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
*Everything HPAT and Medicine 2013*
Options
Comments
-
We can?I think we can all agree there is no such thing as an "insignificant points differential" ...
Agreed.Deleted User wrote: »That is definitely unfair. After all, there is 6 HEAR criteria and you only have to meet 4. However you must meet the "low income" criteria so I am baffled at how these people can say that they are disadvantaged and receiving a low income if they are sending their child to IoE?
That can be difficult though, as candidates may be severely disadvantaged under several criteria yet just miss out on others ... and they could be refused while someone who could be considered to have a mild disadvantage on all or most of the criteria would get in.Deleted User wrote: »I think a way to fix this should be that more criteria must be met to qualify for the scheme.
What's needed really is a way of giving "points" (not in the CAO sense
) to candidates based on the severity of the disadvantage in each category, and ranking them then by total "points". Also more checks. All that calls for more staffing / resources though, especially given that the numbers applying under this scheme have risen majorly over the last 5 years for obvious reasons, and they're not exactly well-resourced as it is. 0 -
Deleted User wrote: »That is definitely unfair. After all, there is 6 HEAR criteria and you only have to meet 4. However you must meet the "low income" criteria so I am baffled at how these people can say that they are disadvantaged and receiving a low income if they are sending their child to IoE?
I think a way to fix this should be that more criteria must be met to qualify for the scheme. I think I met all 6 to be honest but I would have to check again :P And I'm not going for Medicine, really looking forward to Pharmacy though
Everybody I know who has got into HEAR has similar circumstances to this. This is why I am so against it. The people who I know that deserve it never actually get into the HEAR scheme because due to their true disadvantaged circumstances they are not provided with adequate information about how to apply or enough actual financial aid through the scheme to continue education.0 -
-
randylonghorn wrote: »We can?
What's needed really is a way of giving "points" (not in the CAO sense) to candidates based on the severity of the disadvantage in each category, and ranking them then by total "points". Also more checks. All that calls for more staffing / resources though, especially given that the numbers applying under this scheme have risen majorly over the last 5 years for obvious reasons, and they're not exactly well-resourced as it is.
Oh sorry I forgot to clarify, No such thing as an insignificant points difference for medical applicants because it usually comes down to just one point for many people.
Totally agree with your last point.
Also I think it should be broader than income. I think property owned should be considered, outstanding debts and mortgage repayments. If a family has blown all their money on property during the boom and are now unemployed then they should not be classed as disadvantaged because to afford that other house during the boom they had to have more than the average person living in the country. This is more a demonstration of the affects of greed during the Celtic tiger than the inequality of the education system to those disadvantaged.
Maybe they do take property owned into account but I could not find any reference too it on the HEAR website.
If your mom and dad own 2 or 3 houses then you are not disadvantaged.0 -
randylonghorn wrote: »That can be difficult though, as candidates may be severely disadvantaged under several criteria yet just miss out on others ... and they could be refused while someone who could be considered to have a mild disadvantage on all or most of the criteria would get in.
What's needed really is a way of giving "points" (not in the CAO sense) to candidates based on the severity of the disadvantage in each category, and ranking them then by total "points". Also more checks. All that calls for more staffing / resources though, especially given that the numbers applying under this scheme have risen majorly over the last 5 years for obvious reasons, and they're not exactly well-resourced as it is.
Points race to see who is the most disadvantaged! I know what you're saying but for HEAR criteria, most of them can't be measured except for the income.
From the website:
Indicator 2 Medical Card - Is the applicant or his/her mother/father/guardian in receipt of a medical card (in date on 31st December 2012)?
Indicator 3 Social Welfare – Is the applicant’s mother/father/guardian in receipt of a means-tested social welfare payment (for a minimum of 26 weeks in the relevant year)?
Indicator 4 Socio-Economic Grouping (based on occupation and employment status) – Is the applicant a member of a group underrepresented in higher education?
Indicator 5 DEIS School – Did the applicant attend a school part of the Department of Education & Science “DEIS” scheme (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) for the duration of their second level education?
Indicator 6 Geographical Area – Does the applicant live in an area of concentrated disadvantage?
How I see them criteria is that you either meet them or you don't. Correct me if you see any way of being more disadvantaged in any of them because I might just not be looking at it correctly.Everybody I know who has got into HEAR has similar circumstances to this. This is why I am so against it. The people who I know that deserve it never actually get into the HEAR scheme because due to their true disadvantaged circumstances they are not provided with adequate information about how to apply or enough actual financial aid through the scheme to continue education.
That is rather odd because it's all we heard about throughout 5th and 6th year as it is genuinely the only way most of us can get to college.0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »That is rather odd because it's all we heard about throughout 5th and 6th year as it is genuinely the only way most of us can get to college.
This might be why we have different views then.
The people I know are using it for reduced points rather than financial aid actually they are using it completely for reduced points and taking the financial aid as a bonus.0 -
-
This might be why we have different views then.
The people I know are using it for reduced points rather than financial aid actually they are using it completely for reduced points and taking the financial aid as a bonus.
Well that is probably why we had that "heated discussion" last week. At the end of the day, I wouldn't support this at all and it's why I feel you should have to meet more of the criteria to be accepted.0 -
I'd agree with you in principle; I'm not sure it's always quite so black and white especially in the last few years (e.g. if parents were both working during the Tiger in decent jobs, and moved house at a time when they could well afford it, and are now both unemployed and saddled with major debt, should their child pay the price for their mistaken optimism, an optimism hugely encouraged by the government and the banks at the time?)Also I think it should be broader than income. I think property owned should be considered, outstanding debts and mortgage repayments. If a family has blown all their money on property during the boom and are now unemployed then they should not be classed as disadvantaged because to afford that other house during the boom they had to have more than the average person living in the country. This is more a demonstration of the affects of greed during the Celtic tiger than the inequality of the education system to those disadvantaged.
Maybe they do take property owned into account but I could not find any reference too it on the HEAR website.
If your mom and dad own 2 or 3 houses then you are not disadvantaged.
I definitely agree property should be taken into account though, and would be less than sympathetic to people who lost the run of themselves and went mad buying property ... they're not the people HEAR is supposed to be for.
As I say, like most things in life I'm not as sure it's as black and white as you paint it, but I wouldn't disagree with you re: general principles.
I take your point, actually, and the criteria might have to be reviewed somewhat I think, and more measureable ways of addressing it found.Deleted User wrote: »Points race to see who is the most disadvantaged! I know what you're saying but for HEAR criteria, most of them can't be measured except for the income.
From the website:
Indicator 2 Medical Card - Is the applicant or his/her mother/father/guardian in receipt of a medical card (in date on 31st December 2012)?
Indicator 3 Social Welfare – Is the applicant’s mother/father/guardian in receipt of a means-tested social welfare payment (for a minimum of 26 weeks in the relevant year)?
Indicator 4 Socio-Economic Grouping (based on occupation and employment status) – Is the applicant a member of a group underrepresented in higher education?
Indicator 5 DEIS School – Did the applicant attend a school part of the Department of Education & Science “DEIS” scheme (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) for the duration of their second level education?
Indicator 6 Geographical Area – Does the applicant live in an area of concentrated disadvantage?
How I see them criteria is that you either meet them or you don't. Correct me if you see any way of being more disadvantaged in any of them because I might just not be looking at it correctly.
Even at the moment though, Criterion 4 is quite open to a graded scale ... at the moment, someone who has a parent in a "clerical" occupation is treated the same as someone both of whose parents are bank managers or company executives (as I understand it anyway, I'm not an expert on HEAR by any means!) No. 6 would also be open to a certain amount of weighting.
In fairness, the colleges and HEAR do really make every effort to get the message out there, and guidance counsellors usually are good on it, esp. in schools where it's especially relevant.Deleted User wrote: »That is rather odd because it's all we heard about throughout 5th and 6th year as it is genuinely the only way most of us can get to college.
The huge cut-backs in guidance posts / hours over the last couple of years may be a factor though.0 -
Hey guys, Im a student who will be heading into 6th year this coming September, and pursuing medicine.
Do you mind me asking you guys, just how much and how did you study for your HPATs, and how much of an increase did you see in your scores throughout the year?
Cheers 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
An hour a day from the start of august? That seems a bit much but maybe thats just me.
I got the mede package around october and went on it about 3 times a week and did some drills and tried to an exam every week/second week but during the school holidays like at halloween i'd try and do two of them. I do believe (and others mightn't agree) that the hpat is one of those things that'll you'll kind of click with or you won't, practise can help you get an overall feel for the questions, esp section 3 but with the new weightings it wont be as important etc but i think a lot of it comes down to how you naturally think about things and a lot to do with how your feeling on the day, i know some people here jumped by a huge amounts by repeating but i think thats rather the exception than the norm, i know people who've repeated and gone up 7/8 points but they still weren't high enough or people who even did worse second time round.
To me you should just focus for a while on familiarising yourself with whats on the test and one piece of advice i would give is to start looking at complicated long words for emotions, because i found in section 2 i'd no problem telling you what the overall emotion present was but when it came to the options given the problem was i hadn't heard of half the words! Thats my two cents anyway for what its worth!
Thanks 0 -
-
-
drbtrenier wrote: »I'd just like to give my two cents on the whole HEAR debate. I came on here today to have a look and the thread had exploded with comments. Just before I start, I would like to say that didn't use HEAR, so I am not defending it just because it was how I got into college. I'm just finished my first year in Medicine by the way.
I went to a Deis school in the countryside, which was extraordinarily small, and in which there was a culture of not studying. This is putting it mildly. My teachers were very good, and genuinely wanted us to do well, but the attitude found amongst the students was to do as little as possible, hopefully pass the exams and make it into the local college of higher education, if their aspirations were even that high. I trying not to sound like I'm bragging here, just giving an example, but I got 625 points, and there was no-one else that got over 500.
For a student who wanted to do well, it was very difficult. First of all, no competition meant that you had to be really motivated and not just want to be the best, but want to be your best. Other students laughed at you outright if you went to a teacher with a question after class, and you got sneered at if you weren't going out because you were studying. In class, teachers spent a lot of time trying to maintain discipline, or else everyone was so disinterested and practically asleep that there was absolutely no interaction between teacher and students whatsoever, try as the teacher may. And people are saying that this is not a disadvantage? The internet is no substitute for a well taught class.
Add to this the fact that the majority of my classmates came from families where parents had no higher education. Most had done their Inter Cert, with some having their Leaving, and very few having gone to college. This meant no help at home with difficult Higher Maths problems, etc., and often very little encouragement to aim high.
Grinds were completely out of the reach of most parents' income. Many of the students who did want to do well had part-time jobs, either to help pay for grinds, or to try to save up some money for college.
If someone can argue that these students are not disadvantaged, not just compared to those going to the IOE or whatever equivalent place, but also compared to people in a decent school, with a decent learning environment, with a high level of aspiration to achieve, with reasonably high-earning and well-educated parents at home, then please, go ahead. I'd love to hear it, and I'm open to being proven wrong.
How would you quantify this disadvantage??
This is the hard question.
Some people will look at this question like this:
"You wan't to make your goal smaller because your keeper is not as tall as our keeper??"
Congratulations on your 625 under the circumstances though.
Chapeau!!!0 -
-
eyescreamcone wrote: »How would you quantify this disadvantage??
This is the hard question.
Some people will look at this question like this:
"You wan't to make your goal smaller because your keeper is not as tall as our keeper??"
Congratulations on your 625 under the circumstances though.
Chapeau!!!
Thanks, but I really wasn't looking for the congrats!
That really is the million dollar question, you're right. It's a very good point. Firstly, it requires every bit as much and probably more work for someone in the circumstances I have described to get maybe 570 as it would for many others to get 600. I don't think that can be argued with. But quantifying it is pretty much impossible. You can't really do it by school, because obviously some have better help at home, or more disposable income for grinds. The system as it stands, as already discussed, is very open to manipulation.
However, I don't see how getting rid of HEAR entirely does anyone any favours. Sure, you'd no longer have people getting in on the scheme that really shouldn't based on their background, but you'd be denying 100s or even 1000s of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have worked just as hard as their more fortunate counterparts, a chance at a college education. Which is the lesser of two evils?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
i got netters anatomy colouring book and im going to study that over the summer, i took a year out this year so i need to brush up on stuff :P
also does anyone want to throw out some predictions for the cut off scores, im thinking :
UCC 743
UCD 751
NUIG 742
RCSI 747
TRINITY : 753
UCC 742
UCD 748
NUIG 740
RCSI 745
TCD 750
I'm a bit more optimistic than yourself.
0 -
TheJournal.ie have released an article about numbers applying to the CAO here, and it's got me a bit confused, because firstly the CAO don't seem to release any applicant stats apart from the February ones so I wonder where thejournal.ie got those, anyway it says in it:There were 3,115 first-choice applications for medicine, up by 1 per cent this year.
0 -
-
Eurovisionmad wrote: »TheJournal.ie have released an article about numbers applying to the CAO here, and it's got me a bit confused, because firstly the CAO don't seem to release any applicant stats apart from the February ones so I wonder where thejournal.ie got those, anyway it says in it: I was kinda hoping a drop would somewhat neutralise the jump in HPAT points. HPAT scores seem to have gone up by about 4 on average, so perhaps a 5/6--point jump might be realistic. Tbf there were about 30 more applicants this year then last year, not the worst thing ever! 0
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement