young lad of 15 / 16 facing into his LC, is it? Apparently it was slightly more acceptable for girls, though even then it was presumed that they had what my grandmother might have termed "ideas above their station". And there are lots of areas around the country where that attitude / culture is prevalent; mostly they are areas of cities and big towns, but it's not unknown even in certain rural areas.

Now add to that backdrop the fact that the local school may have very few students interested in third level, and may in fact be struggling to maintain discipline and to ensure that all their students walk out the door with at least a reasonable level of education.

There is no money at home for grinds; there is possibly little support or understanding from parents; and if they do beat the odds and get to college, there is no financial back-up from home to support them there: they are entirely dependent on what state support there is and on what they might be able to earn in a part-time job (if they can get one).

As I said, these are the two extremes, and most people fall somewhere in the middle.

But our Constitution (rightly) promises to "cherish all the children of the state equally". Is it not incumbent on the State therefore to attempt to redress the balance, and to offer extra supports and incentives to those who traditionally simply did not go on to college, or who did so in very small numbers? (If you want to see the figures for participation in HE over the years, Patrick Clancy in UCD has been tracking this for a couple of decades, and has plenty published on the subject).

HEAR is a blunt instrument, and it's by no means perfect, but it is at least an attempt to do something.

Any scheme like HEAR, no matter how devised, will always be imperfect in fact.

Ideally, the extra resources should be applied all the way from pre-school and primary upwards through second-level, so that by the time people reach LC they are well capable of competing on an equal footing with everyone else in the country for points, and there would be no need to have special entry points for HEAR candidates (whatever about extra financial supports to make it possible for them to actually participate and complete their course). And it's usually the points system that irritates people, rather than the financial supports, for reasons I can easily understand. But the resources simply aren't there for that ... hell, they weren't there during the boom, let alone now!

So, yes, it's a blunt instrument, and it's not 100% fair ... but it's an attempt to redress the balance, and it has some success in doing so. There is at least some hope in the present system that a bright young person with all the odds against them will still make it to third level.

conradmurph wrote: »

Lads can ye take this somewhere else or make a new thread tis nothing to do with hpat or medicine 2013

It kinda has though, if people are going to be going into college and spending six years in a relatively small class with people they consider don't "deserve" to be there.

sherlook

Hey guys, question.. I have 741 all I want is Galway should i be worried of not being in with a chance.. Also stuck between a common science or occupational therapy as a backup?

spurious

randylonghorn wrote: »

It kinda has though, if people are going to be going into college and spending six years in a relatively small class with people they consider don't "deserve" to be there.

Pretty extraordinary attitudes for an aspiring doctor to have, tbh.

conradmurph

spurious wrote: »

Pretty extraordinary attitudes for an aspiring doctor to have, tbh.

I agree, in my experience of first year of college. Nobody asked each other about their financial standings, grant schemes, whether or not they're HEAR or the assistance they're getting. Generally we were all in the same boat when it came to classes, assignments and labs and were just sticking together what way we could. Anyone who didn't was just making it harder for themselves

Vito Corleone

randylonghorn wrote: »

Let's look at the two extremes in Irish second-level education

Sensational comparisons like this aren't really helpful. I support the HEAR scheme but nobody I know that has applied for it falls into that description, and likewise the wealthy student that you describe doesn't represent the people who don't qualify. I'm not trying to be smart, it just really irks me that some people (not saying you do) have this idea that people who don't qualify for HEAR are living it up and getting grinds in every subject.

randylonghorn

Vito, I stressed that I was taking the two extremes to illustrate a point, and that most people fall in the middle.

But while they are extremes, they're not sensational; I work in a uni and I've encountered students who fit both those extremes. I could have painted a much more detailed pen-picture were it ethical to do so.

But they are the outliers, yes, and again I stress that the majority of students fall somewhere along the spectrum in between.

SupDoc

spurious wrote: »

Pretty extraordinary attitudes for an aspiring doctor to have, tbh.

Not when you consider the effort and competition for places to get into med.

SupDoc

randylonghorn wrote: »

Thing is, they have had different "rules" or at least circumstances governing their attempts since birth.

HEAR isn't always 100% "fair" ... what is?! But it's an attempt to redress an inherent unfairness / inequity in the system, and while it's an imperfect one, the overall result is generally at least nearer to an overall "fair" balance than would be achievable without it.

Let's look at the two extremes in Irish second-level education (and I do mean the extremes, most people fall in the middle).

On the one hand you have the youngsters who grow up in well-off homes, with probably both parents graduates. They went to a pre-school, they went to a "good" primary school, they were shuttled around after school in the SUVs to extra-curricular activities: drama, music, dance, sports, etc., etc. They go on to a private (i.e. fee-paying) school like Clongowes Wood or Belvedere or Blackrock. They get grinds in the evening or on Saturdays in any subject in which they feel the need of extra help. Or perhaps they go to (or repeat in) somewhere like the IoE.

They have every advantage, in other words. Sure, they still have to work; their private tutors can't do the exams for them. But they grow up in a home where progression to third-level is seen as the norm; they go to schools where it is seen as the norm; they live in communities where it is seen as the norm ... and they get every possible help to achieve that norm.

On the other extreme, you have the youngsters who live in areas where far from being the norm, progression to third level is often seen as an aberration. I remember chatting to a couple of lads from Finglas some years ago when I was a youth worker; they were maybe 18 / 19 and were involved as voluntary youth leaders in the area. Both were extremely bright and during the conversation it was obvious that both had a hankering to go on to third level. However, when I asked them they explained that it wasn't encouraged by their families and simply wasn't acceptable at all to their peer group. "Jaysus, no! Sure anyone who suggests going to college is immediately labeled a f*g**t or a bender!"

I suspect that attitude may have broken down a bit over the last few years, but it's still around to an extent. Not exactly encouraging to a young lad of 15 / 16 facing into his LC, is it? Apparently it was slightly more acceptable for girls, though even then it was presumed that they had what my grandmother might have termed "ideas above their station". And there are lots of areas around the country where that attitude / culture is prevalent; mostly they are areas of cities and big towns, but it's not unknown even in certain rural areas.

Now add to that backdrop the fact that the local school may have very few students interested in third level, and may in fact be struggling to maintain discipline and to ensure that all their students walk out the door with at least a reasonable level of education.

There is no money at home for grinds; there is possibly little support or understanding from parents; and if they do beat the odds and get to college, there is no financial back-up from home to support them there: they are entirely dependent on what state support there is and on what they might be able to earn in a part-time job (if they can get one).

As I said, these are the two extremes, and most people fall somewhere in the middle.

But our Constitution (rightly) promises to "cherish all the children of the state equally". Is it not incumbent on the State therefore to attempt to redress the balance, and to offer extra supports and incentives to those who traditionally simply did not go on to college, or who did so in very small numbers? (If you want to see the figures for participation in HE over the years, Patrick Clancy in UCD has been tracking this for a couple of decades, and has plenty published on the subject).

HEAR is a blunt instrument, and it's by no means perfect, but it is at least an attempt to do something.

Any scheme like HEAR, no matter how devised, will always be imperfect in fact.

Ideally, the extra resources should be applied all the way from pre-school and primary upwards through second-level, so that by the time people reach LC they are well capable of competing on an equal footing with everyone else in the country for points, and there would be no need to have special entry points for HEAR candidates (whatever about extra financial supports to make it possible for them to actually participate and complete their course). And it's usually the points system that irritates people, rather than the financial supports, for reasons I can easily understand. But the resources simply aren't there for that ... hell, they weren't there during the boom, let alone now!

So, yes, it's a blunt instrument, and it's not 100% fair ... but it's an attempt to redress the balance, and it has some success in doing so. There is at least some hope in the present system that a bright young person with all the odds against them will still make it to third level.

It kinda has though, if people are going to be going into college and spending six years in a relatively small class with people they consider don't "deserve" to be there.

I think you might be right HEAR is great for disadvantaged students but it is being abused a lot by people who I think should not be considered disadvantaged. For example a lot of the people I know who got points reduced through the HEAR scheme were children of builders and property developers from the boom. Both of which are now unemployed and have no degree and depending on their address qualify for HEAR. Although these people are now unemployed they certainly are not disadvantage and often have large sums of money still saved. I understand that this does not apply to everyone. I should have been more specific in my initial statements. I still do support grants, I will begrudgingly accept that maybe some students might deserve points reduced but the circumstances would have to be like those above and I would prefer a system more like the one described above where there is continuous support and everyone is equal at LC. I will persist that anyone who has internet access is not disadvantaged. If you can post on boards then you can access a syllabus for each subject and research the material of the course.

sherlook wrote: »

Hey guys, question.. I have 741 all I want is Galway should i be worried of not being in with a chance.. Also stuck between a common science or occupational therapy as a backup?

I think you will get Galway. It will be close, Hpat scores seem to be up 5 in general but thee LC was very easy last year compared to this year so the LC scores might be down. I would expect a 3 to 4 point increase for Galway so you should make it Congrats on your score

conradmurph wrote: »

I agree, in my experience of first year of college. Nobody asked each other about their financial standings, grant schemes, whether or not they're HEAR or the assistance they're getting. Generally we were all in the same boat when it came to classes, assignments and labs and were just sticking together what way we could. Anyone who didn't was just making it harder for themselves

I would never ask someone their financial standing or if they achieved a place through HEAR, I would consider that very rude. When I post here I am speaking about those who abuse the system :P



I also think the amount abusing the system outweighs all the benefits.

Vito Corleone

randylonghorn wrote: »

But while they are extremes, they're not sensational; I work in a uni and I've encountered students who fit both those extremes.

I think once you bring in two extremes like that you are sensationalising. I don't want to get into a big argument with you about it though.

I'm a big fan of HEAR, it's just this notion some people have that those who don't reach the HEAR criteria are all going to private schools and spending all their money on grinds really gets on my tits!

Vito, I stressed that I was taking the two extremes to illustrate a point, and that most people fall in the middle.

I know, but I just don't feel it was necessary tbh.

randylonghorn

SupDoc wrote: »

Not when you consider the effort and competition for places to get into med.

Given that you are aspiring to join one of the "caring professions", I'm afraid I'm with spurious on this one.

SupDoc wrote: »

I think you might be right HEAR is great for disadvantaged students but it is being abused a lot by people who I think should not be considered disadvantaged. For example a lot of the people I know who got points reduced through the HEAR scheme were children of builders and property developers from the boom. Both of which are now unemployed and have no degree and depending on their address qualify for HEAR. Although these people are now unemployed they certainly are not disadvantage and often have large sums of money still saved.

I would never argue that HEAR is a perfect system, and it is open to abuse, as is every system ever invented.

SupDoc wrote: »

I would prefer a system more like the one described above where there is continuous support and everyone is equal at LC.

So would I, believe me.

So would the Access Officers in the colleges, and the people who administer HEAR, and I know a fair few of them.

I think in this instance I can safely speak for spurious and say that so would she and all the other teachers who work in schools around the country.

HEAR is a blunt instrument, but it's the only damn thing we have at the moment to balance the odds a little.

SupDoc wrote: »

I will persist that anyone who has internet access is not disadvantaged. If you can post on boards then you can access a syllabus for each subject and research the material of the course.

Tbh, pretty much everyone has internet access at this stage, unless they live in the absolute wilderness; it's not a luxury any more. So it's a pretty level playing-field on that score.

It doesn't level the playing-field on a host of other scores.

Eurovisionmad

SupDoc wrote: »

I will begrudgingly accept that maybe some students might deserve points reduced

Well that's a relief that we now have your approval!

I couldn't agree with you less. I come from a fairly middle class family and I'm under no illusions that money creates a huge advantage in the Leaving Certificate and in Medicine especially. I can get a grind if I feel I need one (and being able to look at the syllabus on the internet is no replacement!) and for the HPAT I can do a preparation course (which cost an arm and a leg, and are totally out of the reach of someone whose family is on the dole) this means that I've a fairly sizable advantage over a disadvantaged student and HEAR is a (albeit crude) attempt to equalize those inequalities, I'd love to say that everyone is equal for the Leaving Certificate and college entry but that simply isn't true.

Regardless, being in University and having the opinion that people aren't "deserving" to be there won't gain you many friends!

randylonghorn

Euro, re-read the start of your second para!

Eurovisionmad

randylonghorn wrote: »

Euro, re-read the start of your second para!

OOPS! Only on holidays just over a week and my brain is already gone to mush!

SupDoc

randylonghorn wrote: »

Euro, re-read the start of your second para!

I thought I had a supporter for a minute lol >.<

randylonghorn

"A slip of the pen is no fault of the mind." :cool:

SupDoc

randylonghorn wrote: »

HEAR is a blunt instrument, but it's the only damn thing we have at the moment to balance the odds a little.

I feel sometimes that it balances the playing field a little too much the other way though. If someone gets 420 points and gets into a 480 point course surely this increase is too much?

randylonghorn wrote: »

"A slip of the pen is no fault of the mind." :cool:

Try telling that to a corrector and see what happens

randylonghorn

Vito Corleone wrote: »

I think once you bring in two extremes like that you are sensationalising. I don't want to get into a big argument with you about it though.

You won't, dude, I understand your POV.

I would argue though that looking at the extreme cases can bring a certain clarity which can then be applied to the majority of middle-of-the-road cases which may be more ambivalent.

SupDoc wrote: »

Try telling that to a corrector and see what happens

Lol, fair point, but this isn't an exam, so we can afford to be more human!


And lad, will you familiarise yourself with the Multiquote button (marked +" in the middle of the five on the bottom right of each post, and with the Edit button, the first of the five reading from left to right.

SupDoc

randylonghorn wrote: »

And lad, will you familiarise yourself with the Multiquote button (marked +" in the middle of the five on the bottom left of each post, and with the Edit button, the first of the five reading from left to right.

Five? I only have four buttons and they are arranged on the right? Not the left :eek: Do I get a grant or extra smiley face emotions because of the disadvantaged life I lea to make our posting more equal. I only have four buttons and not the luxurious 5 buttons you have? (Joking)

randylonghorn

Sorry, right hand side, Euro's not the only one!

You get the balancing advantage that as a mod I had to bite my tongue when I read your first posts last night and refrain from telling you bluntly what I *really* thought!

SupDoc

randylonghorn wrote: »

Sorry, right hand side, Euro's not the only one!

You get the balancing advantage that as a mod I had to bite my tongue when I read your first posts last night and refrain from telling you bluntly what I *really* thought!

They were..... a little bit harsh...... maybe..... kinda.......