UQ average acceptance stat?

[jhtran]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I've just talked to UQ and their average acceptance stat is 3.5GPA and 30P-MCAT... which I think is a bit too high... What do you guys think?

jhtran

 

[Daemos]

I doubt it. According to Oztrekk, as long as you are at or above the 8/8/8/M MCAT and are above the 2.67 minimum GPA cut off, you will get an offer.

There have also been people on this forum getting in with 26-27 MCATs, as well I have talked to some people (I do not know them personally) who have gotten acceptances with MCATs of 25-27, just remember GPA doesn't count as anything except a cutoff, as long as you are over that, UQ only consideres your MCAT.

 

[Transition]

I read that in an email sent by oztrekk as well (30P mcat but no gpa was listed). Sounds dubious to be honest. I know a few people with mid-20 mcats that got first round offers...
Are they lieing to us? Doesn't sound too good for them. Talk about a nosedive in admission standards... I guess money will do that to ya.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

I would seriously doubt that statistic, in general most Aussie schools are a lot less picky about GPAs than North American schools where a low GPA can break you in the application process. I heard UQ's average is more like 28 and the average GPA is in the low 3 range. Even for schools like Melbourne and USyd its not much higher.

UQ works on a rolling basis, so lets say you send the first application and no one else sent one, you basically compete against their minimum requirements. US medical schools work this way too, the earlier you apply the better your chances of getting admission.

 

[pitman]

I've just talked to UQ and their average acceptance stat is 3.5GPA and 30P-MCAT... which I think is a bit too high... What do you guys think?

jhtran

That does look almost too good to be true, but if UQ admin folk are indeed saying this, I highly doubt they'd be lying -- they're a professional bunch.

The average MCAT 4-5 years ago was 28O. However, at least back then, the distribution was much bigger than what you'd find in the US -- a few 24s, a lot in the upper 20s to low 30s, and a few in the high 30s.

So it's certainly feasible for both the average to be 30P and for many mid to high 20s to be accepted. If the MCAT average did come up to that, I'd believe the GPA could be that high too, not because they're selecting for them but because the two scores are going to be somewhat correlated, and because there are plenty of N Americans rejected with such scores (and Canadians with much much higher scores).

It'd good if someone could confirm or refute this by posting correspondence with OzTrek and/or UQ. Or have OzTrek tell you stats for some of the other schools.

 

[pitman]

UQ works on a rolling basis, so lets say you send the first application and no one else sent one, you basically compete against their minimum requirements. US medical schools work this way too, the earlier you apply the better your chances of getting admission.

As you point out, US med schools do this too, which means that nothing about rolling admissions means you'll get lower scores (excuse me if I'm misunderstanding your point here).

One possibility is that UQ is increasing its size faster than had been planned in response to higher than expected application stats, in response in part to their marketing methods (which term I use loosely to include such things as the publicity around Oschner). I'm not claiming this is true, but it's an intriguing *possibility* given the school's past policy of not growing to the point of sacrificing standards, and my reading of the current Head's priorities.

I also want to emphasize here that I am *not* saying the admissions standards are definitely going up, because I no longer know the stats. Rather I think it's possible. I think it's possible they've gone down, too -- I just haven't seen convincing evidence to infer one way or another.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

As you point out, US med schools do this too, which means that nothing about rolling admissions means you'll get lower scores (excuse me if I'm misunderstanding your point here).

One possibility is that UQ is increasing its size faster than had been planned in response to higher than expected application stats, in response in part to their marketing methods (which term I use loosely to include such things as the publicity around Oschner). I'm not claiming this is true, but it's an intriguing *possibility* given the school's past policy of not growing to the point of sacrificing standards, and my reading of the current Head's priorities.

I also want to emphasize here that I am *not* saying the admissions standards are definitely going up, because I no longer know the stats. Rather I think it's possible. I think it's possible they've gone down, too -- I just haven't seen convincing evidence to infer one way or another.

US Medical schools look at a lot more factors than your GPA and MCAT. Australian schools are relatively easier to get into, even at the top Aussie schools, there is about a 10 percent acceptance rate. Even the least competitive US schools rarely accept that many. Look at Harvard, one of the most competitive US schools, they get 5000+ applications and accept about 160 students, compare that to the best Australian medical school like Melbourne. If you apply to a US medical school, things like letters of recommendation from professors and doctors, your statements, and your ECs make a big difference.

US students increase their chances by applying to many schools. In Australia through ACER you pick two schools and get one interview. So there is pressure to ace that interview.
1 in 10 is for local students in general the acceptance rates for internationals at most Australia schools is a lot higher.

Australian schools are also a lot easier to get into than British medical schools and those in Ireland through Atlantic Bridge. Most British medical schools will tell you the bare minimum for North Americans to be considered is a 3.6 and 30 MCAT. Irish schools are also extremely selective.

 

[pitman]

I'm not sure what your argument is, JanikeyDoc.

1) Yes, US med schools have more criteria to look at. Point is, rolling admissions itself (at a US school) does not make those schools accept candidates of a lower standard (than US schools that don't). And number of criteria has no bearing on that. So rolling admissions can't be used as an argument against seemingly high scores.

2) Yes, US med schools accept fewer candidates as a rule. And their admissions stats are higher. Weird that you'd pick one of the most competitive schools in the world to make the point that US schools are more selective. That reasoning has no bearing on whether the reported Australian stats are possible. Further, for the US schools, and the Canadian schools even more so, the difference between an acceptance and a rejection is tiny. Many a report often say 'arbitrary', or even 'contrary'. Those rejects are many of the students looking overseas, and who affect the admissions stats of overseas schools. Not to mention the highly qualified N Americans who have *chosen* to go overseas for other reasons.

3) The question isn't whether Australian school standards have been lower than those of the UK or Atlantic Bridge. True or not, it's whether their standards could have gone, or be going, up. And they certainly could have.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

I'm not sure what your argument is, JanikeyDoc.

1) Yes, US med schools have more criteria to look at. Point is, rolling admissions itself (at a US school) does not make those schools accept candidates of a lower standard (than US schools that don't). And number of criteria has no bearing on that. So rolling admissions can't be used as an argument against seemingly high scores.

2) Yes, US med schools accept fewer candidates as a rule. And their admissions stats are higher. Weird that you'd pick one of the most competitive schools in the world to make the point that US schools are more selective. That reasoning has no bearing on whether the reported Australian stats are possible. Further, for the US schools, and the Canadian schools even more so, the difference between an acceptance and a rejection is tiny. Many a report often say 'arbitrary', or even 'contrary'. Those rejects are many of the students looking overseas, and who affect the admissions stats of overseas schools. Not to mention the highly qualified N Americans who have *chosen* to go overseas for other reasons.

3) The question isn't whether Australian school standards have been lower than those of the UK or Atlantic Bridge. True or not, it's whether their standards could have gone, or be going, up. And they certainly could have.

Even a few lower tier US medical schools have some very daunting admissions stats. I heard one of the newest US medical schools gets 3000 applications for 150 spots. Also US schools tend to have fewer students. Class sizes in many Australian schools are becoming too big. UQ used to have a total of 250 a year a while back and now they have a class size of 400. They have been steadily increasing class sizes and this year there are double the number of students studying medicine as opposed to four years ago.

Given the current environment in the US, I think North Americans who go overseas even if they secured a seat at US MD or DO school are going to make a very unwise choice. Its going to be much harder for IMGs to match into residencies from 2012 onward.

 

[shan564]

Given the current environment in the US, I think North Americans who go overseas even if they secured a seat at US MD or DO school are going to make a very unwise choice. Its going to be much harder for IMGs to match into residencies from 2012 onward.

I think there are a few more factors to consider than just whether they've secured a seat. If I could have gotten into an American MD school, I wouldn't have even thought to come to USyd.

A DO is a bit different... I'd like to have the ability to practice anywhere in the world, and you can't do that with a DO. Also, I've been developing a bit of a writing career lately, so I'd like to have the "MD" title just to help me sell books.

Everybody has their own reasons. Of course, most of us don't even have a choice in the first place.


But back to the point - I don't think that 30 sounds too high as an average. All that means is that for every 27, there's a 33. 24M is just their absolute minimum before they'll consider your application, not before they'll give you an offer.

Most of the people I know at USyd have MCAT scores in the range of 32+. I only know one person who scored below a 30, out of about 10-15 people who have mentioned their score to me at some point. So if USyd's average is that high, then I can't imagine that UQ would be much lower.

I think that a major reason why people even come to Australia is because they don't want to waste their high MCAT score by going to the Caribbean. In my case, I was desperately looking for a school that would overlook my GPA and consider my MCAT score (35) instead. When I found out that I could go to a reputable university in a developed English-speaking country, I never even reconsidered going to the Caribbean... at that point, it was just a question of which school to choose in Australia.

 

[redshifteffect]

A DO is a bit different... I'd like to have the ability to practice anywhere in the world, and you can't do that with a DO. Also, I've been developing a bit of a writing career lately, so I'd like to have the "MD" title just to help me sell books.

Exactly there have been some very attractive jobs opening up in the Middle East lately with some pretty generous pay and incentives, and they won't even consider looking at DOs.

 

[Transition]

Here's the outline from Oztrekk

Not sure whether to believe it or not. Entrance average seems very high for the acceptances I've seen.

 

[jhtran]

30P-MCAT is almost like American standard. Yikes. My 27M-MCAT and 3.4GPA don't seem to stand a chance, especially I applied last week :-(

 

[Transition]

30P-MCAT is almost like American standard. Yikes. My 27M-MCAT and 3.4GPA don't seem to stand a chance, especially I applied last week :-(

remember that the GPA means nothing.

you still may have a chance as I expect that these stats may be average accepted, not average matriculated in which case the MCAT should be lower (most students with higher scores will tend to attend better institutions like USyd or Flinders).

Now, before I get flamed for bashing UQ, let me outline my reasoning for saying such.

1) The admission standards have definitely dropped. I have yet to read the study that they seem to have published on interviews having no correlation with medical school performance, but I also have yet to see a particularly good way to judge a person's character other than by talking to them. I'd tend to lean towards saying that the study that seems to have found little to no correlation is likely correlating performance in tests with interview scores. These two schemas are out to accomplish two different things. The interview is to judge an individuals suitability to help people when given inherent respect and tests, such as end-of-year exams and the MCAT/GAMSAT judge an individuals intellectual abilities in being able to digest and process information. So, correlating the two seems to be moot. Now, because I have yet to see the study, I'm not sure whether my assumptions are correct, but I also don't know how a school could quantitatively judge the bedside manner of a medical student and somehow correlate that with the interview. In short, I really do think the interview is important, if not to at least see if the person has what it takes to talk to people in high-stress environments. So, I take issue to the admission process of UQ (aka grades and personal character mean nothing, only the score on a single exam you can take as many times as you like...).

2) After speaking to the school, I was appalled to hear that they were not guaranteeing core clinicals for international students. Yes, you read correctly. No guarantee on core clinicals = not a med degree! Internationals are nothing more than a cash grab to this university. Ask them about chances of internship and you'll get them dodging the question by saying things like "we've never guaranteed internships for internationals and will continue to not do so".

3) Exponentially increasing tuition costs along with international student numbers. This is getting ridiculous! UQ is now accepting >150 internationals where each student pays $49000 AUD and they will not guarantee core clinicals or answer simple questions about post-grad internship opportunities. What are international students to this school? In short... $$$.

Be careful about UQ. I don't expect this school to maintain it's high ranking for much longer.

If it's too good to be true, it usually is and a school like UQ allowing people into their program so easily likely means that something fishy is up.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

I think there are a few more factors to consider than just whether they've secured a seat. If I could have gotten into an American MD school, I wouldn't have even thought to come to USyd.

A DO is a bit different... I'd like to have the ability to practice anywhere in the world, and you can't do that with a DO. Also, I've been developing a bit of a writing career lately, so I'd like to have the "MD" title just to help me sell books.

Everybody has their own reasons. Of course, most of us don't even have a choice in the first place.


But back to the point - I don't think that 30 sounds too high as an average. All that means is that for every 27, there's a 33. 24M is just their absolute minimum before they'll consider your application, not before they'll give you an offer.

Most of the people I know at USyd have MCAT scores in the range of 32+. I only know one person who scored below a 30, out of about 10-15 people who have mentioned their score to me at some point. So if USyd's average is that high, then I can't imagine that UQ would be much lower.

I think that a major reason why people even come to Australia is because they don't want to waste their high MCAT score by going to the Caribbean. In my case, I was desperately looking for a school that would overlook my GPA and consider my MCAT score (35) instead. When I found out that I could go to a reputable university in a developed English-speaking country, I never even reconsidered going to the Caribbean... at that point, it was just a question of which school to choose in Australia.

Actually DO's are recognized for full medical registration in about 40 countries. The UK and most provinces in Canada accept DOs, there are DOs in New Zealand as well which is actually a country that is somewhat more stringent than Australia. Even then its not so easy to cross borders. I have only heard of US trained doctors in English speaking countries, a few in Germany and that is about it.


I am in total agreement that Australia is good only if you could not get into a US school, otherwise its best to stay in the US.

Caribbean is irrelevant because you only spend 2 years there and then go to the US for clinical education. From what I know Irish schools have a much bigger following among North Americans. I have seen a fair number of Irish trained doctors in the States.

 

[shan564]

Actually DO's are recognized for full medical registration in about 40 countries. The UK and most provinces in Canada accept DOs, there are DOs in New Zealand as well which is actually a country that is somewhat more stringent than Australia. Even then its not so easy to cross borders. I have only heard of US trained doctors in English speaking countries, a few in Germany and that is about it.


I am in total agreement that Australia is good only if you could not get into a US school, otherwise its best to stay in the US.

Caribbean is irrelevant because you only spend 2 years there and then go to the US for clinical education. From what I know Irish schools have a much bigger following among North Americans. I have seen a fair number of Irish trained doctors in the States.

Osteopaths aren't considered "full doctors" in the UK, Canada, Aus, and NZ. The countries I'm more concerned with are UAE, Pakistan, Australia, and some other places where I'd like to live in the future... and DOs can't practice medicine in those countries.

There are a few Irish doctors in the US, but it's not anywhere near as popular as the Caribbean. There are only a couple of Irish schools that accept American students.

 

[Transition]

What do you mean by "full" doctors? So far as I know, DOs enjoy the same practicing rights as allopathic docs.

 

[shan564]

What do you mean by "full" doctors? So far as I know, DOs enjoy the same practicing rights as allopathic docs.

In the US, yes... a lot of times, the staff at your hospital/clinic won't even know that you're a DO rather than an MD. In other countries, there are substantial restrictions on DO's. In some countries, they can't practice medicine at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

 

[SFs Own Tone]

remember that the GPA means nothing.

you still may have a chance as I expect that these stats may be average accepted, not average matriculated in which case the MCAT should be lower (most students with higher scores will tend to attend better institutions like USyd or Flinders).

Now, before I get flamed for bashing UQ, let me outline my reasoning for saying such.

1) The admission standards have definitely dropped. I have yet to read the study that they seem to have published on interviews having no correlation with medical school performance, but I also have yet to see a particularly good way to judge a person's character other than by talking to them. I'd tend to lean towards saying that the study that seems to have found little to no correlation is likely correlating performance in tests with interview scores. These two schemas are out to accomplish two different things. The interview is to judge an individuals suitability to help people when given inherent respect and tests, such as end-of-year exams and the MCAT/GAMSAT judge an individuals intellectual abilities in being able to digest and process information. So, correlating the two seems to be moot. Now, because I have yet to see the study, I'm not sure whether my assumptions are correct, but I also don't know how a school could quantitatively judge the bedside manner of a medical student and somehow correlate that with the interview. In short, I really do think the interview is important, if not to at least see if the person has what it takes to talk to people in high-stress environments. So, I take issue to the admission process of UQ (aka grades and personal character mean nothing, only the score on a single exam you can take as many times as you like...).

2) After speaking to the school, I was appalled to hear that they were not guaranteeing core clinicals for international students. Yes, you read correctly. No guarantee on core clinicals = not a med degree! Internationals are nothing more than a cash grab to this university. Ask them about chances of internship and you'll get them dodging the question by saying things like "we've never guaranteed internships for internationals and will continue to not do so".

3) Exponentially increasing tuition costs along with international student numbers. This is getting ridiculous! UQ is now accepting >150 internationals where each student pays $49000 AUD and they will not guarantee core clinicals or answer simple questions about post-grad internship opportunities. What are international students to this school? In short... $$$.

Be careful about UQ. I don't expect this school to maintain it's high ranking for much longer.

If it's too good to be true, it usually is and a school like UQ allowing people into their program so easily likely means that something fishy is up.

From the information you've posted it would seem that UQ's international program is completely bad news and should be avoided at all cost. Is that what you are advocating?

I have yet to call them for myself, but after reading this. I certainly will. Can anyone verify? or refute? Otherwise, based on this information, there's no reason to attend UQ... I'm certainly concerned now.

 

[shan564]

1) The admission standards have definitely dropped. I have yet to read the study that they seem to have published on interviews having no correlation with medical school performance, but I also have yet to see a particularly good way to judge a person's character other than by talking to them. I'd tend to lean towards saying that the study that seems to have found little to no correlation is likely correlating performance in tests with interview scores. These two schemas are out to accomplish two different things. The interview is to judge an individuals suitability to help people when given inherent respect and tests, such as end-of-year exams and the MCAT/GAMSAT judge an individuals intellectual abilities in being able to digest and process information. So, correlating the two seems to be moot. Now, because I have yet to see the study, I'm not sure whether my assumptions are correct, but I also don't know how a school could quantitatively judge the bedside manner of a medical student and somehow correlate that with the interview. In short, I really do think the interview is important, if not to at least see if the person has what it takes to talk to people in high-stress environments. So, I take issue to the admission process of UQ (aka grades and personal character mean nothing, only the score on a single exam you can take as many times as you like...).

That's actually the primary reason why I chose not to go there... but for some people, it might actually be a plus. I know a lot of people who don't do well on interviews.

2) After speaking to the school, I was appalled to hear that they were not guaranteeing core clinicals for international students. Yes, you read correctly. No guarantee on core clinicals = not a med degree! Internationals are nothing more than a cash grab to this university. Ask them about chances of internship and you'll get them dodging the question by saying things like "we've never guaranteed internships for internationals and will continue to not do so".

Wow, that's unbelievable. Is that also true for the Ochsner program?

3) Exponentially increasing tuition costs along with international student numbers. This is getting ridiculous! UQ is now accepting >150 internationals where each student pays $49000 AUD and they will not guarantee core clinicals or answer simple questions about post-grad internship opportunities. What are international students to this school? In short... $$$.

To be fair, tuition costs are going up everywhere. $49k AUD is still cheaper than most private American schools.

Be careful about UQ. I don't expect this school to maintain it's high ranking for much longer.

If it's too good to be true, it usually is and a school like UQ allowing people into their program so easily likely means that something fishy is up.

Yeah, "too good to be true" was the same thing I thought when I got into UQ. It just seemed too easy... and in my experience, if something seems to good to be true, it usually is. Still, I'm sure (optimistically speaking) that most UQ grads will turn out just fine, but it wasn't a risk that I was willing to take.

 

[pitman]

(most students with higher scores will tend to attend better institutions like USyd or Flinders).

What a meaningless comment.

1) The admission standards have definitely dropped. I have yet to read the study that they seem to have published on interviews having no correlation with medical school performance, but I also have yet to see a particularly good way to judge a person's character other than by talking to them. I'd tend to lean towards saying that the study that seems to have found little to no correlation is likely correlating performance in tests with interview scores. These two schemas are out to accomplish two different things. The interview is to judge an individuals suitability to help people when given inherent respect and tests, such as end-of-year exams and the MCAT/GAMSAT judge an individuals intellectual abilities in being able to digest and process information. So, correlating the two seems to be moot. Now, because I have yet to see the study, I'm not sure whether my assumptions are correct, but I also don't know how a school could quantitatively judge the bedside manner of a medical student and somehow correlate that with the interview. In short, I really do think the interview is important, if not to at least see if the person has what it takes to talk to people in high-stress environments. So, I take issue to the admission process of UQ (aka grades and personal character mean nothing, only the score on a single exam you can take as many times as you like...).

1) And who's the judge to (objectively?) assess how your bedside manner will be, based on a 45 minute interview? And how's it to be standardized? Or even quantified? And how successful is the interview at measuring it? It's nice and all that to talk about how important character is, but that doesn't mean an interview can filter for such a thing. As many a school will tell you, any psychopath can feign normalcy for 45 minutes. And further, there's the opportunity cost of weighting interviews -- settling for lower scores.

2) Uni admissions in this country are very much about trying to be standardized, and objective. There is some interesting history on that if you care to look into it. The reason some of the Australian schools don't weigh GPA much is because it's not standardized. A similar argument comes up a lot about interviews.

3) From google: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188_06_170308/wil10810_fm.html . It says something when you're admitting it wasn't even worth it to you to evaluate the evidence before forming conclusions.

2) After speaking to the school, I was appalled to hear that they were not guaranteeing core clinicals for international students. Yes, you read correctly. No guarantee on core clinicals = not a med degree!

No, you wrote incorrectly. And making a false inference. UQ is not guaranteeing one 8-week term, the rural rotation, which will be replaced and in no way jeopardizes the degree. Stop scaremongering, please.

3) Exponentially increasing tuition costs along with international student numbers.

Already addressed.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

Osteopaths aren't considered "full doctors" in the UK, Canada, Aus, and NZ. The countries I'm more concerned with are UAE, Pakistan, Australia, and some other places where I'd like to live in the future... and DOs can't practice medicine in those countries.

There are a few Irish doctors in the US, but it's not anywhere near as popular as the Caribbean. There are only a couple of Irish schools that accept American students.

Your information is completely false, Osteopathic physicians have gotten full practice rights in Canada, the UK, and New Zealand. You can contact the AOA they can give you full details on international practice rights. I am not 100 percent about Australia but its pretty impressive that they have gotten full practice rights in places like the UK and Germany. DOs are also eligible for practice in China which could become the world's richest country in another 20 years. If the world's third richest high tech nation, Germany, recognizes them, they are full doctors.

DOs not full doctors, you have to be joking. Look up Dr. Richard Jadick, he was on the cover of Time Magazine, the title was "Hero MD" although he is really a DO. This guy is amazing, he was a US Navy doctor in Iraq.

 

[pitman]

Wow, that's unbelievable. Is that also true for the Ochsner program?

No, that's not true in any sense of how Transition meant it to be.

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

 

[igcgnerd]

Osteopaths aren't considered "full doctors" in the UK, Canada, Aus, and NZ. The countries I'm more concerned with are UAE, Pakistan, Australia, and some other places where I'd like to live in the future... and DOs can't practice medicine in those countries.

There are a few Irish doctors in the US, but it's not anywhere near as popular as the Caribbean. There are only a couple of Irish schools that accept American students.

Here's where I believe that the confusion come from. In a lot of foreign countries DO are referred to as osteopaths and it is correct that "osteopaths" trained in those countries do not have full practice rights for medicine because the term means something entirely different there equivalent to the US's chiropractors. However, AMERICAN TRAINED osteopathic doc's that have been trained by a university in this country have full medical practice rights in a multitude of international countries including the UK. unlike the "osteopaths" that were trained in the UK, American DO school's curriculum teaches the full medical curriculum that they are not taught over int he UK DO schools.

 

[SFs Own Tone]

What a meaningless comment.



1) And who's the judge to (objectively?) assess how your bedside manner will be, based on a 45 minute interview? And how's it to be standardized? Or even quantified? And how successful is the interview at measuring it? It's nice and all that to talk about how important character is, but that doesn't mean an interview can filter for such a thing. As many a school will tell you, any psychopath can feign normalcy for 45 minutes. And further, there's the opportunity cost of weighting interviews -- settling for lower scores.

2) Uni admissions in this country are very much about trying to be standardized, and objective. There is some interesting history on that if you care to look into it. The reason some of the Australian schools don't weigh GPA much is because it's not standardized. A similar argument comes up a lot about interviews.

3) From google: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188_06_170308/wil10810_fm.html . It says something when you're admitting it wasn't even worth it to you to evaluate the evidence before forming conclusions.



No, you wrote incorrectly. And making a false inference. UQ is not guaranteeing one 8-week term, the rural rotation, which will be replaced and in no way jeopardizes the degree. Stop scaremongering, please.


Already addressed.

Thanks for the clarification regarding the rotation.

Regarding the whole admissions standards and interview debate, I really couldn't care less. Thats really for their image and not my training. I know myself and what type of person I am. What I care about is how well a school will train me, not what type of exclusivity I will be part of it.

 

[jaketheory]

Here's where I believe that the confusion come from. In a lot of foreign countries DO are referred to as osteopaths and it is correct that "osteopaths" trained in those countries do not have full practice rights for medicine because the term means something entirely different there equivalent to the US's chiropractors. However, AMERICAN TRAINED osteopathic doc's that have been trained by a university in this country have full medical practice rights in a multitude of international countries including the UK. unlike the "osteopaths" that were trained in the UK, American DO school's curriculum teaches the full medical curriculum that they are not taught over int he UK DO schools.

i wouldnt say they are completely different, though they are definitely not physicians. the difference is between an osteopath and an osteopathic physician. the US is the only country to train osteopathic physicians. an osteopath is not equivalent to a US chiropractor. Australia and other countries have both chiropractors and osteopaths in addition to physician/surgeons/other medical practicioners. they are distinct professions and have distinct training. i personally feel that chiropractics is a load of quackery $#it and osteopathy maybe not so much but still not very useful. but in the case of the US trained osteopathic physician it doesnt matter if osteopathy is useful because he/she is also trained in medicine.

my personal doctor is a DO and i think he is awesome. he did an ostepathic rotating internship before doing an allopathic IM residency. he has never performed any osteopathic manipulation on me so i see just as every other physician.

there is a major difference in the osteopathic training of osteopaths and US osteopathic physicians. osteopathic physicians receive many, many hours less training in OMT. but that shouldnt come as a surprise since they are learning medicine too, and most dont really use OMT that much in practice anyway.

a DO in Australia/UK is someone with a diploma of osteopathy. you can't really compare such an award to the US doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO) degree. i believe the DO courses in both australia and the UK have now been replaced by bachelor and master degree level courses.

 

[AcerExtensa]

Thanks for the clarification regarding the rotation.

Regarding the whole admissions standards and interview debate, I really couldn't care less. Thats really for their image and not my training. I know myself and what type of person I am. What I care about is how well a school will train me, not what type of exclusivity I will be part of it.

Second that.

 

[pitman]

Regarding the whole admissions standards and interview debate, I really couldn't care less. Thats really for their image and not my training. I know myself and what type of person I am. What I care about is how well a school will train me, not what type of exclusivity I will be part of it.

Third that. Purely from a marketing standpoint, not having interviews may prove to be a brilliant or a stupid move, defined by its effect on image alone.

 

[JanikeyDoc]

Here's where I believe that the confusion come from. In a lot of foreign countries DO are referred to as osteopaths and it is correct that "osteopaths" trained in those countries do not have full practice rights for medicine because the term means something entirely different there equivalent to the US's chiropractors. However, AMERICAN TRAINED osteopathic doc's that have been trained by a university in this country have full medical practice rights in a multitude of international countries including the UK. unlike the "osteopaths" that were trained in the UK, American DO school's curriculum teaches the full medical curriculum that they are not taught over int he UK DO schools.

A lot of North Americans overlook this path because they are stuck on having an MD after their name, but in the US MDs and DOs are equal. US educated DOs have full medical practice rights in many countries. The UK and most Canadian provinces allow them full registration.

 

[pitman]

Here's a list of where DOs can practice as of 2006 that was posted on the DO forums, with a link to the source doc:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=107627

 

[Transition]

I apologize for the delay in my reply to this. Thesis writing is quite a time-suck.

Anyways, pitman, you seem to take a rather condescending tone with people here. Just because you are a resident that has gone through the system in days bygone doesn't mean that your knowledge of the system is all-encompassing. I would appreciate you not taking such aggressive tones. The purpose of these boards is to disseminate information and the UQ program is rightly concerning for international entrants right now. See below.

What a meaningless comment.

great reply...

1) And who's the judge to (objectively?) assess how your bedside manner will be, based on a 45 minute interview? And how's it to be standardized? Or even quantified? And how successful is the interview at measuring it? It's nice and all that to talk about how important character is, but that doesn't mean an interview can filter for such a thing. As many a school will tell you, any psychopath can feign normalcy for 45 minutes. And further, there's the opportunity cost of weighting interviews -- settling for lower scores.

The fact is that the school is not even bothering to meet you prior to admission. This is particularly sketchy in a program like medicine because you end up being a person that gives people life-changing advice and procure and prescribe information that could severely alter someone's livelihood. Even if it's not objective, there needs to be at least some form of interaction between the applicant and the university to show that they are a good fit. It's irresponsible not to do so because, the fact is, anyone can do well on a standardized exam if they're given infinite opportunities to write it. As you so eloquently put it, 'as many a school will tell you, any psychopath can...' pass a standardized exam. The point of having all of these different hurdles is to at least try to weed these people out. Exams, GPA, interviews, volunteer experience, etc. Not only this, but there is also a semblance of professionalism that needs to be maintained in medicine. Conducting interviews for entry maintains this professionalism to a point. You're letting people into a training program that grants extraordinary power. You need to be careful who you give this power to...

2) Uni admissions in this country are very much about trying to be standardized, and objective. There is some interesting history on that if you care to look into it. The reason some of the Australian schools don't weigh GPA much is because it's not standardized. A similar argument comes up a lot about interviews.

Read above. The point is to have more hurdles to weed out those not suitable for a career dealing with people. Medicine requires more than the ability to digest and spew information in a standardized test (that, again, you can write as many times as you want).

3) From google: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188_06_170308/wil10810_fm.html . It says something when you're admitting it wasn't even worth it to you to evaluate the evidence before forming conclusions.

Did you read this article? FTA:

"GPA was most strongly correlated with academic performance (eg, for overall score, partial Spearman's correlation coefficient [pSCC], 0.47; P < 0.001), followed by interviews (pSCC, 0.12; P = 0.004) and GAMSAT (pSCC, 0.07; P = 0.08). The association between GPA and performance waned from Year 1 to Year 4, while the association between interview score and performance increased from Year 1 to Year 4."

How does this support your argument that interviews are meaningless?

Also, as I suspected, this study has some serious serious flaws. They are correlating interview scores with written final exams. These will obviously NOT correlate because they measure two different things! You need to correlate bedside manner with interview scores and, that's where it gets tricky, because how do you quantify bedside manner? OSCEs? Anyways... your evidence here isn't particularly helpful to your argument pitman.

No, you wrote incorrectly. And making a false inference. UQ is not guaranteeing one 8-week term, the rural rotation, which will be replaced and in no way jeopardizes the degree. Stop scaremongering, please.

I'm not scaremongering... this IS scary! Do you guys not realize why this is a bad thing?? The university is admitting you as a student into their program. After that admission, you should be nothing more than a student to them (other than fees). You should be allowed to access the same facilities, opportunities, mentorships, etc. that the other students get, regardless of your international status. So, the fact that they are still shafting internationals here shows that they do not regard inties (my new word for internationals) as equal to their local counterparts. How is this NOT scary?? In my conversation with a dean within the UQ medical school (name withheld as he asked me to not disclose it, which was also weird), I was told that, if the school were to run out of clinical locations for students, internationals would be first to give their spots up. Inties are not equivalent students to the locals in the eyes of the UQ medical school or in the eyes of their staff. Again, I've said this before and I'll say it again, the school regards us as nothing more than $$$. Our education is a 2ndary priority to them. Be careful with this school. It may have been wonderful in the past (as pitman so enthusiastically claims), but I am not so sure it will maintain this status for inties in the future. Remember guys, if it's too good to be true, it usually is.

 

[SFs Own Tone]

Transition, regarding your last paragraph:

pretty much any country, institution, organization should value locals over internationals. Unless the international is committing to staying in the country, the resources for training people should be first delegated to those who are most likely to stay. I understand that entirely.

Even residencies in the US aren't guaranteed.

As international students, you do get access to all the same facilities and educational opportunities. When job/training resources become limited such as residencies, then it goes to the locals first. Why should a country use its limited training resources on someone that would likely leave for his or her own country.

You make it sound like "inties" are being persecuted and exploited. Please. You are over reacting.

If you want it all: great school, great training prospects.... then get into a US school.
If you want an opportunity to get a degree from a great school and are willing to work harder at finding a proper residency, go to Australia.
If you'd rather go to an average school with a greater chance at residency, go DO or Caribbean.

You are overreacting regarding the situation at UQ. It's the nature of any university/country to first serve the local community. It's not the most perfect situation ever, but there's always pro's and cons to every situation. Look at each situation objectively, and decide which is more important to you.

 

[Transition]

Transition, regarding your last paragraph:

pretty much any country, institution, organization should value locals over internationals. Unless the international is committing to staying in the country, the resources for training people should be first delegated to those who are most likely to stay. I understand that entirely.

Even residencies in the US aren't guaranteed.

As international students, you do get access to all the same facilities and educational opportunities. When job/training resources become limited such as residencies, then it goes to the locals first. Why should a country use its limited training resources on someone that would likely leave for his or her own country.

You make it sound like "inties" are being persecuted and exploited. Please. You are over reacting.

If you want it all: great school, great training prospects.... then get into a US school.
If you want an opportunity to get a degree from a great school and are willing to work harder at finding a proper residency, go to Australia.
If you'd rather go to an average school with a greater chance at residency, go DO or Caribbean.

You are overreacting regarding the situation at UQ. It's the nature of any university/country to first serve the local community. It's not the most perfect situation ever, but there's always pro's and cons to every situation. Look at each situation objectively, and decide which is more important to you.

Appreciate the well-thought out reply SFs

I have a couple of points I'd like to bring up:

1) I understand that the point is to serve to local community first. That is the ultimate purpose behind medical education, after all, right? So, my question then is, why do they accept so many inties if they outright know that they can't support them all? The point is, an institution, after admission and other than $$, has the responsibility to provide it's students with equal opportunity education. Knowing from the get-go that they can not provide an equal education to students in the same program creates a hierarchy in the dissemination of information to students. If this is the case for UQ, then it is their responsibility to inform students of said hierarchy prior to enrollment. Especially when they accept 150+ inties at $49K each. There is little to no reason why they need to be doing this other than for money reasons.

2) If inties accept such treatment, it leads them to being treated in said manner later down the road. Who says it needs to stop at a rural rotation? Say they run out of family practice rotations, would you then be ok with their 'substitute' rotations? What options would you have to say that this isn't right considering we just bent over and took it on the rural rotation?

3) It is wholly unethical to be admitting students on the basis that they know they can not provide them the same education they do to the local students. Make it a separate program if they are going to do that, otherwise, decrease your admissions accordingly.

I agree with institutions looking out for their own. That's why I'm not complaining about the priority system for internship allocation. It makes sense and it's never been guaranteed to inties. What has been guaranteed, or at the least implied, has been equal education for their medical schooling. When this isn't provided, there's a problem.

 

[SFs Own Tone]

Appreciate the well-thought out reply SFs

I have a couple of points I'd like to bring up:

1) I understand that the point is to serve to local community first. That is the ultimate purpose behind medical education, after all, right? So, my question then is, why do they accept so many inties if they outright know that they can't support them all? The point is, an institution, after admission and other than $$, has the responsibility to provide it's students with equal opportunity education. Knowing from the get-go that they can not provide an equal education to students in the same program creates a hierarchy in the dissemination of information to students. If this is the case for UQ, then it is their responsibility to inform students of said hierarchy prior to enrollment. Especially when they accept 150+ inties at $49K each. There is little to no reason why they need to be doing this other than for money reasons.

2) If inties accept such treatment, it leads them to being treated in said manner later down the road. Who says it needs to stop at a rural rotation? Say they run out of family practice rotations, would you then be ok with their 'substitute' rotations? What options would you have to say that this isn't right considering we just bent over and took it on the rural rotation?

3) It is wholly unethical to be admitting students on the basis that they know they can not provide them the same education they do to the local students. Make it a separate program if they are going to do that, otherwise, decrease your admissions accordingly.

I agree with institutions looking out for their own. That's why I'm not complaining about the priority system for internship allocation. It makes sense and it's never been guaranteed to inties. What has been guaranteed, or at the least implied, has been equal education for their medical schooling. When this isn't provided, there's a problem.

I guess it depends on how skeptically one looks at things. In regards to the rural rotation, I understand your reasoning that substituting one rotation could lead to the substitution of another "more applicable" rotation such as family practice, etc. In the context of the rural rotation however, I'm fine with that because rural rotations wouldn't be as applicable to me as a city person. If i were an international student who intended on rural practice, I would be much more concerned.

I don't view the substitution of a rural core clinical with another rotation as a huge discrepancy in my education vs. another's students. I don't think that rotation is entirely vital or applicable for my medical education, and I trust an institution like UQ would not substitute a vital rotation with an inappropriate one. But that all depends on your skepticism or trust.

I agree a school should not accept a larger number of students than they can properly train. Where I think we disagree, is that I don't think substituting a rural rotation with another makes my training inadequate. As a side note, I think it would be even more appropriate if they substituted rural rotation with maybe a population based rotation/public health/medical administration/international health type of thing.

If I were to attend UQ or any international medical school, I would understand the limitations I would have and know that I'm not in the position to demand everything I would want. What I would demand is a great medical education that will give me a good opportunity to practice medicine the way I want.

 

[pitman]

Anyways, pitman, you seem to take a rather condescending tone with people here...

The purpose of these boards is to disseminate information and the UQ program is rightly concerning for international entrants right now.

I don't have any problem with discussing issues with not holding interviews (as I have), or with the pros and cons of UQ itself (as I also have). In fact, just the opposite, I have a problem with someone so condescending as to claim righteousness on matters of 'good' and 'bad', even if such claims weren't based on a couch assessment based on a misrepresentation of the facts.

great reply...

Thank you. I thought it most appropriate given that particular statement's unfalsifiability (i.e., meaninglessness, in the positivist sense).

...a bunch of stuff already addressed and arguments without any clash...

I'm not scaremongering... this IS scary! Do you guys not realize why this is a bad thing?? The university is admitting you as a student into their program. After that admission, you should be nothing more than a student to them (other than fees). You should be allowed to access the same facilities, opportunities, mentorships, etc. that the other students get, regardless of your international status. So, the fact that they are still shafting internationals here shows that they do not regard inties (my new word for internationals) as equal to their local counterparts. How is this NOT scary?? In my conversation with a dean within the UQ medical school (name withheld as he asked me to not disclose it, which was also weird), I was told that, if the school were to run out of clinical locations for students, internationals would be first to give their spots up. Inties are not equivalent students to the locals in the eyes of the UQ medical school or in the eyes of their staff. Again, I've said this before and I'll say it again, the school regards us as nothing more than $$$. Our education is a 2ndary priority to them. Be careful with this school. It may have been wonderful in the past (as pitman so enthusiastically claims), but I am not so sure it will maintain this status for inties in the future. Remember guys, if it's too good to be true, it usually is.

1) The scaremongering was your suggestion that somehow one's degree would be jeopardized because a (not plural, not even "core" in any meaningful sense) rotation is to be taken differently for int'l students. There's really no other word for it. Not scaremongering would be to raise the point, express concern, yet consider its falsifiability and envisage what the alternative worldview might be. It's the same basic method used to train self-assessment.

2) Again mis-representing the facts -- I don't "so enthusiasticaly claim" UQ is or ever was wonderful. With such misrepresentation and false inferences, you wonder why someone might take an aggressive tone with you? The response was measured and appropriate.

3) You seem to think that because I have graduated, I must know little about the program ("...gone through the system in days bygone..."). Just as you are so certain that a school which doesn't feel the need to meet you must be sub-standard. And to circularly assert that more criteria is superior criteria. Such presumptuousness!

I responded to you not because I want to challenge something negative said about UQ. I am challenging you, for not separating your own prejudices from your assessment of a school about which you know next to nothing.

 

[Transition]

Fair enough pitman. I have nothing more to add. The information is in this thread for people to make their own minds up now.

 

[Daemos]

K I now have evidence, UQ is definately a rolling admissions TRUE. As long as you meet the 8/8/8/M and GPA cut off you WILL get a spot. Although it seems they release their acceptances in random batches.

Over the past little while I was able to meet a few people. One of them got an offer BEFORE I did from UQ and I applied super early, with an 8/8/8/M, which is way less than what I have =p someone else I know got a 27, there was another person with a 26.

 

[jaketheory]

Even a few lower tier US medical schools have some very daunting admissions stats. I heard one of the newest US medical schools gets 3000 applications for 150 spots. Also US schools tend to have fewer students. Class sizes in many Australian schools are becoming too big. UQ used to have a total of 250 a year a while back and now they have a class size of 400. They have been steadily increasing class sizes and this year there are double the number of students studying medicine as opposed to four years ago.

Given the current environment in the US, I think North Americans who go overseas even if they secured a seat at US MD or DO school are going to make a very unwise choice. Its going to be much harder for IMGs to match into residencies from 2012 onward.

ok, buddy. stop spitting out stuff. i'm pretty sure the "new" school you are refering to is the one in Florida and it has a damn good reason to get so many apps. its offering its first years a full 4 year scholarship (and i think it includes living expenses too). it is stealing many students FROM harvard simply because many would rather graduate from a new non-prestigous school with zero debt than graduate harvard or what not with a zillion dollars debt. i work at harvard, and as they say here, we can't eat prestige!

and yes class sizes are considerably bigger in a few Aussie schools. hmm, you know what the US has 160 freakin schools! two of which are over 300 and a third is very close to 300. the aus population is much lower than the US but the number of med schools is less than that of the US by a factor that is greater than the difference in population, thus to produce the same number of docs per capita (which i'm not say they do), they would have to have larger class sizes.

and i think we all are aware that you think US MD and DO is better than going overseas. you say it in every single post. and i'd agree if one's main priority is working in the US, but i don't think that describes everyone here.

 

[jaketheory]

University of Central Florida: "Each of the first 40 students will receive a full tuition scholarship with living expenses for all four years". from their website

 

[pitman]

University of Central Florida: "Each of the first 40 students will receive a full tuition scholarship with living expenses for all four years". from their website

Now THAT is brilliant marketing.

 

[jaketheory]

Now THAT is brilliant marketing.

seriously. if you want the best and brightest students, that is how you do it. i seriously read that UCF was getting students that would have normally gone to med school at Harvard, Washington U, Yale, Columbia, UCSF, and the likes.

 

[shan564]

I thought about applying to UCF - figured that since it was a new med school, they'd have fewer applicants and it might be easier to get in. Of course, that rationale wasn't quite as effective as I expected.