Interview offers & dates 2016-17

[DrDrLMG!]

I don't necessarily agree but.... it seems to be a fundamental assumption at almost every med school in Australia that high UMAT=Good doctor.

I feel like it's more a fundamental assumption that UMAT is a useful/standardised/efficient/relevant method of culling gazillions of med student wannabes into the kinds of numbers that can be actually be accommodated

The ready application of 'exceptions to the rule' only underlines this for me.

 

[A1]

it seems to be a fundamental assumption at almost every med school in Australia that high UMAT=Good doctor.

The unis use all different kinds of measure to award their med places: top ATAR only, high ATAR + high UMAT only, okay ATAR + high UMAT only, okay ATAR okay UMAT + 100% interview, okay ATAR high UMAT + 66% interview, good ATAR no UMAT + interview etc etc. They all produce fine doctors, we haven't heard of any quality complaints on any particular cohort as a whole.

 

[BR41N5]

I feel like it's more a fundamental assumption that UMAT is a useful/standardised/efficient/relevant method of culling gazillions of med student wannabes into the kinds of numbers that can be actually be accommodated

The ready application of 'exceptions to the rule' only underlines this for me.

I think due to the intense competition, the med schools have to devise a method for fair selection. They must have discovered previously that using ATAR only which measures academic ability is not necessarily the best measure for a good doctor. So UMAT is used to test the other aspects of a good doctor. Therefore a combination of ATAR and UMAT is now used as a better way for selection.

 

[Mana]

In these situations, Tas should go for long term bonded offers for all (say 5 years). Then No one can complain.

Actually, this would probably result in literally every medical student at Tasmania complaining... as well as a very long term problem that if you were to do this, then those students bonded to Tasmania would have to find training positions in Tasmania - but there aren't currently enough training positions in Tasmania (due to lack of senior staff), so a lot of those students would then end up without any job progression, further compounding the problem.

Finally, it's also a band-aid solution compared to admitting more Tasmanians - those bonded students would finally do five years of service and then leave. (This is what we are currently seeing in the BMP program from people who did it in the past - they do their return of service and then they move back). This is little more than a short term solution that result in very little gain for the community, which would then have every right to complain that they were losing their continuity of care, and is much less preferable to just hiring the people from the community who were already living in that community and are very likely to have every intention to continue living in that community.

Your suggestion is rather poorly thought out, and I'd suggest you do some further reading on the matter before any further suggestions as flamboyant as the above.

 

[jenmed]

do first round interviewees at UNSW have a better chance than second round?

 

[Mana]

I don't necessarily agree but.... it seems to be a fundamental assumption at almost every med school in Australia that high UMAT=Good doctor.

Nope, the UMAT is a culling tool, nothing more.

 

[Mana]

do first round interviewees at UNSW have a better chance than second round?

No.

 

[A1]

do first round interviewees at UNSW have a better chance than second round?

Supposedly no.
Technically, 1st round interviewees' chance of getting a 1st round offer is slightly LESS than 2nd round interviewees getting 2nd round offer.
That's because 1st round interviewees remain eligible for 2nd round offers too (i.e. their 1st + 2nd chances = the others' one chance).

 

[jenmed]

Supposedly no.
Technically, 1st round interviewees' chance of getting a 1st round offer is slightly LESS than 2nd round interviewees getting 2nd round offer.
That's because 1st round interviewees remain eligible for 2nd round offers too (i.e. their 1st + 2nd chances = the others' one chance).

thanks! i got 99.7 and 93 UMAT, first-round interview - what's my chance of getting an offer do you think?

 

[biom]

thanks! i got 99.7 and 93 UMAT, first-round interview - what's my chance of getting an offer do you think?

Isn't the answer to your question "How well did you go in your interview?"

 

[A1]

thanks! i got 99.7 and 93 UMAT, first-round interview - what's my chance of getting an offer do you think?

Instead of estimating the chance I'll put it a different way: you should get a place offer if your interview score is better than 50%ile.

 

[david88]

Did you manage to call UNSW/UAC?

I called UAC, all they had to say was that 99.95 ATAR is the maximum score and so there is no point adding extra and no point applying. I called UNSW but the lady who picked up said that the person who would be able to help me just left for the day and told me to call back tomorrow. I'll double check with UNSW but I have a feeling that UNSW might say something different since as the previous posts have said I could actually be benefited in terms of z scores etc.

 

[Karima]

Supposedly no.
Technically, 1st round interviewees' chance of getting a 1st round offer is slightly LESS than 2nd round interviewees getting 2nd round offer.
That's because 1st round interviewees remain eligible for 2nd round offers too (i.e. their 1st + 2nd chances = the others' one chance).

Did you mean 2nd round interviewees are not eligible for 2nd round offer? I can't understand. I thought both 1st and 2nd round interviewees have same chances.

 

[Mana]

Did you mean 2nd round interviewees are not eligible for 2nd round offer? I can't understand. I thought both 1st and 2nd round interviewees have same chances.

He is functionally saying that they have the same chances. This is why:

First round interviewees → first round offers, cutoff is set at X where X is the score of the lowest scoring applicant from first round offered a place
Second round interviewees + first round interviewees → second round offers. First, all second round interviewees which scored at least X are offered a place.

Then for the remainder of second round offers the cutoff is set at Y such that the remaining number of places is offered down the merit list to the lowest scoring candidate who scored Y, which is necessarily lower than X.

Basically, for a first round offer you needed to score X.
For a second round offer you needed to score Y.
However, if you interviewed in first round then you needed a higher score (X) to get a first round offer than if you interviewed in second round for a second round offer.

However, in the end, the cutoff for both first round and second round interviewees would be set at Y, and thus the chances are exactly equal.

 

[Karima]

He is functionally saying that they have the same chances. This is why:

First round interviewees → first round offers, cutoff is set at X where X is the score of the lowest scoring applicant from first round offered a place
Second round interviewees + first round interviewees → second round offers. First, all second round interviewees which scored at least X are offered a place.

Then for the remainder of second round offers the cutoff is set at Y such that the remaining number of places is offered down the merit list to the lowest scoring candidate who scored Y, which is necessarily lower than X.

Basically, for a first round offer you needed to score X.
For a second round offer you needed to score Y.
However, if you interviewed in first round then you needed a higher score (X) to get a first round offer than if you interviewed in second round for a second round offer.

However, in the end, the cutoff for both first round and second round interviewees would be set at Y, and thus the chances are exactly equal.

Thank you so much for the explanation.

 

[Wendy]

Btw, third round interview emails have been sent out by unsw with predictions on the likelihood of getting a place...

 

[DrDrLMG!]

Btw, second round interview emails have been sent out by unsw with predictions on the likelihood of getting a place...

How do they predict your likelihood of a place if you've not done the interview yet? Or is it more that they say, 'given all factors, you will need an interview score over x to be competitive?'

 

[Wendy]

How do they predict your likelihood of a place if you've not done the interview yet? Or is it more that they say, 'given all factors, you will need an interview score over x to be competitive?'

At the moment they only say...
As we have now set the cut-off for places for the Main Round of offers, we can calculate what you will require in your interview in order to be offered a place. When considering your results to date (academic rank and UMAT), your chance of being offered a place in the program after your interview - assuming you will have achieved the maximum interview score – is around X%.Please think strongly about this when considering the time, effort and money you will need to invest in order to attend the UNSW interview.

But I'm not sure if they will send out a more detailed one closer to the timr

 

[DrDrLMG!]

At the moment they only say...
As we have now set the cut-off for places for the Main Round of offers, we can calculate what you will require in your interview in order to be offered a place. When considering your results to date (academic rank and UMAT), your chance of being offered a place in the program after your interview - assuming you will have achieved the maximum interview score – is around X%.Please think strongly about this when considering the time, effort and money you will need to invest in order to attend the UNSW interview.

But I'm not sure if they will send out a more detailed one closer to the timr

Thank you. Do you happen to know if interviews are percentages or percentile ranks? For example, are you told you need to score at the 95th %ile, or that you need a score of 95%. Just curious

And are any comparisons provided? Like, does it say first round interview average score was x% to give people a guide? Particularly given they're telling people to weigh up whether to attend or not.

 

[Wendy]

Thank you. Do you happen to know if interviews are percentages or percentile ranks? For example, are you told you need to score at the 95th %ile, or that you need a score of 95%. Just curious

And are any comparisons provided? Like, does it say first round interview average score was x% to give people a guide? Particularly given they're telling people to weigh up whether to attend or not.

Nope, nothing of the sort. I'm waiting for a1 and mana to explain