Opinions On Ukcat Useful Or Unfair

[Confused.com]

Hi forum

I am curious to find out if anyone else bar me thinks the UKCAT is just another way to squeeze money out of us aspiring students. Considering that is costs 65-75 quid just to sit and everyone who applies for medicine or dentistry will need to sit it.

I spoke to a few universities, the immpression of the interview system I go was first they look at ur grades those who dnt mee the grade thrown out then they look at the ukcat those who dnt meet the cut off thrown out! ur PS and ref only gets taken into consideration at interview!

Personally I think this is such a load of *!*T I mean isnt it a proven fact that people with fantastic grades do NOT always make good doctors. I have seen my fair share of 6A students that dnt make it through medical school. At the same time Ive seen people go to nightschool or ATM courses and become great docs.

Being a doctor is not only about academic ability it is about being hardworking,considerate and commited . Personally I feel the UKCAT is just academics . I really had to hold my lips shut when the admissions people were telling me how fair the new system is!.
I dnt think its fair someone could have all the capabilty to be a doc maybe grades arnt fantastic but they could have done a lot of work ex and voluntary work but are going to get knocked back cos of some weird little test .

Opinions people!!!

[Arch_Angel]

Yup, it's unfair, but then the volume off applications they get you can't blame them for picking a method that's easy for them to manage and simple to differentiate between scores. You can see how it'd be difficult to pick between a candidate who did chem, biology and geography and one that did chem, biology and history, likewise personal statements must be all pretty much the same, especially for school leavers as they've been in full time education all their lives, exactly what groundbreaking / lifeshattering stuff could they get up to? There's no difference between running and swimming and there's no difference between Scouts and Duke of Edinburgh, if you catch my drift.

The tests are unfair yes, but can you really say that you'd not use them if you were admissions staff? For example Kings is supposed to get 1500 applicants for it's GEP, isn't it easier to simply log everyones UKCAT score onto excel and delete those that aren't in the top 10%? Harsh, but at the end of the day you've got to make these decisions and why not use a test like this to make them?

The rising numbers of applications to medicine mean that extra measures are needed to weed out candidates. If that means eliminating people on the basis of a score, even on a pretty arbitrary test then so be it. If one person can show ability over another in one aspect (admissions tests) when all their other traits are the same, who you going to pick?

In the end it's unfair because it's got nothing really to do with suitability to medicine, but it's just another thing set up to make more people fall.

It shouldn't cost that much tho

Nik

[Polldoll]

I can see why they needed to bring it in, lke it was said above, an extra way of differentiating between lots of A grade students. (Back to the whole have exams got easier now adays argument, but there certainly weren't as many when I was at school!)

The cost is very high, but its not the only course there is an upfront expense for. To apply for music schools, you have to pay just to apply, to each school! At the time I applied, it was £50 per school and I was to apply for 4! Sorry not very relevant to UKCAT, but we are not the only ones charged lots of money to apply to uni
Px

[chrisjimmartin]

I got a rather odd email from Pearson Vue saying that they decided not to use the last section results in med school applications.

Does that mean I can have a fifth of my money back?

[hogwarts10]

Originally Posted by Arch_Angel

Yup, it's unfair, but then the volume off applications they get you can't blame them for picking a method that's easy for them to manage and simple to differentiate between scores. You can see how it'd be difficult to pick between a candidate who did chem, biology and geography and one that did chem, biology and history, likewise personal statements must be all pretty much the same, especially for school leavers as they've been in full time education all their lives, exactly what groundbreaking / lifeshattering stuff could they get up to? There's no difference between running and swimming and there's no difference between Scouts and Duke of Edinburgh, if you catch my drift.

The tests are unfair yes, but can you really say that you'd not use them if you were admissions staff? For example Kings is supposed to get 1500 applicants for it's GEP, isn't it easier to simply log everyones UKCAT score onto excel and delete those that aren't in the top 10%? Harsh, but at the end of the day you've got to make these decisions and why not use a test like this to make them?

The rising numbers of applications to medicine mean that extra measures are needed to weed out candidates. If that means eliminating people on the basis of a score, even on a pretty arbitrary test then so be it. If one person can show ability over another in one aspect (admissions tests) when all their other traits are the same, who you going to pick?

In the end it's unfair because it's got nothing really to do with suitability to medicine, but it's just another thing set up to make more people fall.

It shouldn't cost that much tho

Nik

Hey,
I definitely agree with Nik. Some method of differentiation is necessary when considering the ever rising number of applicants. But my issue with the UKCAT stems from the structure of the test itself. I have a serious problem with the notion of measuring "aptitude". Not only is it too arbitrary of a concept to measure, but one is forced to question its validity in assessing a person's potential to perform a job. Moreover, it certainly discriminates against students that did not have access to academically rigorous schools, don't speak English as a first language, etc... There's also an issue that was previously raised in this forum reagrding the reason as to why graduate seem to be scoring considerably higher than school leavers if it were a true test of aptitude.
I'm also quite vexed about the statement that you cannot practice for this test, which in my opinion is completely ridiculous. I had to bust for the test, and the score I got has nothing to do with my intelligence as I really think that I am quite average. It had a lot to do with the books I was able to buy and read, and the time I was able to take off work to study for this stupid test; again more examples of potential discrimination.
However, in raising valid concerns regarding the UKCAT, one must have a realistic alternative. Do people have any ideas?

[469er]

Originally Posted by hogwarts10

However, in raising valid concerns regarding the UKCAT, one must have a realistic alternative. Do people have any ideas?

I think it's an idiotic test, although I doubt the object of the exercise is to fleece medicine applicants financially. Clearly, there's a need to differentiate between a huge number of very able applicants, and some form of whittling down method is needed. However, I really can't see that an intelligence test was a smart way to go (leaving aside the question of whether it actually does measure intelligence very accurately, which is moot, too, IMO).

Given the concerns post-Tomorrow's Doctors to develop new doctors' skills in a range of areas other than the purely academic, I would say that the UKCAT is a terrible missed opportunity, given that the will to develop and implement a test that was widely used by medical schools clearly existed. Why test for intelligence? Surely the whole problem is that we're all intelligent? Almost anyone seriously considering medical school is academically capable of cutting it. How does it help matters to select the most intelligent out of what is already a very clever pool of people?

I would like to see instead some way to depart from the purely cerebral, and look at maturity, motivation, and a range of other personal qualities. My personal preference (although as a mature student I accept I may be biased) would be to restrict medical school entry to the over-25s.

I'm prepared for a barrage of abuse from the youngsters though

[hogwarts10]

Originally Posted by 469er

I would like to see instead some way to depart from the purely cerebral, and look at maturity, motivation, and a range of other personal qualities. My personal preference (although as a mature student I accept I may be biased) would be to restrict medical school entry to the over-25s.

I absolutely agree . Granted I have my biases too as a mature student...

[Polldoll]

I have to agree too, medicine would be better as a post graduate degree, like it is in the states.
But saying that Im sure the school leavers will put up a good argument for them!!

[Arch_Angel]

Someone mentioned above that grads tend to get higher scores, yea, on a whole they (we) do, and the reason is experience, nothing to do with intelligence. After at least 3 years of exams that can test whatever the hell they like from a very wide range of subjects you get to know that you trust nothing other that your own doubts in your knowledge and ability as far as taking exams goes. I fully expect that many people going for undergrad medicine too one look at the UKCAT website "You cannot prepare" and accepted that and failed horribly (I personally know one guy that did this and scored very low).

The test is about preparation not actual ability (although the ability to add up quickly will probably help). However this is simply a "think outside the box" way of testing you further, if you've got the brains to look up what will be on the test and prepare for it in an appropriate manner then you've shown more ability that someone that took pearson vue's word for it that that wasn't possible.

Maybe they put that statement there on purpose so that more people would score low, therefore making the test more effective.

As for the mature entry, I think we should adopt the way it's done in the states, medicine as a 4 year postgrad course. That way everyone would be ready for it (very few dropouts) and have the knowledge and experience a first degree brings.

Nik

[.: Hope :.]

Originally Posted by Confused.com

Considering that is costs 65-75 quid just to sit

... and 25 quid for an additional PRINTOUT of your results