• Welcome to MSO!
    We are an online community for current and prospective medical, dental and allied health students and early career professionals from Australia and New Zealand.

    Please read: About MSO | Annual Welcome and Important Information | MSO Rules

    Quick Links To Forums
    Tests/Interviews: UCAT | GAMSAT | Interviews
    Entrance Discussion: Graduate Medicine | Undergraduate Medicine | Dentistry

  • Register with us

    Please consider registering on MSO. Benefits of registering are:
    • Able to post and participate in the forum
    • After 10 posts: Private Message Other Users
    • After 25 posts: Access to the Chatbox
    • After 100 posts: Custom user titles and Ad-free experience

    If you would like to get involved with MSO or have ideas, suggestions, comments, criticisms or other feedback please Contact Us

Otago HSFY chat - archive

Status
Not open for further replies.
UMAT isn't done on percentiles. It's done on your individual section raws and the 45/45/10 weighting.

I don't feel there's a point to discussing something that you have no control over. You do however control over your marks, so not worrying about the selection criteria and studying instead might be a good idea.

I'm being hypocritical but so what. You learn from mistakes. Stressing out last year about GPA this and GPA that didn't help at all.
 
Last edited:
skyglow1 said:
I don't feel there's a point to discussing something that you have no control over. You do however control over your marks, so not worrying about the selection criteria and studying instead might be a good idea.
Click to expand...

So true. I remember getting all worked up over GPA/selection criteria in my first year and ended up with an appalling GPA due to lack of study. I guess it's always good to have a rough gauge but at the end of the day it's all relative.

So got nuts, keep up the GPA and then let the admissions office do the work :)
 
21/25..Not too concerned

Btw...I just got a reply from a Health Sciences admissions officer about selection critera for med. She said that there are now 234 confirmed domestic places AND...get this..."The calculation for entry into medicine from HSFY is based on the actual marks."

That comes as a bit of a shock to me, but as skyglow mentioned: worry less, study more
 
Bleh I dunno. It doesn't matter anyway. Knowing it is one way or the other doesn't change the strategy for trying to get in at this stage.

Oh I forgot to tell the HEAL ppl at aquinas I'm on break so there isn't HEAL tutorials >< Hope it wasn't too much fuss.
 
Last edited:
Yay so its gone up from around 150?
Man epi was horrible! im freaking out bout it, the questions were ****. @5 for hubs tho so happy bout that
 
SASOL said:
Yay so its gone up from around 150?
Man epi was horrible! im freaking out bout it, the questions were ****. @5 for hubs tho so happy bout that
Click to expand...

Nah there were about 200 domestic spots in our year. No idea how they are going to fit you guys in though lol. Might have to get used to squeezing around tables in tutorials and labs. There'll be hardly any seats in the lecture theatre too.
 
@ koochkooch: sorry for further discussing the topic, but what do you actually mean by "actual marks"?

Got 22 for HUBS, very pleased. I know i definitely got the "what percentage of mitochondria in cardiac muscle cell" question wrong lol, I haven't met ANYBODY yet that got that one wrong

And that is so awesome there are more seats this year! (yy) What, NZ needs more doctors?
 
Public Liability said:
what do you actually mean by "actual marks"?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Otago takes your raw grade in a paper. So if you get 95% in one paper that score is used for their admissions calculations, rather than converting it to 9.0 GPA score (i.e. A+ on a GPA scale of 0-9).

So if you're at Otago it'd be to your advantage to aim for the highest raw grade possible. Auckland on the other hand converts the raw grade to a GPA score so there isn't a 'difference' between 85% and 100%, so long as you get the A+.
 
24 for me. So annoyed that i changed the diaphragm question at the very last second from the apex one to the inferior one..
Btw what did people put for the statistical agency for aids in NZ? i put MOH but appartly it was that epidemiology group? the NZ epidemiology group sounds so made up!
 
I initially put down MOH because it was the only one I was sure existed..Then I changed to that "New Zealand foundation of Aids" which did sound like the most blatantly made up to me, but silly me I was like: "oh, why not"
 
I put Ministry of Health for the AIDS epidemiology question, but that was pretty much a guess. I'm pretty sure the answer was "AIDS Epidemiology Group". If you google "AIDS surveillance", limiting to NZ sites, the first hit is a guide written by the lecturer we had for the AIDS lecture saying "The AIDS Epidemiology Group (AEG) has, since 1989, been responsible for the surveillance of AIDS and HIV infection in New Zealand, under contract to the Ministry of Health".

I was talking to my parents about it over the weekend though, and my mum (a GP) reckons "medical officers of health" because they are the ones who actually collect the data. Still, I think she might be wrong on this one.

Overall, I thought that whole test was stupid. Talk about a focus on surface (as opposed to deep) learning! My parents both teach at the medical school in Christchurch, and they both thought the test was screwed up when they looked through it...
 
And the stupid one about 3-4 year olds. They worded them really badly, i was guna put 3-4, but then thought no they eat the amount their parents give them unless they choose it themselves grr, so put the 20g one cos for some reason that seemed familiar,screwed up the table on cervical cancer aswell, cos i thought prevalence cant affect influence, so put incedence rate declined on basis that if u look at a graph the trend decreases, but again **** wording screwed me there. And also the age standardising thing, i didnt think u could assume that they had to know age specific rates, as u didnt know wher it was indirect or direct. grrr there goes about 5%, im so asnnoyed cos i had all the right answers, then went back and changed them. wish they tested us on stuff which may actuall be of future relevance, i.e) the study types etc. ahhh theres my rant, sorry^_^
 
SASOL said:
And the stupid one about 3-4 year olds. They worded them really badly, i was guna put 3-4, but then thought no they eat the amount their parents give them unless they choose it themselves
Click to expand...

Have a look at the graph on page 8 of the obesity slides you might find that your first choice was right :s

Its 5-6 year olds who eat what they are given
 
greenglacier said:
I put Ministry of Health for the AIDS epidemiology question, but that was pretty much a guess. I'm pretty sure the answer was "AIDS Epidemiology Group". If you google "AIDS surveillance", limiting to NZ sites, the first hit is a guide written by the lecturer we had for the AIDS lecture saying "The AIDS Epidemiology Group (AEG) has, since 1989, been responsible for the surveillance of AIDS and HIV infection in New Zealand, under contract to the Ministry of Health".

I was talking to my parents about it over the weekend though, and my mum (a GP) reckons "medical officers of health" because they are the ones who actually collect the data. Still, I think she might be wrong on this one.

Overall, I thought that whole test was stupid. Talk about a focus on surface (as opposed to deep) learning! My parents both teach at the medical school in Christchurch, and they both thought the test was screwed up when they looked through it...
Click to expand...

What they're getting you to learn now is retarded. When you get into second year they take the most useful stuff you learnt in HEAL and elaborate on it, and it actually is really useful. So hang on just a bit longer lol.

And yeah there's alot of surface learning but what can ya do. Who the hell cares who runs the surveillance of HIV/AIDS in NZ! That sort of info you can always look up. Understanding what makes a paper weak or strong is way more important. As koochkooch said if you want to destroy HEAL you're gonna have to learn everything in the slides and also know most of the book. Whether or not it's worth it to spend that sort of time on just HEAL is another issue.
 
Last edited:
koochkooch said:
Nice results greenglacier, Pete, Sasol and P.L.!!

I must agree, Epi test was far more factual than "conceptual" which is what they focused on in lectures. I guess the take home message is learn everything... everything.

Last slide of that lecture had a link...https://dnmeds.otago.ac.nz/departments/psm/research/aids/index.html

I chuckled.
Click to expand...

You chuckled? I was lmao. In the last slide which was that "further reading slide" (which nobody cares about or actually reads) they asked a question about.

I lost all respect for the HEAL department, that was such a cheap shot.
 
I cant believe they asked a question on something on a website! My hate level for epi has just risen.. didnt think this was possible haha

Looks like I'm going to be pulling out my old cells technique of memorizing until I cant memorize any more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
What does 'General Registration' look like in Australia for PGY1/2?
Replies
2
Views
891
MMD
M
Back
Top