Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Griffith Dentistry - The Great Debate

bigheadache99

Regular Member
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.
It's you who missed my pt.
I've already implied that those with lower OPs might have less ability to cope with the intensive study which typical of dent progs at the Australian Dental Schs. I never said they were "less" worthy across the board but those who had failed miserably in Yr1, might be less suited for the prog. I've also stated that they'd not normally smell dentistry had GU Dent Sch been able to attract more competitive (to other Dent Schs) applicants to fill up the 80-122 odd places. But the Dent Sch reeks of profiteering and most can see through that by avoiding it.

Does GU Dent Sch have OP1/2 students? Absolutely. The folks who'd been keeping me apprised of the GU Dent Sch situation, are in this group.

Does GU Dent Sch've a larger proportion of non-competitive "dent" students who'd not go elsewhere? Absolutely. You can bet your lifesavings on it.


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.
So? Nobody said those with 99 were infallible. But a greater proportion of <99 failed and dropped out in many other institutions that I know of.

And normally, 95 ain't enough unless it's @ GU Dent Sch. Not too many >95 ENTERS who can or want to pay for a pseudo-CSP "dent" prog "privilege". :lol:

Maybe you & your ilk're advocating for an open-door policy?
Why stop @ ~ 95, how abt the folks way below 95, say, @ 60-89 ENTER region? Going by your rationale, who's to say there isn't some great doctors to-be there too though I'm sure the bugger who got a 90.23 ENTER would argue for a 90.22 cut-off.

Can you say, selective elitism, among the defensive?
 
Last edited:

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Jono

Emeritus MSO Staff
Emeritus
It's you who missed my pt.
I've already implied that those with lower OPs might have less ability to cope with the intensive study which typical of dent progs at the Australian Dental Schs.

I'm not sure where you study if at all, and i don't want to create med/dent comparisns but I think this comment is unfair. I've seen plenty of people with scores in the 80s succeeding in medicine, and I imagine the same would be true of dentistry. Remember that the enter system is supply and demand, and not about competency or ability to complete the course.
 

Hayden

Getting busier
Emeritus
It's you who missed my pt.
I've already implied that those with lower OPs might have less ability to cope with the intensive study which typical of dent progs at the Australian Dental Schs. I never said they were "less" worthy across the board but those who had failed miserably in Yr1, might be less suited for the prog. I've also stated that they'd not normally smell dentistry had GU Dent Sch been able to attract more competitive (to other Dent Schs) applicants to fill up the 80-122 odd places. But the Dent Sch reeks of profiteering and most can see through that by avoiding it.
Okay let's ignore who missed whose point. When I said "worthy" I was referring to their capability, rather than who "deserves" to. If you think that a person's ENTER/OP is going to be the determining factor of someone's ability to perform well in health science, then I find it hard to believe you're any further than your first few weeks in dental school, or you just haven't met many people.

Does GU Dent Sch have OP1/2 students? Absolutely. The folks who'd been keeping me apprised of the GU Dent Sch situation, are in this group.

Does GU Dent Sch've a larger proportion of non-competitive "dent" students who'd not go elsewhere? Absolutely. You can bet your lifesavings on it.
And your point is? There are people in my course who didn't get a massive TER. There are people in my course who got a TER of 60 five years ago and got into med by working hard in another course. They're going to make great doctors. Full stop.


So? Nobody said those with 99 were infallible. But a greater proportion of <99 failed and dropped out in many other institutions that I know of.
That makes no sense. A greater number of individuals will in fact have less than 99, so if there are drop-outs across the board, of course there are going to be more <99 people dropping out than 99+ers.

And normally, 95 ain't enough unless it's @ GU Dent Sch. Not too many >95 ENTERS who can or want to pay for a pseudo-CSP "dent" prog "privilege".
Simply judgement. Unless you teach dent students, and you are qualified in any way to say that 95 "isn't enough" to study dentistry, then I don't buy it.

Maybe you & your ilk're advocating for an open-door policy?
No. I'm not. I think the admissions process for med and dent all pretty much suck (especially UMAT) but that's a different argument.


Why stop @ ~ 95, how abt the folks way below 95, say, @ 60-89 ENTER region? Going by your rationale, who's to say there isn't some great doctors to-be there too though I'm sure the bugger who got a 90.23 ENTER would argue for a 90.22 cut-off.

Can you say, selective elitism, among the defensive?
As a matter of fact, can you prove that the 60-89 TER person isn't going to be a good doctor/dentist? What did you do to become such an expert on the matter?

Newsflash: people do get those ENTERs, they do a degree, and then start medicine and dentistry. Happens all the time.

With my TER, I wouldn't have gotten into most dentistry programs if I had have applied, but after a degree elsewhere, here I am in med. I'm doing pretty darn fine, thank you very much.

And it's very rich to say I'm advocating selective elitism when it seems to be oozing from every point you make.

P.S. For the record, I don't agree with DFEE in any shape or form. But again, that's a different argument.
 

Veon

Regular Member
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.
This is getting -so- repetitive.
People who can't pass the requisite components of the course to progress, have been effectively weeded out long before the uni is able to milk them for money.
It is surprising you seem to think that the people who are unable to complete the aforementioned requisite subjects, will be able to graduate and register as dentists, just because GU wants them to.
Doesn't work like that, son. Wether or not they're clinically acceptable is decided by others; namely the ADA/ADC.

Secondly, 'no business' in the course? Uh, sorry mate, but what's with the continual elitism and institutional bigotry (does that even make sense?)? There are cutoff scores that are different around the country and despite the fact that the schools are given accreditation by the same body, you are able to selectively point out an entire school as having 'no business' studying something?

Step down off that high horse for a moment; the thinner air up there is giving you a wicked headspin.

Oh, and it doesn't matter how many times you try to force it, a 'quality' applicant does not automatically have to have a high TER.

applicants to fill up the 80-122 odd places.
There are nowhere near 80 people enrolled in D.Sci at GU [/repeatingmyself]

Why stop @ ~ 95, how abt the folks way below 95, say, @ 60-89 ENTER region? Going by your rationale, who's to say there isn't some great doctors to-be there too though I'm sure the bugger who got a 90.23 ENTER would argue for a 90.22 cut-off.
Aside from the fact that there are people who get scores of 60 and then get into med eventually, the difference between a 90, a 95 and a 99 won't really be that much, relative to the gap between a 60 and a 95. Don't be a fool; 90+ is an excellent score and that person is, in all likelihood, academically qualified enough to study anything. Whether or not they get in because of supply/demand, the scores of other applicants, etc, is irrelevant. Those people have proven their ability to study hard. Remember that uni, and especially med/dent, isn't really about gunning for HD's for most people.

Oh, and again, you want me to physically ID someone who got below 97 that got an offer? What do you mean by this? I'm identifying myself as having been offered a spot in La Trobe Dent (CSP). My name was on that, as was the offer identification number. They sent me the packages and offer letters and other stuff like that.

Why do you have such a hard time believing that I got an offer? Why would I lie about it? If I didn't get one, I wouldn't say I had one. Long before we ever began discussing what we are now, I was posting about myself getting an offer and talking it over with people on here.

So what, that whole deal was some crazy charade to prepare for the event of someone like you coming on here and attempting to refute my claim that I was offered a spot in that course?

And normally, 95 ain't enough unless it's @ GU Dent Sch.
So? What, do you think that this is supposed to make people feel that it's less of a quality school? I suppose Adelaide, say, is worse because they're not as strict about the 99+ cutoff thing, like at UQ?

Dude, maybe in your world and to the people you associate with, things like maintaining 'high standards' and excluding others for baseless rubbish, is the norm, but let me tell you, in the real world, the difference between a 95 and a 99 studying anything, is so virtually unrelated to their TER scores, that they may as well have attained identical grades.

Find me a shred of evidence that getting 99 as opposed to 95 will guarantee you a higher chance of succeeding in something like Med or Dent.

Otherwise, don't repeatedly make ridiculous claims to reinforce ridiculous points.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Dave L

Regular Member
I've already implied that those with lower OPs might have less ability to cope with the intensive study which typical of dent progs at the Australian Dental Schs. I never said they were "less" worthy across the board but those who had failed miserably in Yr1, might be less suited for the prog.
To most school leavers, failure is a rarity -the concept alone s a frightening one, and its implications are severe. “Failure” in courses such as medicine and dentistry, especially in the first year, are not uncommon events. Then when you start talking about post graduate fellowship exams, “failure” is even more common.

However (and is from my casual observations only), when you’re thinking about failure in university, I would say it is more often a lack of maturity that is the main hurdle that cumulates in someone failing a year, as opposed to being less suited or having an absolute functional inability to reach the required academic level. Simply consider all the potential new complications and life experiences that an undergraduate could face: eg. adapting to university life and its various social distractions, independent living and its associated responsibilities (bills, jobs etc) and an independent learning environment. Some will adapt well, some won’t have to, and others will underestimate the level of commitment required to pass their exams. Despite all this, most of those who have had an early stumble will eventually complete their qualification. Fail once, and they’ll usually be given another chance to work out what is undermining their education and reprioritize their lifestyle or regulate their behaviour accordingly. Obviously, if someone is unable to do this and fails too often the faculty will start to ask questions regarding academic capability. It usually doesn’t get to this stage, and most seem to do ok.
 

bigheadache99

Regular Member
Hi Dave L,

That was quite insightful. None of the defensive, sensitive hoopla & stuff, so far. However, the case with the GU Dent Sch, is vastly different, it being a blatant profiteer & all. We both (I hope) know that without the lowering of the bar for admissions there, I'd dare say almost none of these mediocre "dent" students would be having the opportunity to fail in the prog to begin with. Thus, I directly attribute the high failure rate to the mediocre standard of (most, not all) students that were accepted. If you accept "monkeys", expect "monkey-play" - it's only natural. Apparently, the overriding supposition's that they'd afford the $46000x2 GDent in the last 2 yrs of the prog.

As well, when you look at it, the "CSP" Dent prog @ GU Dent Sch is indeed farcical. Where the CSP dent progs @ all the other dental schs cost, on average, under $45K, the total cost of GU's "CSP" prog (CSP+GDent fees+FEE-HELP loading) is a whopping AUD$120,000, at least! That's the price one has to pay if one wishes to complete the "5-yr" education to become a bona fide dentist. It's not difficult to see the kind of dentist aspirants, the GU Dent prog's being largely pitched to. At this level of profiteering, the ability to excel in the prog obviously isn't as important as the ability to pay the premium fees. Otherwise, they should've offered the prog as 100% CSP or not offer it at all. At a minimum, they should've maintained the traditional exclusivity by not attempting to make 122 offers (in 2007) for a 50-chair clinic! It's apparent that the normally vaunted student-to-staff ratio isn't even an afterthought here. This is shameless profiteering at its best, I'd say.
 
Last edited:

Hayden

Getting busier
Emeritus
Okay, Bigheadache, that's enough.

No more bagging of GU Dent students. No calling them "mediocre" or anything of the sort. Keep arguing by all means, but the fact that you're mentioning how "bad" they supposedly are in pretty much every post (even in other threads) is nothing short of trolling.

Now, I'm still waiting for a response to my post above...
 

Jono

Emeritus MSO Staff
Emeritus
ok bigheadache, your claim that any student is "inferior" or "mediocre" is bordering along the lines of personal attack. If you want to talk about kids with lesser enter scores then go for it. But time and time again has proven that your enter score does not make you "mediocre". On a more general note please, all posters try your best to back up your ideas with evidence. It improves the debate for everyone.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

sckimvip

New Member
what about international students? are they inferior? They pay full fee whereever they go. So do you think they are inferior too? I knwo that the lowest op the international student got is a 3 which is TER of 97. Dude and you are keeping saying that there are 85rs but dude I think they are the ppl who did extra tertiary stuides b4 they came to GU dent school. Half of dent students here arent from high school straight away.
 

Shizzy

Administrator
Admodistrator
And also did those with the low OPs do an IB? There is a student in my med sci cohort with an op 7 but from what i understand, he has an IB that is very competitive (translates to op1).
 

Veon

Regular Member
They don't choose to 'lower the bar' just so they can suck in the 'monkeys' as you call them. If enough people with 99's applied and accepted offers there then the cutoff would be 99, dude. The school doesn't sit down and decide to make the cut-off 99+ just so they can toot their own horn (well, in theory. In reality the schools love to toot the 99+ horn just because people with 99's generally come from a background of aspiring to prestige and 'elite' institutions. No, this isn't a random generalisation; it's a fact that the majority of people who top the VCE are from 'independant' schools and therefore have the track record of seeking what is seen to be 'the best').

Anyway, my point is; if UMelb/UQ/whatever didn't have this aura of elitism that high-scorers love, then their cutoff wouldn't be what it is. No school is going to hold fast with a 99+ cutoff if they don't receive enough people to fill the places. They're not going to leave spots empty; they'll fill them with applicants from the shortlist of those who have met the requirements and then been ranked.

You seem to be advocating that schools do this; hold fast with a 99 cutoff and let the spots go empty. That's ridiculous. It isn't the school's fault that they don't get enough applicants with 99, and this shouldn't matter anyway; it doesn't reflect onto the quality of the school or its students, if the cutoff is a few points off what it is elsewhere.
Again, I have yet to see a shred of evidence that points to the cutoff of GU Dent being 85, or that the average UAI/ENTER of the cohort is as such, as you have been suggesting. So the cutoff may be different to other dental schools. So what?

It's just that for various reasons pertaining to the cost, the perceived lack of prestige and so forth, that they accepted people further down the list of applicants.
This happens everywhere - cutoffs can move up or down.
Doesn't mean the students there are inferior. Doesn't mean the school is inferior. Doesn't mean anything other than what it is at face value; has a different cutoff.

Just because we pay more, doesn't mean we're 'lower quality' students.
If that's the case you may as well write off Bond and every other DFEE student in a course. Are DFEE Law students inferior or mediocre, because they had to buy a lower cutoff?

I pay more, but I didn't buy a lower cutoff. I'm against DFEE, and i've commented on it before, how the DFEE years are GU are not the same as buying a 4/5 point drop in cutoff, as with Monash Law. Regardless of how you get into the first three years of the course, the last two are compulsory full-fee. It has no bearing on your chances of getting into the course against anyone else applying. Your financial situation will not improve your chances of entry, as you might with the previously mentioned Law course. Hecs-help, fee-help, etc, will cover the cost of the degree here.
It won't with DFEE Law.


I'm interested to hear your take on DFEE spots and as sckimvip has highlighted, international students in particular. Are they automatically inferior because they weren't 'good enough' to gain entry in their home countries and seek to pay for a (relatively) relaxed entry system?

You're a fool if you believe a difference of two or three points on a TER score makes you a mediocre student.
 

Matt

Emeritus MSO Staff
Emeritus
[offtopic]Interesting aside to the argument about ENTER score and capability. At UWS Med, UAI is only a hurdle - 95 for standard applicants, 93 for GWS. This year 70% of students were GWS so 70% needed only a 93 and 30% needed at least a 95.

The median UAI for my year was 98.5 and this year is meant to be even higher. From that, I would speculate that UWS has the demand to be a high UAI school, it could probably have a cohort where most students had a UAI in 99s. It doesn't though, because it doesn't think UAI should play that big a role in selection. There are few other med schools who think likewise.

This is not technically on topic, but I think it's an interesting point. Especially considering GU uses an interivew system and UMAT, implying it also doesn't put absolute faith in a student's UAI.[/offtopic]
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

kizza_boy

Regular Member
two of my best mates go to GU dent and they arent mediocre at all, as are none of the other dent students im sure. OP's are not the only indicator of success, and if a student got in with a lower OP then they must have at least done well in interview or UMAT.*

*Mod Comment: Post content edited to comply with forum rules. A reminder to everyone that personal attacks will not be tolerated on MSO. This is to ensure a civilised and constructive base for argument and discussion is maintained.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bigheadache99

Regular Member
oh... a war.

two of my best mates go to GU dent and they arent mediocre at all, as are none of the other dent students im sure. OP's are not the only indicator of success, and if a student got in with a lower OP then they must have at least done well in interview or UMAT.*
Here we go again....OPs are indeed not the only success indicator but they appear to be the most objective and tangible.

Try not to be overly defensive with me because nobody ever said GU dent students were invariably bad. Nevertheless it is a painful stretch of the imagination to suggest that they as a whole are anything close to the standard of UQ, Adel, UniMelb, USyd, UWA and recently LTU Dent students. To argue otherwise, runs counter to common sense.

I mean, just look at how fatuously mawkish Veon's arguments really are. I am sure you have already experienced it quite wonderfully here:

On 27-03-08, 05:07 AM, kizza_boy said:

Yes Veon,
...
I realise you cant add to a debate without getting personal, so I won't take offence at you telling me to go back to my hole.


Is the LaTrobe Dentistry School accredited?
http://www.medstudentsonline.com.au/forums/showpost.php?p=68701&postcount=36
 

bigheadache99

Regular Member
Okay let's ignore who missed whose point. When I said "worthy" I was referring to their capability, rather than who "deserves" to.
Oh please. The fact that you even misread a simple statement of mine clearly showed that you have an axe to grind and ready to jump the gun.

I find it hard to believe you're any further than your first few weeks in dental school, or you just haven't met many people.
...sure, if these beliefs make you feel morally and philosophically superior, junior.


And your point is? There are people in my course who didn't get a massive TER. There are people in my course who got a TER of 60 five years ago and got into med by working hard in another course. They're going to make great doctors. Full stop.
My point is, people with a lower TER shouldn't be allowed to jump queue into these in-demand courses where others who have consistently put in the hard yards are hard done by subjective selection filters. The point of whether or not these "non-achievers" will make "good" (a very subjective, ambiguous trait) doctors, is irrelevant. If you don't think so, then you are clearly biased against those who are "academic achievers" by assuming that they are unlikely to be just as good with some on-the-job training, if only given a chance.

And it's very rich to say I'm advocating selective elitism when it seems to be oozing from every point you make.
Yes you are and your viewpoints are skewed to a fault as well. No surprise there given that you are clearly a beneficiary of the current status quo of using subjective selectors and the devaluation of academic ranking for medical school admissions. You are merely substituting one form of inequity for another, and whose end-results are still unprovable and intangible.

Frankly speaking, I don't know why you insist on pushing your skewed agenda so blatantly when its foundations are inane. Plainly and simply put - what you are advocating for is, social-engineering. Be forewarned though, you are championing a cause that is a slippery slope and will likely lead to the dumbing down of standards.

...so if it seems that I avoid reading your posts, you are right - I am. You haven't told me anything "new" that the politically-correct nazi brigade of "intellectuals" who brought us such psychobabble gems as "everybody's a winner, there's no 2nd place" haven't already done so.
 

Veon

Regular Member
Yes you are and your viewpoints are skewed to a fault as well. No surprise there given that you are clearly a beneficiary of the current status quo of using subjective selectors and the devaluation of academic ranking for medical school admissions. You are merely substituting one form of inequity for another, and whose end-results are still unprovable and intangible.
I think it's hilarious that you attempt to argue that non-academic factors like an interview/UMAT are 'unfair' for those 'others who have consistently put in the hard yards', as you say.
I suppose anything short of 99+ means they haven't put in the hard yards.

You claim that non-academic selection factors 'devalue' academic rank and allow people to 'jump queue'.

Devaluing? Jumping queue? How about giving more people a chance?
How about making sure that people from worse off backgrounds, get a chance?
There's a direct correlation between ENTER score and the affluence of the area you live in. One look at the highest ranking schools in Victoria, and the areas they come from, will tell you this.

What about people from rural areas? They tend to have lower UAI/ENTERs.
Are they too, 'devaluing academic rank' and undermining the rigorous intellectual capacity required of high-tier health professionals, an intelligence you obviously stake a claim to possessing?

What about people from crappy areas like where i came from? Average ENTER of my school was like 50. People from poor areas, tend to have lower scores. Is them getting into Med/Dent type courses, 'devaluing the academic standards' of these professions?
Are schemes like the Rural Lists and other SEAS things, 'dumbing down' the average cohort of dentists/doctors?

Throughout all of this nonsense you keep pushing, the continual overriding feeling that i'm getting, is that you think that a higher score on a bunch of tests, gives you the RIGHT to study medicine/dent/pharm/whatever over anyone else with a lower one.

You seem to be of the type to agree with a guaranteed-entry scheme for anyone that gets 99.95. Because they're smarter, right?
Because they deserve to be there, right? Hard yards, and whatnot.

I know this is a waste of time because a clown like you isn't going to even bother considering that maybe he doesn't have all the answers, but while you say that you are aware of the unprovable/intangible nature of subjective selection factors and their outcomes, do you concede that the same applies to academic-rankings?

Find some proof that higher scores guarantee success as a health professional, a doctor/dentist/optometrist, whatever, and then maybe we can have a proper discussion, that isn't just composed of you talking down your nose at those of us who are jumping about in queues and devaluing left and right, and those who disagree with you, trying to point out to you in as contrite a manner as we are able, our sincere regret at having received further confirmation of your boundless and perpetual, self-righteous, pseudo-intellectual elitist nonsense.

But then again i'm from a poor family in a poor area and have jumped queue and have devalued here and undermined there, so anything I say should probably be disregarded as fast as interviews for any sort of selection process for anything.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Hayden

Getting busier
Emeritus
Oh bigheadache. I read your post like four times, and each time I couldn't get anything out of them. I can't see any points made in them. And let's be honest, you're not exactly convincing anyone, are you?

But I will say, don't call me junior. I've been through plenty. Plenty enough for a person my age anyway.
 

sckimvip

New Member
I'm interested to hear your take on DFEE spots and as sckimvip has highlighted, international students in particular. Are they automatically inferior because they weren't 'good enough' to gain entry in their home countries and seek to pay for a (relatively) relaxed entry system?
.
um.. jus clarifying that although im an international student, I finished my highschool in Aus (yr8-12). I didnt apply to any my home unis. Im an international student cus i dont have a citizenship which i ll get later.

Btw bigheadache, i jus thought I should ask about this. I got an offer to go to UQ law before, so according to you academic stuff or whatever, are law students inferior compared to med/dent students cus they tend to have lower cutoffs?

Well accoriding to your theory of inferiority and superiority, it can be concluded that law students are inferior but then i dont think anyone is going to agree with you.
 

~shinigami~

。◕‿◕。
Emeritus
um.. jus clarifying that although im an international student, I finished my highschool in Aus (yr8-12). I didnt apply to any my home unis. Im an international student cus i dont have a citizenship which i ll get later.

Btw bigheadache, i jus thought I should ask about this. I got an offer to go to UQ law before, so according to you academic stuff or whatever, are law students inferior compared to med/dent students cus they tend to have lower cutoffs?

Well accoriding to your theory of inferiority and superiority, it can be concluded that law students are inferior but then i dont think anyone is going to agree with you.
Really? Wow, it must be different in Queensland because a place in a Go8 uni in Sydney would need 99+. I'm pretty suprised that UQ has lower cut-offs for law.
 

L337

Based God
Emeritus
Really? Wow, it must be different in Queensland because a place in a Go8 uni in Sydney would need 99+. I'm pretty suprised that UQ has lower cut-offs for law.
From what I hear, the cut-offs for law and pharmacy were lowered quite a bit at UQ this year...don't know why, but that's what the word on the streets is. :cool:
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Top