If all the other requirements were eroded, leaving only the UAI as a measure of eligiblity, then you would undoubtly be in the position to correct me, fortunatley, this is not the case.
What you say sounds true. I'm not saying that they are any less 'scholarly', to put it in your own words. However, you're suddenly bringing up the topic of UAI into the discussion which is like saying "young drivers shouldn't be restricted with a curfew because the net profit of last years banana growers superceded previous years'...". Well maybe not quite that dichotomous, but nonetheless irrelevant.
I can see what you are trying to argue and as I have said...I agree to some extent. But consider it this way: there are X places in Universty Z for LLB, suddenly there's a 20-25% increase in demand. Therefore, would the academic milieu be any different? No...because we take the cream of the crop. So in fact it would be harder to get in, thereby increasing academic potential.
The story with Medical courses is a little more challenging, because firstly, there is no defined UAI you should acheive nor is there a relatively fixed number of places from year to year.
I'm saying that despite the increase in demand for MBBS (hence theoretically more academically capable students accepted), the disproportionate increase in number of medical school places means that a greater proportion of students are accepted.
You have so far failed to rebut this pertinent point
ergo your arguments are not "extremely vaild" (as you maintain). Please explain how a sudden increase in medical places could be offset by increasing student demand. THAT, in my opinion, is the crux of this argument.
So far as the UAI goes, it's hard to explain so please bear with me, my wording might not exactly be logical.
You seem to have a good understanding of the entrance criteria required of medical schools. As you know, most medical schools have UAI + UMAT requirement, with some taking semi-structured interview performance into account. But with all sections counted equally (except for UNCLE where you only need to satisfy the UAI cutoff), you can acheive lower marks in each and still enter. It is not as if people can maintain high UAIs and afford to stuff up their other sections (unless you are very very smart), as I am assuming you are getting mixed up about.
So therefore, despite other entry requirements, the mere fact that they are equally weighted means that the academic mean will be lower. Interview/UMAT scores, by the same reasoning, will also be generally lower, so now not-so-bright students
without personal interaction skills (there are not-so-bright students with personal interaction skills in my univerity) can gain entry, meaning the value one places on the course and the profession in general is diminshed. But I hasten to add that this is in the short term only (refer to my first rebuttal).
Call it intellectual elitism if you will, but once (or if) you hit Anatomy 101, you will see why I bemoan the decreased academic mean. I'm not saying that all medical students should acheive 100 UAI before being accepted (I didn't), but that a certain threshold of academic capability is important (you may wish to consult AK Gumbi who is studying with me for confirmation, or any other medical student in this forum). Just like construction workers require phydscal strength and resilience.
Finally, I want to point out again that I do admire the thought you've put into this argument. I rebut to refine my communication skills and not because I have a grudge against you personally. You do raise some stimulating questions but should back up your arguments with solid evidence if I am to concede my case.
I hope you do understand what I mean now and sorry if I didn't make it clear before.
