Article: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) Registrar

[frootloop]

If you're going to use a pseudonym, might as well have gone with Kellyanne Conway, Mr alternative facts.

 

[Yamster]

I took like 5 naps today and every time I have woken up this thread is still fighting it out.

 

[peterw]

Robbie,
Your first and last points really contradict each other. Your last point attempts to justify why there should be allocated places for OMFS students in medicine so that society has access to OMFS services. Yet your 1st point tries to justify that these allocated places are likely to be harder to get into than ordinary entry.
So I will ask you, what is the point of having allocated places in medicine of OMFS students for the good of society and so that people can have access to their services, but then those allocated places as you say are actually harder to get into than normal entry?
What the point of allocated places if they are harder to get into than standard graduate entry?

 

[frootloop]

I'd still really like to know if you feel like I misrepresented any of your points in my bog point-by-point post on the last page (except perhaps the last one, for obvious reasons). You've got a few of us mobbing you here, so fair enough if you missed it.

I'd also really like to know what you, a doctor with 20 years of experience,is getting out of arguing with a bunch of med students. Like, we can't change any of this. Why not take it up with the appropriate authorities?

 

[peterw]

Robbie,

This is similar to an argument put before for rural and indigenous students. What would be the point of having allocated places for indigenous students if the entry criteria was actually higher than for standard entry? What would be the point of having allocated places for rural students if the entry criteria was higher than for standard entry? The whole point of having allocated places is to try to increase the number of those students you are giving allocated places to? Thant's the whole point.
Similarly the WHOLE POINT of having allocated places for OMFS students is to try and increase the number of OMFS students that usually would not gain entry.

Robbie, do you disagree with what I have said in the two paragraphs above?

 

[frootloop]

Robbie,

This is similar to an argument put before for rural and indigenous students. What would be the point of having allocated places for indigenous students if the entry criteria was actually higher than for standard entry? What would be the point of having allocated places for rural students if the entry criteria was higher than for standard entry? The whole point of having allocated places is to try to increase the number of those students you are giving allocated places to? Thant's the whole point.
Similarly the whole point of having allocated places for OMFS students is to try and increase the number of OMFS students that usually would not gain entry.

We agree on something! This is exactly why it's done. To make sure we have enough OMFS in future to meet needs. Workforce planning, and all that.

Where you're wrong is in thinking it makes them any less deserving. The system is set up to favour school leavers and graduates of 3 year undergrad degrees. You can't directly compare that with dent school grades.

 

[Rob]

Robbie,
Your first and last points really contradict each other. Your last point attempts to justify why there should be allocated places for OMFS students in medicine so that society has access to OMFS services. Yet your 1st point tries to justify that these allocated places are likely to be harder to get into than ordinary entry.
So I will ask you, what is the point of having allocated places in medicine of OMFS students for the good of society and so that people can have access to their services, but then those allocated places as you say are actually harder to get into than normal entry?
What the point of allocated places if they are harder to get into than standard graduate entry?

No, I didn't contradict myself, you just misinterpreted my post.

My first point was that getting into medicine via first getting into OMFS training is likely to be more difficult.

My second and third points were arguing that, if we assume that my first point is wrong, having entry into medicine via OMFS being easier than standard entry would be fair (point two) and good for society (point three). Hope that clears it up.

As for the point of having allocated places - when someone is accepted into OMFS training, what is the point in having them apply for medical school through standard entry as well? Isn't it simpler to just have a place in medicine allocated for them once they are accepted into training? It would be a bit of a waste of time getting them to prepare for and take the GAMSAT when they will have already demonstrated that they are of high enough calibre to get accepted into OMFS training.

 

[A1]

Robbie,
This is similar to an argument put before for rural and indigenous students. What would be the point of having allocated places for indigenous students if the entry criteria was actually higher than for standard entry?

JCU has a quota for non-standards separate from Y12s, which due to very limited numbers tends to be more difficult to get. An allocated quota isn't always to make entry easier.

 

[peterw]

Frootloop,
I don't think it matters if I am the local street cleaner or the head of the RACS. None of that changes the original question I posted and nor should it. I am talking about a principle of fair play. If you were a Dr you would be aware of many Drs that feel exactly the same as I do regarding this point. Lateral entry is simply a way of the dental profession getting their own students, who have not achieved the standard ( I have talked with some that openly admit this) into medicine, to further their push to be seen as Drs and not dentists. This similar argument has been going on for years.
I am now going to do some work. You, I feel will never agree with what I have said and I will certainly never agree with your view. I think we will leave it there. Good luck for your future. I hope you are not one of these OMFS that gained unfair entry.
Good night.

 

[Yamster]

That's all folks.

 

[Rob]

Robbie,

This is similar to an argument put before for rural and indigenous students. What would be the point of having allocated places for indigenous students if the entry criteria was actually higher than for standard entry? What would be the point of having allocated places for rural students if the entry criteria was higher than for standard entry? The whole point of having allocated places is to try to increase the number of those students you are giving allocated places to? Thant's the whole point.
Similarly the WHOLE POINT of having allocated places for OMFS students is to try and increase the number of OMFS students that usually would not gain entry.

Robbie, do you disagree with what I have said in the two paragraphs above?

As I said, I do not know much about OMFS, and you may indeed be right that it is easier to get into medicine this way than through completing a BDS and applying through GAMSAT (which would incidentally be a significantly harder route into medicine than through most degrees).

However my other points would still stand - this is not unfair, and is important for meeting the healthcare needs of society.

Good luck for your work!

 

[DrDrLMG!]

Actual 2017 Entry Example

Interstate, rural, school leaver. ATAR 98ish, UMAT 58ish. Eligible for the RAP at UTAS. Offered.

Local, rural graduate. GPA 7.0ish, UMAT 92ish. Eligible for the RAP at UTAS. Not offered.

Medicine entry is full of stories that could appear 'unfair', but aren't. That are instead a product of the government (understandably) attempting to train professionals that fit its projected needs in the most efficient way.

I'd hypothesise someone with a demonstrated interest in OMFS and, presumably, the BDS GPA/interview/personal statement/bridging course scores to get them over line for one of the three lateral entry BDS-->Med positions left in Australia heading straight into 3rd or 4th year Med (uni dependent), and having their own (very tiny) quota, is at least partly a reflection of the government's decision NOT to spend ~$80-100k making them do first and second year unnecessarily. And given they're only 'competing' against each other for these three spots, it also seems unnecessary to require them to do GAMSAT or UMAT given they're both tests designed for sorting student numbers in the 10s of thousands.

 

[peterw]

"at least partly a reflection of the government's decision NOT to spend ~$80-100k making them do first and second year unnecessarily"

However there is no need for them to do this anyway. As with any other Uni course, a student can apply in the usual way and then once having gained entry they can apply for credit/advanced standing. So if a BDS student applied in the usual way with every other graduate wishing to gain entry to medicine, that student if successful could then very easily apply for advanced standing for certain subjects, and provided the Uni accepts that, which I believe they likely would, that person would then be granted entry into a higher year, likely 3rd year. So it has nothing to do with the government not wanting to waste money making them repeat 1st and 2nd year. This same idea applies to every course. The Uni's do not generally make students repeat subjects that they can demonstrate they have achieved a similar level in, at another Uni or course. This is simple stuff, and has nothing to do with justifying lateral entry.

 

[Yamster]

The 2 hour interlude is finished.

Part 2 begins.

 

[sht]

Actual 2017 Entry Example

Interstate, rural, school leaver. ATAR 98ish, UMAT 58ish. Eligible for the RAP at UTAS. Offered.

Local, rural graduate. GPA 7.0ish, UMAT 92ish. Eligible for the RAP at UTAS. Not offered.

Medicine entry is full of stories that could appear 'unfair', but aren't.

Well, this is patently unfair and, frankly, a bullshit decision. The OMFS quota is needed for lack of a better solution. This UTAS example shows what a mess UTAS admissions policy is.

 

[DrDrLMG!]

Well, this is patently unfair and, frankly, a bullshit decision. The OMFS quota is needed for lack of a better solution. This UTAS example shows what a mess UTAS admissions policy is.

The assumption is, note: assumption, UTAS have not actually confirmed this, despite requests for clarification, that within the RAP quota there are further sub-quotas. One for school leavers, one for non-standards.

(I'm glad you think it's BS though, makes my own ire easier to reconcile knowing others are also side-eyeing this.)

ETA: now to head back to the UTAS page for some regularly scheduled hand-wringing

 

[sht]

The assumption is, note: assumption, UTAS have not actually confirmed this, despite requests for clarification, that within the RAP quota there are further sub-quotas. One for school leavers, one for non-standards.

(I'm glad you think it's BS though, makes my own ire easier to reconcile knowing others are also side-eyeing this.)

ETA: now to head back to the UTAS page for some regularly schedule hand-wringing

I know that that is the assumption and it makes no sense. What problem are they trying to solve having such a large (or any) quota specifically for school leavers? The rural (or, in reality, Tasmania) quota makes (at least a little) sense, the school leavers quota is bollocks.

 

[dooni]

I'm curious if peterw has the same opinion when it comes to medical graduates who decide to specialize in OMFS and transfer into dentistry. Do you still think it's unfair and that medical grads should have to apply to dent under the GAMSAT pathway? Or do your prejudices not apply here since medicine is clearly so superior to dentistry? (Even though there are many students like myself who were accepted into medicine but rejected by the dent school).

 

[Rob]

"at least partly a reflection of the government's decision NOT to spend ~$80-100k making them do first and second year unnecessarily"

However there is no need for them to do this anyway. As with any other Uni course, a student can apply in the usual way and then once having gained entry they can apply for credit/advanced standing. So if a BDS student applied in the usual way with every other graduate wishing to gain entry to medicine, that student if successful could then very easily apply for advanced standing for certain subjects, and provided the Uni accepts that, which I believe they likely would, that person would then be granted entry into a higher year, likely 3rd year. So it has nothing to do with the government not wanting to waste money making them repeat 1st and 2nd year. This same idea applies to every course. The Uni's do not generally make students repeat subjects that they can demonstrate they have achieved a similar level in, at another Uni or course. This is simple stuff, and has nothing to do with justifying lateral entry.

Again, I don't know much about OMFS. From what I can tell from your argument, you are assuming that the only reason that they would have an allocated place in med for OMFS trainees is because they wouldn't get into med otherwise, correct?

However, these few spots allocated for OMFS trainees might actually be significantly harder to gain entry into. Since this spot is reserved for people who will eventually end up specialising in OMFS, there is likely to be a great deal of competition for these few spots, and the applicants are likely to be of very high calibre - high grades in their BDS, excellent references etc. Just because these individuals don't then go on to compete with grads from other degrees does not inherently mean that it is easier to get in to med this way. All it means is that it has been deemed unnecessary for them to waste time on the GAMSAT/med interview etc when they have already proved their worth and secured a place after competing with several other excellent applicants. As I said, I may be wrong about this, and lateral entry may indeed be easier, but so far you have offered absolutely zero substantial evidence that this is the case - only anecdotes about how you managed to top the dentistry class without even trying, and how people 'openly admit this.'

It seems to me like you have heard some rumours about lateral entry being easier and become completely enraged by it, without actually going out and finding any real evidence that it is the case. Does that sound about right? I'm sure everyone here would be very happy to take a look at any actual evidence you have to offer.

 

[biom]

@peterw out of interest, I have read through the thread as there has been a lot of posts in a short period of time.

Are you able to clarify what the issue is that you would like to see resolved.

are you concerned that those gaining lateral entry :-
1. are unqualified?
2. are getting an easy ride?
3. are getting unearned "status"?

Is there something behind the concern that is causing a particular problem or is it more about general advancement of the medical professions.

Keen to understand.