UMAT for Podiatry

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

If you don’t know the UMAT is a psychometric test that is required to get in to Medicine, Oral health and Dentistry at university. My question is why doesn’t podiatry require students to sit the UMAT? Most Podiatrists are stand alone practitioners. Just like in medicine or Dentistry. In some states the UMAT is now required to get into Physiotherapy. Do you recon the UMAT will be required in the next couple years to get into Podiatry at university?

 

Because it does not predict anything thats important, such as clinical performance.

No.

 

In theory it is a good idea to test for 'other' skills and motivations to become any sort of health proffessional. The problem is that, althought there is a great deal of competition to get into health related areas (e.g. Physiotherapy, nutrition and dietetics etc.), the demand is not high enough for universities to want to test 'personal' skills that would aid a health professional.

 

The UMAT is really working for medicine isn't it? Yeah right. Just another tool for tertiary institutions to control numbers. Initially it was introduced to screen out the applicants with inadequate communicational skills and with poor decision making. However all Australian Tertiary institutions offering MBBS have significantly increased the amount of overseas entrants into MBBS. Has anyone been on a ward round lately. You will find it hard to understand anything amongst overseas RMO's and registrars. The UMAT test is a smart and bullet proof test for the Tertiary institutions because it enables to control the numbers without been subjected to any questioning. i.e. there is no pass mark or right or wrong answer for that matter. This is unlike the entrance exams for specialties such as dermatology and opthamology. These very difficult entrance exams were used to control numbers into the respected colleges. However, gradually more people started to pass these exams and the colleges were uneasy with the amount of training placements offered. The colleges now have decided to scrap the entrance exam and only admit the 'best' applicants when THEY think the next training position should be offered. This is unfortunate for the applicant because you never know when you could get in. i.e. waiting up to ten years is not unusual.

As you can see the UMAT is a 'smart' way to control numbers and will be implemented for podiatry applicants when the Universities have no other options. At the moment it has options such as increasing the entrance score.

That's how I see it.
Con

 

Thats a really interesting take on the UMAT - i have never really thought about it like that, but i can see your point.
The cut off for podiatry isnt really that high in Australia anyway. Before they took away UWS, it was between 70 and 80 - which is quite low when you consider other health sciences out there.
I am currently at QUT - and the cut off here was equivalent to about 92.
Unless it gets to 99 which i highly doubt, there is no need for a test like the UMAT.

 

Interesting Thread! I have wondered about this too. I have been trying for Oral Hygiene for 4 or 5 yeears every year every school. I have UMAT of 88/85/49 and a STAT of 99.8 (Really easy) and I cannot get in to dental hygiene. I now know it is for those who fail to get into dentistry by a single mark and unis are using it as pre-dentistry, just get another set of fees out of the suckers. There are many people who are on their 3rd degree doing this course. Ex dental nurses...no hope....this is why Qld health is in such a hole. The unis control who gets in, nothing to do with who really wants to do the work. UMAT is just a way of cutting down the numbers who can't afford a second/third degree. Fee is 130 and prep course 450 and a private training couple of hours...? Pod is not yet that competitive. I wish I had known about it 20 years ago. Carole

 

The problem with admission criteria is to any course, is what should the criteria be?

Ideally, the criteria should be based on the variable(s) that can predict final competence and performance after they have finished the course (ie those who make good Podiatrists). Students who do really well in first year multichoice memory exams do not necessarily do well in final year practical clinical exams that require clinical reasoning skills.....the skill sets are so different.

We had an hons students last year do her thesis on what goes on the application form that we use here (ie ENTER/TER score; attended open day or not; previous courses; work and life exeperiences etc etc) and if they predicted any performance in first year (ie multichoice memory exams or long answer thinking exams) - nothing we used predicted performance (same as for the UMAT) - the cohort will be followed to see if anything relates to final year clinical performance.

We do not interview prospective students, but the research I have seen on it was not good --- in that it was not useful at predicting how students performed.

Unfortunatly at the end of the day, criteria has to be used - whether it be the UMAT or ENTER/TER ...

 

I read with interest the discussion here on university entrance tests, criteria, etc. for entry into undergraduate podiatry programs. The use of tests like the UMAT to "control numbers" seems a waste of valuable resources. Why not just raise the university entrance score for courses like medicine to something more ridiculous than it is now?

They way in which ENTER scores arise for courses each year is dependent on a number of variables including popularity of courses amongst VCE/Year 12 school leavers, available places (course quotas), number of alternative entry category applicants (those undertaking other tertiary courses, those wanting to begin tertiary studies who do not meet minimal tertiary entrance requirements - 'mature age' applicants). Course adminstrators must balance this against a cut off point at which they believe will represent the academic ability of student which will allow them to successfully complete their course.



As Craig indicated, the research we did last year found that current entrance criteria - ENTER, STAT test results, Previous work experience, "enthusiasm" for the profession (demonstrated by attendance at course information sessions, Open Day events, work experience) don't predict success in first year subjects. In fact, what was more predictive of success were issues around the student's living arrangements (sharing accommodation vs. living at home), financial status (if a student needs to work excessive hours to provide a source of income) then this may have had a detrimental effect on academic achievement (perhaps no surprise).

There's no doubt that more work needs to be done to develop valid determinants of tertiary entrance and criteria will always need to be used. Perhaps the only issues here are whether or not applications are assessed on an equitable basis?