1. CMI was for 3 years, and set to expire. There's a very possible chance the program does not get renewed.
Four years of funding. And you referred to rumours of a plan, as though you've heard something meaningful. You also said before that there was a very real chance there wouldn't be CMI spots this year. Obviously, for any year, the program can be ceased. You think you know any more than this? Then cough up your sources, because with your track record, it would appear you simply made this crap up again.
2. Notice how I said 'QLD HEALTH.' It's very easy to chart where UQ internationals are allocated by the Qld Health campaign.
Go ahead then, and chart the final tally of where those int'ls went. Sources included.
3. There is a great deal of meaning in where they wanted to go for internship. The reason they go back to North America is because they find it a better option to whatever they are allocated to here, Wanting to know about someone's preferences is sort of the point of why humans do anything in life.
You really don't pay attention to detail. I said -- and elaborated on why -- there isn't much meaning in *asking* them. The stats give more reliable indicators. Int'ls will surely be asked incredibly uninsightful questions about what they 'wanted' so that their answers could be used by the likes of AMSA for political purposes, but that doesn't get around the many problems with self-reporting of desire. Even if you could trust the answers, take, for example, some of the problems with the "simple" question of where one wanted to do internship -- at a particular hospital, anywhere in Qld by state ballot, anywhere in Australia by state ballot, Qld by CMI (with the restrictive contract terms but different locale options), or other states by CMI, versus going back to, say, Canada, but where in Canada -- Toronto over Mackay but Brisbane over Toronto but Mackay over The Yukon? And how much *weight* do they put on each of these preferences?
People don't think as black-and-white as you portray yourself here, qldking. There are so many conditions and nuances to people's desires that in the event those surveyed *can* give an honest answer (student preferences for colleges are known to be affected by their application results), the results would be nearly meaningless,
and yet endlessly debated. And yet many will try to use the results to lobby to change (or not change) policy. And prospective students will have no better idea of their chances at staying. It is far more meaningful to stick to the least of ambiguous stats, e.g., of how many applied for which spots, how many bailed months later after getting accepted back home (allowing others who didn't, to remain), and where those ultimately rejected ended up. Behaviorists redefined psychology by looking at behavior, or choice, for a reason.