pass/fail grading system in aus?

[astrokitty]

hi all, i recently became interested in med schools in australia. i did some searching but coudn't find some of the info that i was curious to find out.

1. are there aus med school which has pass/fail grading system? also, do they all curve?

2. do all australian med school use PBL learning system? which are the ones that does not use PBL style?


thanks in adavance

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shan564]

I just started at USyd, so I can answer the questions for our program:

1. It's all pass/fail and it's not curved. If you know the material, you'll pass... regardless of how well everybody else does. 97% of the students in the program will go on to graduate (although some people have to repeat the first year).

There are options for "honours" and other special distinctions, but for the most part, you're just expected to pass the program and graduate. There are no individual "classes" and "GPAs"... there's just a complete well-organized program, and you take an exam at the end of the year to decide whether or not you're ready to move on to the next stage.

2. Most of them use PBL; I know for sure that it's used at Sydney, Queensland, and Melbourne... I'm not sure which oens don't use it.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

If the schools are pass fail how do Australian residency programs rank students for internship and registrar positions?

 

[redshifteffect]

If the schools are pass fail how do Australian residency programs rank students for internship and registrar positions?

I've actually covered this in numerous threads, but the principle is this:

- They do not require ANY marks (at least at this stage) you apply based on
1. References
2. Selection criteria
3. CV

Different states have different weightings for each of the above. Some competitive specialities require things like research or some training in that area (as a resident/intern). However having connections goes a long way in helping you get into the very competitive jobs.

 

[shan564]

Your school probably has a lot to do with it too, right? I'd expect that a graduate of Melbourne would be likely to get a better residency than a graduate of, say, Notre Dame or UWS.

 

[redshifteffect]

Your school probably has a lot to do with it too, right? I'd expect that a graduate of Melbourne would be likely to get a better residency than a graduate of, say, Notre Dame or UWS.

I'd think school name is important to some extent but no where near the level you have in the US (Harvard vs. Howard).

However more important then name is the quality of the graduates before you - if they received a poor batch of students from your school they will remember that when it comes to recruit the next generation. Nothing much you can do about this unfortunately.

 

[Ezekiel20]

I finished USyd med last year and according to the curriculum review report, some of the changes in grading include the introduction of grading to start in 3rd year, and the award of Honours to depend not only on doing a research project but achieving above certain cut-off marks in the barrier exams.

Below is a quote from the publically available report from the USyd GMP website.

12. Grading

1. There will be no grading in Stages 1 and 2.
In formative and summative assessments
students will receive their results as a point on
a graph showing their position in relation to
the other students in their Stage. In addition to
seeing their position, their performance should
also be shown in relation to other students for
each Discipline assessed.

2. A grading system will be introduced for clinical
and written assessments in the final two years
i.e. Stage 3. University regulations require five
grades: fail, pass, credit, distinction, and high
distinction. A simpler, less competitive grading
system for clinical and written assessments is
preferred e.g. three grades: fail, pass, pass
with merit. The Faculty should explore this
option with the Academic Board.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

I've actually covered this in numerous threads, but the principle is this:

- They do not require ANY marks (at least at this stage) you apply based on
1. References
2. Selection criteria
3. CV

Different states have different weightings for each of the above. Some competitive specialities require things like research or some training in that area (as a resident/intern). However having connections goes a long way in helping you get into the very competitive jobs.

I was also under the assumption that most Grad Entry schools in the established programs like Sydney, Melbourne, and Queensland are roughly equal. I also heard many Australian residency programs actually prefer graduates of 5 and 6 year programs more than those who went into Grad Entry Medicine. For example I hear UNSW students do better in getting into training programs than those at USyd.

 

[redshifteffect]

I was also under the assumption that most Grad Entry schools in the established programs like Sydney, Melbourne, and Queensland are roughly equal. I also heard many Australian residency programs actually prefer graduates of 5 and 6 year programs more than those who went into Grad Entry Medicine. For example I hear UNSW students do better in getting into training programs than those at USyd.

That has been my anecdotal experience so far, but it's mainly due to misunderstanding and some historical reasons:

1. Post-grad programs are still in their infancy vs. undergraduate schools...so as they become more common place (and it looks like this will be the future form of medical education in Australia as most new schools are post-grad) they will become more widely accepted.

2. There have been a few "disasters" like Uni of Adelaide going from PBS back to a more "traditional" curriculum. PBS tends to be what most post-graduate programs are using, and increasing a lot of the undergraduate programs as well.

3. Consultants who graduated from a traditional program typically don't know much about the newer programs and thus there is some level of bias against it, however this will change as they have more positive experience with post-grad students.

4. General perception that post-grad programs in Oz tend to cut out a lot of the "basic principles" - if they shifted to a more American style curriculum perhaps this perception would disappear.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

hi all, i recently became interested in med schools in australia. i did some searching but coudn't find some of the info that i was curious to find out.

1. are there aus med school which has pass/fail grading system? also, do they all curve?

2. do all australian med school use PBL learning system? which are the ones that does not use PBL style?


thanks in adavance

FYI: there are lots of US schools that are Pass/Fail too.

I think Brown Med school is pass/fail

I know UCLA, and Harvard Dental schools are Pass/Fail as well.

Its not just Australian programs.

 

[Ezekiel20]

Perhaps due to the fact that I've always studied/worked at USyd-affiliated hospitals, I've seen a higher proportion of USyd graduates in advanced training positions than those from UNSW.

This was especially true for general surgery, where easily 70% of the advanced trainees I met were USyd graduates.

You should keep in mind that post-grad med graduates tend to be older and many have children. In my experience, many students older than 30 enter the programme having made up their minds to enter GP training.

 

[Hayden2102]

Your school probably has a lot to do with it too, right? I'd expect that a graduate of Melbourne would be likely to get a better residency than a graduate of, say, Notre Dame or UWS.

This is not really true in Australia. It is your clinical performance, not the 'old boy's club', that is important for your job and training applications.

Getting into a 'good' uni does not in any way give you a free ride thereafter.

(We have a slightly different, and more stringent, quality control system in Australia governing what we learn in medical school than you guys do in the US and other places.)

 

[shan564]

This is not really true in Australia. It is your clinical performance, not the 'old boy's club', that is important for your job and training applications.

Getting into a 'good' uni does not in any way give you a free ride thereafter.

Well, I know that it doesn't give you a "free ride"... do you think it's completely irrelevant? "Clinical performance" can't really be measured quantitatively... so if two candidates had somewhat similar performance, wouldn't the admissions people consider their university if one of them went to Bond and the other went to ANU?

(We have a slightly different, and more stringent, quality control system in Australia governing what we learn in medical school than you guys do in the US and other places.)

From my limited experience in Australia, it actually seems like the US medical education system is controlled more stringently. The Australian curricula seem to be more varied... in the US, every school essentially follows one of two curricula (PBL or non-PBL, with slight variations), which are reviewed annually by LCME. I think that the Australians can get away with more variation because they don't have as many schools to review, so they can take a detailed look at every med school's plan separately.

 

[redshifteffect]

The medical schools in Australia are all accredited by the AMC who sets the curriculum. To some extent there were only PBL and non-PBL but this has changed as all the new medical schools have opened and some are trying out new curriculums. I think this will all stanardise as these new schools become more experienced.

Clinical peformance is judged on the basis of the clinical reference letters that you provide when applying for internship/RMO/Specialist training. It's subjective, but much easier to get a good reference letter (with a little bit of work) then anything else.

As for the school you come from, I think it makes a difference (but as Hayden pointed out probably not as much as in the US) but not necessairly because of the name of your school. I think it's more to do with the quality of the previous grads or even the school that your committee member went to. That might soon change if the quality of candidates from the various schools start to drop.

 

[Hayden2102]

Well, I know that it doesn't give you a "free ride"... do you think it's completely irrelevant? "Clinical performance" can't really be measured quantitatively... so if two candidates had somewhat similar performance, wouldn't the admissions people consider their university if one of them went to Bond and the other went to ANU?

It would depend on the hiring team of course, but the general consensus is that medical school is so long ago once you are applying for jobs that it actually is irrelevant. Considering your skills increase dramatically over internship and residency years, when you are applying for training positions, it will look pretty pathetic if you try and sell yourself with respect to what medical school you went to.

Going for jobs is ALWAYS measured quantitatively. Can you think of a job in the non medical world where it isn't? Your clinical performance, reputation and references is what will get you a job, not the fact that you went to the "best" medical school. Your analogy is pretty much irrelevant because no two applicants will be the same - you can't have an identically relevant and impressive CV (think about the jobs you're applying for, you will often need research, and to have taken electives in that or a similar area) and to have interviewed identically well (which is very important). Considering what school you went to is almost childish in that context, considering you've already been working in a hospital for a few years.

From my limited experience in Australia, it actually seems like the US medical education system is controlled more stringently. The Australian curricula seem to be more varied... in the US, every school essentially follows one of two curricula (PBL or non-PBL, with slight variations), which are reviewed annually by LCME. I think that the Australians can get away with more variation because they don't have as many schools to review, so they can take a detailed look at every med school's plan separately.

It's really not true. PBL and non-PBL are not "curricula", they are teaching formats, and the both work. Every medical school in Australia has to prove they are teaching their students what the AMC want them to. Additionally, just like you have lumped US schools into PBL and non-PBL, Australian medical schools can have the same categorization, if you so wish.

I'm not sure what your argument about variation in medical schools is about...

 

[astrokitty]

thanks all for your replies!

 

[lyndal]

Interesting conversation about variation and the role of the AMC etc.

In very simple terms - in the US there is some control over medical school curricula, but in reality almost anyone could open a medical school if they wished too. The reality is they would not survive if they did not have quality teachers and curricula, were not accredited with licensing boards and FAIMER etc, but there is nothing at a governmental level (as far as I am aware) to stop them opening in theory. The reason is that at the end of the day it is USMLE that determines if you can practice. The one hurdle exam evens out any variation in teaching quality as a central process and sets that as the standard. The AAMC puts its educational time and effort into developing the exam and ensuring its quality adn puts some scrutiny (but less) into the schools themselves. There are some amazing medical schools in the US, but the reason that you can rank schools as you do is that there IS a variation in qulaity. It is in the schools obvious best interest to be high quality and make sure the students pass the exam, but their quality is determined around that result at the end of the day. There is interesting educational outcomes from this- if you follow the educational tenet that assessment drives learning, then in some ways the schools could be driven to teach more to the USMLE exam than to what is actually needed for excellent practice. You can argue whether or not this happens, but you can certainly see it in offshore schools that are preparing people for USMLE.

OK, now in Australia there is no hurdle exam like USMLE for local students as the AMC has delegated that authority to the schools themselves. By graduating someone from out programme they are automatically considered fit to begin internship and then are assessed on performance at internship for registration to practice. This may sound risky, but in reality it is not. It takes an Act of Parliament to open a University in Australia and to open a medical school within an existing university is tough and requires intervention at cabinet level (approcal of both the Federal Health and Education ministers - I know as I was involved in the 4 years of plitical lobbying it then took to open at UOW). We are heavily scrutinised along the way with the AMC inspecting every part of our curriculum planning, assessment, placements etc and talking to students, teachers the community etc so they can be confident that we can be entrusted with the delegated authority. AMC accreditation of medical schools is NOT automatic and I can go on in detail about the 6 months planning that is behind every visit by the AMC. This allows variation in educational style, but not in educational quality. While all medical schools in AUstralia have different educational philosophies or structures, I can confidently say you will get a high quality education from any school that is AMC accredited. Same goes for New Zealand by the way (same process).

Now we could go into great detail about which system is right.... not worth the energy in my opinion ... but wanted to explain the reasoning behind why they are different. Hope that makes sense.