variability..........that is what you are saying.........what i am saying is, why do we not cut down the variability, like countries like oz and uk.........by making sure all candidates accepted are the best from the pool...........

define 'good'...

i am confused.......so they all accept students without near perfect scores........therefore they are good enough?......

of course, that is why they also conduct tests of personality and amplitude in the selection process......

the point remains, there are MORE than enough potential candidates with very high scores AND the right applitude (what you called eq)........so why choose from those with poor results?

in other words, the FIRST and FOREMOST criteria MUST be the intellectual ability....then from this group, choose the most suitable applitude wise.......

arguing that someone thought to have the 'eq' to be a good doctor can be one, in spite of poor academic records just doesn't cut it..........not in developed countries anyway.....but as can be seen, many here seems to support this reasoning.......that i suspect stems from the fact that there are indeed a lot of medical students in msia and other 3rd world countries, who would never have even been shortlisted in the developed world.....they are in because of connections, money, affirmative programmes.......etc......

these are facts.....

---

Added on March 23, 2008, 1:47 pmter 90 would generally be considered the minimum cutoff.....

imu was 94 last year, 91 this year.......but apparently like monash as someone said in another thread, they will kick you out just like that if you don't make the cut.......last year's batch, 40 got kicked down (repeat 1st of 2nd sem) or out.......

This post has been edited by limeuu: Mar 23 2008, 01:47 PM

i think you really need to move away from the quota mentality......

you will be surprise how accurate and precise some of these validated applitude tests are.........they are commonly combined with tests of reasoning (what you called iq), in a random fashion, so the student does not know what he is tested on........

don't give excuses, all the tools to accurately select the best candidates are there, it is a matter of whether the uni/gov wants to do it or not........ie the political will.......

---

Added on March 23, 2008, 3:04 pmdud, what do you think we are saying then?......

to be fair however, like i said, it has been shown than like many people here claims, you don't have to be a genius to do medicine.........the top 10% of a cohort should be able to do it well enough, that correspond to ter 90 and above, and indeed, that is the MINIMUM ter score to be considered for medicine and dentistry in oz........

Melbourne is unique in oz, as the one which rely purely on ter scores in selection, so most of the students actually have ter above 99.75........the other oz undergraduate med schools rely on a combination of applitude test scores (umat, isat pqa), interview, and ter......and generally, the vast majority of selected students will have a ter above 95...........

let me make my stand........i have NO issue with anyone with a ter score of 95 and above (or equivalent) doing medicine........that is at least 20,000 students in msia every year to choose from........there will be NO problem in finding the right candidates from that large group........agree?

This post has been edited by limeuu: Mar 23 2008, 03:04 PM

there are 400+k students per cohort .....the ter system is based purely on percentile ranking, NOT marks, so the top 5% will be 20K students plus..........these are the ones getting the straight a's in spm (what, more than 6k alone this year?) and those with mostly a's and a few b's........before anyone talk about NOT using spm again, this is the LAST common exams for msians, it doesn't matter what they do after, matrik, stpm, a levels whatever, the top 5% at spm will also produce the top 5% at the matriculation level in general........

you could have just googled it, but anyway, nah........

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Thu...icle/index_html

you are still not understanding what i am saying.......i am NOT saying you choose medical students from form 5.......i beginning to sound like a stuck record.......potential medical students MUST undergo a formal matriculation programme, be it stpm, matrik, sam, a levels, cpu whatever......and these students selected from the top 5%........since it is difficult to equate these different matriculation pathways, the nearest COMMON exam that ALL these students go through can be used as a rough yardstick......on the assumption that the top 5% performers at spm will also be the top 5% performers at their subsequent respective matriculation.......of course it WILL NOT correlate completely but it would correlate enough to be a basis for determining if a potential student has been selected on merit.........it is NOT exact science.....

20k students is more than enough to select 3k for medicine........

---

Added on March 24, 2008, 12:03 amand in reply to the jpa scholar, if you accept the scholarship, accept the conditions attached.........too many jpa scholars break their bond, it has become a bit of a joke........in the interview, some are asking what the bond penalty is if they break the bond, even before they are given the scholarship.......

if you want to stay back there, DON'T take the scholarship........jpa scholars are spending taxpayers money......lots of it, and the least they can do is to return and repay their social debt by returning to provide their much needed service......

the issue on meritocracy (or the lack of ) in service matters is a different kettle of fish altogether.......staying back in foreign countries for housejobs and 'training' does NOT solve the problem........

This post has been edited by limeuu: Mar 24 2008, 12:03 AM

pre-u (matriculation): too variable......how do you compare??

issue here is ENTRY..........med school results/performance does NOT come into the picture at this stage......

is it that difficult to understand??

okay, since you insist.......this is just my estimate of the equivalent of top 5%

stpm: A- A- A-
matrik: cgpa 3.9
a-level: AAA
sam: ter 95 (duh)
uec: A2 A2 A2
ib: 40

aim of all this is to reduce variability to as low as possible.......this is NOT a trial and error experiment......" okay let's see, we shall take this group of students, see how they do.....oops, oh dear, we got a lot of bad ones, they just killed some patients.......bugger........."

and to reduce wastage........every student kicked out is a waste of time, money, and more importantly, waste of a place and a potential doctor for the country.....

if you ever become a manager/planner for a country's health service, you will know what i mean.....

---

Added on March 24, 2008, 12:31 amisn't it painfully obvious from my comments?

This post has been edited by limeuu: Mar 24 2008, 12:43 AM

i am getting very disappointed that a medical student cannot understand simple concepts like this......

any student after the first few weeks, dropping or flunking out means a wasted slot in the training of doctors..........the slot cannot be replaced by another student..........you have deprived the country of one potential doctor, and another student of taking up the course.....medical schools should aim for zero drop out, which can be achieved if the right candidates are selected.....

lower scores?....no.......the reason why ipts med school are taking in low scorers is because they are the ones why can PAY the fees.....lots of better qualified, interested, and suitable students will not even apply........simply because they cannot afford......that is bad....selection based on how rich you are NOT on how good you are........

CAN YOU JUST FORGET ABOUT SAM AND THE TER? we are talking about msian, and who to select to become doctors. there are more than 400k going through spm every year, after which into many different matriculation programmes and potential doctors should be chosen from the top 5% of this cohort of 400k students......

this is a really messed up country, public funded ipta is in diasarray.......allowing the ipts to flourish......which means basically, you buy a degree.......which is fine for most courses, except for medicine.........where there MUST be controls to ensure only academically strong, applititudly appropriate students be taken in.......it is not an experiment, not trial and error.......and i think an error appears to have been committed right now.......

obviously you cannot understand the CONCEPT of a percentile ranking system like the oz ter system, and apply it on the local scenerio.......the bell shape curve is the same....

i think it is pointless to continue, my points are clear, i leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusion........those who can understand will understand, those who can't, or wouldn't, well......the education has failed us, and we are really taking inappropriate people into ipts med schools for money.......

This post has been edited by limeuu: Mar 24 2008, 02:14 PM

somebody blew a fuse?

zltan, i still think mel is an overpriced place, and many seems to agree, see the monash thread.....but at least in the areas that matters, they stick to their standards.......

This post has been edited by limeuu: Mar 24 2008, 02:19 PM

and that's NOT from lack of trying........you think they purposely want to fail 10%?
nobody gets it 100%, but all tries to reduce drop outs to as low as possible....NO, they don't use the normal curve to fail people.......key principles here are competent, knowledgable and SAFE......

people drop out for many reasons, not just failures........so many drop-outs are beyond control......if you are studying in uk now, you will know changing courses and dropping out is very common there, for all the other courses, some as much as 50% will drop change course........but they try their level best to minimise this for courses like medicine and dentistry.......

but because of this, it is okay for msia med schools to be lax with the selection process, and fail people along the way?....the logic escapes me....

as for post graduate, that is a completely different ball game......and you are absolutely right......many doctors will NOT be cut out for specialisation......there will be a further sieveing process........in that area, msia also is messed up....but that is another story......

it appears there are two view points amongst student here now......

a few wants/expects/experienced thorough vetting for potential med students, and understands the need to minimise drop-outs, and ensure only qualified students be taken in.....

others wants it to be as easy as possible, on the basis that one cannot know if one will coup with the course or not till one starts, or that one will become a good doctor or not till one graduates, and wants to allow all who can afford the fees to have a go at it, and see if they will make it.........

no price for guessing which group of students will support which model of entry selection........

This post has been edited by limeuu: Mar 24 2008, 08:47 PM

if in spite of strict intake, there is still dropout (actually 10% is considered low, and a target to achieve) imagine lax intake and the same high standards apply, how high the dropout will be........

in any case, some here will say you have no right to make comments then..........

dunno about reading between the lines, but reading your lines, you said not med student woh, and someone said not med student or doctor cannot comment woh, so how?

okay then, not med student, but doctor....can comment lah.....so you went through strict selection process, or sup sup sui one?

imu belongs to the 2nd category, although not as sup sup sui as some others.....the entry process is pretty bland, and cut off this year a low ter 91......but for the pms stream, to satisfy the pms' requirements, certain minimum standards has to be kept, so they liberally kick people out, after pocketing their fees.....i suppose it is not too bad, it's just daddy's money......

that system would be a no no for ipta, using public tax money........but we all know not the best get selected there as well, in compliance with certain policies........

but if you sub-stratify ipta students, the retention rate amongst those who really deserve to be there is close to 100%, so strict selection does work........we all know how strict is strict in ipta for this group.........

This post has been edited by limeuu: Mar 24 2008, 11:36 PM

of course not, there are alway exceptions, and you may be the one.....

the fact remains that the tighter the selection process, the higher the retention rate......it never reaches 100% of course........

straight question 1: would you have made it straight into uk/oz?

straight question 2: if strict selection had been used, and you didn't make it, but someone else with better academic performance is in your place, (ie money, or lack of, not in the equation) would he do any worse than you?