• 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

Adelaide UAdel Medicine: General Discussion

Any UNSW students who are unsure of when to book interviews? Our exams are during the allocated times and all the December times are booked :( Not sure what time to book when the timetable hasn’t even been released
 
nb said:
At the moment for insterstate it appears to be about 3070 or so. But if you're a SA student, the cut off sits at around 71st percentile at the moment.
Click to expand...
Really??? Damn, I heard from some of my friends in SA who got 2710 still missed out on an interview, is the 71st percentile for Rural?
 
nb said:
At the moment for insterstate it appears to be about 3070 or so. But if you're a SA student, the cut off sits at around 71st percentile at the moment.
Click to expand...
Isn't Adl also giving preference to SA students this year just like Monash does?
 
Just out of curiosity, did anyone manage to get an explanation from UAdel when they quite judgmentally (lol) stated that it was "unconstitutional" to preference based on state borders or have we all accepted that Adelaide has buddied with the dark side of Monash?
 
someday said:
Just out of curiosity, did anyone manage to get an explanation from UAdel when they quite judgmentally (lol) stated that it was "unconstitutional" to preference based on state borders or have we all accepted that Adelaide has buddied with the dark side of Monash?
Click to expand...
Like many others have been saying before, it could be due to the large number of declines. By offering less interviews to interstate applicants, there is a lower chance of rejecting their offers (assuming ppl would prefer to stay in their home state, or not go to Adelaide in general)
 
someday said:
Just out of curiosity, did anyone manage to get an explanation from UAdel when they quite judgmentally (lol) stated that it was "unconstitutional" to preference based on state borders or have we all accepted that Adelaide has buddied with the dark side of Monash?
Click to expand...

Their reply chain went a little like this

Adelaide - “that was published on our website 10-ish years ago so it’s no longer applicable”

Me - “Section 117 (the part they quoted) of the constitution wasn’t changed since then”

Adelaide - its not discrimination because no difference is made in the decision of the place offers only the interviews

Me - If part of the criteria is an interview and some people are getting it dependent on their state of residence then it’s still discriminatory

Adelaide - no response

Tbh if it was taken to court then Adelaide (and Monash) would probably win as the high court has found that previously watered down any action against anyone on these regards.

Although the Wikipedia article of which my understanding is limited to says that this section is only rarely brought in front of the high court, and the since about the 90s there has been a revisionist view of it in the name of extending these protections, which would hurt Adelaides decision.

I’m sure there is case law on what defines discrimination, so excuses like “it’s only determined at the end” is not acceptable (a likely case would be if a certain race wasn’t allowed to interview for a job for example).

Although I don’t think it’s likely anyone would take it to court, but I wouldn’t put it past people considering the movement on Otago selection procedures in NZ

I’m sure the case would be very helpful to unifying the already incredibly unified country we are with no state skirmishes over borders in this age of Covid /s
 
Last edited:
dotwingz said:
Their reply chain went a little like this

Adelaide - “that was published on our website 10-ish years ago so it’s no longer applicable”

Me - “Section 117 (the part they quoted) of the constitution wasn’t changed since then”

Adelaide - its discrimination because no difference is made in the decision of the place offers only the interviews

Me - If part of the criteria is an interview and some people are getting it dependent on their state of residence then it’s still discriminatory

Adelaide - no response

Tbh if it was taken to court then Adelaide (and Monash) would probably win as the high court has found that previously watered down any action against anyone on these regards.

Although the Wikipedia article of which my understanding is limited to says that this section is only rarely brought in front of the high court, and the since about the 90s there has been a revisionist view of it in the name of extending these protections, which would hurt Adelaides decision.

I’m sure there is case law on what defines discrimination, so excuses like “it’s only determined at the end” is not acceptable (a likely case would be if a certain race wasn’t allowed to interview for a job for example).

Although I don’t think it’s likely anyone would take it to court, but I wouldn’t put it past people considering the movement on Otago selection procedures in NZ

I’m sure the case would be very helpful to unifying the already incredibly unified country we are with no state skirmishes over borders in this age of Covid /s
Click to expand...
dang you had them cornered with that haha thanks for investigating tho that's quite interesting - might do some of my own reading on it now actually!
 
dotwingz said:
Adelaide - its discrimination because no difference is made in the decision of the place offers only the interviews
Click to expand...
Do you mean for Adelaide to say it's not discrimination?

If this is true, then that's huge for place offer determination. I imagine a 70th percentile SA applicant, despite getting an interview, would have to work their ass off to receive a final place offer if they don't get any bonuses in the place offer stage.
 
Yes I did mean that sorry, and yes it will mean high ucat interstate students have an easier time getting places but mid scoring ones would have it harder
 
ucatboy said:
Do you mean for Adelaide to say it's not discrimination?

If this is true, then that's huge for place offer determination. I imagine a 70th percentile SA applicant, despite getting an interview, would have to work their ass off to receive a final place offer if they don't get any bonuses in the place offer stage.
Click to expand...
In that case, this decision may actually be beneficial for those with high UCAT scores, both from SA and interstate as more people are getting an already limited number of interviews with lower UCAT scores that may make them ineligible for a place offer. Seems odd to interview 70th percentile UCAT applicants when their odds of getting a place offer are quite low even if they get an incredibly high ATAR and smash the interview, but I guess it might work in the favour of certain individuals, myself included. If I remember correctly, Adelaide interviews like 700 people and even if only 70-80 applicants are ruled out on the basis of UCAT alone it works in the favour of those who have got an interview with a UCAT high enough for an offer.
 
Rhythm said:
In that case, this decision may actually be beneficial for those with high UCAT scores, both from SA and interstate as more people are getting an already limited number of interviews with lower UCAT scores that may make them ineligible for a place offer. Seems odd to interview 70th percentile UCAT applicants when their odds of getting a place offer are quite low even if they get an incredibly high ATAR and smash the interview, but I guess it might work in the favour of certain individuals, myself included. If I remember correctly, Adelaide interviews like 700 people and even if only 70-80 applicants are ruled out on the basis of UCAT alone it works in the favour of those who have got an interview with a UCAT high enough for an offer.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure the weighting of ucat is only 20%, so if they have a decent interview and atar it may compensate
 
Rhythm said:
In that case, this decision may actually be beneficial for those with high UCAT scores, both from SA and interstate as more people are getting an already limited number of interviews with lower UCAT scores that may make them ineligible for a place offer. Seems odd to interview 70th percentile UCAT applicants when their odds of getting a place offer are quite low even if they get an incredibly high ATAR and smash the interview, but I guess it might work in the favour of certain individuals, myself included. If I remember correctly, Adelaide interviews like 700 people and even if only 70-80 applicants are ruled out on the basis of UCAT alone it works in the favour of those who have got an interview with a UCAT high enough for an offer.
Click to expand...

I think offer time will be very interesting to see whether the 'it's only for the interview stage' statement seems to hold up (ETA: it may be impossible to tell, but it'll be interesting nonetheless).
 
LMG! said:
I think offer time will be very interesting to see whether the 'it's only for the interview stage' statement seems to hold up (ETA: it may be impossible to tell, but it'll be interesting nonetheless).
Click to expand...
How good do you think my interview would have to be with a 71st percentile ucat and 99.95 atar?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top