*Everything HPAT and Medicine 2015*

vladd25

randylonghorn wrote:

So, realistically, there will always be different cut-offs for each of the groups, as they are independent of each other.

And do you have any ideea what were the last scores accepted last year for EU students at each university?

randylonghorn

Not a clue. Nor do I know if the other colleges do it the same way as RCSI do.

I'm simply figuring out their system as best I can from the email you quoted.

mlfaw

I just noticed that between the years 2011 and 2012 there was a massive jump in points despite the fact that the trend was the same for the HPAT results. Is this a result of the 25 points extra for maths in 2012, or is it because of another factor?

LauraKc

mlfaw wrote: »

I just noticed that between the years 2011 and 2012 there was a massive jump in points despite the fact that the trend was the same for the HPAT results. Is this a result of the 25 points extra for maths in 2012, or is it because of another factor?

Well I suspect it is mostly due to the bonus points but increased demand could also be a factor

mlfaw

LauraKc wrote: »

Well I suspect it is mostly due to the bonus points but increased demand could also be a factor

That's what I'm thinking as well, looking at the applicant statistics it seems that was a major factor. It shouldn't occur this year however, as the number of applicants are virtually the same as last year.

emma35

how many people sat the HPAT in 2014? I wrote to ACER to ask about the number in 2014 and 2015, but they only replied with the number for 2015 lol

Gabrielazap

emma35 wrote: »

how many people sat the HPAT in 2014? I wrote to ACER to ask about the number in 2014 and 2015, but they only replied with the number for 2015 lol

Someone said on this that there were only a few less people who applied this year in comparison to 2014...I don't know the exact figures though!

alaskayoung

Gabrielazap wrote: »

Someone said on this that there were only a few less people who applied this year in comparison to 2014...I don't know the exact figures though!

It said in the Irish Times last week or so that the number of people wanting to study medicine this year has gone up so I'd assume more people set the hpat?

Gallagher1

alaskayoung wrote: »

It said in the Irish Times last week or so that the number of people wanting to study medicine this year has gone up so I'd assume more people set the hpat?

2560 sat it last year and -2500ish sat it this year. If the amount of people wanting to study medicine went up, the increase is minimal I'd say.

This is the article from the IT from around the time CAO closed in February. Bear in mind you can't add Medicine to the CAO after February as it's restricted.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/cao-picks-show-demand-for-building-law-and-dentistry-1.2131275

and it says

Demand for Medicine was virtually unchanged

mlfaw

Gallagher1 wrote: »

2560 sat it last year and -2500ish sat it this year. If the amount of people wanting to study medicine went up, the increase is minimal I'd say.

This is the article from the IT from around the time CAO closed in February. Bear in mind you can't add Medicine to the CAO after February as it's restricted.

What is your take on the career portals article Monday prior? I can't link it because I'm a new user but it's called "The Rise and Fall of CAO Points 2015 " and they said:

"Where application numbers are up significantly, points are also likely to rise."

And proceed to say:

"Medicine

The points requirements for medicine dropped substantially by between 14-18 in 2014 following the reconfiguration of the marking scheme for the Hpat test. It is not surprising, therefore, to see a small increase in medical application numbers in 2015. First-choice application numbers are up 106 or 4 per cent to 2,978."

Do you (or anyone else reading this post) think that this could be a cause to believe Medicine will raise more than a point this year? As to my knowledge the points of entry are based of application demand and HPAT scores (as the LC scores are virtually the same each ear) so where applications have risen, will points rise?

Further to this, what would someone qualify as a "significant" rise as newpapers/ websites dealing with this issue are quite vague and seem to have broad definitions, so would a rise of 4% be considered significant?

vladd25

mlfaw wrote:

First-choice application numbers are up 106 or 4 per cent to 2,978."

I highly doubt that this is true as the statistics published by the CAO show an increase of only 6 people.

mlfaw

vladd25 wrote: »

I highly doubt that this is true as the statistics published by the CAO show an increase of only 6 people.

That's what I'm thinking also. Which begs the question; who is feeding the right information and who is muddying the waters.

vladd25

mlfaw wrote:

That's what I'm thinking also. Which begs the question; who is feeding the right information and who is muddying the waters.

It's obvious that the CAO has the right information. The only source of info we should trust is the CAO.

mlfaw

vladd25 wrote: »

It's obvious that the CAO has the right information. The only source of info we should trust is the CAO.

Then why did the Irish Times (supposedly reputable) publish that there was an increase; did they get the wrong figures or are they getting figures which aren't public?

Gabrielazap

mlfaw wrote: »

Then why did the Irish Times (supposedly reputable) publish that there was an increase; did they get the wrong figures or are they getting figures which aren't public?

Perhaps more people than usual took medicine off their Cao last year before the Cao deadline, due to perhaps the face HPAT score were lower last year than previously...some people would have thought they didn't have a chance but in fact they would have goten in with a good LC. this year people are a bit more optimistic as they can compare to 2014? So more people will leave it on the Cao?

Gallagher1

mlfaw wrote: »

Then why did the Irish Times (supposedly reputable) publish that there was an increase; did they get the wrong figures or are they getting figures which aren't public?

If you look at the article it has a 'Difference 2014/2015 %' section on the first graph. This shows medicine is up 0.18% from last year which, let's be honest, is virtually nothing.

This whole lark of 'medicine applicants up 4%' on careers portal could also contain grad entry students who don't sit HPAT, explaining the inconsistency that is "increase in applicants" while fewer actually sat HPAT this year.

However, I personally would trust the IT a hell of a lot more than Careers portal. IT are directly graphing the info they are getting from CAO, whereas some guidance counsellor is giving his interpretation of things on Careers portal. Clear cut statistics are always going to trump interpretation.

Example:

The points requirements for medicine dropped substantially by between 14-18 in 2014 following the reconfiguration of the marking scheme for the Hpat test.

Using his logic, points would have fallen 13-14 points(difference in percentiles) as he didn't account for the single sitting rule and the drop in applicants (around 250ish). I would take what Careers portal say with a pinch of salt. CAO stats show dentistry is up 13.5% whereas Careers portal are saying it's up 6%.

mlfaw

Gabrielazap wrote: »

Perhaps more people than usual took medicine off their Cao last year before the Cao deadline, due to perhaps the face HPAT score were lower last year than previously...some people would have thought they didn't have a chance but in fact they would have goten in with a good LC. this year people are a bit more optimistic as they can compare to 2014? So more people will leave it on the Cao?

Perhaps, so therefore the CAO statistics are outdated and a useless base point as although in Feb when they were published there was only a difference of six people there is in reality a difference of over a hundred in comparisson to last year, right?

Gallagher1 wrote: »

If you look at the article it has a 'Difference 2014/2015 %' section on the first graph. This shows medicine is up 0.18% from last year which, let's be honest, is virtually nothing.

This whole lark of 'medicine applicants up 4%' on careers portal could also contain grad entry students who don't sit HPAT, explaining the inconsistency that is "increase in applicants" while fewer actually sat HPAT this year.

However, I personally would trust the IT a hell of a lot more than Careers portal. IT are directly graphing the info they are getting from CAO, whereas some guidance counsellor is giving his interpretation of things on Careers portal. Clear cut statistics are always going to trump interpretation.

Example:

Using his logic, points would have fallen 13-14 points(difference in percentiles) as he didn't account for the single sitting rule and the drop in applicants (around 250ish). I would take what Careers portal say with a pinch of salt. CAO stats show dentistry is up 13.5% whereas Careers portal are saying it's up 6%.

Has IT provided a graph? As if so I can't seem to find it. I do agree with you about careers portal, however they took their information directly from IT as IT also wrote: First-choice application numbers are up 106 or 4 per cent to 2,978. Application numbers for dentistry are up 6 per cent to 339.

I think what Gabriela said may be correct; there were six more people who applied in Feb but compared to this time last year when people who could have got it dropped out there are in essence more applications as less would have dropped out this time, though this doesn't explain the 2900 figure - maybe 400 people but down Medicine for a laugh? The Dentistry thing could be the same situation, 13% more applied in Feb but come May a lot of applicants took it off their CAO as they feared they won't get it.

I don't understand your example.

Gabrielazap

mlfaw wrote: »

Perhaps, so therefore the CAO statistics are outdated and a useless base point as although in Feb when they were published there was only a difference of six people there is in reality a difference of over a hundred in comparisson to last year, right?



Has IT provided a graph? As if so I can't seem to find it. I do agree with you about careers portal, however they took their information directly from IT as IT also wrote: First-choice application numbers are up 106 or 4 per cent to 2,978. Application numbers for dentistry are up 6 per cent to 339.

I think what Gabriela said may be correct; there were six more people who applied in Feb but compared to this time last year when people who could have got it dropped out there are in essence more applications as less would have dropped out this time, though this doesn't explain the 2900 figure - maybe 400 people but down Medicine for a laugh? The Dentistry thing could be the same situation, 13% more applied in Feb but come May a lot of applicants took it off their CAO as they feared they won't get it.

I don't understand your example.

But then acer said that there were only around 2500 people who sat the HPAT this year...so how could around 2900 people have applied to medicine? It would be pointless to apply for medicine without having done the HPAT....

mlfaw

Gabrielazap wrote: »

But then acer said that there were only around 2500 people who sat the HPAT this year...so how could around 2900 people have applied to medicine? It would be pointless to apply for medicine without having done the HPAT....

Look at the statistics in 2014 and 2015; whilst roughly 2500 applied to the HPAT in these years but there seems to be 3200 applying in Feb both years, so the figure 2900 with 400 applying but not sitting the HPAT isn't outlandish. I know a few people who when I was sitting it the first time said they put down Medicine either "for a laugh" or to "push it up"; these people exist. Plus there are the naive parents and student combo who despite all warnings think that they can get Medicine without doing the HPAT.

It's a right hassle and is one of many reasons why the CAO is a failed system which needs to be removed.

Gabrielazap

mlfaw wrote: »

Look at the statistics in 2014 and 2015; whilst roughly 2500 applied to the HPAT in these years but there seems to be 3200 applying in Feb both years, so the figure 2900 with 400 applying but not sitting the HPAT isn't outlandish. I know a few people who when I was sitting it the first time said they put down Medicine either "for a laugh" or to "push it up"; these people exist. Plus there are the naive parents and student combo who despite all warnings think that they can get Medicine without doing the HPAT.

It's a right hassle and is one of many reasons why the CAO is a failed system which needs to be removed.

People who put medicine on for a laugh without doing the HPAT are not important as they would not even meet the requirements of the course so even if a thousand people who didn't do the HPAT applied for medicine it wouldn't be a factor at all.

AtomicKoala

mlfaw wrote: »

It's a right hassle and is one of many reasons why the CAO is a failed system which needs to be removed.

Well, that's a massive leap. I couldn't find any reason in your post.

mlfaw

Gabrielazap wrote: »

People who put medicine on for a laugh without doing the HPAT are not important as they would not even meet the requirements of the course so even if a thousand people who didn't do the HPAT applied for medicine it wouldn't be a factor at all.

They push up the demand though which leads to higher points, or at least that's my understanding of how points go up for courses.

AtomicKoala wrote: »

Well, that's a massive leap. I couldn't find any reason in your post.

It's well noted the CAO is failing or at the very least heavily flawed; this is emphasised by the ridiculously high points for certain courses such as Engineering and General Science in Universities such as Trinity whereas the same courses with the same qualifications can be done in others such as Maynooth and DIT for 100-150 points less. Considering this alongside other courses whose points are high due to limited places such as Medicinal Chemistry it begs the question why are the entry points so high and for what purpose.

I'll take science as an example, over the past decade in Trinity this is what the points were:

2014 - 515*
2013 - 505*
2012 - 510
2011 - 475*
2010 - 460*
2009 - 440*
2008 - 415
2007 - 435
2006 - 415*
2005 - 440*

Now compare this to Maynooth:

2014 - 400
2013 - 410
2012 - 415
2011 - 375
2010 - 365
2009 - 350
2008 - 320
2007 - 305
2006 - 300
2005 - 310

When you get the degree from either of these Universities you get the same qualification, the only difference is that you get the name "Trinity College Dublin" for the TCD course written on your degree at the end. There is also a trend of many failing or dropping out of courses throughout the years at rates which are quite high as a result of people scrambling to choose a course then disliking it once they are in it - something the CAO encourages as a result of the point system. There should be a pre-year implemented to qualify whether someone should enter a course or not as points in the Leaving Cert simply cannot determined someone's aptitude towards a University discipline as the LC is a rote-learning exam.

Gabrielazap

mlfaw wrote: »

They push up the demand though which leads to higher points, or at least that's my understanding of how points go up for courses.



It's well noted the CAO is failing or at the very least heavily flawed; this is emphasised by the ridiculously high points for certain courses such as Engineering and General Science in Universities such as Trinity whereas the same courses with the same qualifications can be done in others such as Maynooth and DIT for 100-150 points less. Considering this alongside other courses whose points are high due to limited places such as Medicinal Chemistry it begs the question why are the entry points so high and for what purpose.

I'll take science as an example, over the past decade in Trinity this is what the points were:

2014 - 515*
2013 - 505*
2012 - 510
2011 - 475*
2010 - 460*
2009 - 440*
2008 - 415
2007 - 435
2006 - 415*
2005 - 440*

Now compare this to Maynooth:

2014 - 400
2013 - 410
2012 - 415
2011 - 375
2010 - 365
2009 - 350
2008 - 320
2007 - 305
2006 - 300
2005 - 310

When you get the degree from either of these Universities you get the same qualification, the only difference is that you get the name "Trinity College Dublin" for the TCD course written on your degree at the end. There is also a trend of many failing or dropping out of courses throughout the years at rates which are quite high as a result of people scrambling to choose a course then disliking it once they are in it - something the CAO encourages as a result of the point system. There should be a pre-year implemented to qualify whether someone should enter a course or not as points in the Leaving Cert simply cannot determined someone's aptitude towards a University discipline as the LC is a rote-learning exam.

You first have to meet course requirements for a course for your theory to make sense. If you don't do the HPAT and apply for medicine anyway 1) you won't meet course requirements and 2) you won't get anywhere near the course points needed for medicine without the HPAT points added on.

mlfaw

Gabrielazap wrote: »

You first have to meet course requirements for a course for your theory to make sense. If you don't do the HPAT and apply for medicine anyway 1) you won't meet course requirements and 2) you won't get anywhere near the course points needed for medicine without the HPAT points added on.

I understand that, I mean demand in terms of applicants. It's the reason why courses - such as science in Trinity -have gone up so much. As I said, my understanding of how points rise in a course is through the number of applications, be they successful or unsuccessful, I'll take science as an example again as it's the easiest to work from.

In the year it jumped the most in Trinity (2012) there was an increase by 10% in number of applicants, however the points by strand acheived (e.g. 500-599) remained relatively the same, this would indicate to me that points are not what determine the changes (as they remain similar each year) it's applications made, be they close to points required or not.

Therefore, in the case of Medicine, whether a candidate did the HPAT or not is of no relevance to the CAO as they consider applicant numbers over points

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting how they allocate points.

Gallagher1

mlfaw wrote: »

They push up the demand though which leads to higher points, or at least that's my understanding of how points go up for courses.



It's well noted the CAO is failing or at the very least heavily flawed; this is emphasised by the ridiculously high points for certain courses such as Engineering and General Science in Universities such as Trinity whereas the same courses with the same qualifications can be done in others such as Maynooth and DIT for 100-150 points less. Considering this alongside other courses whose points are high due to limited places such as Medicinal Chemistry it begs the question why are the entry points so high and for what purpose.

I'll take science as an example, over the past decade in Trinity this is what the points were:

2014 - 515*
2013 - 505*
2012 - 510
2011 - 475*
2010 - 460*
2009 - 440*
2008 - 415
2007 - 435
2006 - 415*
2005 - 440*

Now compare this to Maynooth:

2014 - 400
2013 - 410
2012 - 415
2011 - 375
2010 - 365
2009 - 350
2008 - 320
2007 - 305
2006 - 300
2005 - 310

When you get the degree from either of these Universities you get the same qualification, the only difference is that you get the name "Trinity College Dublin" for the TCD course written on your degree at the end. There is also a trend of many failing or dropping out of courses throughout the years at rates which are quite high as a result of people scrambling to choose a course then disliking it once they are in it - something the CAO encourages as a result of the point system. There should be a pre-year implemented to qualify whether someone should enter a course or not as points in the Leaving Cert simply cannot determined someone's aptitude towards a University discipline as the LC is a rote-learning exam.

I think an awful lot of the problems you point out are linked to Irish society's view on third level education and aren't really the fault of the CAO.

Us Irish have this unreasoned fascination with TCD and that is why points are so much higher there compared to Maynooth and DIT, as shown with Science. The trend of people not liking courses is definitely linked to lack of research on the students part/ lack of decent guidance counsellors and the whole "You have to go to college" psyche instilled into the current generation which nearly forces students into college courses, leaving little wonder why so many of them don't actually enjoy what they do.

The CAO is merely a sorting device which filters students into college places based on their LC results. The LC and secondary school on the whole may be failing kids in preparation for college but the CAO certainly isn't in my opinion.

LauraKc

mlfaw wrote: »

I understand that, I mean demand in terms of applicants. It's the reason why courses - such as science in Trinity -have gone up so much. As I said, my understanding of how points rise in a course is through the number of applications, be they successful or unsuccessful, I'll take science as an example again as it's the easiest to work from.

In the year it jumped the most in Trinity (2012) there was an increase by 10% in number of applicants, however the points by strand acheived (e.g. 500-599) remained relatively the same, this would indicate to me that points are not what determine the changes (as they remain similar each year) it's applications made, be they close to points required or not.

Therefore, in the case of Medicine, whether a candidate did the HPAT or not is of no relevance to the CAO as they consider applicant numbers over points

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting how they allocate points.

A points threshold is not chosen and everyone on or above it allowed in. All applicants are ranked according to their points and the first (number of places available) people are given offers in the first round. The points number is the lowest points someone received an offer with. Offers that were rejected go into the second round and the next few people are offered places.

The reason points go up with demand is because if more people have applied, more people with high points will have applied and the places will go to them.

mlfaw

Gallagher1 wrote: »

I think an awful lot of the problems you point out are linked to Irish society's view on third level education and aren't really the fault of the CAO.

Us Irish have this unreasoned fascination with TCD and that is why points are so much higher there compared to Maynooth and DIT, as shown with Science. The trend of people not liking courses is definitely linked to lack of research on the students part/ lack of decent guidance counsellors and the whole "You have to go to college" psyche instilled into the current generation which nearly forces students into college courses, leaving little wonder why so many of them don't actually enjoy what they do.

The CAO is merely a sorting device which filters students into college places based on their LC results. The LC and secondary school on the whole may be failing kids in preparation for college but the CAO certainly isn't in my opinion.

I can agree with most of this post, however the CAO is run by the Irish Government therefore needs to be ammended to adjust to as what you've described. Perhaps, more resources aiming at helping students reconcile with the fact that going to University isn't the be all and end all are needed. Take Canada and the USA as an example, in Canada and the USA courses focused on manual jobs are just as profitable as traditional University courses; such as welding. In Ireland, I feel, too many people look down on manual jobs and think they're above them as a result of views made by society and these people could be suited a lot better to the manual jobs than traditional University courses which many dislike and see as an extension of Secondary School.

LauraKc wrote: »

A points threshold is not chosen and everyone on or above it allowed in. All applicants are ranked according to their points and the first (number of places available) people are given offers in the first round. The points number is the lowest points someone received an offer with. Offers that were rejected go into the second round and the next few people are offered places.

The reason points go up with demand is because if more people have applied, more people with high points will have applied and the places will go to them.

OK this makes sense, thank you.

Gallagher1

mlfaw wrote: »

I understand that, I mean demand in terms of applicants. It's the reason why courses - such as science in Trinity -have gone up so much. As I said, my understanding of how points rise in a course is through the number of applications, be they successful or unsuccessful, I'll take science as an example again as it's the easiest to work from.

In the year it jumped the most in Trinity (2012) there was an increase by 10% in number of applicants, however the points by strand acheived (e.g. 500-599) remained relatively the same, this would indicate to me that points are not what determine the changes (as they remain similar each year) it's applications made, be they close to points required or not.

Therefore, in the case of Medicine, whether a candidate did the HPAT or not is of no relevance to the CAO as they consider applicant numbers over points

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting how they allocate points.

Bonus 25 points for maths were introduced in 2012, therefore the band should really be (500-625) and those extra points definitely did have an effect on points for science that year.

The points for a Choice are not pre-determined at all. There are allocated by the following.

1) All candidates who apply for Science in trinity are put in a pool and are ranked by their LC score
2) If there are 100 spots available, places are offered to the 100 students in that pool that have the highest number of points(highest ranked)

If the 100th student to get in(i.e 100th highest ranked student) gets 515 points, then the entry requirement for Science that year is 515 as you would have needed at least 515 that year to get in.

250 students and 3000 students can apply to a course in respective years yet the points might not change. It's got to do with whether the people applying have higher points or not. If a glut of 300 pointers apply for Science in tcd it won't affect points as they will be nowhere near the top 100 ranks anyway

mlfaw

Gallagher1 wrote: »

Bonus 25 points for maths were introduced in 2012, therefore the band should really be (500-625) and those extra points definitely did have an effect on points for science that year.

The points for a Choice are not pre-determined at all. There are allocated by the following.

1) All candidates who apply for Science in trinity are put in a pool and are ranked by their LC score
2) If there are 100 spots available, places are offered to the 100 students in that pool that have the highest number of points(highest ranked)

If the 100th student to get in(i.e 100th highest ranked student) gets 515 points, then the entry requirement for Science that year is 515 as you would have needed at least 515 that year to get in.

250 students and 3000 students can apply to a course in respective years yet the points might not change. It's got to do with whether the people applying have higher points or not. If a glut of 300 pointers apply for Science in tcd it won't affect points as they will be nowhere near the top 100 ranks anyway

I understand now, thank you. So, really, Medicine shouldn't change much at all this year save a massive shift in LC points?

Gallagher1

mlfaw wrote: »

I understand now, thank you. So, really, Medicine shouldn't change much at all this year save a massive shift in LC points?

Yeah, which probably won't happen. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the points stayed the exact same for each Medicine course in the first round this year.