UMAT - Subtle Discrimination Against Asians? (1 Viewer)

[epsilon]

Think about it. Why was UMAT introduced anyway? To ensure that future doctors have good interpersonal skills? Nonsense. Ever seen Dr House? If you're a great doctor, what does it matter whether your interpersonal skills suck? Patients would still flock to you.

To ensure that the English standard of doctors are at a certain level? Again, absolute rubbish. Look at potential law students. They would have to use English extensively in their future careers, yet they aren't required to take a UMAT equivalent. So what gives?

To test potential med students to see whether they have the right 'state of mind' to be good doctors? Again, bollocks. If that student had already gotten a high enough UAI to qualify for medicine, then I say he should be allowed to do so if he wants to. I thought Australia prides itself for being an egalitarian country?

Now, just in case I get flamed soon , I'm an Asian-Aussie, and I'm not a medical student or a bitter-wannabe-med-student-who-didn't-get-in-because-of-UMAT

It's quite well known that many Asian students are interested in studying medicine/dentistry/pharmacy/optometry/etc. In fact, according to this article in the SMH, about 60% of dentistry and optometry students were overseas-born. So is it too far fetched to suggest that the UMAT could possibly be a 'screening' tool in controlling the number of Asian medical students? This is since it's most probably those Asian students who would have more difficulties in the UMAT and its subsequent interviews, and that they might not do very well in them (this refers more to those new Asian migrants than Aussie-born Asians).

And could the reason as to why there are currently no UMAT equivalent for entry into law degrees because it's not as in demand by Asians at the moment?

I'm not trying to stir up racist sentiments or anything here, but I thought that this was a reasonable question to ask. It defies logic that potential medical students are being forced to take the UMAT and interviews (persumably to assess their English abilities) when potential law students don't have to do so. Clearly, English and even interpersonal skills are far more important to the latter's future career than the former's.

 

[Frigid]

have you taken the UMAT?

the UMAT neither precludes asians nor is biased against them. plenty of asians i know did brilliantly in in the UMAT, with or without prep course training (i got 273 percentile in 2003 after AMEPP prep course), and a significant amount of med students are asians.

if i remember correctly: section I tests logic, section II tests something like patient response and section III are the patterns questions. nowhere in the test is there an area which severely disadvantages asian-australians

the SMH article to which you referred does not prove your point, because it discounts australian-born asians.

but again, i go back to the simple point: have you taken the UMAT and how did your race affected your performance thereof?

if, on the other hand, you say interviews discriminate against asians, it could be perhaps because they have not shown they really want to do medicine, but rather because they have got the marks. surely an interviewee who says, "i would be law/actuarial studies if i didn't make medicine", is not seen in a positive light.

and btw, you don't even do law. you cannot comment whether it is in demand by asians or otherwise.

 

[phrred]

It could be but it also may be the fact of itnerpersonal skills. There have been many cases where people who do well academically arent smart enough socially and dont understand the patients problems well enough because they are so dependent of their textbooks all the time. Also it helps filter out people that do it for the image or because there mummies want then to do it

With law, a LLB can take you to many fields and not necessarily law such as in commerce, whilst in medicine all med graduates become doctors.

but i think there should be a test for law coz theres too many people doing it for the prestige and not the interest

 

[AsyLum]

Why is this guy comparing everything to TV shows?

 

[KFunk]

If the UMAT was designed to keep asians out of medicine I don't think it's doing a very good job of it...

 

[redd]

If the UMAT was designed to keep asians out of medicine I don't think it's doing a very good job of it...

ahahahaha, nice one

 

[glitterfairy]

There have been many cases where people who do well academically arent smart enough socially and dont understand the patients problems well enough because they are so dependent of their textbooks all the time. Also it helps filter out people that do it for the image or because there mummies want then to do it

I totally agree! Something I want to add is that a lot of the textbook-dependant type people often spend too much time studying/thinking about studying rather than getting out there and living life, going through life/learning from life etc (kinda required to develop communication skills). As ever, balance is the key...

If you're a great doctor, what does it matter whether your interpersonal skills suck? Patients would still flock to you.

I totally disagree!

You can't be a great doctor unless you have compassion for your patient, and good communication with them. Heck, I'm sure most of us here at some point have refused to go to a particular doctor again after feeling we deserved to be treated better. 'Nuff said.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

UMAT is only as biased against Asians, as the HSC is biased toward them.

Alllllllllso...

If they had a test to screen potential law students to make sure they were all of, err, 'good character,' there wouldn't be any lawyers!

 

[adamsaclown]

If they had a test to screen potential law students to make sure they were all of, err, 'good character,' there wouldn't be any lawyers!

hahahah ^

 

[epsilon]

"if, on the other hand, you say interviews discriminate against asians, it could be perhaps because they have not shown they really want to do medicine, but rather because they have got the marks. surely an interviewee who says, "i would be law/actuarial studies if i didn't make medicine", is not seen in a positive light."

- Frigid

Maybe I should have clarified my first post a little bit better. I was referring more on the interview component of UMAT.

On those type of students that you've pointed out above, granted, their reasons for wanting to do medicine may not be as noble as "I want to save as many lives as I can", but ego/family expectations/earning power/prestige are nevertheless still reasons. And surely since that student has bothered to take the UMAT and the interviews, as well as putting medicine as one of his/her preferences, that shows that he/she wants to do medicine. If he/she really despises the idea of doing medicine, he/she wouldn't apply for it at all in the first place.

And about not wanting to waste their astronomical UAIs, that's besides the point. After all, it's their UAIs, and shouldn't they be given the choice to do whatever they want to do with it? After all, they have already satisfied the entry requirements for medicine by managing to get UAIs that are above or equal to the cut-offs for it. And besides, many law students also did it just because they got high UAIs. Why aren't they screened with interviews?

On that article, it wasn't really meant to support my claim. I just wanted to use the stats for the number of Asian students doing dent/opt to show that many Asian students like studying those kinds of courses.

On Asians and law, I just merely stated that even though it's still a popular choice amongst Asians, it's not as popular as medicine. I may not be a law student, but I do have friends who are doing law.

"You can't be a great doctor unless you have compassion for your patient, and good communication with them. Heck, I'm sure most of us here at some point have refused to go to a particular doctor again after feeling we deserved to be treated better. 'Nuff said."

- glitterfairy

Yes, yes, all very nice. But if he hardly knows what the symptoms for a particular disease are, or how to operate his patients properly, then all those attributes above won't help his patients survive now, would it?

And like what you've already stated, if that doctor's a nerd and a totally socially-inept dude, just don't go to him again. His crappy interpersonal skills would translate into economic loss. But what bearing would this have on his initial application to medical school? It's his life after all, and if he wants to be shunned by his future patients, than that's his business.

"I totally agree! Something I want to add is that a lot of the textbook-dependant type people often spend too much time studying/thinking about studying rather than getting out there and living life, going through life/learning from life etc (kinda required to develop communication skills). As ever, balance is the key..."

- glitterfairy

Again, they are entitled to waste their lives away for all we or their potential patients care. It may be a pity that some of them may not be those all-rounders that you prefer, but again, they are after all still qualified for a medical place based on their UAIs. And again, back to law students. Aren't there many law students who are total bookworms as well? If so, why aren't they filtered out?

P.S: I'm a commerce student.

 

[AsyLum]

If you believe that all it takes to be a success in the industrial/working world is to be able to recite x,y,z and read from a textbook, then you are very mistaken, and the world would've stopped functioning with a bunch of socially inept people.

 

[epsilon]

"If you believe that all it takes to be a success in the industrial/working world is to be able to recite x,y,z and read from a textbook, then you are very mistaken, and the world would've stopped functioning with a bunch of socially inept people."

- AsyLum

Yeah, but that's the point. Doesn't what you say apply to every other profession as well? So why is only medicine/dentistry singled out? Why isn't admission into all those other courses subjected to interviews and such as well?

 

[Estel]

Epsilon: studies done by the University of Newcastle (they actually split their cohort selection at one stage to be UAI for one half, UMAT/Interview on the other) show that there is a far greater correlation between UMAT/Interview and performance in the medicine course (measured by % who actually complete the course and % who complete the course with honours) than between UAI and performance in the medicine course.
Any discrimination in the process would have to be regarded as unimportant when this fact is considered.

As for why medicine is singled out: the UAI has proven to be quite satisfactory for other courses; Medicine had an exceptionally high attrition rate, which is very scary when all the kids doing the course have 99.7+ marks.

 

[Frigid]

On those type of students that you've pointed out above, granted, their reasons for wanting to do medicine may not be as noble as "I want to save as many lives as I can", but ego/family expectations/earning power/prestige are nevertheless still reasons.

granted, they are reasons, but they are not 'acceptable' reasons to the entrance interviewers. how is that prejudice against race? a non-asian person who says, "i want to do medicine because of my lovely UAI", will still be as disadvantaged as an asian person.

And surely since that student has bothered to take the UMAT and the interviews, as well as putting medicine as one of his/her preferences, that shows that he/she wants to do medicine. If he/she really despises the idea of doing medicine, he/she wouldn't apply for it at all in the first place.

[let's take me as a typical example of an asian who did not make med:] i did not despise medicine. but it wasn't my first choice (by that i mean it was my first preference, but it wasn't what i really really wanted to do).

i think they would rather have someone who showed (or capable of showing) they really, really (beyond anything) wanted to do medicine.

And besides, many law students also did it just because they got high UAIs. Why aren't they screened with interviews?

one good reason is that law is transferable into other professions, whereas medicine cannot. the selectors must ensure a person who takes up one of the limited places in med school and will not drop out half-way or end up not practising. in law, it doesn't really matter. only 40% of law graduates become lawyers anyway.

 

[KFunk]

Yes, yes, all very nice. But if he hardly knows what the symptoms for a particular disease are, or how to operate his patients properly, then all those attributes above won't help his patients survive now, would it?

*and all that other stuff you said*

I think you have an exagerated sense of entitlement when it comes to UAI's. A 99.9 UAI represents a lot of hard work but I don't think it's as simple as 'it's their UAI and their life, so they should eb able to do what they want with it'. You suggest that a person has the right to study medicine (should they make it in) and become a doctor despite being of poor character if they have high marks to get into a course. I propose that a medschool should also have the right to choose students with the desired combo of marks + personal qualities over the student who simply acheived a good UAI.

There are so many qualities not assessed in the HSC which could help to make a person a better doctor. You don't need a UAI of 99 (or 95 or even 90) to make a good doctor or cope with the subject matter. Given the popularity of medicine I think it's good that they've introduced other methods of testing to look for other qualities not targeted in exams based around rote learning.

 

[withoutaface]

Think about it. Why was UMAT introduced anyway? To ensure that future doctors have good interpersonal skills? Nonsense. Ever seen Dr House? If you're a great doctor, what does it matter whether your interpersonal skills suck? Patients would still flock to you.

To ensure that the English standard of doctors are at a certain level? Again, absolute rubbish. Look at potential law students. They would have to use English extensively in their future careers, yet they aren't required to take a UMAT equivalent. So what gives?

To test potential med students to see whether they have the right 'state of mind' to be good doctors? Again, bollocks. If that student had already gotten a high enough UAI to qualify for medicine, then I say he should be allowed to do so if he wants to. I thought Australia prides itself for being an egalitarian country?

Now, just in case I get flamed soon , I'm an Asian-Aussie, and I'm not a medical student or a bitter-wannabe-med-student-who-didn't-get-in-because-of-UMAT

It's quite well known that many Asian students are interested in studying medicine/dentistry/pharmacy/optometry/etc. In fact, according to this article in the SMH, about 60% of dentistry and optometry students were overseas-born. So is it too far fetched to suggest that the UMAT could possibly be a 'screening' tool in controlling the number of Asian medical students? This is since it's most probably those Asian students who would have more difficulties in the UMAT and its subsequent interviews, and that they might not do very well in them (this refers more to those new Asian migrants than Aussie-born Asians).

And could the reason as to why there are currently no UMAT equivalent for entry into law degrees because it's not as in demand by Asians at the moment?

I'm not trying to stir up racist sentiments or anything here, but I thought that this was a reasonable question to ask. It defies logic that potential medical students are being forced to take the UMAT and interviews (persumably to assess their English abilities) when potential law students don't have to do so. Clearly, English and even interpersonal skills are far more important to the latter's future career than the former's.

If you want to get a good job in this country, you have to learn the language. Lawyers who lack personal skills will get stung when they fail all their job interviews.

 

[glitterfairy]

- AsyLum

Yeah, but that's the point. Doesn't what you say apply to every other profession as well? So why is only medicine/dentistry singled out? Why isn't admission into all those other courses subjected to interviews and such as well?

Since that point sort of applies to what I said as well, here goes:

Considering that doctors earn one of the highest wages and have frickin' high dropout rates, that MIGHT be why they start weeding out before term begins. Furthermore it's something of a given that people expect doctors -much like policemen - to be upstanding citizens, role models etc etc. Again, hence the screening process.

In most other career paths I imagine that it's a bit more "cut-throat" and changes happen WITHIN the industry - eg if a lawyer sucks, they get a really bad reputation and few people work with them, until they're fired or they suddenly clean up their act. However usually these people can get another job... when you train to be a doctor, I don't really think you expect to be "without a job", or doing anything other than medicine.

 

[glitterfairy]

I think you have an exagerated sense of entitlement when it comes to UAI's. A 99.9 UAI represents a lot of hard work but I don't think it's as simple as 'it's their UAI and their life, so they should eb able to do what they want with it'. You suggest that a person has the right to study medicine (should they make it in) and become a doctor despite being of poor character if they have high marks to get into a course. I propose that a medschool should also have the right to choose students with the desired combo of marks + personal qualities over the student who simply acheived a good UAI.

There are so many qualities not assessed in the HSC which could help to make a person a better doctor. You don't need a UAI of 99 (or 95 or even 90) to make a good doctor or cope with the subject matter. Given the popularity of medicine I think it's good that they've introduced other methods of testing to look for other qualities not targeted in exams based around rote learning.

Good point...

A number of people do great in uni but sucked in high school. It works the other way around as well.

 

[Lexicographer]

NOTE FOR THE STUPIDFACED: HOUSE IS RUBBISH MEDICINE.

Also, even now, when UMAT has been around for years, there are tons of Asians in med. If anything, I'd try to claim the interviews were discriminating against Asians, but that's just as baseless as what you are saying.

 

[xeuyrawp]

NOTE FOR THE STUPIDFACED: HOUSE IS RUBBISH MEDICINE

:O:O:O:O Really1??! I thought House, ER, and All Saints were realistic portrayals of the medical profession, just like The Shield is about police, Boston Legal is about law, and Star Trek is about the Federation Starfleet...