Adelaide UAdel Medicine: General Discussion

[DrDrLMG!]

Hi guys
I've skimmed through the collated offers thread and saw that there weren't many offers made to the tertiary transfer / internal transfer applicants for Adelaide medicine. Is the internal transfer pathway through the BHMS sub quota more competitive than the general under grad pathway as they are only offering roughly 10 places through this path?

I’m not 100% sure re. a comparison of the respective competitiveness, but w/r/t the number of offers... we tend to see about 5-10% of any given group represented here at MSO. So if there are roughly 10 tertiary transfer places (I actually thought there were more), it’s not at all surprising we don’t get many checking in here.

 

[Layla_a]

Yep, monash specifically said they will use aggregate NOT ATAR for selection for Medicine, so you're right, they will arrange by aggregate.

I meant for Adelaide not Monash as it says in the original that I quoted

 

[ucatboy]

I meant for Adelaide not Monash as it says in the original that I quoted

I assume that students with the same ATAR will receive a shared ranking like so:
20 applicants with 99.95 ATAR: shared 1st
25 applicants with 99.90 ATAR: shared 21st (after the 20 99.95s)
30 applicants with 99.85 ATAR: shared 46th (after the 20 99.95s and 25 99.90s)
And so on.

 

[Layla_a]

guarantee.

I assume that students with the same ATAR will receive a shared ranking like so:
20 applicants with 99.95 ATAR: shared 1st
25 applicants with 99.90 ATAR: shared 21st (after the 20 99.95s)
30 applicants with 99.85 ATAR: shared 46th (after the 20 99.95s and 25 99.90s)
And so on.

I mean aggregate could be used as Adelaide says “40% academic results” rather than “40% ATAR” I guess we will never know. I think this method u have described could result in a draw in all three categories perhaps though... probably very rare however

I assume that students with the same ATAR will receive a shared ranking like so:
20 applicants with 99.95 ATAR: shared 1st
25 applicants with 99.90 ATAR: shared 21st (after the 20 99.95s)
30 applicants with 99.85 ATAR: shared 46th (after the 20 99.95s and 25 99.90s)
And so on.

looking at the Adelaide admissions guide it says that participants will be ranked based on a combination of scores from these three components
- interview 40%
- academic score results 40%
- ucat 20%

I think it can be deduced that they definitely do not rank students in each of the three categories (which would be counter productive) but rather combine their three scores and then rank them.

 

[Crow]

Isn't aggregate exclusive to SA (or at least, not used in all states and territories)? You couldn't use that if so because there would be no feasible way to compare SA applicants with interstate applicants.

 

[Layla_a]

Isn't aggregate exclusive to SA (or at least, not used in all states and territories)? You couldn't use that if so because there would be no feasible way to compare SA applicants with interstate applicants.

Not really... flinders and Monash both state that they use aggregate so why couldn’t adelaidd

 

[ucatboy]

Not really... flinders and Monash both state that they use aggregate so why couldn’t adelaidd

Okay, now tell me, who're you gonna rank higher: a 99.95 SACE student with a 89.5/90.0 aggregate, or a 99.95 VCE student with an aggregate of 215, or a 99.95 IB student with 777777AB? Do you see the problem here? I'm convinced that the unis that say they're going to use aggregate use ATAR in reality - it is, after all, an "Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank".

 

[Endgame.]

Not really... flinders and Monash both state that they use aggregate so why couldn’t adelaidd

How does flinders use its aggregate. Does it distinguish between low and high ATAR 99.95 given the aggregate differences between VTAC and SATAC?

 

[Layla_a]

Okay, now tell me, who're you gonna rank higher: a 99.95 SACE student with a 89.5/90.0 aggregate, or a 99.95 VCE student with an aggregate of 215, or a 99.95 IB student with 777777AB? Do you see the problem here? I'm convinced that the unis that say they're going to use aggregate use ATAR in reality - it is, after all, an "Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank".

i don’t know. Good question. U should ask the unis.

 

[Endgame.]

Okay, now tell me, who're you gonna rank higher: a 99.95 SACE student with a 89.5/90.0 aggregate, or a 99.95 VCE student with an aggregate of 215, or a 99.95 IB student with 777777AB? Do you see the problem here? I'm convinced that the unis that say they're going to use aggregate use ATAR in reality - it is, after all, an "Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank".

Do states that don’t follow the VTAC/SATAC aggregates give one to the unis behind the scenes? Do they even have a system by which to allocate one? In the new Queensland system, we haven’t been told at all about an aggregate. I’ve heard of a polyscore being used, is that potentially the aggregate?

 

[Layla_a]

Do states that don’t follow the VTAC/SATAC aggregates give one to the unis behind the scenes? Do they even have a system by which to allocate one? In the new Queensland system, we haven’t been told at all about an aggregate. I’ve heard of a polyscore being used, is that potentially the aggregate?

Okay, now tell me, who're you gonna rank higher: a 99.95 SACE student with a 89.5/90.0 aggregate, or a 99.95 VCE student with an aggregate of 215, or a 99.95 IB student with 777777AB? Do you see the problem here? I'm convinced that the unis that say they're going to use aggregate use ATAR in reality - it is, after all, an "Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank".

“Just called SATAC to confirm how the 5 aggregate points will be added. They have confirmed, that the ATAR of interstate applicants will first be converted into a SATAC aggregate, and then the 5 points will be added, in order to ensure equity among all students.”

Found this on MSO. You definitely can convert an interstate aggregate into an SA aggregate.

 

[ucatboy]

I mean aggregate could be used as Adelaide says “40% academic results” rather than “40% ATAR” I guess we will never know. I think this method u have described could result in a draw in all three categories perhaps though... probably very rare however



looking at the Adelaide admissions guide it says that participants will be ranked based on a combination of scores from these three components
- interview 40%
- academic score results 40%
- ucat 20%

I think it can be deduced that they definitely do not rank students in each of the three categories (which would be counter productive) but rather combine their three scores and then rank them.

something like:
Ucat 3200/3600 x 0.2
Academics 88.55/90 x 0.4
Interview 35/40 x 0.4
add it up, rank etc.

the words academic score tend to lead me to aggregate... rather than ATAR but who knows?

The system you've proposed has been discussed before and doesn't hold up when you look at it in detail: neither ATAR nor UCAT are linear scales, they're normally distributed. The difference between a 3300 UCAT score and a 3000 UCAT score isn't just 10%, it's more like 12 times - there's 12 times as many 3000+ scorers as there are 3300+ scorers. Your method completely ignores all of this and plots scores on a linear scale.

Nothing about what the admissions guide says excludes the possibility of individual rankings being assigned then weighted and averaged (not sure how you managed to interpret the statement that way), so until there's proof to the contrary, a weighed ranking system is what makes the most logical sense.

 

[ucatboy]

“Just called SATAC to confirm how the 5 aggregate points will be added. They have confirmed, that the ATAR of interstate applicants will first be converted into a SATAC aggregate, and then the 5 points will be added, in order to ensure equity among all students.”

Found this on MSO. You definitely can convert an interstate aggregate into an SA aggregate.

Yeah, and the way they convert an interstate aggregate into an SA one is first by converting it into an ATAR then into an SA aggregate, meaning that all the detail surrounding the original aggregate is lost. Here's an example:

Using this source, let's take two students who achieved VCE aggregates of 200.4 and 200.5:

Student 1: 200.4 aggregate -> 99.50 ATAR -> according to the ATAR to aggregate table, that's 87.65/90.
Student 2: 200.5 aggregate -> still 99.50 ATAR -> according to the SATAC ATAR to aggregate table, that's, oh look, still 87.65/90.

Let's lay the matter to rest with this, which I took from the SATAC page:

They literally just use your ATAR, there's no other way around it.

 

[Layla_a]

The system you've proposed has been discussed before and doesn't hold up when you look at it in detail: neither ATAR nor UCAT are linear scales, they're normally distributed. The difference between a 3300 UCAT score and a 3000 UCAT score isn't just 10%, it's more like 12 times - there's 12 times as many 3000+ scorers as there are 3300+ scorers. Your method completely ignores all of this and plots scores on a linear scale.

Nothing about what the admissions guide says excludes the possibility of individual rankings being assigned then weighted and averaged (not sure how you managed to interpret the statement that way), so until there's proof to the contrary, a weighed ranking system is what makes the most logical sense.

Well your ranking system completely ignores that too! It literally would not matter whether score/3600 was used... it would still rank everyone appropriately... just with a score out of 1 or 100 (whatever) rather than 3600 so that atar, ucat and interview can be compared equally.

also to ur second paragraph there mate...Adelaide University says “a combination of SCORES from the three sections are used to give a ranking” in dentistry they say specifically that students are ranked in each of the three sections.... I think ur theory is definitely wrong sorry mate

 

[Layla_a]

Yeah, and the way they convert an interstate aggregate into an SA one is first by converting it into an ATAR then into an SA aggregate, meaning that all the detail surrounding the original aggregate is lost. Here's an example:

Using this source, let's take two students who achieved VCE aggregates of 200.4 and 200.5:

Student 1: 200.4 aggregate -> 99.50 ATAR -> according to the ATAR to aggregate table, that's 87.65/90.
Student 2: 200.5 aggregate -> still 99.50 ATAR -> according to the SATAC ATAR to aggregate table, that's, oh look, still 87.65/90.

Let's lay the matter to rest with this, which I took from the SATAC page:
View attachment 4309
They literally just use your ATAR, there's no other way around it.

Hun the universities (flinders and monash) have SAID they use aggregate... oh my goodness you know more than the universities themselves who set the rules!!! Jesus ur a god!!

 

[ucatboy]

Well your ranking system completely ignores that too! It literally would not matter whether score/3600 was used... it would still rank everyone appropriately... just with a score out of 1 or 100 (whatever) rather than 3600 so that atar, ucat and interview can be compared equally.

also to ur second paragraph there mate...Adelaide University says “a combination of SCORES from the three sections are used to give a ranking” in dentistry they say specifically that students are ranked in each of the three sections.... I think ur theory is definitely wrong sorry mate

Your system treats the difference between a 2700 and 3000 UCAT score as the same as that between a 3000 and 3300 UCAT score. That might make sense on the surface, but 2700 roughly converts to 72nd percentile, 3000 roughly 94th percentile and 3300 99.53th percentile. There's 12 times as many 3000 scorers as 3300 scorers, and 5 times as many 3000 scorers as 2700 scorers.

"My" ranking system would give the 3300 scorer 1st place, the 3000 scorer ~12th place, and the 2700 scorer ~60th place. This reflects the relative difficulty of achieving an exceptional 3300 UCAT score - there's literally 60 times fewer of them compared to a 2700 score. Your system? "Yeah cool story bro you achieved 3300 that's only 20% higher than 2700 numbers-wise so imma give u that, take it or leave it".

Also, you realise that the word "ranking" in this instance could simply refer to the final ranking for a place offer? The uni's gotta line up the applicants to know who to give a place offer ya know?

 

[ucatboy]

Hun the universities (flinders and monash) have SAID they use aggregate... oh my goodness you know more than the universities themselves who set the rules!!! Jesus ur a god!!

Yeah, and I just proved that using aggregate is no different to using ATAR.

 

[DrDrLMG!]

Hun the universities (flinders and monash) have SAID they use aggregate... oh my goodness you know more than the universities themselves who set the rules!!! Jesus ur a god!!

I know literally nothing about the specific topic being discussed here, so won’t be commenting on that directly, but I can assure you of this. Over the course of my ~five years here at MSO there have been countless occasions where MSO user analysis has been correct and direct university report has been incorrect. It’s actually so common it’s laughable and any information coming informally (via emails or telephone calls) from <insert med/dent uni here> admissions is interpreted extremely cautiously.

Two people can (and do, routinely) contact university admissions with the same question, at the same time, get different people and subsequently get completely different (sometimes completely contradictory) information.

More formally, I’d also caution you to please watch your tone when replying to other users. Thank you.

 

[kev119]

“Just called SATAC to confirm how the 5 aggregate points will be added. They have confirmed, that the ATAR of interstate applicants will first be converted into a SATAC aggregate, and then the 5 points will be added, in order to ensure equity among all students.”

Found this on MSO. You definitely can convert an interstate aggregate into an SA aggregate.

I also got 5 aggregate pts from SATAC but I was told it was then converted to my y12 'rank', which is what the unis see I think. (I'm interstate)

 

[A1]

I also got 5 aggregate pts from SATAC but I was told it was then converted to my y12 'rank', which is what the unis see I think. (I'm interstate)

Couple of comments from me on this:

- The SA aggregate to SA ATAR is not linear. When 5 Agg pts are added to a 95.0 it raises by about 3.0, but added to a 98.0 it only raises by about 1.80-1.90. This requires SATAC to use a student's SA aggregate (or convert interstate/IB to SA aggregate) before adding 5 then convert back to an *ATAR value*.

- No system/scheme is allowed to change your ATAR. If it adds a bonus the result must be called a Rank or Selection Rank or Equiv ATAR etc. That's all the term "convert to a rank" means.