UMAT - Subtle Discrimination Against Asians? (1 Viewer)

MiuMiu

Somethin' special....
Joined
Nov 7, 2002
Messages
4,329
Location
Back in the USSR
Gender
Female
HSC
2003
If med requires certain skills that a whole race do not possess, then unfortunately for that race, they cannot be doctors.

However I have visited lots of Asian doctors. I don't think there is a shortage at all.

If you are Asian-Australian, grew up in Australia as an Australian, I really don't see how your ancestory is going to suddenly cause disadvantage.
 

LuBu

New Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
9
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Thought I would also add my bit to the discussion.

The current system expects a lot of blind faith from participating stakeholders' (taxpayers and students), that it "works". The truth of the matter is, this a system that is overwhelmingly subjective and thus, simply too open to abuse by the powers-that-be (admission bodies, faculties, interviewers) - all of which have little or no minority representation.

Take for instance, the UMAT, on top of having to pay lots of money for the "privilege" to undertake it, there is no credible research that indicates the students selected would make better doctors than the old system. Yet, the medical and dental schools here, being places of evidence-based higher learning, have unilaterally adopted this pseudo-scientific, unproven selection filter. Why is that? One thing for sure, the test has lost its equitability claims since a cottage industry in UMAT prep has not only appeared but has been aggressively growing over the years. Thus, those who can afford to pay for prep courses, have just that "edge" no matter how slight, over those who can't afford. This has introduced another level of inequitability.

Then we have this truly subjective selection filter called "interviews". Human beings are emotional creatures and no matter how enlightened, their perceptions are all subject to varying degrees of subtle personal, racial, cultural and religious bias. Such inherent flaws are established facts, yet, why are medical and dental applicants required to bank their futures on a gamble for an exception?

Another thing is, how can a simple 30-45 minute face-to-face interview provide a full character profile and measure on the "suitability" of any applicant to do medicine? The belief that it can, is naive optimistism and if not downright ludicrity. After all, not even professional criminal psychologists can achieve a complete and accurate character/motivation profile of a crim, much less medical/dental school interviewers drawn from the general public, who have undergone only couple of hours of "psychology" training using videotapes.

Furthermore with ridiculous ratios like anything from 3 to 6 interviewees for every 1 place, grading is extremely tight and wholly dependent on how "impressed" the interviewers are with the interviewees. Using the subjective data, our publicly-funded schools get to cherry pick "good" future doctors. It is clear to me that this practice wastes most applicants' time. You don't have to know about casinos to know that a "1 in 6" is lousy odds. Some argue that there is at least a chance to be heard, but lets be honest, only 1 will be selected. Is there a tacit aim to look for the gamblers-type personality in medicine or dentistry?

The previous system of high-school/gpa matriculation was not perfect, but at least it was appreciably transparent. As a result of the current trend of continued scholastic achievement devaluation in preference for subjective and inequitable tests, the ensuing lost of proven objectivity is a cause for real concern.

As a minority stakeholder, I can't help but see the current system for medical/dental admission, a permissible tool for social and professional control.
 

funnybunny

funniest bunny in th land
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
404
Location
universe realm 23 i.e outta this realm
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Hurri,

I am talking about the UNSW interviews, and pointdexter only mentions "interviews at Monash, Newcastle , Adelaide and UWA have about 3-4% differences between all examiners..." 4 unis, and NOT UNSW.

I'm going to take a wild stab at this, but from reading your posts, im going to say you were the first type :p
Hmmm.. no...most other students i talk to said the same.

And no the interviewers always let me finish although i came to ranting a few times.
So??...We're talking about UNSW HERE. And if you did go to the UNSW interview...so what? I never said that the interviewers told ALL the interviewes to stop. :p

Hurri=Please refrain from your posts:)
 

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
funnybunny said:
i think epsilon has got it about rite
What Epsilon refers to is applicable when one goes for an interview for anything. Esp a job. First impressions, looks, and other subjective features are things that cannot be entirely eroded within the mind of the decision maker. The applicant can only improve on such concerning matters and hope the person who conducts the interview 'likes' them. You are really stating something quite obvious here.

There are limited positions and if many applicants possess the same merits, the decision maker will almost entirely rely on their gut feeling of the person. That is unavoidable.

Anyone is always welcome to try the following year. There is nothing stopping people from doing so. Rob, "Lexiographer" did just that. From a shithouse UAI (in terms of medicine requirements) to doing a course in Nanotech in UTS, to scoring a phat score in the test and entering into med school.

There is nothing obvious that disadvantages Asians in the interview apart from the fact that some MAY be racist. That argument however, may be reversed if the Asian interwier was racist as well. I think it's a nice balance. :)
 

turtleface

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
932
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Why all the focus on interpersonal skills? I realise not all doctors work in hospitals but have you guys even been to a hospital? The doctors there don't even talk to you besides maybe a hi and how are you feeling. I've found the more serious and less talkative doctors tend to get more done and focus on the important things. The UMAT tests a student's responsiveness to situations and dilemmas, in order to screen out students who may have gotten killer marks in high school through rote learning and lots and lots of back breaking hard work. Its pretty much an IQ test. To use the House example, in a way they want more Dr Houses rather than his assistants who are caught up on facts from books and don't seem to have the ability to respond to the situation on hand. Whether a doctor should be a house or one of his assistants is debatable.
(Yes true House is an inaccurate reflection of the medical industry)

I think screening out people with poor language skills (in terms of reading and comprehension and analysis and stuff) is an objective in the UMAT. Some have suggested that this is the case, whilst others have rejected it saying that if so, law students should have a similar process. The problem is, if you do that for law, you'll have to do it for other stuff like Accounting. I mean, have a look at some of the standards Accounting students have to deal with. No way anyone with less than perfect english could understand this crap. http://www.aasb.com.au/pronouncements/aasb_standards_2005_index.htm
 

+Po1ntDeXt3r+

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
3,527
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
i call to reason that medical places cost more than law places in terms of govt funding..

Law places are about $1K/yr and ...there are more places than med nationally.. im not sure of the exact figures..
Medical are about $9K/yr and there are about 1100 places nationally

after the 8K/yr CSP.. the places are also rarely transferable.. like...
-UNSW law 2 could goto Usyd law 2... no big deal..
-Med 2 to Med 2 would be completely impossible.. because of course difference (they are integrated) and nil cross-credits.. very few transfers ever occur when they do..

yes i have heard usyd law dean consider putting in a LCAT type exam to screen out those that dun realli want to do law.. but that their options..

generally there is a trend that doctors lik house would get sued way too much... cause patients to distrust them and revile them... the patriarch style is now gone.. we are taught to be matriarchal in a sense to properly advise the patient.
 

Enlightened_One

King of Bullshit
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
1,105
Location
around about here - still
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
+Po1ntDeXt3r+ said:
i call to reason that medical places cost more than law places in terms of govt funding..

Law places are about $1K/yr and ...there are more places than med nationally.. im not sure of the exact figures..
Medical are about $9K/yr and there are about 1100 places nationally

after the 8K/yr CSP.. the places are also rarely transferable.. like...
-UNSW law 2 could goto Usyd law 2... no big deal..
-Med 2 to Med 2 would be completely impossible.. because of course difference (they are integrated) and nil cross-credits.. very few transfers ever occur when they do..

yes i have heard usyd law dean consider putting in a LCAT type exam to screen out those that dun realli want to do law.. but that their options..

generally there is a trend that doctors lik house would get sued way too much... cause patients to distrust them and revile them... the patriarch style is now gone.. we are taught to be matriarchal in a sense to properly advise the patient.
Currently, to my knowledge, a doctor cannot be found negligent simply because patients distrust or revile them. I could actually state the requirements for a medical negligence case but I won't bother.

The point about rote is a good thing. I've heard it said that Asians in particular are better (or just more dedicated than the rest of us:haha: ) at rote and similair styles of learning. Apparently you pick up a hell of a UAI only doing ESL and thus are probably great (or have memorised heaps of) physics, chemistry etc but are not good at actually reading a textbook and applying it to real life. Plus, it is pretty to hard to diagnose patients when you cannot even get your question across.
And I thought law was pretty popular with Asians (or are you saying Asian Asians or Australian Asians).
The other important point raised before is that anyone who is only interested in medicine because they have a high UAI should not be doing the course. It's different for law because if they are no good at law then they will fail or not get a job or get a job and hate it or be shit at it etc, but it's not like there is a shortage of lawyers. A shortage of doctors on the other hand means that every place is valuable and it's a waste if even one student enters the degree and cannot handle it or does not like it then that is a wasted chance for someone genuinely interested in medicine.
 

Antler

Custom User Title
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
176
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Enlightened_One said:
Currently, to my knowledge, a doctor cannot be found negligent simply because patients distrust or revile them. I could actually state the requirements for a medical negligence case but I won't bother.
Yes but experimenting on patients is just a little illegal hmmm? Keeping information to yourself? We were taught that most medical cases arise due to communication issues.
 

Enlightened_One

King of Bullshit
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
1,105
Location
around about here - still
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Antler said:
Yes but experimenting on patients is just a little illegal hmmm? Keeping information to yourself? We were taught that most medical cases arise due to communication issues.
Where did anyone mention experimenting on patients? And communication is a little different than just disliking your doctor.
Rogers v Whitaker, Chapel v Hart, and Rosenberg v Percival all did relate to communication so I suppose you're right and it's another good reason to have language tests.
The issue in those cases was that the doctors did not properly warn their patients of the risks of the operations they underwent. Also in some of the cases patients asked (generally) about the risk of certain things happening, which means a doctor needs to understand English comprehensively.
And I suppose you could link in Naxakis because a doctor would be liable if he failed to diagnose the patient properly which involves understanding what they are saying.
 

+Po1ntDeXt3r+

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
3,527
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
my point is actualli about the likelihood of taking it to a further stage.. like them ACTUALLY suing u and dragging the cute white collar ass through court... and then on TV for a nice shot for 'today tonight'... instead of working it (corrective treatment) through and settling or just settling..

usually its about material risk but like with elective cosmetics its a strange new world.... atm they have the highest rates of litigation per 100 docs

yeah didnt make it clear... at all
 
Last edited:

Antler

Custom User Title
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
176
Location
Melbourne
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Enlightened_One said:
Where did anyone mention experimenting on patients? And communication is a little different than just disliking your doctor.
saying.
generally there is a trend that doctors lik house would get sued way too much...
...
 

Enlightened_One

King of Bullshit
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
1,105
Location
around about here - still
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Antler said:
I don't know whether House experiments on patients or not, I only watch the occassional episode.

And, +Po1ntDeXt3r+, just because someone files a claim against someone else doesn't mean the case is even going to get past the first hearing where the judge establishes whether a case is actually there.

I could start civil proceedings against you now. Of course, since I probably wouldn't have a case it wouldn't go past the initial stage.
 

+Po1ntDeXt3r+

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
3,527
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Enlightened_One said:
I don't know whether House experiments on patients or not, I only watch the occassional episode.

And, +Po1ntDeXt3r+, just because someone files a claim against someone else doesn't mean the case is even going to get past the first hearing where the judge establishes whether a case is actually there.

I could start civil proceedings against you now. Of course, since I probably wouldn't have a case it wouldn't go past the initial stage.
yep. im familiar with that..

im being very general... cos in reality...
we can be subjected to scrutiny by several bodies/methods
-State Medical Board
-State Health Care Complaints Commission/Body
-Litigation

In litigation, I was assuming a viable basis..cause usually most medico-legal lawyers know better than that...and settling after the 1st direction hearing or getting thrown out is the best option to minimise the time..or till they are proven innocent..
i know that this system is similar but not exactly the same in all states

minimising the time in trial is a very desirable outcome for most medics... and good communication and rapport with the patient is one way of insuring that psychological harm is minimised..

the other things can run parallel to the litigation.. i.e. the medical board and the health commission.. they can usually suspend practice licence and/or further fine and/or refer for criminal prosecution too..

its really up to the patient's discretion which body to complain to first.. they can refer practitioner's to all 3.. rather than in just a minor hearing with the HCC Commission/Body (which is the most desirable personally if i stuffed up)..
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top