With all due respect, that argument is ridiculous. A piece of paper CANNOT indicate whether or not someone has the capacity or tenacity to pursue a demanding career like medicine, it just can't. The sheer number of people applying should indicate to you that they need to cull numbers, so they implement this shite and charge their $220 to employ a bunch of monkey to "supervise". "UMAT is a test of natural ability, skill, and perseverance. " - If someone can improve on their initial scores, which i'm guessing you did.. where is the fucking natural ability in that? You've got to be kidding.. FINALLY, if it's not even fucking taken onboard as criteria for all Australian, or even world-wide universities, how on Earth can it be viable?
Apart from that, thanks for listing suggestions, but it'd be sure easier to take side with you if i'd secured an MBBS position too.
But you're missing a crucial point: perseverance. Some people sit this paper 6 times. Some people sit it once. The ones that sit it once and then give up were never up to the task of medicine.
I only improved in one section, my best section both times, (the other two stayed roughly the same) because the questions were changed to suit my style of thinking, problem solving, which is a major part of medicine (we have PROBLEM Based Learning tutorials twice a week).
And someone improving on their initial scores shows they have ability it just needed to be fostered.
If HSC is not taken on by every state in Australia how can it be viable?
If the courses at different universities are structured differently but give the same degree how can they be viable?
If X doesn't match up with Y then how can it be viable?
Do you see what's wrong with this form of argument?
Obviously there was a need for this test and that need was met.
Btw, before must some universities used to have entrance tests at their interviews that you couldn't apply for. These tested for creativity and pragmatic thinking, be thankful UMAT can be prepared for better than these.
