Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Interview Question Time 3#

DrChopper

Regular Member
Hello everybody!
I know most of us are gearing up for interviews which are coming up and just as Matt has done in previous years (he was a little busy to do so this year) I've decided to try and boot up this idea for a thread.
Basically I've found a few interesting scenarios hopefully we can get some good discussions going. My apologies in advance if there are any repeated from last year or the previous year as well.

Remember there are no right or wrong answers concerning these questions so just post your own views and make sure you back it up with some logical reasoning.

Question 1
Class Size (Critical Thinking)
Universities are commonly faced with the complicated task of balancing the educational needs of their students and the cost required to provide learning resources to a large number of individuals. As a result of this tension, there has been much debate regarding the optimal size of classes. One side argues that smaller classes provide a more educationally effective setting for students, while others argue that it makes no difference, so larger classes should be used to minimise the number of instructors required.
Discuss your opinion on this issue with the examiner.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

NOPE

New Member
Benefits of each:

Larger classes
- more students fit
- cheaper
- rely upon student self motivation
- social environment that encourages people to meet many new people

Smaller classes
- more contact with teacher
- more of a community environment as people in the class will all know each other
- can provide better support to struggling students

Balancing profits vs education experience:

At the end of the day, the university needs to make a profit, as it is a business. It is not feasible for a business to run without profit. Logically the more expensive universities will have smaller class size as the general public opinion is that smaller class sizes are better due mainly to increased contact with lecturer. Therefore you're going to end up at a solution where cheaper universities have smaller class sizes and more expensive universities have smaller class sizes. My opinion reflects that of the general public in this instance, and I personally have found from experience that closer contact with lecturers and forming the mentality of a community within the class helps to propel you into studying more effectively and achieving higher results.
 

Havox

Sword and Martini Guy!
Emeritus
Points out that it's also about how effectively you're able to communicate your answer logically and fluently to the examiner. The answer above is a pretty good example of a well structured answer. Well done.
 

Dsquall

Regular Member
As an anecdote, I’d just like to add that with smaller classes you generally suffer from cost cutting in other respects i.e. you will have student teachers (in the best case they will be phd students, in the worst you get students that are slightly further along in the program and though are themselves quite capable, aren’t the greatest teachers).

In my opinion perhaps the best way to do it is to have classes that are somewhere in between the two extremes that I perceive (large lectures 100+ students and small tuts 20-30 students). By compromising you can seek to satisfy both sides.
 
Last edited:

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Would it be useful talk about additionals such as tutor classes, just as an aside?
eg.
Perhaps a system of large-scale lecturing, as well as help on this more personal level (which is arguably far more effective than the reduced lecture class size, if we're going by the less people=more individual=better learning reasoning) would overall provide as much benefit to students, for less cost as small lecture + tutor classes - assuming that the reduced lecture size does not cut out tutoring. As such the additional cost may not only be unnecessary, but financially disadvantageous. Especially so, if this cost is shifted from areas where the real individual teaching is given ie. Tutor classes.

It should be noted that the above however, would not apply to practical classes where learning is not so much absorbing information as technique/hands-on oriented, say, for dissection classes, where immediate individual training is the most efficient.

:/ I actually disagree with dsquall about a compromise here, because I think that the relationship between costs and learning benefit (cost being In terms of class size) is non-linear. I believe there is a tipping point after which increasing numbers has minimal extra detriment to overall students' learning eg the difference from 50 to 100. In light of this, I would hesitate to promote reduced lecture sizes at this scale.

(Ack! Talking like this is so foreign :D )
 

DrChopper

Regular Member
Okay my turn, but i'll still wait a little while before posting the next one so to give others an opportunity to jump in.

For me when i consider the scenario the first thing that jumps at me is the fact that we are talking about Uni students. As such i think the benefits of having a smaller class size are somewhat limited. By which i mean that generally smaller class sizes are usually implemented to improve the teacher student interaction and assist those students who depend more on spoon-fed learning. At a university level i would think that while still advantageous that such individual motivation or constant attention would not be necessary. Taking that into consideration I personally agree with @platonically yours in that the most beneficial way to approach the situation would be through increasing large scale lecturing and cut down on smaller lectures but include smaller tuition groups intermittently.
Of course this solution is very subjective in that it would change greatly depending on the demographic and motivation of the students themselves.

Another key aspect of this question i believe is the financial benefits and disadvantages of both systems. Smaller classes implies increased cost to the uni and larger classes means decreased cost to the uni. Again subjective but if say larger classes are adopted and the effectiveness of the students is decreased then in the long run the university will actually lose money as students will opt into different Uni's which will offer them a better course. The inverse is also true, if the Uni spends too much money on smaller classes then it will still not be able to make a profit and again has failed.

Therefore the optimal solution i'd suggest would be initially to run a combination of classes both large scale and small scale. In doing so the university will be able to identify the needs of the student body and plan their resources accordingly. Be that a need for larger classes rather than smaller classes or vice versa.

Sorry if i was a bit repetitive but that's what my response would be. Feel free to comment or critique! I'm here to learn!
 
Last edited:

blueocean

New Member
I actually have a question, what would you do, if you saw a medical student in your cohort taking illegal drugs, which you know are banned at the university?
 

pgawk

Ekki múkk
I actually have a question, what would you do, if you saw a medical student in your cohort taking illegal drugs, which you know are banned at the university?
Do I see them taking it at uni? Do I know them personally? Do I know someone who knows them personally? Do I know any background (what the student is like, what may be influencing them to take the drug) When you say 'illegal' do you mean in the sense that they're not 'legally' entitled to take it (prescription, not for them) or like cocaine illegal? What kind of effect (if any) is it having on them? Could their drug use be putting anyone around them in harm-i.e. trip out, attack another student? I think it's important to first answer at least some of these questions before deciding what I'd do. If I didn't know them personally, or know someone who did, who could talk to them, let them know they have support-if that's why they're taking them, in a way that isn't going to make things worse (for the student, or anyone around them), then I really don't see myself saying anything to an authority, unless I knew that them taking drugs is resulting in some sort of harm. I don't know what kind of effect my actions would have-will it make matters worse?- and if the student's actions aren't having some major one, then (as unethical as it probably sounds), I realistically don't see myself doing anything (at the moment) other than keeping an eye on how things are going. If some of those questions I asked before were answered, my response may change.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Dsquall

Regular Member
Just my 2c but what I like to do with these scenarios is record myself talking off the cuff without a typed out prompt, I find it mimics the actual scenario a bit better & can help you spot a few oral quirks and no-nos that you can fix up.

And yeah pgawk with respect to your decision to abstain if you didn't know the student/their background, I think it's what most people would do in reality and again I think it's all about how you get to the answer rather than the answer itself (with a few caveats of course).
 

DrChopper

Regular Member
I actually have a question, what would you do, if you saw a medical student in your cohort taking illegal drugs, which you know are banned at the university?
I agree with [MENTION=12045]pgawk[/MENTION] on this one completely. There is simply not enough information available to take any course of action. Therefore in this situation the what I would do would be to take no action until either the situation escalates or someone gives me further information.
Just my 2c but what I like to do with these scenarios is record myself talking off the cuff without a typed out prompt, I find it mimics the actual scenario a bit better & can help you spot a few oral quirks and no-nos that you can fix up.
That's probably a very useful way of doing it, the aim of this thread however is to encourage discussion on certain questions. I was under the impression not many people were keen to do it so I stopped posting questions, but I still have plenty more that i can put up.

Question 2
Joe is a pizza delivery worker. The pizza shop he works for has a 30 minutes or less delivery guarantee or else the customer does not have to pay. On Joe’s most recent delivery, he spots a woman bleeding on the street. There is no one else around and the woman seems to be unable to move by herself. However, Joe knows that if he returns empty handed again, he will be fired from this job he most desperately needs. What do you think Joe should do? Justify your solution in terms of practicality and ethical considerations.
 

Dsquall

Regular Member
That's probably a very useful way of doing it, the aim of this thread however is to encourage discussion on certain questions. I was under the impression not many people were keen to do it so I stopped posting questions, but I still have plenty more that i can put up.
Yeah I agree, was just offering that route as additional to the written form.

Question 2
Joe is a pizza delivery worker. The pizza shop he works for has a 30 minutes or less delivery guarantee or else the customer does not have to pay. On Joe’s most recent delivery, he spots a woman bleeding on the street. There is no one else around and the woman seems to be unable to move by herself. However, Joe knows that if he returns empty handed again, he will be fired from this job he most desperately needs. What do you think Joe should do? Justify your solution in terms of practicality and ethical considerations.
My Answer (I tried to structure it similar to an oral delivery):

Whilst Joe is under no legal obligation to help the lady that he’s/she’s observed, if I were Joe I’d feel obligated to discover more about the circumstances surrounding this apparently injured woman.

This obligation stems from my belief that we as humans exist as social beings and that while our own rights and responsibilities are important there are scenarios in which the rights of others may be paramount. In this case the woman appears to be alone and injured (‘there is no one else around and the woman seems to be unable to move by herself’). The potential implications of this are that twofold, first, the woman may be seriously injured and secondly, Joe may be the only person in the vicinity that can aid this woman. The cost to Joe is potentially his/her job however I personally value the welfare of another as being significantly above that of my own job.

From a practical perspective there are several reasons for Joe to stop and inquire as well. The woman may not be in need of assistance, in which case Joe will be free to deliver the pizza in a timely fashion. Joe may be overly exaggerating his/her boss’s reaction, especially in light of the circumstances (his/her boss would likely understand what Joe had to do). In the event that Joe does get fired, Joe can also simply look for another job.

The most appropriate action for the moral and practical person in Joe’s position would thus be to stop and inquire as to what exactly is wrong and in the case that something is wrong, call for help or help himself (if he/she has the requisite first aid training).
 
Last edited:

blueocean

New Member
Question 2
Joe is a pizza delivery worker. The pizza shop he works for has a 30 minutes or less delivery guarantee or else the customer does not have to pay. On Joe’s most recent delivery, he spots a woman bleeding on the street. There is no one else around and the woman seems to be unable to move by herself. However, Joe knows that if he returns empty handed again, he will be fired from this job he most desperately needs. What do you think Joe should do? Justify your solution in terms of practicality and ethical considerations.
If the woman is bleeding and there is nobody there to help her, I would definitely stop and help out. This may involve calling the ambulance and asking the woman to apply pressure to the spot where she's bleeding so that I can try to minimise the amount of potential problems as much as possible. I would probably try to find someone to stay with her, such as knocking on a door of a home in the street and telling them what's happened, and explaining my situation. I would ask them to stay with her and tell them that I have called the ambulance. I would then instruct this person to apply pressure to the place where this woman is bleeding until the ambulance arrive. I would probably return to the accident scene after I have delivered the pizza.

Not sure how I have approached this scenario, but this is what I thought would be the best string of actions such that I can obviously help this woman out because she is seriously injured and I believe it's my responsibility to help out and give her the best chance of recovery. As well as this, I feel that it's also a practical solution so that I can deliver the pizza and so won't get fired from a job which I desperately need.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

DanNQ

New Member
I would probably try to find someone to stay with her, such as knocking on a door of a home in the street and telling them what's happened, and explaining my situation. I would ask them to stay with her and tell them that I have called the ambulance. I would then instruct this person to apply pressure to the place where this woman is bleeding until the ambulance arrive. I would probably return to the accident scene after I have delivered the pizza.
Unless things have changed since I did my SFA 8 months ago, we are legally obligated to stay with the injured person until the ambulance arrives. So while we are under no obligation to stop and help, if we do stop and assist, then we have to wait until the ambulance arrives. It's the same with CPR; once you start, you can't stop until the paramedics arrive and give you the 'all clear' to stop.


There are some factors in this scenario that would determine the final answer, so what I would like to know is:
How bad is the bleeding?
What caused the bleeding?
Why is the woman unable to move?
Is the woman conscious or unconscious?
Was she the victim of an assault, and if so, is the area still potentially dangerous? (Assailant could be hiding somewhere)

Ignoring the above, in my opinion, Joe should stop and help. No other reason except to be a decent human being and give first aid to someone in need. If the boss tries to fire Joe, then Joe should go to Fair Work Australia and lodge an unfair dismissal claim, get compensated for unfair treatment and then get a job somewhere else.

Nobody should have to be faced with the prospect of losing their job because they're trying to do the right thing.

Unless the woman is bleeding because Joe hit her with his car...
 
I definitely would put the woman's wellbeing above my job, especially if it is so serious to show bleeding from afar. A life is more important than a livelihood.

Whilst calling the ambulance is the obvious first go-to, I would just add to the previous answers a step of caution. Before getting out of the car to help, I would quickly have a look around for possible threats, because the situation is a little sketchy (noone is nearby). It could be a trap, or an assailant could still be nearby, and I could do nothing for the woman if I too were injured. There could also well be a hazard of the environment that did this, like if she had been hurt by a live wire.

So steps: Call for outside help, secure the site, ensure own safety, communicate with woman, attempt to help if I know I'm not going to make the injury worse, otherwise stay to console her. (Potentially could get advice from the 111 speaker) If I found myself unoccupied, such as after the ambulance arrived, I would contact the customer and apologise for the delay but this would only be an afterthought.

As for the boss issue, I would explain it to them immediately afterwards. An official is likely to be able to confirm that I was legitimately in an emergency. If it comes down to me losing a job, then so be it. I am lucky to live in a country that will not leave me for dead in the event of unemployment, and I can always look for another job (hopefully one where the boss was more understanding).
 

DrChopper

Regular Member
Hey guys, great work so far!
Here's my answer:

Firstly I don't disagree with most of you in that the ultimate priority is saving the woman's life. That being said I don't think an impromptu decision to just abandon your job and dive into a potentially dangerous situation is a very viable choice. It strikes me that we don't know Joe's need for the job or the money from the job. Not knowing this it makes it a slightly more complicated call to forget about your duty to your customer and your boss. My response would be to initially asses the situation and if safe exit my car and approach the woman, at this point I would be calling around for help to see if there is anyone else who could support her in my absence. If there is absolutely no body then I would stay with the lady until the ambulance arrived and then if my job becomes jeapordised, explain the situation to both the customer and the boss. If I could get help, however, by perhaps knocking on someones door or a passer by, and I can tell that I am no longer of any real use in the situation then in all honesty i'd continue with my job and deliver the pizza. If I did have a first aid certificate then the situation is completely different. As with a first aid certificate you owe a duty of care to any individual who is injured and you are required to stay with them until an ambulance or paramedic arrives not just a passer by.

I realize my answer must sound somewhat cold but I think it's important to asses and remember all aspects of the situation. Yes, the most admirable thing to do would be to drop everything and help the women despite personal grievances but again I think you have to keep a level head and really take into account the nature of your position, the lady's and any help you can acquire.

DrC
 

Dsquall

Regular Member
Unless things have changed since I did my SFA 8 months ago, we are legally obligated to stay with the injured person until the ambulance arrives.
This is true, a few countries have it differently (france etc) but in Australia if you stop to help, you acquire a duty of care (even the simple act of draping a jacket of someone's back) and you're liable for what happens, that said Australia also has some pretty solid good smaritan laws that generally protect lay people even if a casualty does get worse etc.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Havox

Sword and Martini Guy!
Emeritus
DRSABCDEFG folks. Question why the woman is bleeding. Danger, Response, SFH, Airways etc...
 

frootloop

House Surgeon
Moderator
If I did have a first aid certificate then the situation is completely different. As with a first aid certificate you owe a duty of care to any individual who is injured and you are required to stay with them until an ambulance or paramedic arrives not just a passer by.
Erm... No. Having a first-aid certificate doesn't give you any duty of care (unless you're in the workplace, and you're the designated first-aid person), especially not to 'any individual who is injured'. I *think* you only have a duty of care after you actually start administering treatment? (ie: Once you've started helping, you can't just ditch. I'm not 100% sure on this part, though)
I wouldn't point this out, except that your entire argument hinges on it (you said that if you didn't have said certificate, you'd just deliver the pizza).
 

DrChopper

Regular Member
Erm... No. Having a first-aid certificate doesn't give you any duty of care (unless you're in the workplace, and you're the designated first-aid person), especially not to 'any individual who is injured'. I *think* you only have a duty of care after you actually start administering treatment? (ie: Once you've started helping, you can't just ditch. I'm not 100% sure on this part, though)
I wouldn't point this out, except that your entire argument hinges on it (you said that if you didn't have said certificate, you'd just deliver the pizza).
Not at all, I am only going on what the nurse tried to explain to us at my first aid course, not too long ago. Basically, she said "as a holder of a first aid certificate you have a legal obligation to help in a time of medical emergency". I can't vouch for the accuracy of the comment but to me it makes logical sense however when I briefly did legal studies what you mentioned about being a designated first-aider or being in a workplace rings a bell . Also that's not what I said said at all, at least that's not what I meant. What I was trying to convey was if I did feel like I could be useful in the situation I would wait until the ambulance came, otherwise i would ensure that there was someone else there to take care of her until help arrived. I just didn't see the logical point of me hanging around being useless when there are already others there who are doing everything i would potentially be able to do. That being said, if she was all alone and no other help could be found then i definitely would wait it out for the ambulance.

Hope that clarifies it.

DrC
 

Dsquall

Regular Member
Erm... No. Having a first-aid certificate doesn't give you any duty of care (unless you're in the workplace, and you're the designated first-aid person), especially not to 'any individual who is injured'. I *think* you only have a duty of care after you actually start administering treatment? (ie: Once you've started helping, you can't just ditch. I'm not 100% sure on this part, though)
I wouldn't point this out, except that your entire argument hinges on it (you said that if you didn't have said certificate, you'd just deliver the pizza).
R v Taktak (for NSW at least)
brief facts: Woman ODs on heroin, male friend tried to wake up the woman (splashing face, resuscitation etc), can't wake up the girl so he dumps her at the door of a GP and she passes away.

The key factor in Yeldham J's judgment didn't turn on what the male did but rather the fact that his actions prevented the woman from being able to get real help ‘there was evidence that the appellant did assume a duty to care for the deceased girl, who at the time was helpless, and by so doing removed her from a situation in which others might have rendered or obtained aid for her.

This is with respect to the criminal liability aspect of things, civil law bores me.
 

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Registered members with 100+ posts do not see Ads

Top