Questions about UQ School of Med (Domestic Applicant)

[TaksuHim]

In fact, one of the students who had to redo their second year due to the lack of training, after the appeal to understudy a school of medicine clinical staff was rejected for 'equity to other students' reasons, he went back to his own country to understudy doctors at a tertiary hospital. And the best part, during that year, UQ came up with a policy that you must have a certain GPA to do overseas electives..not that the doctors mentoring the chap cared about the GPA thingy - they took him anyway regardless, but those doctors surely didn't have a good impression of UQ as he was telling me over drinks..i think i will just abstain from saying the exact words said about UQ. First, you rejected an appeal for more teaching time and secondly, you come up with a barrier, even though the student would have failed the year with his GPA adversely affected. Thankfully they took him in and they trained him to the level where was comfortable even doing a short case in a fellowship exam setting. Fellow has been in good standing ever since. Ironically, he was trained in a local hospital in his own country and UQ was just a place to get his diploma. Does that speak well of UQ's international reputation?

But the question is how long does UQ SOM want to risk its reputation? Like I said, already consultants out there complaining of the relatively poor clinical skills exhibited by UQ grads compared with Griffith. If you want, you can personally message me, I can even give you names of such consultants who have made such observations.

I don't doubt your anecdotes. The point of contention is with how many failed and had to repeat, which numbers as per qldking do not add up. As you said in one example, O&G changed the criteria to allow more passes. When I was a student, a similar thing happened wrt paeds -- the first group to do the rotation in my year had something like a 30% "fail" rate. In the end, there were just a handful (of over 300) who had to repeat the term.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pitman]

It wasn't an anecdote. It happened that 25% failed in the first rotation of 2014, and there was a blackboard annoucement that the electronic course profile for passing requirements was relaxed, and the failure figures were more respectable. You can always verify this with graduating batch 2014. Check with the current UQMS president if you like.

Yes, you give a number of anecdotes. And you are here describing exactly what I described -- a first rotation where many people failed, then in the end they didn't. Again, the issue taken is with claims above of such huge numbers failing and having to repeat, thus preventing a timely graduation.

I don't know you from a hill of beans, as you are quite new here and could simply be qldking for all I know, but it would help if you kept to the point and didn't meander so much -- it's not clear what if any point you're making.

 

[nybgrus]

It wasn't an anecdote. It happened that 25% failed in the first rotation of 2014, and there was a blackboard annoucement that the electronic course profile for passing requirements was relaxed, and the failure figures were more respectable. You can always verify this with graduating batch 2014. Check with the current UQMS president if you like.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what "anecdote" means. It does not mean what you said didn't happened. It means it is your story about a single particular situation. Which in no way implies it is false or even incorrect. Merely that it by itself does not and cannot support a grander claim regarding failure rates. In other words, it isn't data, but a story that in and of itself is not generalizable.

For the student who had to repeat Critical Care, he only failed a 2 week CPA for a 2 week sub-rotation - the only mistake being he let a consultant who probably has no experience with students to grade his CPA. His other peers who let other consultants grade them passed. He was in good standing throughout his clinical years. For the whole rotation, he passed all his exams and CPA for all other components, he only failed this one feedback, and the reason I have highlighted

Sounds like a bum deal. Probably a totally unfair situation. Yet again, an anecdote which is not generalizable. Because I can give you a doze which runs exactly counter to this anecdote. So at the end of the day all we are left with is realizing that the system doesn't work perfectly, has screwed some people over, and that crappy situations like that do happen. Which is all well and good and certainly not something to be ignored or scoffed at, but it has an entirely different implication than what QLDKing has been trying to say (and which you opened by saying you could support).

BTW, Nybrus, I am curious but did you graduate before 2012?

No, I graduated in 2013.

It used to be that you have to know your Advanced Life Support for second year OSCEs but they did away with that because of budget constraints

Yeah, but (at least for Ochsner cohort) you need to have your ACLS for Phase II. Where it actually matters.

Our examination questions were pretty random to say the least.

Now this I'll certainly agree with. I'm not the only one to have complained about exams and exam questions. There has been some improvement, but not nearly enough. However, that means it is stupid and silly to try and go for a 7 and there are times when you will certainly be unfairly robbed of a 6 or even a 5, but from my experience and that of others, they aren't terrible enough to have you unreasonably fail an exam (for the most part; I'm sure there's an exception or two that can always be dug up)

I am happy to accept any other reason for the school's decisions on such cases. However, when we hear of such stories, the only conclusion that can be heard on 9/10 lips are "it's all about $$$"

Yeah, and if you go around the halls of Congress a lot of "global warming is lie" is on people's lips too. Just because people talk about something and suspect something doesn't make it true. I don't know all the behind the scenes either, and indeed you could be right, but I laid out my reasons why I think that it is the less likely possibility.

There is an old saying I like - never attribute to malice that which you can equally well attribute to ineptitude.

I also like to know why do you get students in good standing to repeat components they have passed, even though they have failed just one single component, which is not their fault given the absurd teaching staff to student ratio, and furthermore, rejecting their appeal for exemptions from components they have passed.

Agreed. Seems unfair indeed. But it is also the distinct minority that get caught up in this sort of thing truly and genuinely unfairly. For the most part it is more frustration than anything else. Which, once again, isn't good and doesn't mean we should ignore it, but is a different tale to what trolly king has been arguing and what seem to be trying to support as well.

I am curious, if you are a UQ alumni, does it bother you to know there are ppl failing for reasons attributed to the Faculty teaching staff to student ratio.

Yes, it certainly does. I agree it is something to strive towards improving. Where I disagree is that this is fundamentally crippling or prevents one from learning and doing well. But, once again, I also speak for the Ochsner cohort and our experience. Perhaps the domestic experience is indeed much worse.

Already, there are consultants who have already commented how relatively poor, the clinical skills of UQ grads compare to grads from Griffith or JCU.

And here is why anecdotes aren't worth very much. From the beginning and even into now the staff here at Ochsner have very consistently commented that the UQ 3rd years who come here (via UQ-O) are consistently well above our counterparts at LSU and Tulane in terms of clinical skills. We consistently impress them, right out of the gate, starting in 3rd year. And that is from our Phase I training so.... take that as you will.

 

[TaksuHim]

I am certainly not Qldking. My IP address if you could verify with studentdoctor is not similar to qldking. And I am certainly from a different cohort as qldking purported, since I was privy to the developments of Obs/gynae specific issues, where we received emails with regards to the rotation about the electronic course profile changes.

My points are simple. 1)UQ takes in too much students 2) Quality of education suffer 3) Students affected by lack of teaching been affected by dubious remediation policy 4) UQ international reputation affected, in the case of the student who had to do his training in the hospital of his home country, where doctors in his country had poor impression of UQ.

I have always been discussing around these points.

Yes, you give a number of anecdotes. And you are here describing exactly what I described -- a first rotation where many people failed, then in the end they didn't. Again, the issue taken is with claims above of such huge numbers failing and having to repeat, thus preventing a timely graduation.

I don't know you from a hill of beans, as you are quite new here and could simply be qldking for all I know, but it would help if you kept to the point and didn't meander so much -- it's not clear what if any point you're making.

 

[TaksuHim]

If what you said is true, then Brisbane domestic situation is different from Oschner situation, because from your posting, it seems you are from Oschner.

I do know what an anecdote is. In all probability, the situation at Oschner could be a little different from domestic UQ. For starters, you guys could take Obs/gynae in 3rd year.

Secondly, no students like to go public about failing, or at least, tell another colleague about his failure, hence, on my end, I only know a handful of cases. The reasons are simple, each and everyone of us has his/her own pride, and when embarrassed, why would we want to let a 3rd party know? Who wants to talk of failing? But, I dare to say this, even the current UQMS president did acknowledge to a that clinical teaching CIRCA 2011-2012 was very poor. You could look him up and exchange messages with him on UQ 2015 facebook. Surely such an acknowledgement, you can't brush it off as an anecdote, can you?

The feedback about UQ grads clinical skills are from domestic Qld consultants. I have seen Phloston's post about and observation of a UQ grad in action. What he observed was consistent with what the consultants are saying about UQ grads' clinical skills, again, I am referring to the domestic situation.

Since you graduated in 2013, did you know that from 2012, they made anatomy an essential topic in phase I, and subsequent cohort from 2012, they need to have prac exams where they have to identify certain parts of the human anatomy, and there is a compulsory and separate anatomy assessment. Surely you know why they had to modify the pre-clinical courses, given the complaints from consultants about the lack of anatomy knowledge from the grads. BTW, those complaints from consultants are not said one-off types, those are said in a classroom tutorial right in the faces.

Trust me, I also really like to see UQ publicize information about these failure cases, so that our discussions will not be on 'anecdotes' but real data, but my feel is that it could be damaging on the school's reputation period.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what "anecdote" means. It does not mean what you said didn't happened. It means it is your story about a single particular situation. Which in no way implies it is false or even incorrect. Merely that it by itself does not and cannot support a grander claim regarding failure rates. In other words, it isn't data, but a story that in and of itself is not generalizable.



Sounds like a bum deal. Probably a totally unfair situation. Yet again, an anecdote which is not generalizable. Because I can give you a doze which runs exactly counter to this anecdote. So at the end of the day all we are left with is realizing that the system doesn't work perfectly, has screwed some people over, and that crappy situations like that do happen. Which is all well and good and certainly not something to be ignored or scoffed at, but it has an entirely different implication than what QLDKing has been trying to say (and which you opened by saying you could support).



No, I graduated in 2013.



Yeah, but (at least for Ochsner cohort) you need to have your ACLS for Phase II. Where it actually matters.



Now this I'll certainly agree with. I'm not the only one to have complained about exams and exam questions. There has been some improvement, but not nearly enough. However, that means it is stupid and silly to try and go for a 7 and there are times when you will certainly be unfairly robbed of a 6 or even a 5, but from my experience and that of others, they aren't terrible enough to have you unreasonably fail an exam (for the most part; I'm sure there's an exception or two that can always be dug up)



Yeah, and if you go around the halls of Congress a lot of "global warming is lie" is on people's lips too. Just because people talk about something and suspect something doesn't make it true. I don't know all the behind the scenes either, and indeed you could be right, but I laid out my reasons why I think that it is the less likely possibility.

There is an old saying I like - never attribute to malice that which you can equally well attribute to ineptitude.



Agreed. Seems unfair indeed. But it is also the distinct minority that get caught up in this sort of thing truly and genuinely unfairly. For the most part it is more frustration than anything else. Which, once again, isn't good and doesn't mean we should ignore it, but is a different tale to what trolly king has been arguing and what seem to be trying to support as well.



Yes, it certainly does. I agree it is something to strive towards improving. Where I disagree is that this is fundamentally crippling or prevents one from learning and doing well. But, once again, I also speak for the Ochsner cohort and our experience. Perhaps the domestic experience is indeed much worse.



And here is why anecdotes aren't worth very much. From the beginning and even into now the staff here at Ochsner have very consistently commented that the UQ 3rd years who come here (via UQ-O) are consistently well above our counterparts at LSU and Tulane in terms of clinical skills. We consistently impress them, right out of the gate, starting in 3rd year. And that is from our Phase I training so.... take that as you will.

 

[TaksuHim]

I am curious since it appears you are an Oschner student. I was reading Phloston's post about the school being disorganised and that emails remain unanswered or go in strange loops.

I am curious if at Oschner, the administration staff running the individual clinical rotations are considered full-time or part-time?

Because for the Brisbane domestic situation, the staff are part time, even so for big hospitals like PAH. Hence, I find it unsurprising about the lack of organisation.

Also, would you say that UQ SOM (domestic) lacks funds? We cannot even have administration staff running rotations on full time appointment. Plus the cut of ALS from second year PSW syllabus. And we cannot even appoint a staff dedicated to ensure we are examined based on the syllabus.

Is Oschner like that? Do you get administration on part time appointment running the clinical rotations?

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what "anecdote" means. It does not mean what you said didn't happened. It means it is your story about a single particular situation. Which in no way implies it is false or even incorrect. Merely that it by itself does not and cannot support a grander claim regarding failure rates. In other words, it isn't data, but a story that in and of itself is not generalizable.



Sounds like a bum deal. Probably a totally unfair situation. Yet again, an anecdote which is not generalizable. Because I can give you a doze which runs exactly counter to this anecdote. So at the end of the day all we are left with is realizing that the system doesn't work perfectly, has screwed some people over, and that crappy situations like that do happen. Which is all well and good and certainly not something to be ignored or scoffed at, but it has an entirely different implication than what QLDKing has been trying to say (and which you opened by saying you could support).



No, I graduated in 2013.



Yeah, but (at least for Ochsner cohort) you need to have your ACLS for Phase II. Where it actually matters.



Now this I'll certainly agree with. I'm not the only one to have complained about exams and exam questions. There has been some improvement, but not nearly enough. However, that means it is stupid and silly to try and go for a 7 and there are times when you will certainly be unfairly robbed of a 6 or even a 5, but from my experience and that of others, they aren't terrible enough to have you unreasonably fail an exam (for the most part; I'm sure there's an exception or two that can always be dug up)



Yeah, and if you go around the halls of Congress a lot of "global warming is lie" is on people's lips too. Just because people talk about something and suspect something doesn't make it true. I don't know all the behind the scenes either, and indeed you could be right, but I laid out my reasons why I think that it is the less likely possibility.

There is an old saying I like - never attribute to malice that which you can equally well attribute to ineptitude.



Agreed. Seems unfair indeed. But it is also the distinct minority that get caught up in this sort of thing truly and genuinely unfairly. For the most part it is more frustration than anything else. Which, once again, isn't good and doesn't mean we should ignore it, but is a different tale to what trolly king has been arguing and what seem to be trying to support as well.



Yes, it certainly does. I agree it is something to strive towards improving. Where I disagree is that this is fundamentally crippling or prevents one from learning and doing well. But, once again, I also speak for the Ochsner cohort and our experience. Perhaps the domestic experience is indeed much worse.



And here is why anecdotes aren't worth very much. From the beginning and even into now the staff here at Ochsner have very consistently commented that the UQ 3rd years who come here (via UQ-O) are consistently well above our counterparts at LSU and Tulane in terms of clinical skills. We consistently impress them, right out of the gate, starting in 3rd year. And that is from our Phase I training so.... take that as you will.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what "anecdote" means. It does not mean what you said didn't happened. It means it is your story about a single particular situation. Which in no way implies it is false or even incorrect. Merely that it by itself does not and cannot support a grander claim regarding failure rates. In other words, it isn't data, but a story that in and of itself is not generalizable.



Sounds like a bum deal. Probably a totally unfair situation. Yet again, an anecdote which is not generalizable. Because I can give you a doze which runs exactly counter to this anecdote. So at the end of the day all we are left with is realizing that the system doesn't work perfectly, has screwed some people over, and that crappy situations like that do happen. Which is all well and good and certainly not something to be ignored or scoffed at, but it has an entirely different implication than what QLDKing has been trying to say (and which you opened by saying you could support).



No, I graduated in 2013.



Yeah, but (at least for Ochsner cohort) you need to have your ACLS for Phase II. Where it actually matters.



Now this I'll certainly agree with. I'm not the only one to have complained about exams and exam questions. There has been some improvement, but not nearly enough. However, that means it is stupid and silly to try and go for a 7 and there are times when you will certainly be unfairly robbed of a 6 or even a 5, but from my experience and that of others, they aren't terrible enough to have you unreasonably fail an exam (for the most part; I'm sure there's an exception or two that can always be dug up)



Yeah, and if you go around the halls of Congress a lot of "global warming is lie" is on people's lips too. Just because people talk about something and suspect something doesn't make it true. I don't know all the behind the scenes either, and indeed you could be right, but I laid out my reasons why I think that it is the less likely possibility.

There is an old saying I like - never attribute to malice that which you can equally well attribute to ineptitude.



Agreed. Seems unfair indeed. But it is also the distinct minority that get caught up in this sort of thing truly and genuinely unfairly. For the most part it is more frustration than anything else. Which, once again, isn't good and doesn't mean we should ignore it, but is a different tale to what trolly king has been arguing and what seem to be trying to support as well.



Yes, it certainly does. I agree it is something to strive towards improving. Where I disagree is that this is fundamentally crippling or prevents one from learning and doing well. But, once again, I also speak for the Ochsner cohort and our experience. Perhaps the domestic experience is indeed much worse.



And here is why anecdotes aren't worth very much. From the beginning and even into now the staff here at Ochsner have very consistently commented that the UQ 3rd years who come here (via UQ-O) are consistently well above our counterparts at LSU and Tulane in terms of clinical skills. We consistently impress them, right out of the gate, starting in 3rd year. And that is from our Phase I training so.... take that as you will.

 

[nybgrus]

I am certainly not Qldking. My IP address if you could verify with studentdoctor is not similar to qldking

I really don't think Pitman thinks you are actually QLDKing. He was merely being a bit hyperbolic to illustrate that he doesn't care who you are, your arguments would be "help[ed] if you kept to the point and didn't meander so much -- it's not clear what if any point you're making." Which is a statement I agree with. You are offering a lot of personal opinion and speculation, along with some anecdote, and very little else.

Which is fine. And noted. Nobody is discounting your experiences or even your anecdotes. You may well be right on some points (in fact, you are). I am basically doing the same. With maybe a little more authority given I was one of the founding members, then the academic officer for two years, and finally the president of the Ochsner Medical Student Association (OMSA) which is essentially the UQ-O counterpart to UQMS. And we have an MOU with UQMS, which includes sharing of dues. So I have a fair bit more insight into the inner workings and have fought battles to make improvements in the very areas you are referencing as deficient. And seen improvements.

My points are simple. 1)UQ takes in too much students 2) Quality of education suffer 3) Students affected by lack of teaching been affected by dubious remediation policy 4) UQ international reputation affected, in the case of the student who had to do his training in the hospital of his home country, where doctors in his country had poor impression of UQ.

1) Probably true. While I was a student it definitely felt crowded. I personally never felt like I didn't have the resources, materials, access, etc that I needed for my education. Some people certainly did feel that way. As with anything, it is always a bell curve. Most people are not too far off from happy. But I agree there was certainly room for moving the median of that curve towards less crowded.

2) Yes. But, as I said, still overall plenty good enough. Some areas of distinct deficiency, which I've long said myself. Nothing insurmountable. Perhaps not as spoonfed as some places, but IMHO you won't be spoon fed for your entire career, including residency. Some people find it more on the sink side of swim. Once again, bell curve.

3) No doubt. The question is - at what rate? It can and should always be improved on. Perhaps UQ is on the wrong side of the median on the bell curve. But, from the data I've seen and has been released, not that far off the mark.

4) Possibly. So far we have been doing rather well for ourselves here Stateside. Certainly room for improvement. But that's always the case.

If what you said is true, then Brisbane domestic situation is different from Oschner situation, because from your posting, it seems you are from Oschner

So yeah. It would perhaps seem that way. I honestly can't really comment much on the Aussie side of things. Though I can say that they really do like coming over to Ochsner a lot in no small part because they say that they feel like the get a better clinical education here. And it is absolutely true that the rotations are very different back in Australia.

However, the system is also rather different. We don't do a general rotating internship after med school. We go directly into specialist residency. In 2.5 years I will be consultant in internal medicine. 3 years after that I'll be an intensivist and pulmonologist. We don't do intern year like you, then JHO and SHO and other such years before going into specialty training. To us that is like 5th and 6th year of medical school. I'll never see a peds or gyn case again for the rest of my life.

That doesn't, of course, obviate superimposed sub par teaching. And from what I've heard that does seem to be more the case in Aus than here at Ochsner. But it hasn't ever struck me as particularly bad and the expectations are different.

For starters, you guys could take Obs/gynae in 3rd year.

I don't know how that ultimately matters much.

Secondly, no students like to go public about failing, or at least, tell another colleague about his failure, hence, on my end, I only know a handful of cases.

Right. Well. Sort of. Some people do go public. But most don't.

However, I was the academic officer and president of OMSA and so I did actually end up getting most people in the Ochsner cohorts coming to me, as well as some traditional students, and liaised extensively with both Ochsner and UQ faculty and administration (I had monthly meetings with Jenny Schafer and then later Richard Deichmann as well as many with David Wilkinson and Bill Pinsky, amongst many others). And while there certainly were examples of serious deficiencies and problems, overall it was not that bad and, most importantly, all parties involved responded with improvements. Once again, bell curves and always room to improve.

Surely such an acknowledgement, you can't brush it off as an anecdote, can you?

To be clear, I am not brushing anything off. I am accepting it at face value with the limited caveats and objections already mentioned. All I am trying to do is give perspective. And my anecdotes are likely better than yours. But I'm not even really trying to argue you're wrong. Look at how much we agree. I am merely trying to give some counterbalance and what I think is the appropriate framing and why. Others are then able to read through it all and assess their own thoughts on the matter.

But part of that is recognizing what is a reasonable weight to give some bit of information. Anecdotes aren't worthless. And they are of varying worth depending on context. But for the most part they are of very low value in terms of evidentiary weight for decision making.

The feedback about UQ grads clinical skills are from domestic Qld consultants. I have seen Phloston's post about and observation of a UQ grad in action. What he observed was consistent with what the consultants are saying about UQ grads' clinical skills, again, I am referring to the domestic situation.

Fair enough. Perhaps so. I have much less confidence in my knowledge and conclusions on anything outside of Ochsner these days. If so, then UQMS should (and I am sure is, to some degree at least) lobbying for improvements.

Since you graduated in 2013, did you know that from 2012, they made anatomy an essential topic in phase I, and subsequent cohort from 2012, they need to have prac exams where they have to identify certain parts of the human anatomy, and there is a compulsory and separate anatomy assessment. Surely you know why they had to modify the pre-clinical courses, given the complaints from consultants about the lack of anatomy knowledge from the grads. BTW, those complaints from consultants are not said one-off types, those are said in a classroom tutorial right in the faces.

Yes of course. I am well familiar with that. I was widely considered a hugely negative mark against the SoM. Which is why students advocated for change, as did faculty, and the SoM responded with improvements. But change is typically a slow process. Hard to do substantively in less than a year's time. And even then, that is rather laborious for large and/or complex changes. Like getting more highly trained people who are already working a lot to give better training and instruction to (mostly useless) medical students.

So to me, your comment here is actually evidence of a positive about the SoM: that they do listen and make improvements. To indict them because it is too slow, or too little change or because other changes turn out to be negative is simply to be naive. Are there better SoM's? Of course. All but a very few could say otherwise. But UQ (and certainly UQ-O) is definitely on the correct side of the bell curve.

I am curious since it appears you are an Oschner student. I was reading Phloston's post about the school being disorganised and that emails remain unanswered or go in strange loops.

Occasionally. And certainly more with UQ than with Ochsner. But overall not a big issue.

I am curious if at Oschner, the administration staff running the individual clinical rotations are considered full-time or part-time?

Full time. All of them are academic physicians or non-medical professionals that have had a lot of experience teaching and working at a teaching hospital. And they have hired more admin staff every single year since the UQ-O program started going from 2 or 3 to around 9 or 10 right now.

Also, would you say that UQ SOM (domestic) lacks funds?

I have no idea. I am sure their operating margin is not as big as most would think. But just how small? No clue.

Plus the cut of ALS from second year PSW syllabus

As I said before... I don't think that is a big deal. ALS (or ACLS as we say here) is of pretty low value in 2nd year. It is better to do during 3rd or even 4th year like we do here at Ochsner.

 

[TaksuHim]

From your post, it appears that the culture on Oschner and Brisbane have some differences. To begin, we only have part time administrative staff running the clinical rotations, and part time as in they are in on certain days of the week.

However, I will be wary of equating the situation in Oschner to Brisbane. Good on you if you could collect data on struggling Oschner students who have no reservations approach you if that's the case, but my experience in Brisbane is different. People who struggle approach their immediate peers, only a small number go public about their experiences.

I don't see how your anecdotes trump mine, given the fact that we are in different geographical location and steeped in different cultures, with the obvious differences as described. As you said, you are probably less familiar outside of Oschner. Sure, you were formerly President of OMSA, but then I will lend credibility to what you say about the situation in Oschner, more so than in Brisbane.

One of the things I was trying to get at with regards to some of the decisions by the board of examiners/school in those 'anecdotes' is also whether additional redundancy is going to help matters of over-stretched teaching resources. Getting a fellow to repeat an eight week rotation when he only failed the CPA for a 2 week sub-rotation, is asking the teaching staff regardless of location of clinical school to teach that fellow twice in areas that he passed and did not struggle at. I don't see how that qualifies as good use of teaching resources. Seniors last year have already feedbacked that their consultants are too busy teaching junior year students, a good example a consultant for a 4th year rotation teaching 2nd year year students, that they have no time to hear them present their cases.

I have also made my point about international reputation based on well-grounded observations. You may have pointed out that programme directors/attendings/academic staff at Oschner have commented on how well grounded Oschner students are, but this also came from a programme director/consultant and medical educator from another country that takes in UQ graduates (neither USA nor Australia) for internship training, and I quote ,"the graduates are simply less prepared to handle internship compared with local grads or those from the UK". Obviously, this is going to impact UQ international reputation. And this is not anecdotal, it is from the observation of graduates as a whole in comparison with their peers from the local country itself, and from UK when they do their internship in the mentioned country.

Actually one thing that I really agree with you - I don't think you can really count on UQ to bring up your clinical skills to scratch, as you said, you feed yourself and don't get spoonfed. At the stage of post-graduate medicine, it is about what you can do for yourself. I usually advise people, in fact consultants from other country (not US nor Australia) who knows of UQ's notoriously large numbers also give this advice, if you want to take your clinical skills up to the next level, arrange for electives during holidays.

I did notice that those who did well are likely to have done holiday/summer electives. In fact, I generally advise juniors not to rely on UQ to take their clinical skills up to scratch, they should organise their own holidays electives. One thing about medicine remains unchanged: whatever time you invest, even the elective during your holidays will definitely pay off during the long run.

As one of my 'anecdotes' have shown, it is doable to be trained by doctors in your own country outside Australia and then just get the UQ MBBS diploma...of course, I am not denying it is not doable at UQ, and sometimes, it's about using your wits and resources to ensure that you get enough training.

You have said your piece and I have said mine. I respect your point of view. As I said, the proof of the pudding is really how UQ grads perform post-medical school, i.e. how the consultants assess them. Good on Oschner grads if they get good assessments.

For Australian domestic grads, they will be up against JCU at Townsville, Griffith and Bond university, equivalent to Tulane and others at Oschner. If consultants rate grads from other universities above UQ domestically, then that's where UQ's reputation starts to lose its lustre.

I really don't think Pitman thinks you are actually QLDKing. He was merely being a bit hyperbolic to illustrate that he doesn't care who you are, your arguments would be "help[ed] if you kept to the point and didn't meander so much -- it's not clear what if any point you're making." Which is a statement I agree with. You are offering a lot of personal opinion and speculation, along with some anecdote, and very little else.

Which is fine. And noted. Nobody is discounting your experiences or even your anecdotes. You may well be right on some points (in fact, you are). I am basically doing the same. With maybe a little more authority given I was one of the founding members, then the academic officer for two years, and finally the president of the Ochsner Medical Student Association (OMSA) which is essentially the UQ-O counterpart to UQMS. And we have an MOU with UQMS, which includes sharing of dues. So I have a fair bit more insight into the inner workings and have fought battles to make improvements in the very areas you are referencing as deficient. And seen improvements.



1) Probably true. While I was a student it definitely felt crowded. I personally never felt like I didn't have the resources, materials, access, etc that I needed for my education. Some people certainly did feel that way. As with anything, it is always a bell curve. Most people are not too far off from happy. But I agree there was certainly room for moving the median of that curve towards less crowded.

2) Yes. But, as I said, still overall plenty good enough. Some areas of distinct deficiency, which I've long said myself. Nothing insurmountable. Perhaps not as spoonfed as some places, but IMHO you won't be spoon fed for your entire career, including residency. Some people find it more on the sink side of swim. Once again, bell curve.

3) No doubt. The question is - at what rate? It can and should always be improved on. Perhaps UQ is on the wrong side of the median on the bell curve. But, from the data I've seen and has been released, not that far off the mark.

4) Possibly. So far we have been doing rather well for ourselves here Stateside. Certainly room for improvement. But that's always the case.



So yeah. It would perhaps seem that way. I honestly can't really comment much on the Aussie side of things. Though I can say that they really do like coming over to Ochsner a lot in no small part because they say that they feel like the get a better clinical education here. And it is absolutely true that the rotations are very different back in Australia.

However, the system is also rather different. We don't do a general rotating internship after med school. We go directly into specialist residency. In 2.5 years I will be consultant in internal medicine. 3 years after that I'll be an intensivist and pulmonologist. We don't do intern year like you, then JHO and SHO and other such years before going into specialty training. To us that is like 5th and 6th year of medical school. I'll never see a peds or gyn case again for the rest of my life.

That doesn't, of course, obviate superimposed sub par teaching. And from what I've heard that does seem to be more the case in Aus than here at Ochsner. But it hasn't ever struck me as particularly bad and the expectations are different.



I don't know how that ultimately matters much.



Right. Well. Sort of. Some people do go public. But most don't.

However, I was the academic officer and president of OMSA and so I did actually end up getting most people in the Ochsner cohorts coming to me, as well as some traditional students, and liaised extensively with both Ochsner and UQ faculty and administration (I had monthly meetings with Jenny Schafer and then later Richard Deichmann as well as many with David Wilkinson and Bill Pinsky, amongst many others). And while there certainly were examples of serious deficiencies and problems, overall it was not that bad and, most importantly, all parties involved responded with improvements. Once again, bell curves and always room to improve.



To be clear, I am not brushing anything off. I am accepting it at face value with the limited caveats and objections already mentioned. All I am trying to do is give perspective. And my anecdotes are likely better than yours. But I'm not even really trying to argue you're wrong. Look at how much we agree. I am merely trying to give some counterbalance and what I think is the appropriate framing and why. Others are then able to read through it all and assess their own thoughts on the matter.

But part of that is recognizing what is a reasonable weight to give some bit of information. Anecdotes aren't worthless. And they are of varying worth depending on context. But for the most part they are of very low value in terms of evidentiary weight for decision making.



Fair enough. Perhaps so. I have much less confidence in my knowledge and conclusions on anything outside of Ochsner these days. If so, then UQMS should (and I am sure is, to some degree at least) lobbying for improvements.



Yes of course. I am well familiar with that. I was widely considered a hugely negative mark against the SoM. Which is why students advocated for change, as did faculty, and the SoM responded with improvements. But change is typically a slow process. Hard to do substantively in less than a year's time. And even then, that is rather laborious for large and/or complex changes. Like getting more highly trained people who are already working a lot to give better training and instruction to (mostly useless) medical students.

So to me, your comment here is actually evidence of a positive about the SoM: that they do listen and make improvements. To indict them because it is too slow, or too little change or because other changes turn out to be negative is simply to be naive. Are there better SoM's? Of course. All but a very few could say otherwise. But UQ (and certainly UQ-O) is definitely on the correct side of the bell curve.



Occasionally. And certainly more with UQ than with Ochsner. But overall not a big issue.



Full time. All of them are academic physicians or non-medical professionals that have had a lot of experience teaching and working at a teaching hospital. And they have hired more admin staff every single year since the UQ-O program started going from 2 or 3 to around 9 or 10 right now.



I have no idea. I am sure their operating margin is not as big as most would think. But just how small? No clue.



As I said before... I don't think that is a big deal. ALS (or ACLS as we say here) is of pretty low value in 2nd year. It is better to do during 3rd or even 4th year like we do here at Ochsner.

 

[pitman]

I am curious, if you are a UQ alumni...

That's been pretty well established over the years, as for Nybgrus. It has yet to be seen for someone who has posted just a few times over a total of two days.

Already, there are consultants who have already commented how relatively poor, the clinical skills of UQ grads compare to grads from Griffith or JCU.

I have also made my point about international reputation based on well-grounded observations.

"Already"! I think some perspective is in order. I saw UQ grow from 250 students per class to 450, and still keep in touch with UQMS peeps and profs. Since graduating, I have worked in more than a dozen teaching hospitals, supervising med students all over Qld and NSW. Supervisors naturally share their opinions about the students and the schools.

Back in the mid 2000s, virtually ALL the med schools were getting poor feedback about their ditching of significant portions of their science curriculum, particularly anatomy, and partly because of an ideological resistance to PBL. USyd's med school had a falling out with the uni's anatomy dept, the head of anatomy hating the med school admins because he thought the school was being so cheap and irresponsible with its lack of teaching. Old-school docs, and surgeons in particular, trashed their alma maters for 'gutting the sciences', and there were threats from surgeons that grads from x school would be blacklisted from the RACS unless anatomy was beefed up.

I hear consultants trash every school in Qld and NSW. Some say things like, "UQ students don't know anything" because they went there themselves and learned different things (and yes, more anatomy). Others say, "Griffith students are ****e", because they graduated from UQ (as all Qld old schoolers did) and know that admission stats are lower at Griffith and have become biased against the school. Others say, "Bond students are dumb rich kids", while others say, "Bond students are the best in Qld, maybe because they pay so much for their degree and so work harder". And still others say, "JCU graduates a bunch of immature kids who don't know anything about life", while many say, "JCU students are clinically the best because they spend so much time rural".

Meanwhile, grads in the US, like Nybgrus, have equally valid anecdotes of consultants praising UQ grads for their clinical skills, and each year more programs are taking UQ grads. Your anecdotes about the school's int'l reputation based on your own observations are no more or less valid, but that does not mean they are representative.

Meanwhile, every UQ class has its anecdotes of assessment f*ckups and admin snafus. The year above me all had their 2nd year final exam re-scored after UQMS complained that many questions were poorly worded and/or ambiguous. My year had huge "fail" rates for a number of the exams (2nd year final and paeds most memorably), which then got 'fixed'. Every year considered itself experimented on, as the school kept changing the course -- the science content, the structure, the electives, and so on. And the school grew. Boy did it grow! And with no lack of growing pains.

There is nothing unique to what you're saying about c. 2012, either in terms of timeline and particular size/growth of the SoM, or in terms of UQ as opposed to other med schools with their adoption of PBL and other education theories, and their adaptation to the nationwide doctor shortages and uni financial problems that combined to create the med student tsunami.

Since you graduated in 2013, did you know that from 2012, they made anatomy an essential topic in phase I, and subsequent cohort from 2012, they need to have prac exams where they have to identify certain parts of the human anatomy, and there is a compulsory and separate anatomy assessment. Surely you know why they had to modify the pre-clinical courses, given the complaints from consultants about the lack of anatomy knowledge from the grads.

This is part of Wilkinson's legacy, beefing up the sciences in part by having separate assessments, which plan was outlined in Junior Doctors Reference Committee meetings a number of years ago as a means to get independent depts to take 'ownership' of their teaching in order to bring back some of what most schools lost when listening to the educational ideologues a decade ago by swinging too far towards PBL and the psycho-social at the expense of basic science and more traditional didactic learning. It is a *good* thing that UQ responded to criticism and has since improved by swinging back a bit, just as it is that USydney has similarly improved its anatomy teaching there. I find it strange that anyone would consider this a negative, as if change implies weakness. Med schools all change, and it's a good thing when they're responsive and change for the better.

 

[TaksuHim]

I took Obs/gynae last year and of course, I knew the ECP changes because we were sent emails about it, something which yourself and earlier grads may not be privy to. I am the most recent graduate, and yes from a class of well over 400.

You can judge if I have a similar writing style to QldKing.

The observation from the consultant from another country, it is no anecdote, because I don't have any anecdotal experiences of how UQ grads perform in that country. It was based on the assessment of the clinical educator/consultant from another country that takes in UQ grads for internship. And no, it was a cohort assessment as a whole, based on intake of UQ grads over the years. I believe you should recognise that not every UQ grad eventually stay on in Australia or go to the US. The observation is a comparison of clinical skills versus local grads and UK grads.

I am saying international reputation because eventually during the specialty training career, one may choose to do fellowships outside of Australia, and it does not bode well if the international reputation has taken a hit.

That's been pretty well established over the years, as for Nybgrus. It has yet to be seen for someone who has posted just a few times over a total of two days.



"Already"! I think some perspective is in order. I saw UQ grow from 250 students per class to 450, and still keep in touch with UQMS peeps and profs. Since graduating, I have worked in more than a dozen teaching hospitals, supervising med students all over Qld and NSW. Supervisors naturally share their opinions about the students and the schools.

Back in the mid 2000s, virtually ALL the med schools were getting poor feedback about their ditching of significant portions of their science curriculum, particularly anatomy, and partly because of an ideological resistance to PBL. USyd's med school had a falling out with the uni's anatomy dept, the head of anatomy hating the med school admins because he thought the school was being so cheap and irresponsible with its lack of teaching. Old-school docs, and surgeons in particular, trashed their alma maters for 'gutting the sciences', and there were threats from surgeons that grads from x school would be blacklisted from the RACS unless anatomy was beefed up.

I hear consultants trash every school in Qld and NSW. Some say things like, "UQ students don't know anything" because they went there themselves and learned different things (and yes, more anatomy). Others say, "Griffith students are ****e", because they graduated from UQ (as all Qld old schoolers did) and know that admission stats are lower at Griffith and have become biased against the school. Others say, "Bond students are dumb rich kids", while others say, "Bond students are the best in Qld, maybe because they pay so much for their degree and so work harder". And still others say, "JCU graduates a bunch of immature kids who don't know anything about life", while many say, "JCU students are clinically the best because they spend so much time rural".

Meanwhile, grads in the US, like Nybgrus, have equally valid anecdotes of consultants praising UQ grads for their clinical skills, and each year more programs are taking UQ grads. Your anecdotes about the school's int'l reputation based on your own observations are no more or less valid, but that does not mean they are representative.

Meanwhile, every UQ class has its anecdotes of assessment f*ckups and admin snafus. The year above me all had their 2nd year final exam re-scored after UQMS complained that many questions were poorly worded and/or ambiguous. My year had huge "fail" rates for a number of the exams (2nd year final and paeds most memorably), which then got 'fixed'. Every year considered itself experimented on, as the school kept changing the course -- the science content, the structure, the electives, and so on. And the school grew. Boy did it grow! And with no lack of growing pains.

There is nothing unique to what you're saying about c. 2012, either in terms of timeline and particular size/growth of the SoM, or in terms of UQ as opposed to other med schools with their adoption of PBL and other education theories, and their adaptation to the nationwide doctor shortages and uni financial problems that combined to create the med student tsunami.


This is part of Wilkinson's legacy, beefing up the sciences in part by having separate assessments, which plan was outlined in Junior Doctors Reference Committee meetings a number of years ago as a means to get independent depts to take 'ownership' of their teaching in order to bring back some of what most schools lost when listening to the educational ideologues a decade ago by swinging too far towards PBL and the psycho-social at the expense of basic science and more traditional didactic learning. It is a *good* thing that UQ responded to criticism and has since improved by swinging back a bit, just as it is that USydney has similarly improved its anatomy teaching there. I find it strange that anyone would consider this a negative, as if change implies weakness. Med schools all change, and it's a good thing when they're responsive and change for the better.

 

[TaksuHim]

OK, it seems this will never end, it looks like all of us are presenting our own 'anecdotal' or 'representative' experiences as each would to believe. I do respect your point of view regardless.

So let me try to understand, do you perceive any change in quality of medical education CIRCA period from 250 to the current one where there is an increase to 450? Hope you can answer that honestly.

I don't claim to be in the loop, but the beefing up of clinical sciences, it seems have more to do with multiple reasons. I will hesitate to attribute this to Wilkinson alone. The expansion of medical school numbers also happened under Wilkinson's watch, I don't know whether was it due to Wilkinson's doing, and so I will just leave it at that in the air.

The other reason why they had to beef up clinical science was also due to the fact that this year, they needed to have the Medical Deans of Australia and NZ (MDANZ) exams where again Wilkinson is involved, in which this space has to be watched, since this is going to be the equivalent of USMLE, where expectant graduates have to sit to demonstrate they are ready. USyd had to take the USMLE-equivalent iFOM exam and it was to be summative, and when I saw USyd preparation/formative tests, they are also beefing up the sciences bit. UQ students had to sit the iFOM exam, we were actually told the year before last that it was going to be summative, but changed to formative, and instead, the MDANZ exams was made summative. All medical schools were required to implement questions from the MDANZ in summative examinations or in a summative assessment setting. They were either implemented as part of other exams or in UQ's case, the whole exam.

And it seems MDANZ exams will be here to stay. If there is going to be a nation-wide assessment with AMC-accreditation hanging over the head, of course, clinical schools have to beef up their sciences. If Wilkinson is principally responsible for pushing towards an Australian-wide national examination similar to USMLE, I sense a touch of irony. I understand this has been in the works since 2009, but the changes were only instituted in the first cohort to sit for the MDANZ exams, last year. Ironical because the cart became before the horse, i.e. when you realise that students have to sit for this exam, you start preparing them. If you believe in the philosophy of a medical student assessment of knowledge, it should have been done from the very start.

Eventually, all Australian medical schools have to beef up their sciences bit, like it or not.

That's been pretty well established over the years, as for Nybgrus. It has yet to be seen for someone who has posted just a few times over a total of two days.



"Already"! I think some perspective is in order. I saw UQ grow from 250 students per class to 450, and still keep in touch with UQMS peeps and profs. Since graduating, I have worked in more than a dozen teaching hospitals, supervising med students all over Qld and NSW. Supervisors naturally share their opinions about the students and the schools.

Back in the mid 2000s, virtually ALL the med schools were getting poor feedback about their ditching of significant portions of their science curriculum, particularly anatomy, and partly because of an ideological resistance to PBL. USyd's med school had a falling out with the uni's anatomy dept, the head of anatomy hating the med school admins because he thought the school was being so cheap and irresponsible with its lack of teaching. Old-school docs, and surgeons in particular, trashed their alma maters for 'gutting the sciences', and there were threats from surgeons that grads from x school would be blacklisted from the RACS unless anatomy was beefed up.

I hear consultants trash every school in Qld and NSW. Some say things like, "UQ students don't know anything" because they went there themselves and learned different things (and yes, more anatomy). Others say, "Griffith students are ****e", because they graduated from UQ (as all Qld old schoolers did) and know that admission stats are lower at Griffith and have become biased against the school. Others say, "Bond students are dumb rich kids", while others say, "Bond students are the best in Qld, maybe because they pay so much for their degree and so work harder". And still others say, "JCU graduates a bunch of immature kids who don't know anything about life", while many say, "JCU students are clinically the best because they spend so much time rural".

Meanwhile, grads in the US, like Nybgrus, have equally valid anecdotes of consultants praising UQ grads for their clinical skills, and each year more programs are taking UQ grads. Your anecdotes about the school's int'l reputation based on your own observations are no more or less valid, but that does not mean they are representative.

Meanwhile, every UQ class has its anecdotes of assessment f*ckups and admin snafus. The year above me all had their 2nd year final exam re-scored after UQMS complained that many questions were poorly worded and/or ambiguous. My year had huge "fail" rates for a number of the exams (2nd year final and paeds most memorably), which then got 'fixed'. Every year considered itself experimented on, as the school kept changing the course -- the science content, the structure, the electives, and so on. And the school grew. Boy did it grow! And with no lack of growing pains.

There is nothing unique to what you're saying about c. 2012, either in terms of timeline and particular size/growth of the SoM, or in terms of UQ as opposed to other med schools with their adoption of PBL and other education theories, and their adaptation to the nationwide doctor shortages and uni financial problems that combined to create the med student tsunami.


This is part of Wilkinson's legacy, beefing up the sciences in part by having separate assessments, which plan was outlined in Junior Doctors Reference Committee meetings a number of years ago as a means to get independent depts to take 'ownership' of their teaching in order to bring back some of what most schools lost when listening to the educational ideologues a decade ago by swinging too far towards PBL and the psycho-social at the expense of basic science and more traditional didactic learning. It is a *good* thing that UQ responded to criticism and has since improved by swinging back a bit, just as it is that USydney has similarly improved its anatomy teaching there. I find it strange that anyone would consider this a negative, as if change implies weakness. Med schools all change, and it's a good thing when they're responsive and change for the better.

 

[qldking]

I have to say it's amusing that Wilkinson is such a big player in the medical education system (he's now sold out to corporate) considering he's barely even a doctor. The dude is like the Obama of Australian medical education.

 

[nybgrus]

I have to say it's amusing that Wilkinson is such a big player in the medical education system (he's now sold out to corporate) considering he's barely even a doctor. The dude is like the Obama of Australian medical education.

Seriously? You come in to try and snipe with that?

I suppose it could be an entire fabrication but, according to his bio (PDF):

“I went to Africa for a year and stayed for 10,” Dr Wilkinson says. “It changed my life and career
utterly and made me who I am.”

Starting in a busy 400-bed rural district hospital, he not only gained broad clinical experience, but
developed a commitment to both research and the support of public health initiatives. And it was
those two fields – research and public health – that would become his passion and earn him
accolades around the world. "​

And the gratuitous Obama reference? Are you actually Rupert Murdoch?

 

[qldking]

Seriously? You come in to try and snipe with that?

I suppose it could be an entire fabrication but, according to his bio (PDF):

“I went to Africa for a year and stayed for 10,” Dr Wilkinson says. “It changed my life and career
utterly and made me who I am.”

Starting in a busy 400-bed rural district hospital, he not only gained broad clinical experience, but
developed a commitment to both research and the support of public health initiatives. And it was
those two fields – research and public health – that would become his passion and earn him
accolades around the world. "​

And the gratuitous Obama reference? Are you actually Rupert Murdoch?

He was a public health guy in Africa. Building up the third world because he grew up privileged and then turning the Australia system to **** when he came back. Thats the definition of a true liberal. The guy probably never set foot in an actual hospital once in Africa but was operating inside his palace in the big cities.

I mean he's only responsible for helping ruin a system that was perfectly fine for doctors here but hey! He helped save all the starving little babies in Africa! A hero!

And he probably banks no less than 500k/year...sound familiar?

 

[nybgrus]

The guy probably never set foot in an actual hospital once in Africa but was operating inside his palace in the big cities.

To whit:

Starting in a busy 400-bed rural district hospital, he not only gained broad clinical experience

As I said, could be a total lie. Unlikely. And your comment is gratuitously stupid and pointless.

I mean he's only responsible for helping ruin a system that was perfectly fine for doctors here but hey! He helped save all the starving little babies in Africa! A hero!

Followed by a dodge. Your original claim was that he is "barely even a doctor" and has no clinical experience. Which, besides being irrelevant, is almost certainly false. Now you change the topic and use a rather derogatory way of referring to someone helping the less fortunate and make it out to be a bad thing, purely so you can continue some sort of BS snipe at someone you don't like.

You see, trolly king, rational, educated, intelligent, and honest people keep their critiques about people focused on the facts and the point. It is the desperate folks who have an agenda and narrative to push and very few actual facts to go on that resort to such childish antics.

And he probably banks no less than 500k/year...sound familiar?/quote]

And....? Is everyone who "banks no less than 500k/year" an evil and terrible person? Are you trying to say that he was making that much back when he first got out of medical school and was working in a rural African hospital back in the 80's and 90's? My step father makes that much as a pulmonary critical care and sleep medicine doctor. A friend of mine make plenty more than that as an orthopedist in a rural Native American community. Someday I wouldn't mind making that much, or more if I get the opportunity.

There are actually a few legitimate reasons not to like Wilkinson. I've gone toe to toe with him myself and refused to back down when I felt he was being unfair and I had a good point. He has done a few things I have certainly been less than pleased with. But overall I found him to be receptive and for the most part he actually listened to and implemented the changes I advocated for. Could I envision a better person than he to be head of a SoM? Sure. But I've also actually seen and heard of plenty worse. Everyone has their flaws and negatives and Wilkinson is no exception. But the proof is in the pudding of nearly 4 years of my interactions with him, he listened and actually effected change on most of the topics we raised.

 

[qldking]

I don't know if you're deliberately obtuse or simply low functioning but I am not even going to bother to respond to your idiocy.

 

[pitman]

I don't know if you are mentally ill or just a troll, qldking, but you still have nothing to say.

So let me try to understand, do you perceive any change in quality of medical education CIRCA period from 250 to the current one where there is an increase to 450? Hope you can answer that honestly.

This is irrelevant to this discussion (but I am on the record with having had issues with the class size increases, and I lobbied so as a student). Again, I responded to specific points that you've made that I disagree with. You started with the extraordinary claim that you agreed with qldking (on his claims of huge numbers of students failing, in the context of risking their internship chances), but instead of substantiating his claim you went off on a number of tangents.

I tend to correct what I perceive to be falsehoods. I do not have a black-and-white view of most things UQ, or try to fit the facts into such a coloured view, in part because I acknowledge the reasons and pressures behind and pluses for, say, UQ class sizes to have increased, along with the negatives.

I don't claim to be in the loop, but the beefing up of clinical sciences, it seems have more to do with multiple reasons. I will hesitate to attribute this to Wilkinson alone. The expansion of medical school numbers also happened under Wilkinson's watch, I don't know whether was it due to Wilkinson's doing, and so I will just leave it at that in the air.

If you are going to be so hesitant and 'in the air', then maybe it would be better to refrain from the characterizations.

The drive to beef up sciences was Wilkinson. The decision, as per the structure of the SoM and uni, involved getting other faculty/dept heads on board, which he did. As to class sizes, yes, he continued what Ken Donald had started 10 years ago, and I believe that he did not lead from behind. He did however reduce the number of students in Qld from its peak for the clinical years (as Ochsner increased its intake). I'd imagine that the Heads of other schools who have massively increased in size since the tsunami began would have had similar say in the matter (or were appointed to do so as part of a mandate).

The other reason why they had to beef up clinical science was also due to the fact that this year, they needed to have the Medical Deans of Australia and NZ (MDANZ) exams where again Wilkinson is involved, in which this space has to be watched, since this is going to be the equivalent of USMLE, where expectant graduates have to sit to demonstrate they are ready. USyd had to take the USMLE-equivalent iFOM exam and it was to be summative, and when I saw USyd preparation/formative tests, they are also beefing up the sciences bit. UQ students had to sit the iFOM exam, we were actually told the year before last that it was going to be summative, but changed to formative, and instead, the MDANZ exams was made summative. All medical schools were required to implement questions from the MDANZ in summative examinations or in a summative assessment setting. They were either implemented as part of other exams or in UQ's case, the whole exam.

And it seems MDANZ exams will be here to stay. If there is going to be a nation-wide assessment with AMC-accreditation hanging over the head, of course, clinical schools have to beef up their sciences.

Your logic would appear backwards.

There is no "they had to" when "they" pushed for the changes. UQ certainly wasn't required to do anything. The exams are a move towards standardization to help to increase science knowledge and the overall quality of all Australian med schools. Ergo, this is not a/the reason for uprating the sciences, nor does it undermine the foresight in beefing up sciences at UQ -- the two initiatives are integral to the same cause, spearheaded by UQ (Wilkinson) and USyd, with increasing support from other medical schools. This I see as a positive step, a change for the better.

If Wilkinson is principally responsible for pushing towards an Australian-wide national examination similar to USMLE, I sense a touch of irony. I understand this has been in the works since 2009, but the changes were only instituted in the first cohort to sit for the MDANZ exams, last year. Ironical because the cart became before the horse, i.e. when you realise that students have to sit for this exam, you start preparing them. If you believe in the philosophy of a medical student assessment of knowledge, it should have been done from the very start.

You can't have it both ways. And you don't seem to understand how the politics of med school administration works. The changes are being made, with different facets coming at different times, because that's how such happens as each medical school has its own political forces that must be 'brought on board'.

Eventually, all Australian medical schools have to beef up their sciences bit, like it or not.

Yes, and to UQ's credit, it is leading and not following in this regard. Big pluses IMO. But to you, unhesitatingly, this is evidence of a problem?

 

[nybgrus]

I don't know if you're deliberately obtuse or simply low functioning but I am not even going to bother to respond to your idiocy.

Now that's rich!

 

[TaksuHim]

Where I differ from you is that I respect other's viewpoints without the need to call others 'mentally ill'.

The part about where I supported QldKing is on the Obs/gynae failure. At the timeline of QldKing posting, yes it was true that 25% of the cohort failed and around July to August, they changed the ECP profile requirements to pass the rotation to less stringent that saw the pass rates improve (no one knows at that point of time what the Board of examiners will do). I have always emphasised this point. But, when I say failure it means failure at the first instance, not so much of who had to repeat or missed internship, and as others have pointed out, the remediation policy can sometimes look dubious. Besides students on good standing having to repeat all of the rotation, like others have pointed out, when you fail 1 component but pass the rest, you get a 4, but when you fail 2 components and get a 3, you have to take supps on the 2 components and pass everything, and eventually you have to do more to get a 4 than those who failed 1 component. I have always been consistent on this points, including remediation policy. In fact, it is the dubious remediation policies that I have spent much of my time discussing, in those cases.

Hence, if as you said, Wilkinson is not so much responsible for increasing the class size, then how did UQ end up in a position with regards to Oschner partnership and the International Medical University similarly? Even if the Oschner guys went to the US, the IMU guys would come during the clinical years. I am sure you are well aware of that.

If the class sizes are large, and especially during during Phase 1 where you have the Oschner students in Brisbane, it is going to be apparent that clinical training is going to be affected, as what the current UQMS president have admitted about the poor quality of teaching, and the students will not have be able to build a foundation of strong clinical skills in phase 1 and progressing to phase 2 and beyond. Sure, I acknowledge your point that consultants may have their preferences/bias/pet peeves and I am happy to give you the benefit of doubt, but surely the feedback of educators from another country (neither US, especially Oshcner nor Australia) that takes in UQ grads and have assessed cohorts of UQ grads for internship cannot be ignored right? After all, these consultants are not MBBS-holders from Australian universities, and have the "I-favour-Bond Uni-and-i-think-UQ-sucks"/or the other way round type? Please, I am telling you, don't think the medical world outside Australia, NZ and US is that ignorant. There are a number of foreign consultants who know of UQ's large number and have feedbacked negative assessment of UQ students in their departments.

My understanding of the situation of an Australian-wide medical assessment was the the Deans of Aussie/NZ medical schools were pushing towards one for the sake of standardisation of assessment since 2009. Hence, it started with IFOM and now MDANZ exams. The mentality was that AMC Examinations both written and clinical OSCE that IMGs took was pitched to be at the level of an MBBS graduate from Australian universities, and that is where MDANZ examinations which will be here to stay from 2014 onwards will come in. The MDANZ exams will at least be the equivalent of AMC exams written.

The thing is if I have not clarified previously - firstly I believe regardless of who is at the helm, beefing up of clinical sciences is an eventuality, regardless of who is at the helm. In fact, when I looked at USyd's preparotory/formative exams for IFOM (they were summative 2014), they were pretty extensive (more so than UQ) and covered all discplines of Medicine tested, O and G, surgery, family medicine. With AMC accreditation also hanging over the heads, there is no other alternatives right? However, my stand was that UQ was very late in the change. The splitting up for Phase 1 courses only occurred in 2012, where the batch was expected to take IFOM summative, last year. However, somehow it was changed to formative and the MDANZ exam was made summative. That is the point I was making with regards to Wilkinson. I concede I don't know much of behind the scenes, but my point is, firstly, it doesn't matter whose the dean in change, all Australian medical schools, for UQ with or without Wilkinson have to beef up the clinical sciences. Secondly, you mention about splitting up courses for departments to take ownership. End of the day, the clinicians similar to NBME have to decide what is testable material. You cannot throw everything to the School of Biomedical Sciences to teach what is relevant, e.g. should they include animal biology or biology of animal models close to humans?

What I can also say is that my observations was that even the end of fourth year OSCEs was less stringent that the AMC clinical OSCE. For the AMC clinical OSCE, there are critical fails if one or 2 points are not addressed, whereas for the UQ OSCE, which is less stringent, the pass mark was dependent on meeting the overall mark, and was very generous - 2 standard deviations away from the mark considered borderline (borderline is immediately below pass). For AMC, you can fail only 25% of your OSCE stations for UQ, it is based on your overall pass mark. If you fail 50% of your station and you make up enough marks in your other 50%, you still pass.

Now, the interesting thing is what if they institute AMC clinicals type exams (based on the same standard) on graduating cohorts?

Actually, my observation of your conduct is that you are very fixated on defending UQ. Look, I have spoken to UQMS folks, and they are way more civil in their conduct. Some students have slammed certain UQ staff verbally, and the UQMS folks reacted graciously. You on the other end have resorted to calling me a 'troll' and 'mentally ill'. I have to ask you this, do you have any personal interest in UQ SOM, as in are you a teaching staff/adjunct faculty member, or on any board? In fact, for the impassioned student who is not involved in UQMS or Oschner medical society for that matter, when Wilkinson left, the attitude was that he should have left a long time ago. In fact, School of Medicine faculty members were not that popular with students from 2011 onwards when the School of Medicine changed the interpretation of ECP for the year 2 course. It did result in a number of people repeating second year. Students were told 25% of their marks for second year will be based on OSCEs and the other parts, the written exams. At the end of the year, the SOM turned around and said only the written sections were counted. This resulted in a big fight that went all the way to the UQ senate. In fact, when the director of MBBS came and give a pep talk before the 4th year OSCE, she remarked that the group were so cynical in their response to her. In fact, actually in those anecdotal cases, I wasn't the first one to know. Such things do spread from ear to ear you know. Is that any surprising why the class was cynical in response to the MBBS director?

I don't know if you are mentally ill or just a troll, qldking, but you still have nothing to say.


This is irrelevant to this discussion (but I am on the record with having had issues with the class size increases, and I lobbied so as a student). Again, I responded to specific points that you've made that I disagree with. You started with the extraordinary claim that you agreed with qldking (on his claims of huge numbers of students failing, in the context risking their internship chances), then did not back up his claim but meandered on a number of tangents.

I tend to correct what I perceive to be falsehoods. I do not have a black-and-white view of most things UQ, or try to fit the facts into such a coloured view, in part because I acknowledge the reasons and pressures behind and pluses for, say, UQ class sizes to have increased, along with the negatives.


If you are going to be so hesitant and 'in the air', then maybe it would be better to refrain from the characterizations.

The drive to beef up sciences was Wilkinson. The decision, as per the structure of the SoM and uni, involved getting other faculty/dept heads on board, which he did. As to class sizes, yes, he continued what Ken Donald had started 10 years ago, and I believe that he did not lead from behind. He did however reduce the number of students in Qld from its peak for the clinical years (as Ochsner increased its intake). I'd imagine that the Heads of other schools who have massively increased in size since the tsunami began would have had similar say in the matter (or were appointed to do so as part of a mandate).



Your logic would appear backwards.

There is no "they had to" when "they" pushed for the changes. UQ certainly wasn't required to do anything. The exams are a move towards standardization to help to increase science knowledge and the overall quality of all Australian med schools. Ergo, this is not a/the reason for uprating the sciences, nor does it undermine the foresight in beefing up sciences at UQ -- the two initiatives are integral to the same cause, spearheaded by UQ (Wilkinson) and USyd, with increasing support from other medical schools. This I see as a positive step, a change for the better.


You can't have it both ways. And you don't seem to understand how the politics of med school administration works. The changes are being made, with different facets coming at different times, because that's how such happens as each medical school has its own political forces that must be 'brought on board'.


Yes, and to UQ's credit, it is leading and not following in this regard. Big pluses IMO. But to you, unhesitatingly, this is evidence of a problem?

 

[TaksuHim]

Actually, it is very simple.

The acid test of how we perceive UQ's quality of medical education - if you have a sibling/family member/son/someone you loved dearly who wants to be a doctor, will you send them back to the UQ medical school where you received your medical education?

We can talk and back and forth until the cows come home, but one fact remains is this acid test, will tell us the answer of what we honestly think of UQ's medical education.

Let me tell you, I can say for what I have come across the answer is mostly no. I dare to bet Phloston's answer is no too. Sure, I have anecdotal cases of friends who tell their doctor-to-be family members not to send their kids to UQ. Sure, you can always say its anecdotal, but I will tell you this - never underestimate the power of anecdotes. Why don't you take up this challenge and ask the above question to the current cohort of students/or recent MBBS graduates.

You don't have to answer this question straight in this forum, so long as you know in your own heart.

I don't know if you are mentally ill or just a troll, qldking, but you still have nothing to say.


This is irrelevant to this discussion (but I am on the record with having had issues with the class size increases, and I lobbied so as a student). Again, I responded to specific points that you've made that I disagree with. You started with the extraordinary claim that you agreed with qldking (on his claims of huge numbers of students failing, in the context of risking their internship chances), but instead of substantiating his claim you went off on a number of tangents.

I tend to correct what I perceive to be falsehoods. I do not have a black-and-white view of most things UQ, or try to fit the facts into such a coloured view, in part because I acknowledge the reasons and pressures behind and pluses for, say, UQ class sizes to have increased, along with the negatives.


If you are going to be so hesitant and 'in the air', then maybe it would be better to refrain from the characterizations.

The drive to beef up sciences was Wilkinson. The decision, as per the structure of the SoM and uni, involved getting other faculty/dept heads on board, which he did. As to class sizes, yes, he continued what Ken Donald had started 10 years ago, and I believe that he did not lead from behind. He did however reduce the number of students in Qld from its peak for the clinical years (as Ochsner increased its intake). I'd imagine that the Heads of other schools who have massively increased in size since the tsunami began would have had similar say in the matter (or were appointed to do so as part of a mandate).



Your logic would appear backwards.

There is no "they had to" when "they" pushed for the changes. UQ certainly wasn't required to do anything. The exams are a move towards standardization to help to increase science knowledge and the overall quality of all Australian med schools. Ergo, this is not a/the reason for uprating the sciences, nor does it undermine the foresight in beefing up sciences at UQ -- the two initiatives are integral to the same cause, spearheaded by UQ (Wilkinson) and USyd, with increasing support from other medical schools. This I see as a positive step, a change for the better.


You can't have it both ways. And you don't seem to understand how the politics of med school administration works. The changes are being made, with different facets coming at different times, because that's how such happens as each medical school has its own political forces that must be 'brought on board'.


Yes, and to UQ's credit, it is leading and not following in this regard. Big pluses IMO. But to you, unhesitatingly, this is evidence of a problem?

 

[pitman]

Where I differ from you is that I respect other's viewpoints without the need to call others 'mentally ill'.

Maybe you should stick around and read a lot more on these forums, in particular from the users in question, before coming out acclaiming the moral high ground (simply reading one post above it would have shown you that the retort had nothing to do with mere disagreement). When proven trolls act with complete disregard of the truth and of forum etiquette, I and other reasonable people here will respond in kind.

The part about where I supported QldKing is on the Obs/gynae failure. At the timeline of QldKing posting, yes it was true that 25% of the cohort failed and around July to August, they changed the ECP profile requirements to pass the rotation to less stringent that saw the pass rates improve (no one knows at that point of time what the Board of examiners will do). I have always emphasised this point. But, when I say failure it means failure at the first instance, not so much of who had to repeat or missed internship, and as others have pointed out, the remediation policy can sometimes look dubious...

Your argument here shows that you agree with what nybgrus and I were clearly arguing, and not what (the possibly mentally ill troll) qldking was clearly arguing, despite your insistence. Except those who have seen such initial exam results a number of times before -- the recurrent patterns -- do in fact know how the BoE would react, as they always have and how common sense says they always will. Even without such insight, it was clear that the facts do not support the claim that UQ has a particularly high failure rate that harmed students' internship chances. It has not had such a high failure rate, and it does not. Of course, even without understanding that, if one followed the forums, one would have been aware of the pattern, of the likes of qldking similarly boldly claiming false conclusions based on the scantest of obviously incomplete data, which falsities always impugn the motives of UQ, all Australian medical schools, or higher education in general. So defend another's delusions at your peril.

The rest of your post's arguments I'll leave be until/unless they are made more coherent, as I am not convinced you know what point(s) you're claiming are pertinent.

 

[pitman]

Actually, it is very simple.

The acid test of how we perceive UQ's quality of medical education - if you have a sibling/family member/son/someone you loved dearly who wants to be a doctor, will you send them back to the UQ medical school where you received your medical education?

We can talk and back and forth until the cows come home, but one fact remains is this acid test, will tell us the answer of what we honestly think of UQ's medical education.

The odd thing about all this is that you think you're responding to something here. What exactly? You are making strawman arguments and then volunteering to answer them ("the acid test" of this is to consider what this thread is about, or even what you first claimed you were responding to when you claimed you agreed with qldking).

My answer to your non-sequitor is that I would not "send them" anywhere, nor preach to them, just as I don't do that to prospective students here. I would simply give them the facts and what I saw as potential pros and cons, and then let them come to their own decision, because I would respect their autonomy and the fact that they filter decisions through their own value system, and they as a family member would understand that I would not want to tell them what their decision should be or how they should form it, because that would presume that my values should supplant theirs.

Such is how I ended up in Australia, at UQ, based in part on the feedback from those who understood the importance of such an approach, amidst all the Australia and/or UQ (and fashionably at the time, USyd) haters and scaremongers and PDs, and I do not regret my decision, because it was mine, and because I do not regret who I am. Do you?

 

[pitman]

Actually, my observation of your conduct is that you are very fixated on defending UQ. Look, I have spoken to UQMS folks, and they are way more civil in their conduct. Some students have slammed certain UQ staff verbally, and the UQMS folks reacted graciously. You on the other end have resorted to calling me a 'troll' and 'mentally ill'. I have to ask you this, do you have any personal interest in UQ SOM, as in are you a teaching staff/adjunct faculty member, or on any board?

After getting lost amongst the tangents, I apologize for not seeing this bit which simply cannot go unanswered.

I did not call you mentally ill. I was responding to qldking, a proven troll, in that first sentence -- I addressed him by name, using similar sentence structure as he had just used in his stupid attack of nybgrus -- before quoting and then addressing you. Despite your stubborn inference, I do not think you are qldking and have never accused you of being him (as nybgrus correctly pointed out). You yourself first made a connection with him. I have left it to him to ponder whether he is in fact just a troll or also mentally ill, since there is a blurred line between certain PDs and troll-like behavior.

As to any perceived fixation: I respond when I feel I can offer information not forthcoming, and when people say stupid, defamatory or other glaringly wrong things. For a number of reasons, such is far more common (and loudest) from people who are bitter, borderline, or otherwise negative. If someone were to come on here and claim that UQ has no issues and is the best place for others, and internship here is to be expected, or because they talked to a recruitment officer who said, "I like UQ grads!", that getting US residency should be a cakewalk, I would disagree with zeal. However, there is no such problem with manics here.

My affiliations? Not all that dissimilar from nybgrus' really. I was involved with the UQMS every year, became its president, advocated for students (particularly for int'l students, being the first and only int'l president), had battles and collaborations with administration (including Wilkinson) and AMSA, and after graduating kept informed through my contacts. Aside from being on an advisory committee representing the interests of junior docs -- appointed probably because Wilkinson knew that I would agree with a key position he held and it would look good to have someone who was known never to cowtow to him to agree -- I have had no official ties to UQ admin, least of all any financial ones. I do find it amusing though when people think being on a board implies something nefarious, as though advocacy works from without. All UQMS presidents and academic VPs sit on a variety of SoM committees/boards (though their power has significantly been watered down over the years) -- what does that mean to you? I have also been on various AMA committees as chair or a deputy chair, usually when I most wanted to change some AMA policy. As I advise others: when you don't like your environment, stop whingeing and change it for the better.

You?

 

[TaksuHim]

I think there is some misunderstanding here. I merely said QldKing was right in saying that Obs/gynae the % of failure at first instance was roundabouts there period. The rest of my post, my stand in quality of clinical education is similar to Phloston, plus in your words, anecdotal cases of questionable remediation approaches, plus an observation of UQ grads performance against their peers from other universities in another country other than Australia and US.

Look, I don't know what happen between you two as in you and QldKing, if there was anything personal going on, especially the part about supporting 'delusions'. My own part was to verify the part that 25% failed at the annoucement of the obs/gynae results for first rotation...this part is true. Please don't shoot the messenger...when i am here to bring the message that QLDking was right in the 25% failure in the first instance, however, you also have to recognise that I did bring up ECP changes that made the pass rate respectable. I hope you can view this objectively.

Maybe you should stick around and read a lot more on these forums, in particular from the users in question, before coming out acclaiming the moral high ground (simply reading one post above it would have shown you that the retort had nothing to do with mere disagreement). When proven trolls act with complete disregard of the truth and of forum etiquette, I and other reasonable people here will respond in kind.


Your argument here shows that you agree with what nybgrus and I were clearly arguing, and not what (the possibly mentally ill troll) qldking was clearly arguing, despite your insistence. Except those who have seen such initial exam results a number of times before -- the recurrent patterns -- do in fact know how the BoE would react, as they always have and how common sense says they always will. Even without such insight, it was clear that the facts do not support the claim that UQ has a particularly high failure rate that harmed students' internship chances. It has not had such a high failure rate, and it does not. Of course, even without understanding that, if one followed the forums, one would have been aware of the pattern, of the likes of qldking similarly boldly claiming false conclusions based on the scantest of obviously incomplete data, which falsities always impugn the motives of UQ, all Australian medical schools, or higher education in general. So defend another's delusions at your peril.

The rest of your post's arguments I'll leave be until/unless they are made more coherent, as I am not convinced you know what point(s) you're claiming are pertinent.

 

[TaksuHim]

To be honest, I have been discouraging those within my immediate network and my relatives from going to UQ SOM. I am conservative person, I am not able to promise them they would have adequate clinical skills etc. I don't want them to come blaming me later on.

In my case, I was lucky to come across those anecdotal cases, and hence, in Phloston's words, I got this far (graduated from UQ) based on my own efforts and own network that has nothing to do with UQ MBBS program or the SOM faculty for that matter (I always plan electives and have a network of foreign consultants who imparted those pearls of clinical wisdom to me and are happy to take on me especially during breaks). I did realise that you cannot rely on UQ MBBS program to take you where you are. I am proud like my anecdotes whom are my friends, and like Phloston, I made it this far on my own.

For the record, I have never denied it is not doable at UQ. As is postgraduate medicine, you are on your own 2 feet.

You see, I do admire yourself for presenting the SOM side of the equation, you did have pearls of wisdom with regards to politics of medical education. Sure, it is fascinating. However, the cold hard truth is that what you and I say here is not going to make a difference. Let's be realistic here, this is a thread on domestic applicants. For a Queenslander, he may have limited choices other than Bond, Griffith and JCU besides UQ. The reason why I say my bit here is done in the hope that someone from UQ SOM Board of examiners/faculty would be able to see for themselves and hopefully make improvements.

However, you have to recognise that what I and you say here on studentdoctor is not going to make much of difference in terms of whether ppl want to end up studying in UQ SOM. Let's put things in perspective. Within my network, I about 25 aspiring student doctors, and if all of them trust my judgement on avoiding UQ, there is a loss of 20-30 potential enrolments. Even if you claim all these are anecdotes, I always say, anecdotes can be powerful. Another anecdote, a friend of mine, back in his own country, he was like a student leader in his undergraduate institution and still advises pre-meds, and his parents are elders in a major church network. And he has been telling those in his group and church network not to come to UQ, and yes, he's an international. And how many aspiring doctors are there in his network? Definitely exceeded mine.

Look, I don't expect readers reading my post to trust me completely. They have to somehow check with someone in real life. And their chances of running into you? The current students, like it or not are evangelists of their own current medical school. We can talk until cows come home but let me tell you, it's not going to make a difference. Ppl should be smart enough to verify any questions about UQ SOM with a real person who has been there and done that.

With that, I will state my position. I don't intend to discourage through my postings here ppl from attending UQ SOM. It is up to them to find someone preferably a real person and not an online personality to verify what they think of UQ.

The odd thing about all this is that you think you're responding to something here. What exactly? You are making strawman arguments and then volunteering to answer them ("the acid test" of this is to consider what this thread is about, or even what you first claimed you were responding to when you claimed you agreed with qldking).

My answer to your non-sequitor is that I would not "send them" anywhere, nor preach to them, just as I don't do that to prospective students here. I would simply give them the facts and what I saw as potential pros and cons, and then let them come to their own decision, because I would respect their autonomy and the fact that they filter decisions through their own value system, and they as a family member would understand that I would not want to tell them what their decision should be or how they should form it, because that would presume that my values should supplant theirs.

Such is how I ended up in Australia, at UQ, based in part on the feedback from those who understood the importance of such an approach, amidst all the Australia and/or UQ (and fashionably at the time, USyd) haters and scaremongers and PDs, and I do not regret my decision, because it was mine, and because I do not regret who I am. Do you?

 

[TaksuHim]

Ok reading this, I think I owe you an apology with asking about your background and your interest UQ SOM. Hence, first up I am sorry. I ask that because in my engagements even with UQMS, they were pretty cordial even in the face of extreme vitriol directed against the SOM faculty. However, we also have to recognise the limitations of UQMS, they cannot always go on a collision courses, they also have an interest to maintain a good relationship with the UQ SOM. My debates, usually opposition to UQ SOM with UQMS people, usually neutral ground is quite cordial, and I think you are the first one that I encounter whose pretty passionate about UQ SOM to say the least. Most of my exchanges are cordial - let's agree to disagree type. With that, when I notice your posting, that was when I asked you where your interests lie. I regret asking you that and with that I like to offer my sincerest apologies.

Like I say, I am realistic. What I say here isn't going to discourage ppl from applying to UQ SOM. One shouldn't ascribe credibility to online posts period, even by me myself. I post with the fool's hope that someone from the UQ SOM can recognise that they have done disservice to themselves, that they have indeed been a letdown especially to the anecdotal cases that I have raised.

Like it or not, it is the real life interactions that matter more than what me and you type here.

After getting lost amongst the tangents, I apologize for not seeing this bit which simply cannot go unanswered.

I did not call you mentally ill. I was responding to qldking, a proven troll, in that first sentence -- I addressed him by name, using similar sentence structure as he had just used in his stupid attack of nybgrus -- before quoting and then addressing you. Despite your stubborn inference, I do not think you are qldking and have never accused you of being him (as nybgrus correctly pointed out). You yourself first made a connection with him. I have left it to him to ponder whether he is in fact just a troll or also mentally ill, since there is a blurred line between certain PDs and troll-like behavior.

As to any perceived fixation: I respond when I feel I can offer information not forthcoming, and when people say stupid, defamatory or other glaringly wrong things. For a number of reasons, such is far more common (and loudest) from people who are bitter, borderline, or otherwise negative. If someone were to come on here and claim that UQ has no issues and is the best place for others, and internship here is to be expected, or because they talked to a recruitment officer who said, "I like UQ grads!", that getting US residency should be a cakewalk, I would disagree with zeal. However, there is no such problem with manics here.

My affiliations? Not all that dissimilar from nybgrus' really. I was involved with the UQMS every year, became its president, advocated for students (particularly for int'l students, being the first and only int'l president), had battles and collaborations with administration (including Wilkinson) and AMSA, and after graduating kept informed through my contacts. Aside from being on an advisory committee representing the interests of junior docs -- appointed probably because Wilkinson knew that I would agree with a key position he held and it would look good to have someone who was known never to cowtow to him to agree -- I have had no official ties to UQ admin, least of all any financial ones. I do find it amusing though when people think being on a board implies something nefarious, as though advocacy works from without. All UQMS presidents and academic VPs sit on a variety of SoM committees/boards (though their power has significantly been watered down over the years) -- what does that mean to you? I have also been on various AMA committees as chair or a deputy chair, usually when I most wanted to change some AMA policy. As I advise others: when you don't like your environment, stop whingeing and change it for the better.

You?

 

[TaksuHim]

On my end, I have been encouraging those in UQ to do holiday electives, especially in hospital departments where there is a lot of teaching and interesting cases, in medical centres outside Australia, though my part is very minute.

After getting lost amongst the tangents, I apologize for not seeing this bit which simply cannot go unanswered.

I did not call you mentally ill. I was responding to qldking, a proven troll, in that first sentence -- I addressed him by name, using similar sentence structure as he had just used in his stupid attack of nybgrus -- before quoting and then addressing you. Despite your stubborn inference, I do not think you are qldking and have never accused you of being him (as nybgrus correctly pointed out). You yourself first made a connection with him. I have left it to him to ponder whether he is in fact just a troll or also mentally ill, since there is a blurred line between certain PDs and troll-like behavior.

As to any perceived fixation: I respond when I feel I can offer information not forthcoming, and when people say stupid, defamatory or other glaringly wrong things. For a number of reasons, such is far more common (and loudest) from people who are bitter, borderline, or otherwise negative. If someone were to come on here and claim that UQ has no issues and is the best place for others, and internship here is to be expected, or because they talked to a recruitment officer who said, "I like UQ grads!", that getting US residency should be a cakewalk, I would disagree with zeal. However, there is no such problem with manics here.

My affiliations? Not all that dissimilar from nybgrus' really. I was involved with the UQMS every year, became its president, advocated for students (particularly for int'l students, being the first and only int'l president), had battles and collaborations with administration (including Wilkinson) and AMSA, and after graduating kept informed through my contacts. Aside from being on an advisory committee representing the interests of junior docs -- appointed probably because Wilkinson knew that I would agree with a key position he held and it would look good to have someone who was known never to cowtow to him to agree -- I have had no official ties to UQ admin, least of all any financial ones. I do find it amusing though when people think being on a board implies something nefarious, as though advocacy works from without. All UQMS presidents and academic VPs sit on a variety of SoM committees/boards (though their power has significantly been watered down over the years) -- what does that mean to you? I have also been on various AMA committees as chair or a deputy chair, usually when I most wanted to change some AMA policy. As I advise others: when you don't like your environment, stop whingeing and change it for the better.

You?

 

[nybgrus]

This is a strange and interesting thread. I have to agree with @pitman that @TaksuHim has been very tangential and... odd in his arguments. I will also take another moment to point out that it was patently obvious that pitman never even remotely implied that TaksuHim was mentally ill, nor that he was QLDKing. The fact that he perseverated on that makes me wonder how much interest he actually has in engaging in a legitimate conversation rather than just coming in to blather on about particular points of his interest. In other words, it seems that he has been talking past everyone else trying to have an actual conversation about this topic.

In regards to the 25% fail rate.... so what? That isn't a real fail rate. You came here to support QLDKing's claim which we have already demonstrated is entirely irrelevant. I mean, suppose every single person failed a rotation. And then they realized that there was some silly error or something outside the students' control that lead to this and amended the problem such that only 2% failed. Are we now going to go on and on about how there was an incredible 100% fail rate? If we are doing a study and come up with a result that shows that 100% of people died from a certain drug and then realized that there was an error in the statistics and in fact only 2% of people died, are we going to go on about how this particular drug kills 100% of people taking it?

And the rest of your points are complete non-points. The kind of conversation someone may have to fill a lull in casual conversation over beers with mates.

As for your acid test... I can't and don't speak for the UQ traddies. But for UQ-O I certainly recommend it as a viable option, though with appropriate caveats and cautions.

 

[TaksuHim]

If you guys don't mean I am a troll or mentally ill then good. I am sorry for any miscommunication. For me, personally, these are the things I won't type out because from my values and culture, it is extremely rude and impolite to even type such things out in others' presence. It's easy to figure my background that well. But then I am sorry for any miscommunication.

in fact, I find it strange that even though I have said essentially the same thing as Phloston about quality of education, and even Pitman said Phloston "could criticise without being deranged about the whole thing". And Phloston's observation is for the cohort after they 'decided to beef up' clinical sciences.

I am basically saying the same thing, albeit with support from consultant feedback of UQ grads performing in another country. Sure the only difference that I made was discussing the anecdotal cases. However, don't the anecdotal cases show that quality of clinical training was on the down and that there were ppl who were on the worse end of the curve?

In fact, you should be more worried about what Phloston mentioned about the quality of training because those people were his peers after the decision to beef up clinical sciences was instituted. Maybe those anecdotes from 3 - 4 years ago, the situation was really abysmal, who knows. However, if the observation is for the current students and graduates, then it could be worrying, never mind what happened 3-4 years ago. In fact, I was actually trying to support Phloston's observations with regards to the current batch (now I must admit it is embarrassing that ppl don't know of the triple therapy for H. pylori or do not know the blood supply to the stomach, do they know about the celiac trunk?) with the fact that UQ was very late in the game in terms of beefing up clinical sciences, and by how much? (USyd is doing better with more extensive preparation). Plus my comment of whether UQ's clinical examination (OSCE) standards mirror that of the AMC clinical OSCE, which by technical definition is the expected standard of an Australian MBBS graduate. And from experience, students actually find AMC cases more difficult. Are the OSCE standards below that of AMC clinicals? I believe you will know the answer by now. The AMC comments is in reference to the UQ domestic situation, not Oschner

I find the difference of treatment of me and Phloston quite interesting in terms of the contrast. Did I touch off a raw nerve somewhere?

Look, to be cynical, medical school application or whether one should apply to UQ SOM is no different from a consumer consuming a product. Consumers will verify with other consumers and if they are smart, they rather verify with ppl that they know. Like I said, what I post here, one should take with a truckload of salt, ditto for you and the others. They should find a real life example, preferably someone who has been through the process to be objective.

To be honest, no one cares about what goes on in the company selling a product, who sits on what society, what the vice president did blah blah. Hence, I do concede my speculation on Wilkinson could possible be jazz and I do not claim to be in the know. However, end of the day, the going-ons, the medical school politics, it doesn't matter. It is what graduates and current students say of UQ that matter, and as of now, the ones whose words carry the most weight are recent graduates and current students.

I will admit that this is an 'anecdote', just to pre-empt any potential dismissals as what I said is an anecdote, but I have not met anyone who will promote UQ SOM to his peers. In fact, when I actually ask especially to those who have been sought for advice by future doctors whether or not to come to UQ, the answer is that they would not hesitate to discourage their peers.

In fact, just a bit on network theory, a major node in a network is connected to minor nodes, a more major node has more minor nodes. I understand that Phloston is one of the author of the USMLE First Aid books and he is a regular poster here, and the go to guy for any USMLE query, plus people know his real profile. He is a major node in the network, and you have to be worried when he says "he regrets coming to UQ, the school shortchanges itself with poor assessment, etc". TaksuHim, me, I am nothing, I keep my online world separate from my real world, in fact I have told pre-meds within my real life network to verify whatever views of UQ with another graduate from real life.

I am just trying to say, really as of now, you got to be worried when someone like Phloston rates JCU above UQ...you know, he's going to influence more future doctors than I do, he is after all a major node in the network.

This is a strange and interesting thread. I have to agree with @pitman that @TaksuHim has been very tangential and... odd in his arguments. I will also take another moment to point out that it was patently obvious that pitman never even remotely implied that TaksuHim was mentally ill, nor that he was QLDKing. The fact that he perseverated on that makes me wonder how much interest he actually has in engaging in a legitimate conversation rather than just coming in to blather on about particular points of his interest. In other words, it seems that he has been talking past everyone else trying to have an actual conversation about this topic.

In regards to the 25% fail rate.... so what? That isn't a real fail rate. You came here to support QLDKing's claim which we have already demonstrated is entirely irrelevant. I mean, suppose every single person failed a rotation. And then they realized that there was some silly error or something outside the students' control that lead to this and amended the problem such that only 2% failed. Are we now going to go on and on about how there was an incredible 100% fail rate? If we are doing a study and come up with a result that shows that 100% of people died from a certain drug and then realized that there was an error in the statistics and in fact only 2% of people died, are we going to go on about how this particular drug kills 100% of people taking it?

And the rest of your points are complete non-points. The kind of conversation someone may have to fill a lull in casual conversation over beers with mates.

As for your acid test... I can't and don't speak for the UQ traddies. But for UQ-O I certainly recommend it as a viable option, though with appropriate caveats and cautions.

 

[sean80439]

I feel like I literally posted in here or the other thread the ACTUAL fail rates from the ACTUAL slides from the ACTUAL BLACKBOARD SOURCES that qldking cited and showed that he wasn't even remotely correct. How is this still an argument?

 

[pitman]

For some I suppose, the meta-argument trumps the evidence.

 

[nybgrus]

in fact, I find it strange that even though I have said essentially the same thing as Phloston about quality of education, and even Pitman said Phloston "could criticise without being deranged about the whole thing". And Phloston's observation is for the cohort after they 'decided to beef up' clinical sciences

And you've been treated essentially the same way that Phloston has. I know Phloston personally IRL. And yet I still argue with him on certain points and I have said many times that while I mostly agree with him in kind, I do not always agree with him in degree and have pointed out those times when that happens. Meaning, I agree with Phloston's general points - same as yours, and precisely as I explicitly said above - but that I believe he is overly negative on the subjective aspects of his critiques. Please, go back and look at all the interactions between myself and Phloston and compare them to how you've been treated here. Ditto for Pitman and Phloston and you. I think you'll find that you've been treated essentially the same.

The difference here, I believe, is twofold. First and foremost you came in saying something very different to what Phloston has ever said - a factual claim about fail rates in support of QLDKing. A specific point that Pitman and I have argued is either wrong or irrelevant. And, as Sean80439 has pointed out, also demonstrably factually wrong. On the other things which you have said "essentially the same thing as Phloston" you've been acknowledged and a more nuanced discussion of the subjective components has ensued.

The second is that you seem to have confused the appropriate vitriol towards QLDKing as aimed towards you. It was not at any point and it is entirely your confusion on the topic that led you to believe it to be the case. That has been pointed out and you have acknowledged it, and yet continue to play the victim here, bemusedly wondering why it is you could be saying the same things and Phloston and yet be treated so differently. I'm sorry TaksuHim but you're only being treated substantially differently to Phloston in your own head from your misapprehensions about the conversations that have been had.

Sure the only difference that I made was discussing the anecdotal cases. However, don't the anecdotal cases show that quality of clinical training was on the down and that there were ppl who were on the worse end of the curve?

No. That is precisely what anecdotes cannot show. They can perhaps give us reason to investigate things further and see if what they imply is actually borne out. But in and of themselves they cannot be showing what you are continuing to try and claim they do. There will, by definition, always be people on the worse end of the curve. Otherwise there wouldn't be a curve. The reason why anecdotes don't demonstrate what you think they do is very simple - you may well have a misrepresentative sample and are erroneously extrapolating that to reflect the whole. It would be like hanging out at the Ritz-Carlton and assuming that your anecdotes about the clientele there are describing how well off the entire city is.

There are a dozen other things that your anecdotes could be telling us, which is why they do not "show that the quality of clinical training was on the down." It could show that people who do poorly are more likely to be vocal about it (a known effect). It could show that the changes in the curriculum may have been an overall benefit but that it was particularly detrimental to a certain subset of the student population. It could show that your friends happen to be poor students. And so on.

The fact that you seem so confused on the role and utility of anecdotes makes me concerned about your ability to parse scientific literature, since these ideas are very basic the the fundamental understanding of science, evidence, and the entire idea of evidence based medicine (e.g. why case studies are about as close to the bottom of the evidence hierarchy as it gets).

And to be clear, you are not being dismissed because you are relating anecdotes. We are merely pointing out the appropriate level of evidence they entail and thus the confidence in conclusions that can be had as a result. We are not arguing that your anecdotes are false or that they tell us nothing at all. We are arguing that you are significantly over valuing the anecdotes and explaining why whilst countering with better and/or equivalent evidence.

now I must admit it is embarrassing that ppl don't know of the triple therapy for H. pylori or do not know the blood supply to the stomach, do they know about the celiac trunk?)

And here is why anecdotes are of very little use: I can regale you with stories about how embarrassing it is for people to not know any of a plethora of things from any medical school. I've interacted with students and graduates from dozens of medical schools and can give you similar such examples left and right. I had a resident who graduated from a respectable US program not know that "PE" meant "pulmonary embolus" and thought it was "pulmonary effusion" and that a VQ scan from a week prior to the onset of symptoms meant that we didn't need to repeat the test since it indicated no embolus back then. Now that's embarrassing. What should we extrapolate from that anecdote? That the medical education at that particular SoM is truly abysmal? Perhaps we can combine our anecdotes and come to the conclusion that all medical education is horribly abysmal and that the entire enterprise is a waste of time.

I find the difference of treatment of me and Phloston quite interesting in terms of the contrast. Did I touch off a raw nerve somewhere?

Because it is worth repeating: no. You did not. And you are not being treated differently to Phloston. You need to take some time and carefully re-read the interactions and/or re-assess how you think Phloston has been treated.

Look, to be cynical, medical school application or whether one should apply to UQ SOM is no different from a consumer consuming a product

No, not really. Because purchasing a product is available to anyone without any qualifications besides merely being able to pay for it in some way. Medical school is actually highly competitive and it is not a possibility for most people to merely pick and choose which SoM to go to out of any like they may be able to pick a TV or sandwich. So there are many more considerations to be made.

Consumers will verify with other consumers and if they are smart, they rather verify with ppl that they know.

And also no. Consumers verify with other consumers because that is human nature. But if one is actually smart (s)he will not let the anecdotes and stories of other consumers unduly sway their assessment of something but do actual objective research. That doesn't mean that consumer stories should be entirely ignored - yet again, anecdotes have their place. But it is far from sufficient and very far from smart to rely on anecdotes from consumers to actually guide decision making. That is how all those BS alternative medicine and weight loss magic pill companies thrive - by plastering their ad copy with anecdote after anecdote to make it sound convincing. The dumb people are the ones that listen to that and then hand over their money. The smart ones are those that actually do some research on real hard evidence and data to make a decision.

It is what graduates and current students say of UQ that matter, and as of now, the ones whose words carry the most weight are recent graduates and current students

Now here you are indeed correct - they do carry a lot of weight. But that doesn't make it correct. It means people erroneously over value the power of the anecdote. Which is important to understand and realize and thus address as I have been doing, but it does not actually bolster or support your contentions. It merely supports the fact that people are more likely to whinge than say nice things and that people place entirely too much value on compelling stories, particularly negative ones. It is to point out a flaw in human cognition, not to demonstrate anything about the reality of the topic at hand.

I will admit that this is an 'anecdote', just to pre-empt any potential dismissals as what I said is an anecdote, but I have not met anyone who will promote UQ SOM to his peers.

LOL. This reminds me of the old expression, "Not to sound insulting but..." and then insulting someone. You cannot magically make an anecdote mean more by acknowledging it is an anecdote up front. Once again, I have no doubt that most (not all, as there is this thing called confirmation bias which we are all prone to) of the people you talked to have no desire to promote UQ. That does not mean it is a representative sample nor does it also then follow that it actually is reflective of the reality of the teaching (or anything else) at UQ. For example 100% of students could say that anatomy teaching is terrible and still be demonstrably wrong. It is unlikely, I agree, if there is such resounding unanimity on the topic, but my point is that you are not only using a surrogate marker (student opinion) but a biased and small sample of a surrogate marker at that.

He is a major node in the network, and you have to be worried when he says "he regrets coming to UQ, the school shortchanges itself with poor assessment, etc"... I am just trying to say, really as of now, you got to be worried when someone like Phloston rates JCU above UQ...you know, he's going to influence more future doctors than I do, he is after all a major node in the network.

Now here you are indeed correct - Phloston does carry some extra weight to his words and that can (and likely has and will continue to) hold some sway with people. That, yet again, does not mean he is actually correct nor that he should hold so much sway. That said, I do and have overall agreed with many of his points but feel he is overly harsh and that his experience is not entirely representative. Hence our discussions where I attempt to balance out the subjective component of his views whilst acknowledging the parts that I agree with and the parts that have evidence to support them (which is honestly most of it, but not all of it).

So this is yet again another non-argument. Pointing out that Phloston holds sway and has said some negative things doesn't actually address the actual topics at hand in this thread. It is merely a part of the discussion, not the conclusion and totality of it.

 

[TaksuHim]

If the difference in treatment between me and QldKing is because I chimed in with the fact about the failure for Obs/gynae is about 25%, I think you guys have some serious issues that need sorting out, plus I came in with facts of the case. As in, I perceive that there is much vitriol between both sides that anyone that backs up QldKing with evidence will get a reaction. Sure, you said it's a non-argument if you want to base on failure rates after supps, I have not pursued the point further and I acknowledged your point on absolute failure rates after supps even saying that the failure numbers were more respectable after electronic course profile changes, except that when you and Pitman keep talking about it and bringing up, I keep stressing what I have given were the facts of the case. My feedback to you is to be less personal, because I think your reaction towards me is personal based on your past experience with QldKing, for better or worse, if someone else comes and back up what QldKing presented, I believe he or she would get the same reaction like I do. If you want me to pursue the point further, here you go, with some more details from the coordinator. You want me to add further facts? When the Obs/gynae coordinator/professor talked to us about the 25% failure rate for first rotation, he did mention that the expectations of the markers were high, in fact actually, the expectations for previous batches (before 2014) were higher than the current batch (the rotation 1 students with the 25% failures) that they relaxed them. Now, you have to recall that I mentioned about AMC clinical OSCEs versus our end of year OSCEs, when we went through the failure cases for those who have failed - we felt that the markers could be well applying similar to AMC standards for clinicals. Because in the fail cases, they have missed out critical steps, steps in the AMC clinical handbook if not done will result in a critical fail. Actually, the Obs/gynae case, especially the facts of it adds weight to Phloston's arguments - are graduates of UQ med even ready for life beyond MBBS graduation? So here you go. I hope you and Pitman can react to this objectively. Now, it would depend on which standpoint you take, for someone from AMC or MDANZ boards, standards of the markers could be taken to be reasonable because AMC clinical standards reflect that expected of a prospective MBBS graduate from Australian medical schools. Now, the school changed the electronic course profile to less stringent ones, and more ended up passing. In fact, this is no longer an anecdotal observation. It is directly from someone who has been through cohorts of students taking Ob/gynae students. In fact, when I checked with Bond University final year students, they always had the concept of critical fail in their final year OSCE, similar to AMC standards. If you check the critical fail section of AMC clinicals, they are actually quite reasonable, they are steps that any safe doctor ought to have taken. Ok, I will say this, let's bury and put to bed the argument of failure rate of 25% from QldKing's angle, and go now into the territory of discussing whether are graduates of UQ SOM ready, i.e. quality of education at UQ?

I have said many times, quality of education is dependent on feedback of consultants, I have said my piece with an impassioned observation of clinical skills in another country with consultants who MBBS from institutions outside Australia, free of the bias against certain Qld medical schools and Australian medical school politicking.

As for Pitman and yourself, I am not sure how much one will ascribe credibility to what you guys say about UQ SOM if one does the his due research. Both yourself and in Pitman's own words were formerly in Oschner SA and UQMS respectively. If OMSA, as you said have an MOU with UQMS, I would imagine you guys also have a policy of working with SOM, as in there is also an interest not to go on a collision course with the SOM and in some cases collaborate with the school. That's why yours and Pitman's position are no stranger to me. In other words, your objectivity will be questioned given the positions you are in. Furthermore, what you can speak for is Oschner situation.

I do think there is truth in Phloston's assertions.

And you've been treated essentially the same way that Phloston has. I know Phloston personally IRL. And yet I still argue with him on certain points and I have said many times that while I mostly agree with him in kind, I do not always agree with him in degree and have pointed out those times when that happens. Meaning, I agree with Phloston's general points - same as yours, and precisely as I explicitly said above - but that I believe he is overly negative on the subjective aspects of his critiques. Please, go back and look at all the interactions between myself and Phloston and compare them to how you've been treated here. Ditto for Pitman and Phloston and you. I think you'll find that you've been treated essentially the same.

The difference here, I believe, is twofold. First and foremost you came in saying something very different to what Phloston has ever said - a factual claim about fail rates in support of QLDKing. A specific point that Pitman and I have argued is either wrong or irrelevant. And, as Sean80439 has pointed out, also demonstrably factually wrong. On the other things which you have said "essentially the same thing as Phloston" you've been acknowledged and a more nuanced discussion of the subjective components has ensued.

The second is that you seem to have confused the appropriate vitriol towards QLDKing as aimed towards you. It was not at any point and it is entirely your confusion on the topic that led you to believe it to be the case. That has been pointed out and you have acknowledged it, and yet continue to play the victim here, bemusedly wondering why it is you could be saying the same things and Phloston and yet be treated so differently. I'm sorry TaksuHim but you're only being treated substantially differently to Phloston in your own head from your misapprehensions about the conversations that have been had.



No. That is precisely what anecdotes cannot show. They can perhaps give us reason to investigate things further and see if what they imply is actually borne out. But in and of themselves they cannot be showing what you are continuing to try and claim they do. There will, by definition, always be people on the worse end of the curve. Otherwise there wouldn't be a curve. The reason why anecdotes don't demonstrate what you think they do is very simple - you may well have a misrepresentative sample and are erroneously extrapolating that to reflect the whole. It would be like hanging out at the Ritz-Carlton and assuming that your anecdotes about the clientele there are describing how well off the entire city is.

There are a dozen other things that your anecdotes could be telling us, which is why they do not "show that the quality of clinical training was on the down." It could show that people who do poorly are more likely to be vocal about it (a known effect). It could show that the changes in the curriculum may have been an overall benefit but that it was particularly detrimental to a certain subset of the student population. It could show that your friends happen to be poor students. And so on.

The fact that you seem so confused on the role and utility of anecdotes makes me concerned about your ability to parse scientific literature, since these ideas are very basic the the fundamental understanding of science, evidence, and the entire idea of evidence based medicine (e.g. why case studies are about as close to the bottom of the evidence hierarchy as it gets).

And to be clear, you are not being dismissed because you are relating anecdotes. We are merely pointing out the appropriate level of evidence they entail and thus the confidence in conclusions that can be had as a result. We are not arguing that your anecdotes are false or that they tell us nothing at all. We are arguing that you are significantly over valuing the anecdotes and explaining why whilst countering with better and/or equivalent evidence.



And here is why anecdotes are of very little use: I can regale you with stories about how embarrassing it is for people to not know any of a plethora of things from any medical school. I've interacted with students and graduates from dozens of medical schools and can give you similar such examples left and right. I had a resident who graduated from a respectable US program not know that "PE" meant "pulmonary embolus" and thought it was "pulmonary effusion" and that a VQ scan from a week prior to the onset of symptoms meant that we didn't need to repeat the test since it indicated no embolus back then. Now that's embarrassing. What should we extrapolate from that anecdote? That the medical education at that particular SoM is truly abysmal? Perhaps we can combine our anecdotes and come to the conclusion that all medical education is horribly abysmal and that the entire enterprise is a waste of time.



Because it is worth repeating: no. You did not. And you are not being treated differently to Phloston. You need to take some time and carefully re-read the interactions and/or re-assess how you think Phloston has been treated.



No, not really. Because purchasing a product is available to anyone without any qualifications besides merely being able to pay for it in some way. Medical school is actually highly competitive and it is not a possibility for most people to merely pick and choose which SoM to go to out of any like they may be able to pick a TV or sandwich. So there are many more considerations to be made.



And also no. Consumers verify with other consumers because that is human nature. But if one is actually smart (s)he will not let the anecdotes and stories of other consumers unduly sway their assessment of something but do actual objective research. That doesn't mean that consumer stories should be entirely ignored - yet again, anecdotes have their place. But it is far from sufficient and very far from smart to rely on anecdotes from consumers to actually guide decision making. That is how all those BS alternative medicine and weight loss magic pill companies thrive - by plastering their ad copy with anecdote after anecdote to make it sound convincing. The dumb people are the ones that listen to that and then hand over their money. The smart ones are those that actually do some research on real hard evidence and data to make a decision.



Now here you are indeed correct - they do carry a lot of weight. But that doesn't make it correct. It means people erroneously over value the power of the anecdote. Which is important to understand and realize and thus address as I have been doing, but it does not actually bolster or support your contentions. It merely supports the fact that people are more likely to whinge than say nice things and that people place entirely too much value on compelling stories, particularly negative ones. It is to point out a flaw in human cognition, not to demonstrate anything about the reality of the topic at hand.



LOL. This reminds me of the old expression, "Not to sound insulting but..." and then insulting someone. You cannot magically make an anecdote mean more by acknowledging it is an anecdote up front. Once again, I have no doubt that most (not all, as there is this thing called confirmation bias which we are all prone to) of the people you talked to have no desire to promote UQ. That does not mean it is a representative sample nor does it also then follow that it actually is reflective of the reality of the teaching (or anything else) at UQ. For example 100% of students could say that anatomy teaching is terrible and still be demonstrably wrong. It is unlikely, I agree, if there is such resounding unanimity on the topic, but my point is that you are not only using a surrogate marker (student opinion) but a biased and small sample of a surrogate marker at that.



Now here you are indeed correct - Phloston does carry some extra weight to his words and that can (and likely has and will continue to) hold some sway with people. That, yet again, does not mean he is actually correct nor that he should hold so much sway. That said, I do and have overall agreed with many of his points but feel he is overly harsh and that his experience is not entirely representative. Hence our discussions where I attempt to balance out the subjective component of his views whilst acknowledging the parts that I agree with and the parts that have evidence to support them (which is honestly most of it, but not all of it).

So this is yet again another non-argument. Pointing out that Phloston holds sway and has said some negative things doesn't actually address the actual topics at hand in this thread. It is merely a part of the discussion, not the conclusion and totality of it.

 

[sean80439]

Taksuhim I urge you to actually take a stats class.

 

[pitman]

If the difference in treatment between me and QldKing is because I chimed in with the fact about the failure for Obs/gynae is about 25%, I think...

Dude, are you aware that this is a thread that was started with specific questions about domestic applications, that it went off track because of qldking's trolling, manufactured claims such as outrageously high rotation fail rates, that it's long been acknlowledged that there have been on occasion high initial exam "fail" rates that were subsequently reduced, and that your repetitive, long-winded opinions and anecdotes on the quality and perceived reputation of UQ training are both way off-topic (off even the off-topic) and yet have been addressed ad nauseum?

I have no idea what further you're trying to say in your gratuitous underlined points. Who are you arguing with? What are you arguing? If it's not topical, then post it somewhere where it is, and be more concise and directed so that you don't confuse everyone including yourself. It's bad enough that we have trolls coming into threads and derailing them -- take the hint please.

 

[pitman]

Both yourself and in Pitman's own words were formerly in Oschner SA and UQMS respectively. If OMSA, as you said have an MOU with UQMS, I would imagine you guys also have a policy of working with SOM, as in there is also an interest not to go on a collision course with the SOM and in some cases collaborate with the school. That's why yours and Pitman's position are no stranger to me. In other words, your objectivity will be questioned given the positions you are in.

Now you're simply pissing me off. First you apologize for the suggestion that I and/or nybgrus may have some agenda (to support the SoM) based on our responses that we were involved in student representation, and now you go back to that really stupid and illogical idea that because we were both heavily involved that our integrity should be questioned. You seriously want to flake out and go there?

Your experiences, and your opinion of the quality of UQ training, are one thing. Your illogical assumption that your opinion or anecdotes imply reality is another. But you have veered into the outright delusional. You clearly know absolutely nothing of student representation, or of politics. You clearly weren't around when either of us lobbied for student interests, and you clearly haven't cared enough to pay attention to the documented history of it. And you are being paranoid to believe that beyond such a circular closed belief trap, even *now*, as graduates, I or nybgrus would have some reason to be cheerleaders for the SoM based off of our prior commitment to STUDENT REPRESENTATION AND ADVOCACY. What a ridiculously irrational non-sequitor.

That's like saying that because someone is a student at UQ, we can't trust a damned thing he says because...he's a student at UQ and could be blackballed. And then when he graduates, he can't be trusted because...he was a student at UQ. Except that a random student also doesn't have a clue as to how and why the school or UQMS or OMSA functions or how to change how it functions, because he was never involved. So we should trust only non-students...

You know who the only other person is I can recall ever making such an absurd and opportunistic claim? Qldking. Not that you're him. But seriously. Think.

 

[qldking]

No one is buying what you're trying to sell here, pitman.

Give it up.

Your only backup is a guy who never attended courses in years 1 and 2 and completed a total of one rotation in Australia.

You have no credibility. Stop the ad hominems and actually confront the legitimate arguments posed by everyone except for yourself.

 

[pitman]

Go away, troll.

 

[nybgrus]

I'm sorry TaksuHim but I am done with attempting dialogue with you. My mind is boggled at your responses... or rather non-responses. You are a broken record with very little interesting to add. You perceive insult and slight where there is none. Since you have literally nothing to say except the same few long paragraphs that you keep repeating over and over you finally decide to try and indict myself and pitman for having been involved in student representation to mean that we are less reliable sources of information. All while the both of us have been patiently, objectively, and neutrally responding to your points in a careful and thought out manner. And continuing to hammer the complete non-point of a 25% failure rate in O&G, and then admitting you understand that this number is irrelevant, and then bringing it up again. Seriously?

As Pitman said: what is your point? What is your goal here? The idea of failures has been put to bed - neither you nor QLDKing has any actual data to back you up and Sean80439 has provided clear evidence that QLDKing's claims are false. Beyond that you have a subjective and anecdotal whinge about the quality of instruction and a few other things at UQ. A number of which I have already agreed with. But because we don't agree with you 100% you now decide that our affiliation with UQMS and OMSA means everything we say is questionable.

You simply haven't thought this through very well and are just going on half-cocked ideas and incomplete information. An MOU with UQMS means that OMSA deals with the SoM? How about the simple fact that OMSA exists means we deal with the SoM? And your continued inability to grasp what an anecdote is and what that means is troubling; how do you evaluate medical literature if you can't grasp these simple concepts in a more pragmatic discussion?

And your grand conclusion?

I do think there is truth in Phloston's assertions.

Oh really? So clearly, given all the logorrhea preceding your conclusion, I must be at loggerheads with you? So what did I say on the topic?

That said, I do and have overall agreed with many of his [Phloston's]points but feel he is overly harsh and that his experience is not entirely representative.

So what are you arguing against here TaksuHim?

(the question contained herein are rhetorical and for others following along; as I said at the start I have little interest in trying to have a 1-sided dialogue and I have done this sort of thing enough to realize when that is all my interlocutor has to offer)

 

[TaksuHim]

There is no reason to get emo over this thread, even the most dedicated of UQ alumni I have met in real life could break into a laugh over beers in the face of the most vitriolic and vituperative comments over UQ SOM.

Look, I think with your fixation on disproving QldKing both Nybrus and youself inevitably pushed yourselves into a corner with continued pursuing with QldKing's assertion of Obs/Gynae fail rates.

I didn't elaborate on arguments like UQ was pretty late in beefing up clinical sciences because to be honest, elaborating everything would be embarrassing on UQ SOM. Plus the parts about AMC clinicals standards vs UQ OSCEs standards. It looks like I have no choice but to connect the dots to make it more apparent for you guys.

I will add in some background information too. Let's take 2010 as a year yardstick. Suppose we go back to the earlier post in this sequence:

1) QLDking makes the assertion that UQ SOM fails too many students in Obs/gynae
2) I come in and verify that QldKing was right that many students fail in the first instance before electronic course profile changes.
3) Head of Obs/gynae feedbacked that previous years, the pass expectations were higher than in rotation 1 for 2014. They did indeed relax it. In fact, this is the truth.
4) Later in July and August, Obs/gynae rotation head relaxed the pass requirements as stated in the electronic course profile, which in other words is more relaxed than in previous years.
5) Even though this put to bed the assertion that UQ fails too many students, however, it raises another important question ( in fact the most important one) about whether UQ grads have met the standard of a typical Australian MBBS graduate, referenced by AMC science and clinical examination criteria. Furthermore, the Head of Obs/gynae did feedback that students who did badly missed out certain important points in their OSCEs, which was reasonable, since AMC clinical exams have a critical fail criteria, and which is followed in end of medical school OSCEs by other medical schools like Bond. Hence, you also have to address the quality of medical education angle, i.e. is UQ producing graduates who are adequate interns? The question is whether you want to entrust the lives of Aussie members of public into the hands of these interns?

Point 3 is an important one, and this is a truth, previous years, even for other clinical rotations besides for Obs/gynae, the requirements to pass a rotation was much higher - you have to pass all components, whereas for recent years, you can fail one component of the rotation and still get a 4/7 grade, which is an irony given that the recent era is when they decidedly beefed up clinical science. The observation by graduates before the 2010 era that the requirements to pass clinical rotations was much higher was spot on, and therein lies the irony. This coincided with the burgeoning of medical student numbers.

In fact, PagingDr forum was frank in its assessment that medical education of undergraduates is going to be affected with burgeoning numbers, and with it quality of medical education. I did see a Pitman in that thread, but I am not sure if it is the same Pitman here. It was a generally agreed consensus there. In fact, I find the rejection of anecdotes by Nybrus rather interesting especially when they were a manifestation of a decline in quality of medical education, a fact that was recognised by posters at PagingDr forum, who are mainly Aussie doctors, medical students and iterns.


Now, allow me to address the beefing up of the clinical sciences part. Medical administration 101, if you want to institute changes in a medical school, don't expect the first round of changes to be perfect, in fact there is going to be teething problems, especially in a cash-strapped school like UQ SOM who cannot hire someone to look at the syllabus and ensure QC of the materials we are examined on. The split of coursework into modular components only happened in 2012 (who will graduate in 2014), for the first cohort in which IFOM/MDANZ was planned to be summative. UQ SOM had IFOM exam but made formative in previous years before 2014. Medical deans of Australia and NZ medical schools were already pushing towards a national assessment framework in 2009, so why can't the split of coursework into modular components be implemented in 2010 at least (who will graduate in 2012)? Any teething problems can be ironed out in preparation for the first batch to take the IFOM/MDANZ summative. In terms of Medical Administration 101, it appears the school was just being reactive in the knowledge that it has to prepare the first cohort to take the summative IFOM/MDANZ , rather than being pro-active in preparing for that eventuality. That's why I say both are you are giving UQ SOM more credit than it deserves. Believe me, you will still run into teething problems for 2015 for the reason that you beefed up the sciences late in the game.

And it seems even with the beefing up clinical science bit, the standards for passing clinical rotations were dropped as compared with previous years. However, regardless, the questions remain if we are letting unsafe interns through the door, who will otherwise be screened out.

I am sure you have heard Nybrus speaking of 'anecdotes' where ppl who are supposed to fail end up passing.. I can add to that anecdote. When I did post-MDANZ discussion with friends, I was surprised at the dearth of knowledge exhibited by some graduates even when it came to triaging a simple case of suspected pulmonary embolism in an ED vignette according to the Well's criteria. Mind you, these people are going to treat the Aussie public, and it's indeed worrying. In fact, the quality of medical education is affected that I dare say we are releasing a number of graduates who probably need a lot of hand-holding and close supervision.

Phloston has given his observations and I have backed it up with a longitudinal objective feedback of UQ grads in a country assessed by consultants who are free of Australian and NZ medical school politicking bias.

Hence to summarise my points -
1) UQ takes in too many students with quality of medical education as a compromise
2) UQ was very late in the game in terms of beefing up the clinical science part, only done for the first batch who will take IFOM/MDANZ summative, with the inevitable that there is always going to be teething problems, which is always going to impact on quality of education, that's why you get ppl who don't know about H Pylori treatment through to clinical years.
3) Relaxation of requirements to pass clinical rotations as compared with previous years also raises the question of whether we may allow 'unsafe' grads through the door.
4) Perceived discrepany between AMC clinicals OSCE standards, technically the standard expected of an MBBS graduate, and that of UQ SOM, and the example of Obs/gynae rotation 1 last year where 25% failed, also raises the question of whether UQ SOM OSCEs have fulfilled AMC technical expectation of an Aussie MBBS graduate.

In previous threads, I thought you and Nybrus had realised the other implication of UQ SOM relaxing the requirements for passing UQ SOM until the both of you kept haranguing me on it, that I realised you guys probably did not realise the other implication.


In fact, I would like to take things further. Seems someone see it fit to talk of statistics, we have done a few surveys, especially a survey before my end of year OSCE, but no one has asked this question - if students were to evaluate their UQ SOM passage, how much would they attribute the passage to their own effort EXTERNAL to the UQ curriculum. I already know Phloston's answer. Medical education at UQ SOM for some anecdotes is like buying a second tier brand of car, and not relying on its engine but modifying it yourself DIY style to a Ferrari engine. Sounds blunt?

It appears if you want to be a good clinician if you are in UQ SOM, you need to make your own arrangements, catered to your own medical education outside of the UQ SOM curriculum.

Like I said, there's nothing to be emo about. What really matters is that members of the Aussie public will be safely treated by interns that UQ SOM releases into the world. This issue, one should never lose track of.

Dude, are you aware that this is a thread that was started with specific questions about domestic applications, that it went off track because of qldking's trolling, manufactured claims such as outrageously high rotation fail rates, that it's long been acknlowledged that there have been on occasion high initial exam "fail" rates that were subsequently reduced, and that your repetitive, long-winded opinions and anecdotes on the quality and perceived reputation of UQ training are both way off-topic (off even the off-topic) and yet have been addressed ad nauseum?

I have no idea what further you're trying to say in your gratuitous underlined points. Who are you arguing with? What are you arguing? If it's not topical, then post it somewhere where it is, and be more concise and directed so that you don't confuse everyone including yourself. It's bad enough that we have trolls coming into threads and derailing them -- take the hint please.

 

[nybgrus]

Look, I think with your fixation on disproving QldKing both Nybrus and youself inevitably pushed yourselves into a corner with continued pursuing with QldKing's assertion of Obs/Gynae fail rates.

No, not at all. We have no fixation on disproving QLDKing. We have an interest in providing both accurate and as fairly balanced as possible information. Period. It just so happens that trolly king tends to spout off a lot of inaccurate and unbalanced information.

QLDking makes the assertion that UQ SOM fails too many students in Obs/gynae

No, not quite. He made the assertion that UQ SoM fails too many students period. He used O&G and IIRC peds as examples. His examples were shown to be internally logically inconsistent. Then Sean came along and provided much more information which unequivocally demonstrated QLDKing's assertions false. Then you came along very late in the game and added a point about O&G which, from the very beginning, was a fact completely irrelevant to the discussion. And even irrelevant to the main topic of this thread. It then took you a number of back and forths to realize why your point was irrelevant but by then you had become so vested in the point that you started focusing more on your side points and bringing up others, obfuscating (intentionally or not) the entire conversation thus far, and letting a whole side conversation spin massively out of control. You also seem to have latched on to this idea that the conversation betwixt myself, Pitman, and QLDKing is in any way personal. It is not.

I come in and verify that QldKing was right that many students fail in the first instance before electronic course profile changes.

Exactly wrong. You verified nothing. You provided a factoid entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Which should have easily been known prior to posting anything in the first place. The fact that you perseverate on this is part and parcel with my previous paragraph.

Even though this put to bed the assertion that UQ fails too many students, however, it raises another important question

And here is your hijacking of the thread, conveniently muddied up with everything else mentioned above.

It was a generally agreed consensus there. In fact, I find the rejection of anecdotes by Nybrus rather interesting especially when they were a manifestation of a decline in quality of medical education, a fact that was recognised by posters at PagingDr forum, who are mainly Aussie doctors, medical students and iterns.

And you yet again make me concerned for your ability to read and synthesize scientific evidence and data.

I do not reject your anecdotes. I have, in fact, very clearly and unambiguously stated so. As has Pitman.

I have merely been relegating them to the proper level of evidence. Which you seem to not be able to get for some reason. Perhaps I have been unclear. I'll try again

If you tried to convince me of a point you would bring evidence to bear. If you had a really well done RCT that was well powered anecdotes that contradicted it would rightly be dismissed as some sort of fluke, after some moderate consideration. If I had a meta analysis that went against your RCT it would then be trumped. If two RCT's were opposed we'd be at a bit of a stalemate and we'd have to argue some finer points and make a tentative decision as to which RCT is more likely to be correct and hold confidence in that conclusion concordant with the level of evidence.

So when you offer anecdotes those can be trumped by actual data, logical inconsistency, or even better (more reasonably authoritative) anecdotes (like RCT to RCT). So I respond to your anecdotes with my own anecdotes, some of which are decidedly more authoritative, as well as data. Which trumps your anecdotes.

Which is why I reject your conclusions (some of them, anyways, do note that we have agreed on a fair amount as well, yet you continually ignore that to repeat your own anecdotes ad nauseum). But I don't reject your anecdotes.

UQ SOM had IFOM exam but made formative in previous years before 2014. Medical deans of Australia and NZ medical schools were already pushing towards a national assessment framework in 2009, so why can't the split of coursework into modular components be implemented in 2010 at least (who will graduate in 2012)? Any teething problems can be ironed out in preparation for the first batch to take the IFOM/MDANZ summative

I almost can't be bothered to respond, but it seems a worthwhile point to make here. You are making a couple very important and implicit assumptions that may not be true (and, based on relevant data, personal experience, and yes, anecdotes believe it likely to be false). Namely that the time frame you decided is more reasonable and that teething problems can so easily be ironed out.

The Ochsner program started out fairly rocky - ironing out those kinks on the fly. And growing rapidly, along with curriculum changes on the way. Which managed to end up working out quite well. But it left a number of students overworked, overstressed, decidedly unhappy, and required significant amounts of work (such as starting and running OMSA, amongst myriad else).

So if they had followed your timeline, some other string of problems would have been very likely to arise. And instead of whinging about how UQ was slow you could be whinging about how unprepared they were or any number of other things.

In other words, this is just like, well, you know, your opinion man, along with a few scattered factoids and some at least questionable implicit assumptions.

Mind you, these people are going to treat the Aussie public, and it's indeed worrying.

Not exactly. They'll be interns in Australia, which is very little beyond a 5th year of med school. Glorified med student status, with plenty of supervision. In the US, a very different story. Not to say that we shouldn't be striving to do better regardless. And not to say that it hasn't gotten worse, at least in some ways. But it has also gotten better in some ways. And for the way Aussie internship works, my impression is that it is still at least minimally good enough. Heck, clearly it is good enough for some since all of the traditional students from UQ that have matched at Ochsner are doing extremely well. And plenty have matched at other competitive programs across the US.

Phloston has given his observations and I have backed it up with a longitudinal objective feedback of UQ grads in a country assessed by consultants who are free of Australian and NZ medical school politicking bias.

No, no you haven't. Objective? Hardly! You've given us your stories about a necessarily small and very likely biased sample of people. Which makes them subjective and, while interesting, hardly "longitudinal" and "free from bias."

Once again, I question your ability to read scientific literature if you can describe what you have put on offer here as "longitudinal objective feedback" and without bias.

Seems someone see it fit to talk of statistics, we have done a few surveys, especially a survey before my end of year OSCE

Even that survey wouldn't be particularly good evidence of anything, but it would be better than what else you've put on offer here. And you don't even have that to bring to the table.

but no one has asked this question - if students were to evaluate their UQ SOM passage, how much would they attribute the passage to their own effort EXTERNAL to the UQ curriculum. I already know Phloston's answer. Medical education at UQ SOM for some anecdotes is like buying a second tier brand of car, and not relying on its engine but modifying it yourself DIY style to a Ferrari engine. Sounds blunt?

You know what else would be interesting? Asking that same question in surveys at medical schools around the globe. Because at all medical schools, most of what you get out of med school and you can attribute your success to is external to the curriculum. Some more than others. So what is not interesting is what portion of students would attribute success at UQ to efforts external to the curriculum, but how that would compare to other medical schools. And based on evidence just as good as yours (in other words, anecdotes, and some sparse data) I would argue that UQ is probably on the wrong side of the mean on that bell curve but within a standard deviation or so of it.

I would say that the vast majority of my medical education was external to the UQ curriculum. But then I also did a lot of my own studying on a wide variety of topics for my own interest. And spent more time studying than the average student. My friend who graduated from Chicago Medical School and matched at a top 10 ophthal program in the US would say exactly the same. And he has shared with me plenty of whinge fests about his SoM. And so it is with other SoM's.

And not everyone gets the USMLE scores that I got and extraordinarily few get Phloston's scores. So how much of his passage would be attributable as external to the UQ curriculum?

It appears if you want to be a good clinician if you are in UQ SOM, you need to make your own arrangements, catered to your own medical education outside of the UQ SOM curriculum.

And this is arguably true for all but a handful of SoM's across the world.

Like I said, there's nothing to be emo about. What really matters is that members of the Aussie public will be safely treated by interns that UQ SOM releases into the world. This issue, one should never lose track of.

Yes and there is nothing to get hyperbolic and melodramatic about. Staying on topic helps too.

 

[pitman]

I didn't elaborate on arguments like UQ was pretty late in beefing up clinical sciences because to be honest, elaborating everything would be embarrassing on UQ SOM.

Um. Yeah. So first you say that you were bringing up all your criticisms in the hope that the SoM would be 'listening' in so that it could improve (bizarre in itself), but now you say that really, you've been holding back from mentioning similar problems you see with the clinical sciences, because you wouldn't want to embarrass the school?

What a load of hogwash.

Such blatant contradictions and flip-flops (like on whether nybgrus' and my past makes us better or worse sources) tell people that fundamentally you are either thinking incoherently or are being insincere. Either way, there does not seem to be any point in further addressing your repetitive, meandering associations.

 

[TaksuHim]

I agree with the part that they should ask every medical graduate from medical schools in the world how much are due to their own efforts, except that I say in UQ SOM, how much is due to their self study. So if we compare someone from Uni of Melbourne and UQ SOM, how much is the passage do each graduate from his own medical school attribute to external studying? 80% in UQ case, versus 60% in Uni Mel case?

Actually if you talk of statistics, we also do not have statistics from the Qld side. The only interesting publication on NCBI was on performance on IFOM, which we could discount as students were not serious about it. The results do not look too rosy, however, SOM gets the benefit of doubt as students were not too serious. Neither have i seen any statistics from your end. I agree, the pyramid of EBM, meta analysis are at the top, but so far, you are only talking about case series versus my case series. However, your case series are Oschner cohort when we are discussing Brisbane cohort.

However, there is nothing I could find on clinical skills, or quality that of that UQ SOM has published. IFOM, the equivalent of USMLE step 1 and 2 CK are not clinical exams.

Which brings me to the next point. Are you in the know of AMC clinical exams, which is technically, the exam that a safe MBBS graduate in Australia could clear, which is imposed on all IMGs? I do not think anyone who is bent on settling in America to practise like yourself need to bother yourself with AMC exams.

However, AMCs are not equal to USMLE step 2 CS.

In fact, no one has discussed about AMC exams standards versus UQ SOM OSCE expectations. As I said, the only concerning thing about the 25% failure rate for O and G was whether students were at the expected level. In fact, I was very hesitant to talk of it.

No, not at all. We have no fixation on disproving QLDKing. We have an interest in providing both accurate and as fairly balanced as possible information. Period. It just so happens that trolly king tends to spout off a lot of inaccurate and unbalanced information.



No, not quite. He made the assertion that UQ SoM fails too many students period. He used O&G and IIRC peds as examples. His examples were shown to be internally logically inconsistent. Then Sean came along and provided much more information which unequivocally demonstrated QLDKing's assertions false. Then you came along very late in the game and added a point about O&G which, from the very beginning, was a fact completely irrelevant to the discussion. And even irrelevant to the main topic of this thread. It then took you a number of back and forths to realize why your point was irrelevant but by then you had become so vested in the point that you started focusing more on your side points and bringing up others, obfuscating (intentionally or not) the entire conversation thus far, and letting a whole side conversation spin massively out of control. You also seem to have latched on to this idea that the conversation betwixt myself, Pitman, and QLDKing is in any way personal. It is not.



Exactly wrong. You verified nothing. You provided a factoid entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Which should have easily been known prior to posting anything in the first place. The fact that you perseverate on this is part and parcel with my previous paragraph.



And here is your hijacking of the thread, conveniently muddied up with everything else mentioned above.



And you yet again make me concerned for your ability to read and synthesize scientific evidence and data.

I do not reject your anecdotes. I have, in fact, very clearly and unambiguously stated so. As has Pitman.

I have merely been relegating them to the proper level of evidence. Which you seem to not be able to get for some reason. Perhaps I have been unclear. I'll try again

If you tried to convince me of a point you would bring evidence to bear. If you had a really well done RCT that was well powered anecdotes that contradicted it would rightly be dismissed as some sort of fluke, after some moderate consideration. If I had a meta analysis that went against your RCT it would then be trumped. If two RCT's were opposed we'd be at a bit of a stalemate and we'd have to argue some finer points and make a tentative decision as to which RCT is more likely to be correct and hold confidence in that conclusion concordant with the level of evidence.

So when you offer anecdotes those can be trumped by actual data, logical inconsistency, or even better (more reasonably authoritative) anecdotes (like RCT to RCT). So I respond to your anecdotes with my own anecdotes, some of which are decidedly more authoritative, as well as data. Which trumps your anecdotes.

Which is why I reject your conclusions (some of them, anyways, do note that we have agreed on a fair amount as well, yet you continually ignore that to repeat your own anecdotes ad nauseum). But I don't reject your anecdotes.



I almost can't be bothered to respond, but it seems a worthwhile point to make here. You are making a couple very important and implicit assumptions that may not be true (and, based on relevant data, personal experience, and yes, anecdotes believe it likely to be false). Namely that the time frame you decided is more reasonable and that teething problems can so easily be ironed out.

The Ochsner program started out fairly rocky - ironing out those kinks on the fly. And growing rapidly, along with curriculum changes on the way. Which managed to end up working out quite well. But it left a number of students overworked, overstressed, decidedly unhappy, and required significant amounts of work (such as starting and running OMSA, amongst myriad else).

So if they had followed your timeline, some other string of problems would have been very likely to arise. And instead of whinging about how UQ was slow you could be whinging about how unprepared they were or any number of other things.

In other words, this is just like, well, you know, your opinion man, along with a few scattered factoids and some at least questionable implicit assumptions.



Not exactly. They'll be interns in Australia, which is very little beyond a 5th year of med school. Glorified med student status, with plenty of supervision. In the US, a very different story. Not to say that we shouldn't be striving to do better regardless. And not to say that it hasn't gotten worse, at least in some ways. But it has also gotten better in some ways. And for the way Aussie internship works, my impression is that it is still at least minimally good enough. Heck, clearly it is good enough for some since all of the traditional students from UQ that have matched at Ochsner are doing extremely well. And plenty have matched at other competitive programs across the US.



No, no you haven't. Objective? Hardly! You've given us your stories about a necessarily small and very likely biased sample of people. Which makes them subjective and, while interesting, hardly "longitudinal" and "free from bias."

Once again, I question your ability to read scientific literature if you can describe what you have put on offer here as "longitudinal objective feedback" and without bias.



Even that survey wouldn't be particularly good evidence of anything, but it would be better than what else you've put on offer here. And you don't even have that to bring to the table.



You know what else would be interesting? Asking that same question in surveys at medical schools around the globe. Because at all medical schools, most of what you get out of med school and you can attribute your success to is external to the curriculum. Some more than others. So what is not interesting is what portion of students would attribute success at UQ to efforts external to the curriculum, but how that would compare to other medical schools. And based on evidence just as good as yours (in other words, anecdotes, and some sparse data) I would argue that UQ is probably on the wrong side of the mean on that bell curve but within a standard deviation or so of it.

I would say that the vast majority of my medical education was external to the UQ curriculum. But then I also did a lot of my own studying on a wide variety of topics for my own interest. And spent more time studying than the average student. My friend who graduated from Chicago Medical School and matched at a top 10 ophthal program in the US would say exactly the same. And he has shared with me plenty of whinge fests about his SoM. And so it is with other SoM's.

And not everyone gets the USMLE scores that I got and extraordinarily few get Phloston's scores. So how much of his passage would be attributable as external to the UQ curriculum?



And this is arguably true for all but a handful of SoM's across the world.



Yes and there is nothing to get hyperbolic and melodramatic about. Staying on topic helps too.

 

[sean80439]

In fact, no one has discussed about AMC exams standards versus UQ SOM OSCE expectations. As I said, the only concerning thing about the 25% failure rate for O and G was whether students were at the expected level. In fact, I was very hesitant to talk of it.

Do you just ignore posts/facts and make up your own fake stats? I am tired of reading this over and over again. It isn't EVEN TRUE.

 

[sean80439]

In fact, if you are a practicing physician, and I said this about qldking earlier, then your agenda here and your inability to comprehend basic statistics and arguments makes me very fearful of your patients. I hope your ignorance doesn't end up in causing someone harm.

 

[qldking]

You've never posted any legitimate statistics yourself, Sean.

You posted one year's results of General Surgery and ignored the three years I posted off of Blackboard, which was corroborated by phloston, as was my assertion of Year 4 Pediatrics.

You only seem to chime in with generic 1-2 sentence comments so I don't take you seriously, but please try at least to be somewhat relevant here.

 

[sean80439]

Pretty sure I posted all 4 years. You didn't post anything other than the 1 year. What the hell, do I live in some sort of alternate reality with you? I don't see a need to make long winded responses to people who literally have no competent arguments. It is far too much effort to waste on people like you.

 

[sean80439]

And legitimate.. are you KIDDING me. It was from the blackboard slides.

 

[sean80439]

Students
Years: 410 (2010); 443 (2011); 479 (2012); 470 (2013)
Did not complete: 1 (2010); 2 (2011); 0(2012); 0 (2013)
Supplementaries: 10 (2.4%) (2010); 24 (5%) (2011); 54 (11%) (2012); 17 (3.6%) (2013)
Fails: 2 (0.5%) (2010); 19 (4%) (2011); 13 (2.7%) (2012); 1 (0.2%) (2013)

Since I can't post the table easily. Oh hey, 1 out of 470 failed....

Since you literally too stupid to even understand tables you yourself have access too.... Here I typed it with ALL of the years.

 

[sean80439]

Seriously, why are you not banned. You present misinformation and lie constantly.