University of Melbourne Guaranteed Pathway- Medicine

[Boom]

The reason I keep sticking to Melbourne University is that it's the only university that I have the most realistic chance of getting into. In terms of no UMAT, academic standard and interview component. Due to this I believe that in addition University of Melbourne has a good ranking even if I finish with a BSc with University of Melbourne will open a multitude of possibilities. I know that you've discussed about university prestige but comparing BSc degrees might actually be differential given similar applicants for post graduate Medicine.

If I were to repeat the UMAT, what methods would you recommend? Lumos I presume you got in via UMAT due to studing Monash MBBS. What are some methods of improving my UMAT score?

Kind Regards,

-DSMalik

You are right in terms of a BSc, as different to medicine, university prestige does play a role in BSc graduates if you are looking for a job with that degree. However this is only limited to that and not to applying for a medical school, I don't think they would discriminate at all on BSc from different universities. What is more important is the grades you achieve in the BSc that will get you into medical school.

 

[lumos]

Okay [MENTION=19553]dsmalik[/MENTION], if I were in your position, and let me just say that you may be surprised at how close to your situation I have actually been in, then this is what I would do: accept the UWA offer, forget all about going to Melbourne despite ideas about its 'prestige', forget about the UWA and Melbourne assured pathways, forget about UQ and Monash since you're ineligible for them, re-take the UMAT, apply for 2015 nonstandard places everywhere, and think about the GAMSAT in case you have to sit it.

^ This is what I would do. And what most people in your position would do as well, I'd say. I also disagree that prestige plays a large role for BSc graduates; I don't think people would discriminate between someone who went to UWA and someone who went to Melbourne. It's going to be more about marks and what you studied. In medicine, where you went plays even less of a role. They won't give a crap where you went when deciding on a postgrad med or internship place. It's just not pertinent at all.

 

[Boom]

Okay @dsmalik , if I were in your position, and let me just say that you may be surprised at how close to your situation I have actually been in, then this is what I would do: accept the UWA offer, forget all about going to Melbourne despite ideas about its 'prestige', forget about the UWA and Melbourne assured pathways, forget about UQ and Monash since you're ineligible for them, re-take the UMAT, apply for 2015 nonstandard places everywhere, and think about the GAMSAT in case you have to sit it.

^ This is what I would do. And what most people in your position would do as well, I'd say. I also disagree that prestige plays a large role for BSc graduates; I don't think people would discriminate between someone who went to UWA and someone who went to Melbourne. It's going to be more about marks and what you studied. In medicine, where you went plays even less of a role. They won't give a crap where you went when deciding on a postgrad med or internship place. It's just not pertinent at all.

University prestige for BSc only doesn't matter when you are applying for grad school, if that is the case then only the grades matter. However if the BSc alone is your highest degree then university prestige would definitely play a role in that. A prestige school would also give you the chance to be involved in more and varying research opportunities. Otherwise for those in the US why Ivy League, MIT, and for those in the UK why Oxbridge or London?

 

[lumos]

University prestige for BSc only doesn't matter when you are applying for grad school, if that is the case then only the grades matter. However if the BSc alone is your highest degree then university prestige would definitely play a role in that. A prestige school would also give you the chance to be involved in more and varying research opportunities. Otherwise for those in the US why Ivy League, MIT, and for those in the UK why Oxbridge or London?

It's very different in Australia. Very different. Here, in general, it's much more about what you study than where you study it. In the US, and to a slightly lesser extent the UK, it's more about where you go. The Australian system is much more subject- and course-focused rather than university-focused such as in the US, especially considering that most universities here (with the exception of the Melbourne model) offer career-oriented courses. You can't study medicine, law, architecture, engineering, etc, at an undergraduate level in the US – most students do a more general course with a range of different subjects, before specialising at grad school. Hence it becomes more about where you go as opposed to what you do. In Australia, where a lot of courses are more oriented towards a certain field, people care less where you go. Rankings really don't matter. Besides, there are only like 30 unis in Australia as opposed to thousands in the US, so the differences in rankings are pretty negligible and there tends to not be much difference in the quality of education at each place.

I'm not sure if you're from Australia, but that's the way it is here. I go to Monash, and hate when people call it an 'inferior' university to, say, Melbourne or Sydney. Not only is it not an inferior university, but it also really doesn't matter if it's ranked slightly lower on some random lists; people won't care, but will instead look at what degree I received.

 

[Boom]

It's very different in Australia. Very different. Here, in general, it's much more about what you study than where you study it. In the US, and to a slightly lesser extent the UK, it's more about where you go. The Australian system is much more subject- and course-focused rather than university-focused such as in the US, especially considering that most universities here (with the exception of the Melbourne model) offer career-oriented courses. You can't study medicine, law, architecture, engineering, etc, at an undergraduate level in the US – most students do a more general course with a range of different subjects, before specialising at grad school. Hence it becomes more about where you go as opposed to what you do. In Australia, where a lot of courses are more oriented towards a certain field, people care less where you go. Rankings really don't matter. Besides, there are only like 30 unis in Australia as opposed to thousands in the US, so the differences in rankings are pretty negligible and there tends to not be much difference in the quality of education at each place.

I'm not sure if you're from Australia, but that's the way it is here. I go to Monash, and hate when people call it an 'inferior' university to, say, Melbourne or Sydney. Not only is it not an inferior university, but it also really doesn't matter if it's ranked slightly lower on some random lists; people won't care, but will instead look at what degree I received.

I am not from Australia. As for Monash, Monash is definitely not inferior to Melbourne or Sydney and this is me saying it from an unbiased view as I dont study at either. At my place I hear more of Monash as opposed to Sydney, although I hear alot of Melbourne too. As for BScs though, personally I believe learning at a famed university will allow you to receive better tuition on average as unlike medicine the course is not regulated across different universities, or am I incorrect here for Australia?

 

[lumos]

I am not from Australia. As for Monash, Monash is definitely not inferior to Melbourne or Sydney and this is me saying it from an unbiased view as I dont study at either. At my place I hear more of Monash as opposed to Sydney, although I hear alot of Melbourne too. As for BScs though, personally I believe learning at a famed university will allow you to receive better tuition on average as unlike medicine the course is not regulated across different universities, or am I incorrect here for Australia?

See I draw a distinction between the 'prestige' of a university and how good it is. The two factors aren't mutually exclusive, obviously, but they're not the same thing. There's a big difference between saying a uni is good because it is famous, 'prestigious', old and ranked highly on league tables, and saying it's good because of the quality of its courses, subjects, facilities and tuition. I don't think you necessarily get a better education just because a university is famous – a student may get a great education at a small yet well-regarded liberal arts college in the US; they don't necessarily have to go to Harvard.

I will always stand by my assertion that, in terms of a medical course, it doesn't matter where you go. Prestige is something that people should try and avoid considering when looking at where to study.

 

[Boom]

See I draw a distinction between the 'prestige' of a university and how good it is. The two factors aren't mutually exclusive, obviously, but they're not the same thing. There's a big difference between saying a uni is good because it is famous, 'prestigious', old and ranked highly on league tables, and saying it's good because of the quality of its courses, subjects, facilities and tuition. I don't think you necessarily get a better education just because a university is famous – a student may get a great education at a small yet well-regarded liberal arts college in the US; they don't necessarily have to go to Harvard.

I will always stand by my assertion that, in terms of a medical course, it doesn't matter where you go. Prestige is something that people should try and avoid considering when looking at where to study.

Exactly, if you read my previous posts university prestige has no effect on medicine at all, but I definitely stand that it does play a role on BSc when the student is not going to pursue further graduate courses.

 

[lumos]

Exactly, if you read my previous posts university prestige has no effect on medicine at all, but I definitely stand that it does play a role on BSc when the student is not going to pursue further graduate courses.

Hmm well I still disagree with you there. I think prestige has very little effect, even when someone doesn't want to do a grad course. The quality of the education matters, not how 'prestigious' people think the university is. Just because an institution isn't hundreds of years old and built only in sandstone doesn't mean it's necessarily superior.

 

[Boom]

Hmm well I still disagree with you there. I think prestige has very little effect, even when someone doesn't want to do a grad course. The quality of the education matters, not how 'prestigious' people think the university is. Just because an institution isn't hundreds of years old and built only in sandstone doesn't mean it's necessarily superior.

The problem is employers cannot see "the quality of the education" from a student, all they see is where you graduate from and possibly your grades.A institution doesnt have to be old to be famous and good,that is very true though.

 

[dsmalik]

Apologies for completely not being cautious about the way I have presented yous with the situation. I really thought that Universities especially international universities take into consideration the prestige of the university, but I realise it's the core performance, scores and GPA that gets you into medicine not the educational institution. At Lumos, thank you for the advice, I will consider conducting the plan. It seems that although I can re-take the UMAT, my options are restricted in terms of Universities and increased competition which is obviously the consequence of not applying last year. The only universities that I believe in Australia that I can apply for are:

x) University of New South Wales
x) University of New England
x) University of Tasmania
x) University of Western Sydney
x) James Cook University
x) Bond University**

Just out of interest (apologies if this is against the rules) is it actually worth signing up for a course that assists with UMAT?

Kind Regards,

-DSMalik

 

[lumos]

A institution doesnt have to be old to be famous and good,that is very true though.

A university doesn't have to be old or famous to be good.

The only universities that I believe in Australia that I can apply for are:

x) University of New South Wales
x) University of New England
x) University of Tasmania
x) University of Western Sydney
x) James Cook University
x) Bond University**

Yep those are the ones that you're eligible for, and also Adelaide. If I were you I'd apply for all of them, and since New England and the University of Newcastle do a joint med program, I'd apply for both those unis, not just New England.

Just out of interest (apologies if this is against the rules) is it actually worth signing up for a course that assists with UMAT?

I'm not going to say whether it is or not. But do whatever you think will help you, and if getting UMAT assistance from somewhere, which a lot of students do, will help then that's the way to go. But don't spend too much money; a lot of UMAT help can be too expensive.

 

[Boom]

A university doesn't have to be old or famous to be good.

Just a simple question, how can employers tell that a university is good if it is not known, unless he personally studied there. The only way employers can tell the "quality of eduction" of a BSc student is where the student graduated, unless the employer personally studied there, otherwise how could he know the university provides a exceptional quality education? If the employers do their research and learns from (eg public polls) that a particularly less famous university provides good education, then that in turn contradicts as that particular university would then be famous among the employers, given its good education. As you said, a good university doesn't have to be old OR famous, I totally agree with that, but good universities do tend to go famous after a certain period of time, as employers would notice their "quality of education", which then again comes back to the role university plays in BSc graduates.

Unlike every single medical school courses out there which are approved and regulated by the council so every single graduate would be competent to practice after getting their license, and therefore no prestige factors are present what so ever, BScs are not the same.

 

[lumos]

Just a simple question, how can employers tell that a university is good if it is not known, unless he personally studied there. The only way employers can tell the "quality of eduction" of a BSc student is where the student graduated, unless the employer personally studied there, otherwise how could he know the university provides a exceptional quality education? If the employers do their research and learns from (eg public polls) that a particularly less famous university provides good education, then that in turn contradicts as that particular university would then be famous among the employers, given its good education. As you said, a good university doesn't have to be old OR famous, I totally agree with that, but good universities do tend to go famous after a certain period of time, as employers would notice their "quality of education", which then again comes back to the role university plays in BSc graduates.

Unlike every single medical school courses out there which are approved and regulated by the council so every single graduate would be competent to practice after getting their license, and therefore no prestige factors are present what so ever, BScs are not the same.

I think you're overestimating how much the university that an applicant attended actually matters... Like I've said, it's probably different in the US and the UK, but here it just doesn't matter that much! Who cares how famous, expensive, old, prestigious or highly ranked the place is; employers are going to choose the best candidate for the position. An employer doesn't have the right to judge the quality of an applicant's education, but is going to hire the person with the best resume, references and interview. My father did a BA at a rural uni since he was a country kid and didn't want to move to the city yet. He aced every test, got the best marks and a heap of references, and then got a highly competitive place in grad school and multiple fellowships, internships and job offers. The particular university he went to did not matter in the slightest. You're also forgetting that there are like 30 universities in Australia! Everyone knows all of them, and there aren't many differences between them.
I think you're looking a bit too far into this...

 

[dsmalik]

In regards to UMAT courses, I believe that from many testimonials that many people didn't do so well even though they had the preparation. Is it any loss? In addition is GAMSAT more difficult than UMAT or the way around?

Kind Regards,

-DSMalik

 

[Boom]

I think you're overestimating how much the university that an applicant attended actually matters... Like I've said, it's probably different in the US and the UK, but here it just doesn't matter that much! Who cares how famous, expensive, old, prestigious or highly ranked the place is; employers are going to choose the best candidate for the position. An employer doesn't have the right to judge the quality of an applicant's education, but is going to hire the person with the best resume, references and interview. My father did a BA at a rural uni since he was a country kid and didn't want to move to the city yet. He aced every test, got the best marks and a heap of references, and then got a highly competitive place in grad school and multiple fellowships, internships and job offers. The particular university he went to did not matter in the slightest. You're also forgetting that there are like 30 universities in Australia! Everyone knows all of them, and there aren't many differences between them.
I think you're looking a bit too far into this...

Well you are much more aware of the Australian system than I am so I will take your word. Note that your dad went to a graduate school though and as I said BSc wont matter by then.

 

[Raro]

While there's a bit of discussion related to Melbourne.

Melbourne looks amazing, and I'd love to study there. Would it be a good idea to do Biomed (or just a plain BSc - does it matter?) as an undergraduate degree for Medicine at Melbourne in hopes of getting accepted into postgrad medicine, or would I be better off just staying in Auckland for my undergrad degree and then applying to save the money.

If I go to Melbourne I wouldn't have accommodation in the halls, as I didn't apply earlier and most are full now.
Auckland also gives me the opportunity to apply for medicine after first year, which I would probably accept if offered a place.

TL;DR: Would doing undergraduate at Melbourne give me a significant advantage over doing it at Auckland, if I was aiming for postgrad there?

 

[mountainriversky]

In regards to UMAT courses, I believe that from many testimonials that many people didn't do so well even though they had the preparation. Is it any loss? In addition is GAMSAT more difficult than UMAT or the way around?

Kind Regards,

-DSMalik

Doing a UMAT course does not automatically guarantee you a great UMAT score. I know people who have done expensive UMAT courses and have received disappointing UMAT results. I'd say take a UMAT course just for peace of mind and so you won't be left with any regrets that you didnt do everything you could to prepare for the UMAT
Dont think you can compare GAMSAT to the UMAT, both are very very competitive and difficult to do well in. However I think that you can prepare for the GAMSAT way more compared to UMAT as it tests scientific knowledge, etc.

 

[dsmalik]

I'm still in a very confused situation. I can still go for the full-fee paying place from Melbourne University as I may have a chance of getting into medicine without a GAMSAT score. I can still apply all around Australia and do the exact same applications as from UWA and Melbourne. The only difference is that being in Melbourne, I have the opportunity to get into Medicine without UMAT/GAMSAT and only a routine interview to demonstrate I am competent in conversation.

Kind Regards,

-DSMalik

 

[HelloWorld]

The only difference is that being in Melbourne, I have the opportunity to get into Medicine without UMAT/GAMSAT and only a routine interview to demonstrate I am competent in conversation.

There are MANY people (I have some sources in melbourne) with atars of above 99 with want to get into medicine later. I highly doubt the interview is a hurdle for the FFP route (Unlike the way it seems to be a hurdle for the Vice Chancellors students), since there are so many people in relation to possible spots, and you should not count on getting an FFP this way. Think about it. You'll probably be doing the GAMSAT anyway in your final or second to last year, since if you're that dedicated to medicine you'll hopefully be applying everywhere, and not relying on just one plan.

That is, of course, assuming you don't do well in the UMAT and get a place as a non-standard in one of the undergraduate schools next year.

It boils down to this. If you truly want med, have as many different diverging plans to get into med as possible, and follow through with them. ALL OF THEM.

 

[Raiden]

TL;DR: Would doing undergraduate at Melbourne give me a significant advantage over doing it at Auckland, if I was aiming for postgrad there?

Not at all, in fact it may be better GPA-wise doing your BBiomed/Bsc in Auckland (if you don't get in after this year I mean) as NZ GPAs convert favourably to Aus GPAs.