University of Sydney no longer accepts US finaid?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Epell

Epell

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
60
Reaction score
15
Hello all,

I have just received an email from GlobalLinks saying quote:
Just so you know, the University of Sydney does not accept US Financial Aid for their medical school at this time. They used to but they did not renew their “contract”. The only universities that accept US Financial Aid are the University of Queensland and the University of Melbourne.
Click to expand...
Can somebody confirm this information?

I was looking very much forward to attending USyd if accepted and I do not know if I'll be able to without the U.S. federal assistance.

Cheers.
Members don't see this ad.
 
We are pretty much witnessing right before our eyes the end of the university system as a semi-legitimate institution in Australia.

That sucks man. But I think the combination of PAYE and AUD-USD rate is why schools except the biggest corporate ****** (UQ/UM) are not accepting Staffords/Grad Plus.

Looks like you're stuck going to a US school now instead
 
Bizarre how it's both an example of illegitimacy if unis cease accepting US financial aid, while the unis continuing to do so are corporate ******.

Epell, is the requirement for US financial aid (presumably Stafford?) still that the unis must send their students' USMLE scores? Or is there something else to the 'contracts'?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
@pitman, I am not sure about what this "contract" entails. I have sent an email to USyd financial aid department and am waiting for reply. I just thought somebody attending USyd currently may know something about this.

It sounded odd to me, since a faculty from University of Sydney claimed their focus on international programs during a webinar just a few months ago. If they are dedicated to their international program, they won't let the "contract" expire.
 
Confirmation email from USyd today.
We do not currently participate in the US federal loan program for Medicine students. However, we are working towards becoming eligible again for future years, we just cannot guarantee when this will happen at the moment.
Click to expand...
 
So you can spend a total of 20 weeks in N. America as a USyd student? In 2004, they told me that you could spend two terms (I think that was 16 weeks) back home. Maybe they downgraded that for a number of years, but 20 weeks seems pretty much in line with the past policy.

That sucks that USyd isn't participating in the loan program. Last I knew, the requirement was that a school had to report a certain number of USMLE scores (and presumably show a certain percent passing). If still the case, it could either be that USyd didn't have sufficient numbers to report, or not enough passed.

At any rate, I can't see how it'd be the case that schools are choosing 'not to accept' loan money (which helps students to pay the high fees), but rather that some requirement of the US federal govt isn't being met. On the contrary, not being eligible would hurt their marketing and could force down their tuition for int'ls (relative to those schools that are eligible).
 
pitman said:
So you can spend a total of 20 weeks in N. America as a USyd student? In 2004, they told me that you could spend two terms (I think that was 16 weeks) back home. Maybe they downgraded that for a number of years, but 20 weeks seems pretty much in line with the past policy.

That sucks that USyd isn't participating in the loan program. Last I knew, the requirement was that a school had to report a certain number of USMLE scores (and presumably show a certain percent passing). If still the case, it could either be that USyd didn't have sufficient numbers to report, or not enough passed.

At any rate, I can't see how it'd be the case that schools are choosing 'not to accept' loan money (which helps students to pay the high fees), but rather that some requirement of the US federal govt isn't being met. On the contrary, not being eligible would hurt their marketing and could force down their tuition for int'ls (relative to those schools that are eligible).
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if PAYE/IBR is playing some sort of role in this...and if Sydney accepts Parent Plus as opposed to Grad Plus or if it does not accept either.

It looks like the new model will be based upon funneling North American out of Australia after taking their money and ensuring payment made is up front by only those that come from money (similar to the Canadians in Australian med schools).
 
Schools have no interest in becoming ineligible for student loans, so I don't know what you're trying to suggest by "new model".

Students who get loans or not still have to pay the cost of going to med school (plus interest if they're allowed loans). But yes, schools like USyd that are ineligible for Stafford loans and the such will be increasingly reliant on students whose families aren't poor (or who can secure private loans), since the payments will need to be made before they become doctors.

So far, there has also been no "funneling" of N. Americans out of Australia. It remains to be seen whether USyd remains ineligible for loans.
 
pitman said:
Schools have no interest in becoming ineligible for student loans, so I don't know what you're trying to suggest by "new model".

Students who get loans or not still have to pay the cost of going to med school (plus interest if they're allowed loans). But yes, schools like USyd that are ineligible for Stafford loans and the such will be increasingly reliant on students whose families aren't poor (or who can secure private loans), since the payments will need to be made before they become doctors.

So far, there has also been no "funneling" of N. Americans out of Australia. It remains to be seen whether USyd remains ineligible for loans.
Click to expand...

Seriously man---why do you think Sydney is suddenly offering this new program? Honest question.

The heads of these schools would want nothing more than for internationals to go back home and not cost the state in internship positions.
 
What the hell does that have to do with losing eligibility for US loans?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
pitman said:
What the hell does that have to do with losing eligibility for US loans?
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with it and I am as interested as you in knowing how and why this all went down...especially as Sydney is trying to mimic the UQ MBBS model with North Americans with this tentatively formed Hopkins allegiance.
 
It seems like Medicine (and Nursing) are the only department that does not accept Direct Plus [link], which makes me think it has less to do with the type of loan and more with what Department of Education considers an eligible for the program.

I found the US Education Department's Foreign School Eligibility Criteria [link], although I can't think of anything that University of Sydney would be ineligible for.
 
qldking said:
Nothing to do with it and I am as interested as you in knowing how and why this all went down...especially as Sydney is trying to mimic the UQ MBBS model with North Americans with this tentatively formed Hopkins allegiance.
Click to expand...
Mimic the UQ MBBS model? By having a USMLE pow-wow with a US school? Flinders had agreements with Columbia University for far more than that, back in the late 1990s. Neither is mimicking anything UQ. All schools here who take int'l students have a vested interested in supporting those students, and US loan requirements also help to ensure Americans in particular are.

This thread is about USyd losing its eligibility, not 'how can I stretch a connection between the current topic at hand and how much I think there's a conspiracy of Australian med (or higher education) to take all our money and ruin our lives'. Loan ineligibility is about US federal laws, and circa 2009/10 as a cost-cutting measure (and to help ensure Americans aren't taken advantage of) the requirements were tightened up, including requiring schools report USMLE scores. There is yet to be a reason suggested that anything different to US requirements is the cause of USyd becoming ineligible, and if you look at all closely, only you are making bold assertions about the cause (that not coincidentally are the same broadly anti-Australian uni assertions you regularly make in all threads).

Try focusing on the topic.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Epell said:
I found the US Education Department's Foreign School Eligibility Criteria [link], although I can't think of anything that University of Sydney would be ineligible for.
Click to expand...
Good find. It could be that they didn't meet the 75% pass rate for the USMLE (page 3):

"and for a foreign graduate medical school outside of Canada, at least 60 percent
of the school's students and graduates who took any
step of the examinations administered by the Educational Commission for Foreign
Medical Graduates (ECFMG) (including the ECFMG English test) in the year preceding
the year for which any of the school's students seeks a FFEL Program loan received
passing scores on the exams (in performing the calculation required in this paragraph, a
foreign graduate medical school shall count as a graduate each person who graduated
from the school during the three years preceding the year for which the calculation is
performed) (Note: Effective July 1, 2010, the 60% pass rate requirement will increase to
75%);"

("ECFMG provides eligible international medical schools with data on the performance of their students and graduates who apply to ECFMG for USMLE Step 1, USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK), and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS)." - http://www.ecfmg.org/programs/performance-data-provision.html)
 
So if this is what happened, it makes sense that USyd is now making efforts to improve USMLE prep, such as through an arrangement with Johns Hopkins.
 
I was thinking "C'mon, USyd students can't be that bad at USMLE" then I found this
shan564 said:
1. A lot of people here just take the USMLE to see how they do, without actually investing the time to study for it. This is because they know they have an internship waiting in Australia (or at least they did a couple of years ago), so they take the lazy way out and just blow it off.

2. Some Australians (especially at USyd) take Step 1 just because they'd like to do a clinical elective in the US. They don't really study for it either, so they might fail it.
Click to expand...

So maybe that's it. At any rate, I sent another email asking the international financial aid person to elaborate on this matter.
I will let you know when I receive a reply, probably next business day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm just going to add a report on the boot camp [link].
This article directly mentioned USMLE score as a US federal loan eligibility criteria, so I get the strong feeling that this is the issue.
 
@neulite30 That may be a new policy, however, since the document is last updated April of this year.
Well, we'll find out when I receive that email.
 
what kind of MCAT scores and GPA does USyd SOM require?
 
neulite30 said:
"A student from any country who has completed Step 1 of the USMLE and scored
226 or above, may apply to complete four or eight weeks of any Year 4 Core
Block or four or up to eight weeks of a Specialty Block in the United States."

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/futur...udy_Arrangements_Booklet_30April2014_Ver2.pdf
Click to expand...

That's interesting, but I don't quite understand that carrot -- wouldn't those who want to do residency in the US be the ones most likely to do the US terms, and already be the ones strongly motivated to do well on the USMLE?

If it's true that many locals take the exam simply to see how they'd do on it, I think this policy wouldn't help. But it could be that USyd has found that there are a number of dilettantes each year who take but fail the exam yet 'try' a term or two in N. America because...they're just adventure-seeking dilettantes -- this sort of policy could help with them.
 
Last edited:
I also find it a bit draconian that the US loan policy is that 75% of EVERYONE who takes the exams must pass. Why not just of those who would qualify for the loans, or if there are already X students with the loans, then of those who have the loans?
 
I remember when I was at USyd, there was talk of the university being pretty close to that 75% mark, and a risk that they may not continue to be eligible for US student loans. The reason was because the number applied to EVERYONE who takes the exam who is a graduate of that school, including people who are several years out of med school and are only considering taking the exam because they're thinking about doing a fellowship in the US, so they don't study hard or aim for a high score. I'm assuming that this is the reason why this happened.

Re: the 16 vs. 20 weeks thing - that's actually more significant than it seems. Initially, 8 of those 16 weeks were the pre-internship term, by which point it's too late to get a rec letter. Now, only 4 of the 20 weeks are pre-internship, and you have a full 16 weeks in which you can do core and elective rotations in the US. This option was in place when I was at USyd, but it wasn't a formalized program, so it was handled on a case-by-case basis and it was quite difficult to get all of the requirements in place.

The Hopkins thing isn't so much an "alliance" - just a USMLE prep course that's run by Hopkins faculty. I think it's useful, but not a make-or-break thing... I doubt that Hopkins people are significantly better at teaching USMLE material than Kaplan folk.

I highly doubt that USyd ceasing to accept US loans has anything to do with the legitimacy of the institution. As pitman said, the university makes money from those loans, so it's hard to make an argument that this particular problem is some sort of sign of the decline of the educational institution. I can't speak for the other schools, but I'm 100% certain that USyd gave me the best education they possibly could. Now I'm at WashU for residency, which is considered one of the top schools in the US, and I think that my educations was better than what the students here get.

pitman said:
If it's true that many locals take the exam simply to see how they'd do on it, I think this policy wouldn't help. But it could be that USyd has found that there are a number of dilettantes each year who take but fail the exam yet 'try' a term or two in N. America because...they're just adventure-seeking dilettantes -- this sort of policy could help with them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there are a lot of those. I suspect that that's the reason for this policy. A lot of people want to go to N. America for rotations just for fun. The university is pretty lax about this for the elective blocks, since the purpose of those blocks is to give you whatever educational experience you want out of them. But for the required core/specialty blocks, they are very meticulous to ensure that every student gets a full education. In order to ensure that for a student who is going overseas, it requires a great deal of time/effort in coordinating curricula and validating that the student is getting the same training that they'd be getting at home. They take that goal quite seriously, as I learned when I was trying to set up a core rotation in the US. They don't want to waste resources on somebody who is going to N.America just for a vacation rotation, but still want to provide the resources for a student who is actually serious about it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
shan564 said:
I remember when I was at USyd, there was talk of the university being pretty close to that 75% mark, and a risk that they may not continue to be eligible for US student loans. The reason was because the number applied to EVERYONE who takes the exam who is a graduate of that school, including people who are several years out of med school and are only considering taking the exam because they're thinking about doing a fellowship in the US, so they don't study hard or aim for a high score. I'm assuming that this is the reason why this happened.

Re: the 16 vs. 20 weeks thing - that's actually more significant than it seems. Initially, 8 of those 16 weeks were the pre-internship term, by which point it's too late to get a rec letter. Now, only 4 of the 20 weeks are pre-internship, and you have a full 16 weeks in which you can do core and elective rotations in the US. This option was in place when I was at USyd, but it wasn't a formalized program, so it was handled on a case-by-case basis and it was quite difficult to get all of the requirements in place.

The Hopkins thing isn't so much an "alliance" - just a USMLE prep course that's run by Hopkins faculty. I think it's useful, but not a make-or-break thing... I doubt that Hopkins people are significantly better at teaching USMLE material than Kaplan folk.

I highly doubt that USyd ceasing to accept US loans has anything to do with the legitimacy of the institution. As pitman said, the university makes money from those loans, so it's hard to make an argument that this particular problem is some sort of sign of the decline of the educational institution. I can't speak for the other schools, but I'm 100% certain that USyd gave me the best education they possibly could. Now I'm at WashU for residency, which is considered one of the top schools in the US, and I think that my educations was better than what the students here get.


Yeah, there are a lot of those. I suspect that that's the reason for this policy. A lot of people want to go to N. America for rotations just for fun. The university is pretty lax about this for the elective blocks, since the purpose of those blocks is to give you whatever educational experience you want out of them. But for the required core/specialty blocks, they are very meticulous to ensure that every student gets a full education. In order to ensure that for a student who is going overseas, it requires a great deal of time/effort in coordinating curricula and validating that the student is getting the same training that they'd be getting at home. They take that goal quite seriously, as I learned when I was trying to set up a core rotation in the US. They don't want to waste resources on somebody who is going to N.America just for a vacation rotation, but still want to provide the resources for a student who is actually serious about it.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the guy who was offering to do Intern year for free in NSW? Seems like there's a lot of inconsistencies in what you post.
 
qldking said:
Aren't you the guy who was offering to do Intern year for free in NSW? Seems like there's a lot of inconsistencies in what you post.
Click to expand...
What inconsistencies in particular cause you to cast doubt over what he's reporting? And why?

He certainly reported back in 2012 when he was a 4th year at USyd that he was seeking a US residency:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...o-come-here-please-read.960650/#post-13288291
...with discussion of his interviews in the US later in the thread.
 
pitman said:
What inconsistencies in particular cause you to cast doubt over what he's reporting? And why?

He certainly reported back in 2012 when he was a 4th year at USyd that he was seeking a US residency:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...o-come-here-please-read.960650/#post-13288291
...with discussion of his interviews in the US later in the thread.
Click to expand...

If you follow some of his comments you'll see he's made his way into the Australian newspapers about being a victim of the tsunami to the point of offering to complete internship for free...I just found it interesting given that he tries to portray a different image on here. That's why I don't take anyone's comments too seriously.
 
Last edited:
You mean years before you were a member? Do you have any links to the posts suggesting this, particularly that contradict his telling us he was applying to US programs back in 2012, gave updates on his interviews, and got in at WashU in 2013, with hundreds of consistent posts since?
 
pitman said:
You mean years before you were a member? Do you have any links to the posts suggesting this, particularly that contradict his telling us he was applying to US programs back in 2012, gave updates on his interviews, and got in at WashU in 2013, with hundreds of consistent posts since?
Click to expand...

Nothing about that is false at all. He just seems like a typical US med student.
 
You just lobbed an ad hominem at him, accusing him of specific past behavior unbecoming, and made a general accusation of inconsistencies, to discredit him by innuendo that he is either not to be trusted or is an accomplice of the evil 'them' (...and not to be trusted), but you have no substantiation whatsoever? Dude. Get a grip.

This thread is about USyd losing eligibility for loans, and the issue has been unfolding as sounding like it could have happened because of inadequate USMLE pass rates, supported by shan's consistent observations made in the past that might explain how. That, versus your, this is the "end of the [Australian] university system as a semi-legitimate institution" take on the issue?
 
pitman said:
You just lobbed an ad hominem at him, accusing him of specific past behavior unbecoming, the innuendo being that he is either not to be trusted or is an accomplice of the evil 'them' (...rendering him not to be trusted), but you have no substantiation whatsoever? Dude. Get a grip.

This thread is about USyd losing eligibility for loans, and the issue has been unfolding as sounding like it could have happened because of inadequate USMLE pass rates, supported by shan's consistent observations made in the past that might explain how. That, versus your, this is the "end of the [Australian] university system as a semi-legitimate institution" take on the issue?
Click to expand...

Nah I'm just saying I don't trust him because he flip-flops on issues depending on what helps him soothe his fragile ego.
 
And I asked, would this not be long before you were a member, and do you have any examples to link to, to support any of your claims? (now at least two: 1) that he offered to pay to be an intern, and that this would be inconsistent with anything he just said; and 2) that he "flip-flops" on issues [i.e., he isn't to be trusted] out of a "fragile ego").
 
pitman said:
And I asked, would this not be long before you were a member, and do you have any examples to link to, to support any of your claims? (now at least two: 1) that he offered to pay to be an intern, and that this would be inconsistent with anything he just said; and 2) that he "flip-flops" on issues [i.e., he isn't to be trusted] out of a "fragile ego").
Click to expand...

If you read his blog where he posts his name it's linked to a bunch of tsunami-related articles. I checked it because he makes posts portraying himself as a genius slacker (his evidence of his luminous intellect being his slightly decent MCAT score) who doesn't try in school but his real life actions suggest otherwise.
I'm not going to post it because it's rude but you can easily verify it yourself.
 
Wait. It's rude to post a link to substantiate your allegations, but not rude to make them?
 
pitman said:
Wait. It's rude to post a link to substantiate your allegations, but not rude to make them?
Click to expand...

It would take you not even 30 seconds to find several articles
 
I had a good look, but I can't find anything resembling what you claim. Nothing about offering to pay for internship, no flip-flopping, nothing to contradict what he's said on these forums about his residency plans, interviews, acceptance at WashU, interest in psych...or that it seems to make sense that USyd could have been delisted from accepting US loans because of domestic students not taking the USMLE seriously.

Like I said, it's too 'rude' to post a link supporting your allegations, but not to make them?
 
Last edited:
Please stop hijacking threads.
 
qldking, let's continue this over on your thread...
 
Last edited:
Epell said:
I was thinking "C'mon, USyd students can't be that bad at USMLE" then I found this

2. Some Australians (especially at USyd) take Step 1 just because they'd like to do a clinical elective in the US. They don't really study for it either, so they might fail it.

So maybe that's it. At any rate, I sent another email asking the international financial aid person to elaborate on this matter.
I will let you know when I receive a reply, probably next business day.
Click to expand...
But I mean those australians who take the USMLE without studying aren't going to be on US loans.
 
Yeah that's the potential problem, because for score tallying, they don't just count those on loans:

"...at least [75%] percent of the school's students and graduates who took any step of the examinations...in the year preceding the year for which any of the school's students seeks a FFEL Program loan received passing scores..."
 
pitman said:
Yeah that's the potential problem, because for score tallying, they don't just count those on loans:

"...at least [75%] percent of the school's students and graduates who took any step of the examinations...in the year preceding the year for which any of the school's students seeks a FFEL Program loan received passing scores..."
Click to expand...

Wow thats pretty shocking. I think it was meant to discourage people from going to poorly performing schools but it does have its loopholes and this is one of them.
 
It could be that the regulation was written this way to have a simple rule that can apply both to schools that aren't already eligible (in which case, whose scores to go on but the non-aided students?) and those that are eligible but want to maintain that eligibility. But clearly, schools can't control those who take the USMLE for ****s and giggles, so there's a good argument for having two sets of criteria (maybe an "or" criteria that says, "...or of those who take the exams and would be eligible for US federal loans..." -- for monitoring purposes, this would potentially just require the USMLE application forms to add a couple questions, like "Are you American?".
 
Pitman, thanks for leaping to my defense.

I'm surprised somebody reads my posts so thoroughly and makes such lofty conclusions. I can address your concerns by simply filling in some facts.

I didn't offer to do my intern year for free. I said at a public forum in 2009 that I'd rather do an internship for free than to do no internship at all, since I'd rather be a doctor with slightly less money than not be a doctor. That was a purely hypothetical situation, and I never would have considered working for free if there were an alternative. That alternative was going to the US - so rather than actually offering to work for free, I started studying for the USMLE as a backup plan.

Then, over the course of the next couple of years, I gradually changed my mind about staying in Australia. This was due to a variety of reasons, as you'll see if you look at my historical posts - I was always pretty public about the fact that I was undecided. In retrospect, I think a major reason why I wanted to stay in Australia was because I was afraid of the USMLE and the hard work associated with studying for it. But once that task was done, the idea of coming back home became a lot more attractive.

There's a difference between "flip-flopping" and changing your opinion based on new information. I also wanted to be a pathologist, and then changed my mind and decided on psychiatry because I liked my psych rotation. Call that a "flip-flop" if you want.

Regarding the newspaper article - I remember that. It was a single newspaper article. Quoted directly from the article, Shan said forgoing his first year's salary was a worthwhile sacrifice if the alternative was being left with no means to repay his expected $300,000 debt. "I had assumed that if I came here and worked hard and did well, I would get a place -- whereas the truth is it doesn't matter how hard I work, I may not get a place because of my residency status."

I think that qldking was referring to this thing: http://student.bmj.com/student/view-article.html?id=sbmj.b5003
It says that I "offered to work for free." Today is the first time I've ever seen or become aware of this article. It looks like it's just a summary of the article from the other newspaper. Nobody ever contacted me about this, and I had no idea that it existed until just now. Clearly qldking spent a lot of time researching me if he/she was able to find a random out-of-context quote that I wasn't even aware of. There was one article, and maybe there were several more that quoted the first one - but I'm not sure what would possess somebody to do such thorough research on a random stranger to find articles about me that I'm not even aware of. But I never offered to work for free. Even if I had, I don't see how that would be relevant.

Anyway, I'm clearly feeding a troll here, and pitman has done a good enough job of pointing out the ridiculousness of the other person's arguments.

Regarding casual mentions of my MCAT score in the past - I'm sorry if it came off as an attempt to portray myself as a "genius slacker"... as I said earlier, I'm pretty public about most things, including my MCAT score, my undergrad GPA, and my USMLE scores (which are pretty average). As you said, my MCAT score is "slightly decent," so that would be a pretty silly way to portray oneself as a genius... I only repeatedly mention that data because so many students ask about what sorts of scores are required to get in, so I usually offer my data as another data point. I'm not sure what I said to make it seem like I don't try in school, but I'd say I was a pretty average student. This is mostly just an attempt for me to be open about myself - I'm so open about things that I have a link to my blog which led qldking to dig up my name, google it, and find some obscure articles from 2009. I'm not sure why any doctor would want to portray himself as a slacker when it's so easy to find his real name... I certainly wouldn't want my patients to look me up and develop that impression.

Clearly, qldking has gone to a great deal of effort to distract from my original argument by making a nonsensical ad hominem argument against me directly. I usually try hard to avoid feeding trolls, but logical fallacies are a pet peeve of mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
@shan564 Thanks for your continued attention to the thread, although I really don't think you needed to defend yourself.

At any rate, obviously you have been very successful in matching. How about some of your cohorts who wanted U.S. residencies?
 
Most people got something pretty close to what they said they wanted, although it's hard to know whether that's what they actually wanted. I can say that among the people who worked hard and worked smart in the process of studying for the USMLE and going through the Match process, most of them ended up pretty happy with where they landed.
 
Ah well. Truth is we won't be taking their graduates for residency placement in a few years either anyway.
 
"The royal we, you know, the editorial..."
















(The United States, Smartass)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Wolvvs
University of Sydney 2021 Thread
2
Replies
53
Views
14K
DoctorS84
D
K
University of Sydney in Australia or Royal College of Surgeons Ireland (RCSI)
Replies
12
Views
6K
sublab95
S
L
Current internship situation - U Syd vs UQ
Replies
14
Views
3K
lymphocyte
lymphocyte
fethr
Meet new people in Sydney
Replies
0
Views
833
fethr
fethr
C
International Student Apps Open @ Sydney - The University of Notre Dame Australia
Replies
0
Views
1K
charelli
C
Top