Would you get into med school today?
Ever wonder how you’d fare getting into medicine these days?
Try this sample Australian Undergraduate Medical Admission Test (UMAT) question:
A woman reflects on the treatment of her husband, who has Alzheimer’s disease, in the emergency department.
“The job of the emergency team was to keep my husband alive. The problem: he was in the final stages of Alzheimer’s. It was time for him to die; his mind was gone, his body failing. He spent his days in diapers, spoon-fed, bed-bound. For 24 hours, despite my protestations and his carefully-written will, the doctors transfused him with pint after pint of blood. I have since forgiven them; they were only doing their job. They have one mission: to save lives. That my husband had Alzheimer’s was not their concern; that he was bleeding to death was”.
From the wife’s perspective, the emergency team was
A diligent but misguided
B negligent and incompetent
C sympathetic but indecisive
D competent and understanding
Which of the following would have most helped the wife in this situation?
A having the various medical procedures explained to her more fully
B being reassured that her husband was getting the best treatment available
C being given permission to leave the emergency room if she found it distressing
D feeling that her concerns were understood and appreciated by the medical staff
You get the idea, good questions, but part of me can’t help wondering how I would have performed when I was just 17. Or whether these are the sorts of issues you’re meant to learn to deal with and understand in medical school, rather than know at a tender age.
If you believe the Australian Council for Educational Research, the group that develops the UMAT, the expensive coaching that’s become almost de rigueur for candidates doesn’t help students do well at the tests.
On the other hand, the Australian Medical Student Association says the courses, costing up to $1700, threaten to undermine the integrity of admission tests for medical schools.
AMSA sounds so convinced coaching works that it has claimed the “exploitative” and “commercially-driven” programs raise questions of equity because they’re expensive and infrequently delivered in rural and remote areas.
My question to ACER is this. Do we have rigorous research that proves coaching doesn’t improve results? If so, can we see it?
(If you answered A and D, you are correct)
Try this sample Australian Undergraduate Medical Admission Test (UMAT) question:
A woman reflects on the treatment of her husband, who has Alzheimer’s disease, in the emergency department.
“The job of the emergency team was to keep my husband alive. The problem: he was in the final stages of Alzheimer’s. It was time for him to die; his mind was gone, his body failing. He spent his days in diapers, spoon-fed, bed-bound. For 24 hours, despite my protestations and his carefully-written will, the doctors transfused him with pint after pint of blood. I have since forgiven them; they were only doing their job. They have one mission: to save lives. That my husband had Alzheimer’s was not their concern; that he was bleeding to death was”.
From the wife’s perspective, the emergency team was
A diligent but misguided
B negligent and incompetent
C sympathetic but indecisive
D competent and understanding
Which of the following would have most helped the wife in this situation?
A having the various medical procedures explained to her more fully
B being reassured that her husband was getting the best treatment available
C being given permission to leave the emergency room if she found it distressing
D feeling that her concerns were understood and appreciated by the medical staff
You get the idea, good questions, but part of me can’t help wondering how I would have performed when I was just 17. Or whether these are the sorts of issues you’re meant to learn to deal with and understand in medical school, rather than know at a tender age.
If you believe the Australian Council for Educational Research, the group that develops the UMAT, the expensive coaching that’s become almost de rigueur for candidates doesn’t help students do well at the tests.
On the other hand, the Australian Medical Student Association says the courses, costing up to $1700, threaten to undermine the integrity of admission tests for medical schools.
AMSA sounds so convinced coaching works that it has claimed the “exploitative” and “commercially-driven” programs raise questions of equity because they’re expensive and infrequently delivered in rural and remote areas.
My question to ACER is this. Do we have rigorous research that proves coaching doesn’t improve results? If so, can we see it?
(If you answered A and D, you are correct)
Labels: medical school entry
posted by ozdocblog at 7:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home