Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Griffith Dentistry - The Great Debate

Shizzy

Staff
Administrator
Thread split because it was very off topic. Also makes it easier for to close if these back and forth quote wars continue. Its not getting very far.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

sckimvip

Member
This is the same reply i posted in 'dent is awesome' (something similar) but the reply is relevant to this thread.

Hi hazza92, nice of you to pop by.



Dentists get straight into practice after dent sch. If they want to specialise, they do a Masters degree in a specific discipline in Dentistry, all of which are highly competitive.



IMO, full-fee dent @ a new/no-name uni will affect employment prospects since there're more dent schs opening up in the next 5 years, increasing the supply of dent grads. With a greater pool of candidates to select from, private employers will get fussy.



If there's a dent sch that's not advisable to attend, it'd be GU Dent Sch not La Trobe. The reason is GU primarily caters more to wealthy students who can pay its astronomical $100K fees for the GDent rather than those with academic or any other personal merits relevant to being a good dentist.


Read here & here for more info abt GU Dent Sch.

It seems to me that you are harrasing GU dent with unreliable evidence you are mentioning.

First, you state that GU dent students lack academic ability to study dentistry that there are many ppl with TER 85~. With this unreliable evidence you have, you further claim that GU invades the perceived concept, ' dent is only for TER 98-99rs' and attracts only rich ppl.
So far I asked more than about 10ppl out of about 50 dent students, no one was below TER 95. I was quite astonished that some ppl managed to get a 90percentile in UMAT. Although I dont know about other ppl's ENT ( I dont go around asking their TER to every single one). I know that half of dent students are from ter studies. they could have got a TER 85 but hey they studied additional years to upgrade their TER or gpa. prob oral health ppl get 85s not dent ppl.

Another reason you are backing up your statement is that there was a 10-20% failure rate in last years cohort. you claim that 80 ppl were dent science but you know what there were 80 ppl in the Bachelor oral health doing either dent science or oral therapy or dental technition. so the majority of failures could have been ppl from oral health and dent tech cus we are studying the same thing in the same year. BTW, there were about 45-50 dent students. Where did you get that 80ppl from??? and how do you know the failure rate is correct?? from what source did you get it? I dont think it is even published. Even if it is true, dont you think it shows that Griffith is not giong to let ppl pass easily?? This reflects that Grifith will only let capable ones to progress further study and become a dentist. oh i remeber again you saying if you fail the first year in Griffith you can progress which is unfair, but the dean told all yr 1 at OT that you cant progress if you fail. So I think the dean is telling more reliable info about this.

There are some explanations why GU dent may have lower Ent cut off scores. First, GU dent school considers not only uai but also ur umat and interview. GU dent school selects certain number of ppl for the interview only based on your umat score. If you are not invited then you cant get in even with 99.95 (although this is unlikely). Because GU has already reduced the number of applicants at the early stage, of course the uai cut off will be lower than LA trobe because LA trobe only considers your uai. few of my friends with uai of 98s didnt make to GU cus of their low umat scores (they are doing pharmacy now at UQ, this was last year).

you are mentioning about full fees of 100k. why do you think ppl will do dent even if they need to pay 100k because dent has a bright future. you can get a loan to study anyway... this you mentioned that is a factor affecting GUdents low uai cut off score. this is understandable but how come you arent considering the location of the LA trobe uni? it is in the middle of no where.

BTW what uni you going anyway? and what uai did you get?

NB: I have nothing against you. i jus dont agree with your opinions about GU dent
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

sckimvip

Member
[offtopic]


Irrelevant. Getting personal won't help us see things objectively. :)

[/offtopic]
jus wondering whether he is making comments about GU because he goes to 'prestigious' uni or not. he said one of the good things about dent b4 GU established was that it is only for ppl with 98-99 uais
 

Hasho

Member
you are mentioning about full fees of 100k. why do you think ppl will do dent even if they need to pay 100k because dent has a bright future. you can get a loan to study anyway... this you mentioned that is a factor affecting GUdents low uai cut off score. this is understandable but how come you arent considering the location of the LA trobe uni? it is in the middle of no where.
Yeah, but perhaps financially disadvantaged students will be less inclined to have a huge burden like a 100k loan right out of graduation? I mean, even on a dentist's salary, it's going to take some paying off. Maybe that's why bigheadache makes an argument that the more financially elite, despite having lower scores than the majority, are finding their way into Griffith; whereas the more academically able are being denied an opportunity due to their inability to finance the re-payment of such loans.
 

Veon

Regular Member
Don't even tell me abt less "credibility" with La Trobe becoz you yourself implied that no local dent sch gets approved unless it's legit. So, you've either made a mindnumbing mistake for rejecting La Trobe's offer or just couldn't get into La Trobe, which is more understandable and believable because I don't think that you're such an idiot yet.
Firstly, La Trobe's course is not fully accredited. Only the first year is.
If Abbz also rejected a La Trobe offer then ignore this, but it was me (Veon) that rejected it, not Abbz.
And what, you don't believe that I got an offer with an ENTER about 2 points below the cutoff in the 2nd round? Why would I lie about something that you can so easily check up? I can easily screenshot the offer page with my name on it, but now why would I go out of my way to do something for someone like you?

And the thing about paying your way into a degree being taken negatively; this isn't really the same, because you don't get a lower cutoff just because you apply for a DFEE spot at Griffith, the alleged 'low' cutoff (where is it published? i haven't bothered to look for it) is the same for all kids that apply.
This isn't the same as buying your way in, like a DFEE spot dropping 4/5 points as with something like Law@Monash.

What's with the continuous hating on GU-Dent in particular? Universities like Bond exist and are entirely full-fee.
Wait, doesn't Bond have the highest graduate employment rates or something? I remember seeing that somewhere, but this kinda goes against what you're saying about the perceive negativity of DFEE spots. I was under the impression in areas of shortage like Dent/Med, nobody's really going to care where you studied. I doubt many patients do.
And for the record i'm completely against DFEE-spots in degrees, as they afford a lower cutoff that is bought. -Not- the same as what i'm doing; the last two years are DFEE regardless of whether or not you got into the first 3 years as CSP. I did not buy a lower cutoff.

Continuing; if your beef is with the cost, where's your hate against them? All I see you doing is railing on GU-Dent's apparent lack of concern for quality of education in an effort to boost your feeling of intelligence, masquerading as concern for the quality of dental education in Australia.
I'll say it again; it has been deemed acceptable by the same people that decided your school was acceptable.

It seems as though the very reason you ever lift a finger to make a post is to make yourself feel better than someone else. What's the deal with that? You have to keep rubbishing on everyone with personal attacks and repeating the same nonsense over and over.

And dude; you think i'm rich or that my family has money? Both of my parents have been unemployed as long as i've been alive, both are on disability pensions and both are too old to work even if they were fit and healthy. We don't own any property and have zero income outside of government payments.
We're as lower class as you can get.

I chose Griffith for reasons of my own, but i'll tell you right now it wasn't because I had money to throw around. I fully understand the financial repercussions of my decision and i'm prepared to go ahead with it.

Yeah, but perhaps financially disadvantaged students will be less inclined to have a huge burden like a 100k loan right out of graduation? I mean, even on a dentist's salary, it's going to take some paying off. Maybe that's why bigheadache makes an argument that the more financially elite, despite having lower scores than the majority, are finding their way into Griffith; whereas the more academically able are being denied an opportunity due to their inability to finance the re-payment of such loans.
Rubbish; this is not the same as not being able to afford a DFEE spot.
HECS-HELP will cover the entire cost of the two full-fee years.

I'm financially disadvantaged. I'm also academically qualified. I got in.
Please don't make the assumption that just because you're poor it means you're going to blitz the VCE and get knocked back because you can't afford GU-Dent.
Socio-economic disadvantage ties directly to having lower TER scores.
In essence, chances are if you're poor, you're going to do worse.
Doesn't mean that money = 99.95 of course, but it isn't a secret that the private schools top the rankings year after year after year. If we're all receiving the same education, is it magic that makes them do better?

Unlike entire-DFEE programs, the last two years of GU-Dent are covered for you by the government and it is entirely possible for anyone to study it, and taking into account average dentistry graduate incomes, it is entirely possible for anyone to shoulder this.

Thusly, if anything, GU is offering a program with a lower (i haven't seen an official cutoff anywhere, if anyone knows where to dig that up, it'd be handy to have so we're not just guessing) cutoff, thus allowing financially disadvantaged people (who generally have lower scores) a shot at doing what they want.

My score wasn't so crash hot for getting into Dent. If it wasn't for GU and La Trobe (both new schools) I wouldn't be able to study what I want.
I'm financially disadvantaged and without these schools i'd be knocked back by all the 'elite' institutions, so would you care to explain to me how GU is actually preventing the academically-qualified-yet-poor from doing what they want?

You're blowing the whole ~85-got-in thing out of proportion. I have yet to hear of that from anyone and why do you automatically assume that just because we didn't get 99+ we're not academically qualified? That's what ****es me off the most; your moronic attitude towards TER scores.

Dude; there is very little difference in terms of capacity to succeed at uni between a person who gets 95 and 99. They're both excellent students. There are any number of reasons why people drop the ball a little bit.

They both have the capacity to succeed, and your implication that they are academically inept or unqualified to study such a course, is not only elitist rubbish, but it's also the type of attitude that too many people are getting caught up in as a result of widespread belief that if you're smart you have to get 99 otherwise you have failed.

.and so, the question to ask is why've these mediocre students been selected by the GU Dent Sch for such a demanding prog. to begin with? A prog, might I add, which they appear to struggling to pass on their own steam in Yr1 for god's sake.
Double U Tee Eff, mate? People that are, as you say 'unqualified' are failing and thus being weeded out. Does this not mean that they're getting rid of those who can't study it? Does this not actually go along with the idea of producing capable graduates?

But you seem to have a problem with the way the school is run; give a wide range of people a shot and if they're unable to meet the demands of the course, they're out. They aren't cash cows, because they're failing in first year, as you say (CSP), so what's the problem?

They aren't buying their way into uni, they're excluded if they can't cope and they're not paying any more than anyone else is for a first year dental education.

So what do you have against them then? It would seem like the only conclusion is that you want to make yourself feel superior because your school only takes 'quality' students. You keep denying this, but that's the vibe i'm getting from your posts- you want to make yourself feel good by rubbishing others.

That's uncool.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Hasho

Member
Socio-economic disadvantage ties directly to having lower TER scores.
Is that always true?

We've all heard about poor migrant families. How their children consistently rank among the top achievers in VCE due to their sheer determination to make it to the top of society and the value that their culture places on education. Maybe that proves that if there is a will, there's surely a way. I dunno. This can't be applied to every individual in every situation, but it's just a thought that i had...
 

sckimvip

Member
Is that always true?

We've all heard about poor migrant families. How their children consistently rank among the top achievers in VCE due to their sheer determination to make it to the top of society and the value that their culture places on education. Maybe that proves that if there is a will, there's surely a way. I dunno. This can't be applied to every individual in every situation, but it's just a thought that i had...
He's saying there is an interrelationship. I remeber this from yesterday's lecture. Of course, poor doesnt mean you will be a low achiever all the time but rather chances of being a lower achiever increases as you are poorer. rich ppl provide the best education they can give to the child which means that the child is likely to perform better academically. also, if they send their kids to selective schools, they are likely to get better op or ter. Dude in Queensland, if you go to selective school, you get better op because the school excludes dumb ppl from doing the qcs test which ranks schools
 

bigheadache99

Regular Member
Veon/Abbz/whatever you call yourself,

There has never been an instance in history where a newly established health professional school @ a public uni here, was "disbanded" due to accreditation problems nor was there ever a cohort of health professional students left high-and-dry because of said calamities. That said, your "worries" and excuses for going to the GU "Dent" sch're just ridiculous bullshite.

Furthermore, I very much doubt your claims of getting La Trobe Dent sch offers because most GU Dent students are @ GU precisely because they're non-competitive in so many ways for other dent schs. It didn't help your case when you gave me a bogus ENTER that was STILL below the cut-off for 3rd round offers. While GU Dent Sch would have snapped up a 95/96 eagerly - those scores're not enough for La Trobe Dent Sch. The typical GU Dent Sch student has mediocre UMAT and ENTER scores - that's self-evident, otherwise, he/she'd be elsewhere, like at a conventional dent sch, where he/she won't need to pay a pseudo-CSP "dent" prog costing over $120K+.

As the GU Dent Sch appears to be *the* mecca for some of the worst (OP8/9) rejects of conventional dent sch , I'd say that it's dumbing down Australian Dent Sch admission standards. That's also self-evident when a large portion of the 2007 cohort failed at least 1 basic sci subject. If such "quality" students've trouble passing 1st yr, how're they gonna do 5 yrs of dentistry?? That also calls into question the quality control for accepting dent students @ the GU Dent Sch. Were these guys accepted in a prog they're ill-equipped to study to create an additional income stream for the Dent Sch?

Face it, you can delude yourselves but you can't hide a dumb-down. I don't think GU itself is a bad uni - however, I wonder abt the true reason behind the creation of its dent sch (which you all had implied "lacked" funding, thus, no full CSP dent prog). I further suspect that it was only created as a fund-raising avenue capitalising on the demand for "dentistry" to finance its newly built medical sch. I find that morally repugnant for 2 reasons - Firstly, it's an academic dumb-down for Aussie dental sch admission when folks're invariably accepted for their ability to pay exhorbitant fees rather than personal talent for dentistry. If GU's unable to secure Federal fundings for the FULL 5 years of the Dent prog, then they'd not be running it at all because clearly, the powers-that-be don't find a new Dent Sch all that necessary and the heavy burden of supporting the "project" shouldn't be foisted upon the desperate populace.

Secondly, nobody should be financially held hostage to his or her aspirations by a publicly funded uni. But that's what's happening because from the way the dent prog's structured, it's impossible for GU Dent students to avoid the $46,000x2 GDent prog if they want to become dentists. Besides, registration's not possible without the BOralHeath Dent Sci + GDent qualifications. The continued rumours of the GDent going CSP is just that - baseless rumours from a suspicious source. If students're given "CSP", then it'd be CSP all-the-way (for 5 years like all Dent progs in Australia) until they're able to graduate and register as dentists. Otherwise, the GU Dent Sch's use of CSP is truly pretentious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hayden

Getting busier
Emeritus Staff
As the GU Dent Sch appears to be *the* mecca for some of the worst (OP8/9) rejects of conventional dent sch , I'd say that it's dumbing down Australian Dent Sch admission standards. That's also self-evident when a large portion of the 2007 cohort failed at least 1 basic sci subject. If such "quality" students've trouble passing 1st yr, how're they gonna do 5 yrs of dentistry?? That also calls into question the quality control for accepting dent students @ the GU Dent Sch. Were these guys accepted in a prog they're ill-equipped to study to create an additional income stream for the Dent Sch?
Just want to point out that people fail medicine in every uni every year. Show me a study that points out that their TER/OP correlates to their chance of failing. Because it doesn't.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

bigheadache99

Regular Member
Just want to point out that people fail medicine in every uni every year. Show me a study that points out that their TER/OP correlates to their chance of failing. Because it doesn't.
Firstly, I don't think as many med students fail 1st yr as the GU "dent" students in 2007. Secondly, I think there's a study correlating study-habits to academic achievement & success @ uni.

Lastly, med schs're not getting the creme of the academic crop anymore since the non-academic selectors were used.
 

Mana

Registrar
Administrator
bigheadache, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't doubt the veracity of Veon's claims that he did get a LaTrobe offer for dentistry (which he did) and that he is at Griffith University studying Dentistry ahead of the LaTrobe offer (which he is).

How many dental students failed first year at GU in 2007? I'd like to find out myself - but it's definitely not restricted to dent, as Hayden does state; Adelaide failed heaps (like, about 10%; two of them have permanently left the course). There is no correlation between their TER and their failure; it's pretty much in proportion to the students in the course. (There is however a correlation between being an international student and failing; they seem to fail at a lower rate than the domestic students...)

I'm still not sure how allowing people with lower scores into the course makes the course worse.

Where would we be able to find this study?
 

Veon

Regular Member
Is that always true?

We've all heard about poor migrant families. How their children consistently rank among the top achievers in VCE due to their sheer determination to make it to the top of society and the value that their culture places on education. Maybe that proves that if there is a will, there's surely a way. I dunno. This can't be applied to every individual in every situation, but it's just a thought that i had...
Humans are born with two legs and two arms.

But wait, that isn't always true, is it?

edit;

Your argument that they're roping in the 'dumb' people to scam them for money falls flat when you consider the fact that they aren't paying anything more than any other D.Sci student for their first three years.
If they fail at any point during this course and drop out, would you care to explain how the university is getting more money from them?
Furthermore, how are the financially-capable but academically-incompetent going to actually get to the end of the degree if they are as you say, academically incompetent?

None of what you're saying makes any sense.

There is no correlation between TER scores and dropping out, there is no way GU is able to scam more kids out of money. For them to get the money, the kid has to pass the course, which means they're clinically acceptable by the standards of the ADA and the ADC, both of which are far, far more qualified to judge, than you will ever be.
The course is accredited. This throws out your argument that it is sub-par.

Where's the cutoff? I don't want anecdotal evidence or hearsay, i want to see a cutoff that is sourced from QTAC or the uni itself.

And even if it is as you say, relatively low, how exactly is the university able to bypass the academic standards of the ADA?

How are these kids able to pass three years of an accredited course that is on level with all the other schools, then pass the two years, (paying too much, i agree) then gain registration with the same body you will need to deal with when you graduate before going out and fulfilling their destinies as incredibly shoddy dentists, as you say?

Oh, and I suppose I hallucinated this, along with the offer package they sent me and three or four other letters as well as the numerous phone calls that were made.


96.7

And despite the cutoff for the first round being listed as 98.8 or whatever it was, there are always offers made below the clearly-in rank; like 10% for that course, if i remember correctly. Mine was in the second round, though.
 
Last edited:

Hayden

Getting busier
Emeritus Staff
Firstly, I don't think as many med students fail 1st yr as the GU "dent" students in 2007. Secondly, I think there's a study correlating study-habits to academic achievement & success @ uni.

Lastly, med schs're not getting the creme of the academic crop anymore since the non-academic selectors were used.
You've missed my point.

Your whole argument is based on the fact that the OP3/4s that are supposedly getting into GU dent are going to be less worthy of being dentists and will be less successful at dentistry whether in profession or in study.

If you can prove that the people who supposedly failed (and I say supposedly, because the whisper train does lie, especially if you've heard it at your own denistry course which is probably going to not be adverse to augmentation of the truth, the same way med schools are competitive) are also the ones who had low OPs then you might be onto something.
The fact is, high school success doesn't necessarily correlate to success in health science courses. "Study habits" may be a different story, because good study habits do not necessarily correlate to academic success at school.

And I don't know what your point about med schools not getting the creme of the crop anymore is about. I was merely providing an example in the medical system (one I am familiar with) to relate to dentistry. Do you think a doctor needs to have got 99+ in high school to be effective? Do you think a dentist does?

I think you're going to find scores of clinicians out there who disagree with you.

P.S. First year UTAS Med last year started with 135 students. Second year, we're down to 105.

About 15 dropped out to pursue other things, and 15 were failed. Of those fifteen, I know of two who had UAI/TERs of 99.95. Another three had UAI/TERs above 99. Another two had raw UMATs of over 200. The rest I didn't know, but as a requirement, had UAI/TERs of above 95 just to be considered for the course.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

theangelofdarkness

International Member of Mystery
Emeritus Staff
*coughcough* i know this is med, not dent, but i actually assume that the professions and therefore the (enters/ters/uais/ops) required are pretty much the same...

hasn't anyone heard of the Newcastle Experiment?

basically, there WAS research done on this - Newcastle accepted half students who were in the top 2% (and so traditionally considered to be 'worthy' of being doctors), and half students who were in the top 10-15% but performed well on interview...
guess who ended up with the lowest failure rate, and highest honours rate? students who performed well on their 'personal qualities tests'.

students with an op 1/2 aren't the only ones suited for medicine/dentistry. plenty of people are just as capable of studying those courses.

(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1832918) for those of you who don't believe me/want more information on the Newcastle experiment. (by the way, it was run over 9 years, and the data is considered fairly robust, at least by bmj :p)
 

bigheadache99

Regular Member
Oh, and I suppose I hallucinated this, along with the offer package they sent me and three or four other letters as well as the numerous phone calls that were made.
96.7
I don't see your ENTER and what you've posted is meaningless, I'm afraid. If you can, why don't you PM the identity of someone PHYSICAL who's in the prog right now @ La Trobe with a below 97 score. I'd make some phone calls. If your 96.7 got you in, I think there'd be a very angry young Indian gentleman whose 97.15 appears to be rejected and had to move to another state to study dentistry. AFAIK, he didn't even get 3rd offers.
 

bigheadache99

Regular Member
students with an op 1/2 aren't the only ones suited for medicine/dentistry. plenty of people are just as capable of studying those courses.
"Suited" is really a broad term that's influenced by many other factors, some tangible, others not.

What I don't agree is with using subjective (intangible) factors to pre-determine who'd be successful or not, @ these highly sought-after schs, to the exclusion and possibly rejection of others who'd put in the hard yards and topped the cohort in a measurable test (academic ranking). I don't think it's fair when hardwork and consistent diligence play 2nd fiddle as personal traits, to potential flukes @ dent/med sch interviews.

(Both the non-completing students and their controls and the honours graduates and their controls were compared by their academic ability at entry. There was no significant difference between either of the test groups and their respective control group, for either secondary or tertiary entrants.)

Correct me if I'm wrong but where does it say that people who entered with shite scores had a better outcome that those who entered with stellar results???

Also, your "study" was more focussed on using "interviews" to pre-determine who was likely NOT to complete the new* medical prog. based on personality traits & attitude towards the less structured curriculum then. There's no application to our debate because the study certainly didn't indicate any pattern of academically mediocre who came in with substandard Y12 results, who become 1st yr failures and then magically became super scholars/clinicians later. The extrapolation of the results as support for using non-academic selection (interview) as a competitive qualifier as a means of entry to medical schs is also not convincing...

(*In particular the need for structure is at odds with innovative and less structured approaches to study, such

as the
problem based course at this university.)

...because they're promoting and justifying the non-academic selection scheme in view of the "innovative" (READ: lack of available academics) course design.

To me, the study more or less presented the interview as a means to detect and weed out study-smart folks who didn't have a clue abt medicine and not abt accepting academically mediocre students.

The med prog has 2 components - preclin & clin. If students fail miserably in the preclin like the GU Dent students, how're they intending to proceed? Whether they'd do well in clin is irrelevant at this pt. Clearly, if learning habits are inferior and there's a proven track record, then, these students have no business in these competitive courses - not that some of them won't ever pull up their socks and finally graduate. It's a matter of opportunity and who is likely to make best use of it. I think the idea of having evidence of a consistent track record is better than impromptu utilisation of subjective interpretation of motivation to determine who should and shouldn't be admitted.

...and I suspect, that's why, there'd be a move away from subjective, non-academic tests by the bigger med schs - in spite of these "studies". Don't think that this study and the like weren't considered by UQ and USyd as these unis move away from non-academic selectors. Won't be surprised if the studies were found to be inconclusive and narrow-focussed to be applicable across the board.

Last but not least, don't take this as slight against your institution but Newcastle was still a "new" not-so-well known non-Go8 med sch then and by logical inference, considered nowhere as prestigious as the Go8 med schs which were still using academic scores. Again by logical inference, the sch was more than likely not attracting as many quality applicants as the others which had the "rigid" curriculum that supposed the "introverted", "less creative" scholars were better at.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Top