Questions about UQ School of Med (Domestic Applicant)

[sean80439]

I swear if I knew where you actually practiced I would actively advocate that hospital prevent you from practicing since you are an actual liability. You are incapable of presenting valid arguments, you outright make up statistics, and you spread misinformation. People like you should not be in medicine, since there is no way you could ever have a patients best interests in mind when you act in this fashion.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[qldking]

Since you literally too stupid to even understand tables you yourself have access too.... Here I typed it with ALL of the years.

19 fails in 2011 and 13 fails in 2012. That's a ****load of people failing one rotation. But you claimed it was only one person failing? Who's the one being disingenous here?So you cherrypicked 2013 to try to prove your faulty argument?!

Hilarious effort, Sean. You must make pittman and nyb proud.

 

[sean80439]

Hey dip****. Who keeps repeating 25%... oh that's right that's you and your buddy Taksuhim.
Right, and since we are 'cherry picking' I like how you ignore the 2 other years. Are you actually this incompetent or are you mentally ill? How did you even make it through school?

 

[pitman]

To summarize, this is what qldking claimed:

Another thing is that UQ fails a lot of students in Years 3 and 4. A small school on the other hand basically does everything it can to keep student afloat.

And it's a huge deal because if you don't graduate on time you end up missing out on an entire year of internship.

Note the implication that by failure he means having to redo the rotation. Then he quantified this out of his a$$ when confronted by counter-arguments based on common sense:

People finish the course but I would estimate that nearly 20-25% fail one or more rotations.

pitman graduated about a decade ago when the landscape was far different and nybgrus is a mole for Ochsner.

After much fudging of numbers, the only meaningful stats found, those for multiple years of the surgery rotation, demonstrated that a measly 1.9% of students failed the rotation. In fact, qldking is the one who presented this data, which, as is usually the case, doesn't support what he says. But as usual, instead of retracting his clearly false claim, he pretends his overall point is still valid by pretending that he was arguing some other completely unsubstantiated claim, as if that makes any more sense.

Such is how we have arrived at his cherry-picked "19" and "13" fails and his claim that those are "a ****load of people failing" -- never mind that raw numbers are both meaningless (UQ has the largest classes in the country) and completely different to what he's been claiming.

But qldking, as usual, pretends that his own history does not exist and hopes that no one will remember it, thus enabling him to make any claim over and over again in a slightly different way despite his own evidence refuting him. It'd be a neat trick were it not for the delusion that everyone here suffers from retrograde amnesia.

 

[nybgrus]

In all honesty I actually think that a problem (not the problem or even perhaps a huge problem, but a problem) with medical schools is precisely the fact that so few fail. Actually @TaksuHim had a very valid point here - I think more people should be failing in medical school. Because I see examples of people that should have failed but didn't (ahem, QLDKing amongst others).

No matter how one slices it, these "complaints" that QLDKing has brought and TaksuHim has sort of strangely pseudo-supported are moot. On top of the fact, as Sean and Pitman have pointed out, that trolly king's "facts" deserve air quotes and his interpretation is beyond skewed and biased.

(now queue trolly king to make some sort of response that amounts to nothing more than "nuh uh! you are!")

 

[singmed15]

Um... wow. I hadn't expected the failure rate thing to become such an explosive debate! I kinda feel bad for bringing the thing up in the first place, and potentially wasting any of your time, especially nybgrus, pitman, & sean80439.

At the risk of throwing more gasoline onto this fire, I would like to say though that my question regarding this topic has been thoroughly satisfied, as I only wanted to know if there was a deliberate "weed-out" taking place. It's pretty clear there isn't.

Also, I do look at the MTRP reports that come out every year, and for the most part it seems that the med failure rates of all schools are pretty small, to the point that the authors don't even factor it in to their predictions. I don't how accurate these reports are though, @pitman what do you think? In any event, if 320 domestics enter UQ in 2008 and 308 graduate in 2012 (for example), the difference isn't as dramatic, unless I misunderstood how they calculate graduating student numbers.

@pitman and @nybgrus, I did end up at UQ, and I thought you might be interested to know about some of the stuff they had introduced/changed for the MD program. Just curious to get your thoughts on it:

1. It seems like they've included more anatomy and dissecting time (they're particularly proud of this). Not fully sure of all the details, but we get roughly 4 two hour dissecting sessions per semester, in groups of roughly 10 to a body (or body part depending on the session). Don't know if that's a real improvement over past years though, since I haven't asked any of the senior students yet.

2. They've moved to a totally systems based curriculum (did they have this before?) similar to what they do now in US MD schools. They've also replaced PBL with Case Based Learning (groups of 10), and apparently all of our tutors are going to consultant level docs or GPs.

3. There seems to be a bigger emphasis on clinical sciences, at least that's what they claim but I have not done enough yet to assess it. They did talk about how people had complained and bashed on the lack of sciences, and you guys say they have improved over the years.

 

[singmed15]

1.) As someone who experienced the MBBS stream at UQ, we were given one 2 hour dissection session that was extremely informal and self-directed, kind of useless learning-wise but a cool experience to those who haven't done dissections in the past. I really don't think that a couple extra dissection sections will make much difference in the quality of anatomy teaching. The real problem was that they try to teach anatomy by presenting a 15 page wall of text that verbally explains the anatomy with no pictures whatsoever, and we are expected to try and match and cross-reference this to our anatomy text books. A much stronger way of teaching anatomy would be to include labelled images of specimens or diagrams depicting the structures that we are expected to know. Trying to teach anatomy exclusively through textual explanations is really mind-bogglingly inefficient for comprehension and retention.

2.) I'm curious as to how a CBL differs from a PBL?

3.) I find that interesting because UQ is infamous for having a heavy emphasis on the clinical sciences such as physiology and pathology (certainly not a bad thing in my opinion), but as a downside they barely graze some of the basic medical sciences like biochemistry or micro, which is what most North American students have been complaining about for years since they almost have to teach themselves these subjects from scratch for the USMLE exams which focus on such subjects quite heavily and in great detail. Not sure if that's what UQ is referring to here, but more biochem, micro and pharm would definitely be a great change to the program.

That point you made about anatomy is really good, I hadn't thought about it until now, but just looking over the anatomy notes there aren't really any pictures and diagrams. I don't suppose there'd be any point in raising the issue, but I just might.

As for CBL vs PBL, at least in theory the idea is that CBL is more guided and there's a lot less self-directed learning, with more emphasis on clinical relevance. As I understand, in PBL the goal was to improve problem solving skills or whatever, and so you didn't really have to get the correct answer so much as improve reasoning. With CBL, there's a defined answer you have to reach, and the tutor will help guide you to it. There's also pre-reading so I guess that helps as well.

I don't know about biochem that much, but right of the bat there does seem to be more focus on micro and pharm. For starters, they've already given us roughly 4 hours worth of pharm lectures to review as a "refresher and basic foundation" and have indicated that there will be a lot more focus on it for the MD program. Similar story for micro. Whether it'll be at USMLE level is a different story though, and I honestly don't have a clue at this stage.

 

[nybgrus]

1) I am of the opinion that the old school way of dissecting actual cadavers in order to learn anatomy is outdated and highly inefficient. As a first year you don't know what the hell you are doing, your skill at dissecting out what you need to see is crap, and the tissues/structures don't look, feel, or cut the way they do on an actual person. I used Anatomy.tv alot as well as other diagrammatic resources. I found the actual anatomy pracs to be rather useless, though in part that was because of the format. I think the format could certainly be improved and they would be useful, but regardless I think the utility is rather low overall. Doing more anatomy in a better way is certainly a step up from when I went through it, but IMHO it is not that huge of a point. The reality is that anatomy should be assessed more and that would be the best thing - it would actually motivate people to study it and there are plenty of resources for that.

2) My M1 year was PBL. My M2 year was CBL. I found there to be no real appreciable difference. Probably a little bit better as CBL since the really open format of PBL was a bit too inefficient. I like the idea of only consultant level and GP's being tutors. I had a couple that were PhDs and the sessions were not nearly as good. I also heard that one of the tutors was a fracking homeopath, which is downright mind boggling.

3) Agreed. The one consistent thing that has been said about the Ochsner M3's who come from UQ is that they are much better clinically than their LSU and Tulane counterparts. Obviously there is a lot of overlap, but in general the clinical sciences we get from UQ noticeably put us ahead of our American counterparts. Where we lagged was with knowledge specific to the USMLE Step 1. However, the M1/2 teaching at UQ seems to also have helped quite a bit for the USMLE Step 2 since our cohorts have been doing extremely well on that whereas we have been doing only on par (though steadily, albeit slowly improving) with our US counterparts (the mean Step 1 score for the first cohort was somewhere right around 220 which is slightly below the US average and this year so far is around 228 which is just above it, but our Step 2 scores have been in the mid 240's average which is well above the US average).

However, I think that learning actual science and the real scientific basis for medicine, along with all those "basic" sciences that everyone claims to forget after starting residency and going into practice is vitally important. And I actually believe that people really aren't remembering them because we are seeing all this BS "integrative medicine" and so-called CAM gaining more and more prominence and being credulously taught at medical schools around the world. All because people don't know how to read scientific studies and don't have the basic foundations of scientific knowledge to realize why these things are garbage.

 

[qldking]

Um... wow. I hadn't expected the failure rate thing to become such an explosive debate! I kinda feel bad for bringing the thing up in the first place, and potentially wasting any of your time, especially nybgrus, pitman, & sean80439.

At the risk of throwing more gasoline onto this fire, I would like to say though that my question regarding this topic has been thoroughly satisfied, as I only wanted to know if there was a deliberate "weed-out" taking place. It's pretty clear there isn't.

Also, I do look at the MTRP reports that come out every year, and for the most part it seems that the med failure rates of all schools are pretty small, to the point that the authors don't even factor it in to their predictions. I don't how accurate these reports are though, @pitman what do you think? In any event, if 320 domestics enter UQ in 2008 and 308 graduate in 2012 (for example), the difference isn't as dramatic, unless I misunderstood how they calculate graduating student numbers.

@pitman and @nybgrus, I did end up at UQ, and I thought you might be interested to know about some of the stuff they had introduced/changed for the MD program. Just curious to get your thoughts on it:

1. It seems like they've included more anatomy and dissecting time (they're particularly proud of this). Not fully sure of all the details, but we get roughly 4 two hour dissecting sessions per semester, in groups of roughly 10 to a body (or body part depending on the session). Don't know if that's a real improvement over past years though, since I haven't asked any of the senior students yet.

2. They've moved to a totally systems based curriculum (did they have this before?) similar to what they do now in US MD schools. They've also replaced PBL with Case Based Learning (groups of 10), and apparently all of our tutors are going to consultant level docs or GPs.

3. There seems to be a bigger emphasis on clinical sciences, at least that's what they claim but I have not done enough yet to assess it. They did talk about how people had complained and bashed on the lack of sciences, and you guys say they have improved over the years.

You do realize that pitman, nyb, and sean are completely disingenuous, right? We have three recent graduates telling you a consistent story over recent failure rates and then one guy who graduated a decade ago and another who didn't even complete his clinical years in Australia making a completely different claim, backed in by someone who comes in randomly and posts unsubstantiated claims...I'd be very careful if I were you in placing any faith in their opinions.

 

[pitman]

You do realize that pitman, nyb, and sean are completely disingenuous, right? We have three recent graduates telling you a consistent story over recent failure rates and then one guy who graduated a decade ago and another who didn't even complete his clinical years in Australia making a completely different claim, backed in by someone who comes in randomly and posts unsubstantiated claims...I'd be very careful if I were you in placing any faith in their opinions.

As predicted, you once again think that by ignoring what you have said even a page above will allow you to reinforce any ridiculous claim that you want. But once again, anyone with half a brain (do you not qualify? Seriously?) can read this thread about the failure rates and the misinformation that you have tried to spread about them.

Your projection is palpable. It is YOU who "comes in randomly" to virtually every discussion, throwing out unsubstantiated claims and derailing the topic. You have no history of being a trustworthy source here, because your behavior demonstrates that you are singularly obsessed with how you perceive UQ or Qld or education generally has hurt you. So much so that you are blind to, or simply choose to ignore, how commonly your OWN EVIDENCE proves you wrong, as it has again this time.

I am sorry that you are so damaged, and I hope that you get help. But continuing here as you do I am afraid will only make things worse for you. If you persist, I and others will continue to point out the many, many lies you've posted in the short time that you've been here.

 

[lyndal]

I have to say it's amusing that Wilkinson is such a big player in the medical education system (he's now sold out to corporate) considering he's barely even a doctor. The dude is like the Obama of Australian medical education.

Just wow. I am not interested in your politics, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. As a fellow academic I can't let that comment stand unchallenged.
How about we provide a more factual account for those playing along at home.

"Professor Wilkinson grew up in the UK, trained in medicine there, and worked in rural Africa between 1987 and 1998. During this time he established a major rural health research enterprise within the South African Medical Research Council funded by the World Health Organisation, National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA and the Wellcome Trust, UK. In 1994 he won a competitive NIH Fellowship to study for a Masters degree in Epidemiology (MSc) at Columbia University, New York. His research in Africa generated three doctorates.

Professor Wilkinson was later honoured by the Royal College of Physicians (London) for his contributions to medicine during this decade, with awarding of the Frederick Murgatroyd Memorial Prize (2000), Membership of the Public Health Medicine Faculty (MFPHM, 2001) and Fellowship (FRCP, 2008).

He moved to Australia in 1999 as Foundation Chair in Rural Health at the Universities of Adelaide and South Australia, and became Pro Vice Chancellor / Vice President for Health Sciences at the University of South Australia in 2002.

He continues to practice medicine, being registered as both a general practitioner (FRACGP) and a public health medicine specialist (FAFPHM).

Professor Wilkinson’s scholarly work is focussed on assessment of student learning outcomes. He has held grants from the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council, and has won UQ Teaching Excellence and ALTC awards. In 2012 he was awarded a National Senior Teaching Fellowship by the federal Office of Learning and Teaching. The Australian-American Fulbright Commission awarded him a Fulbright Senior Scholarship for 2013-2014. "

FWIW, now that Prof Wilkinson is Deputy Vice Chancellor at Macquarie University, I am unclear how this is at all relevant to anyone wishing to study at UQ.... but your ridiculous statement still needed correction.

 

[qldking]

Just wow. I am not interested in your politics, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. As a fellow academic I can't let that comment stand unchallenged.
How about we provide a more factual account for those playing along at home.

"Professor Wilkinson grew up in the UK, trained in medicine there, and worked in rural Africa between 1987 and 1998. During this time he established a major rural health research enterprise within the South African Medical Research Council funded by the World Health Organisation, National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA and the Wellcome Trust, UK. In 1994 he won a competitive NIH Fellowship to study for a Masters degree in Epidemiology (MSc) at Columbia University, New York. His research in Africa generated three doctorates.

Professor Wilkinson was later honoured by the Royal College of Physicians (London) for his contributions to medicine during this decade, with awarding of the Frederick Murgatroyd Memorial Prize (2000), Membership of the Public Health Medicine Faculty (MFPHM, 2001) and Fellowship (FRCP, 2008).

He moved to Australia in 1999 as Foundation Chair in Rural Health at the Universities of Adelaide and South Australia, and became Pro Vice Chancellor / Vice President for Health Sciences at the University of South Australia in 2002.

He continues to practice medicine, being registered as both a general practitioner (FRACGP) and a public health medicine specialist (FAFPHM).

Professor Wilkinson’s scholarly work is focussed on assessment of student learning outcomes. He has held grants from the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council, and has won UQ Teaching Excellence and ALTC awards. In 2012 he was awarded a National Senior Teaching Fellowship by the federal Office of Learning and Teaching. The Australian-American Fulbright Commission awarded him a Fulbright Senior Scholarship for 2013-2014. "

FWIW, now that Prof Wilkinson is Deputy Vice Chancellor at Macquarie University, I am unclear how this is at all relevant to anyone wishing to study at UQ.... but your ridiculous statement still needed correction.

There's essentially two points that need to be made:

1. No one goes into public health who has debt or has to actually work for a living or earn money for a living with dependents. It's a field for those born into luxury. It's the 'charity' field of medicine.

2. Wilkinson's policies have seriously and directly harmed international students ,and no matter how you want to dance around the topic, it's truly affecting students psychologically, financially, and politically. I know of final year students who have become almost incapacitated with depression over the prospects of not gaining an internship and several who have considered suicide over the matter. I ask that you take this seriously. This is not some impersonal diatribe.

Whether you want to view him as the progenitor/collaborator/pursuer it doesn't matter. I personally would never be able to live with myself if I knew that even one, just one international student was drowning in debt and couldn't stay here for internship. And I'm disgusted by the fact that no one is taking any sort of responsibility in the internship crisis.

And off the topic, I'm not sure when academics decided they are members of the clergy. Academics make a pretty comfortable salary and when their decisions carry such consequences they are absolutely not immune to criticism. This whole concept of academics/administrators (which is what they truly are, more than anything, let us be honest) being anything more than their stated title seems to have coincided with the corporatisation of the university system.

 

[pitman]

There's essentially two points that need to be made:
1. No one goes into public health who has debt or has to actually work for a living or earn money for a living with dependents. It's a field for those born into luxury. It's the 'charity' field of medicine.

The funniest thing, qldking, is that you think this sort of response does anything except make people here think you are an absolute idiot.

2. Wilkinson's policies have seriously and directly harmed international students ,and no matter how you want to dance around the topic, it's truly affecting students psychologically, financially, and politically. I know of final year students who have become almost incapacitated with depression over the prospects of not gaining an internship and several who have considered suicide over the matter. I ask that you take this seriously. This is not some impersonal diatribe.

Given your history of proven defamation, I call this out as another lie (leaving alone the continued projection, fallacious reasoning of cause-and-effect, demonstrated lack of understanding of policy, lack of understanding of the non-uniqueness of policy, demonstration that you know nobody...).

You have zero credibility, and you will not gain any credibility by alienating yourself further.

 

[lyndal]

"1. No one goes into public health who has debt or has to actually work for a living or earn money for a living with dependents. It's a field for those born into luxury. It's the 'charity' field of medicine."

What now? That's seriously bizarre. People go into medicine and its various specialties for all kinds of reasons. You can't possibly make blanket assumptions about people's personal reasons. I do not know (or care) what Prof Wilkinson's personal background is. I have been a military doctor, a GP and an academic - none of which are considered "high paying" in medical terms - yet I come from a humble background. I chose these specialities for reasons other than money. Your generalisations and assumptions are insulting to all of us.

As I said before I am not commenting on UQ politics - I am not informed on these issues and will leave it to people better informed than me. I just do not believe you can cast aspersions and falsehoods about Prof Wilkinson's experience or career, or anyone else's for that matter, without it being challenged.

Finally you said "And off the topic, I'm not sure when academics decided they are members of the clergy. Academics make a pretty comfortable salary and when their decisions carry such consequences they are absolutely not immune to criticism. This whole concept of academics/administrators (which is what they truly are, more than anything, let us be honest) being anything more than their stated title seems to have coincided with the corporatisation of the university system."

Call me dense if you wish but in this paragraph, I have no idea what you are going on about. :/

 

[pitman]

...the corporatisation of the university system.

This is simply another example of qldking admitting that he filters everything through his obsession with "evil corporate ******".

For further insight, more than a dozen other examples/admissions can be found here:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/search/6830300/?q=corporate&o=relevance&c[user][0]=601800

and here:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/search/6830566/?q=corporatization&o=relevance&c[user][0]=601800

 

[qldking]

"1. No one goes into public health who has debt or has to actually work for a living or earn money for a living with dependents. It's a field for those born into luxury. It's the 'charity' field of medicine."

What now? That's seriously bizarre. People go into medicine and its various specialties for all kinds of reasons. You can't possibly make blanket assumptions about people's personal reasons. I do not know (or care) what Prof Wilkinson's personal background is. I have been a military doctor, a GP and an academic - none of which are considered "high paying" in medical terms - yet I come from a humble background. I chose these specialities for reasons other than money. Your generalisations and assumptions are insulting to all of us.

As I said before I am not commenting on UQ politics - I am not informed on these issues and will leave it to people better informed than me. I just do not believe you can cast aspersions and falsehoods about Prof Wilkinson's experience or career, or anyone else's for that matter, without it being challenged.

Finally you said "And off the topic, I'm not sure when academics decided they are members of the clergy. Academics make a pretty comfortable salary and when their decisions carry such consequences they are absolutely not immune to criticism. This whole concept of academics/administrators (which is what they truly are, more than anything, let us be honest) being anything more than their stated title seems to have coincided with the corporatisation of the university system."

Call me dense if you wish but in this paragraph, I have no idea what you are going on about. :/

It's not about Wilkinson. I only use him as an example because he was the Head of the school when I was at UQ. He's irrelevant as a person beyond the impact of his policies. I just wish there were better cooperation between the medical schools and the state because right now the only party suffering is the students. The internship debacle is just another step towards this country turning into the United States.

 

[qldking]

This is simply another example of qldking admitting that he filters everything through his obsession with "evil corporate ******".

For further insight, more than a dozen other examples/admissions can be found here:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/search/6830300/?q=corporate&o=relevance&c[user][0]=601800

and here:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/search/6830566/?q=corporatization&o=relevance&c[user][0]=601800

And do you not perceieve a clear corporatisation of the university system? It's amusing because there's so many other actors involved. What went down in Ipswich was an absolute disgrace and they knew what they were doing. They knew they completely trashed a gem that they were handed in good faith.

 

[akwizeguy]

it should be noted that as 3rd years the UQ-O students are widely and consistently regarded more highly than our Tulane and LSU counterparts in terms of clinical ability and acumen. We do still tend to do less well in getting pimped, but when it comes to functioning in a clinical capacity in clerkships it is common to hear mildly surprised praise at how well we do. Granted there is probably some selection bias involved, but there is also unquestionably the fact that Tulane and LSU students are specifically taught towards the Step 1 whereas UQ covers more clinical preparedness and patient management than a typical US school

You do realize that Tulane stopped sending a large portion of their students to Oschner due to the poor quality of teaching on clinical rotations right?

 

[qldking]

You do realize that Tulane stopped sending a large portion of their students to Oschner due to the poor quality of teaching on clinical rotations right?

What do you mean? Can you give more details?

There were a few Ochsner profs/physicians who came over here and they seemed far more easy going than their Australian counterparts. Is this the case?

 

[pitman]

What do you mean? Can you give more details?

Oh looky here, trollyking pretending to be genuinely curious so that he can once again twist and spread whatever factoid he can get his hands on in his bitter head.

 

[qldking]

Oh looky here, trollyking pretending to be genuinely curious so that he can once again twist and spread whatever factoid he can get his hands on in his bitter head.

No it's an honest question. I have never been to Ochsner and would be interested in hearing what the other med schools in the area think about the system and institution and how their interactions with Ochsner students have been.

Since it appears that Australian medical schools are seeking to become joint ventures with their American counterparts it would be interesting to know the perception of these institutions/corporations within the United States.

 

[pitman]

Since it appears that Australian medical schools are seeking to become joint ventures with their American counterparts it would be interesting to know the perception of these institutions/corporations within the United States.

Yes, it would be interesting. But seeing how you keep showing an obsession with what you see as "evil corporate ******" everywhere (even just above), and your approach to Ochsner, knowing absolutely nothing about it, has been to attempt to trash it and its graduates' prospects -- empirically shown to be flat out lies on your part -- your feigned interest in "honesty" is not of any value to anyone here. There is nothing honest about your agenda.

 

[nybgrus]

You do realize that Tulane stopped sending a large portion of their students to Oschner due to the poor quality of teaching on clinical rotations right?

No, not only was I not aware of that but to the best of my understanding and knowledge (and I have pretty darned good sources on this one) it is entirely the opposite. Tulane has been sending students to Ochsner for at least a couple of decades and Ochsner attempted to formalize the relationship as they were taking on the Tulane students with no recompense whatsoever (this was prior to the UQ-O partnership). Tulane rebuffed them, quite content with the status quo at the time. Subsequent to that, Ochsner students started coming over and ultimately began to displace Tulane (and LSU) students. After all, Ochsner has a huge capacity to teach med students but not unlimited and the plan was and is to decrease the number of Tulane/LSU students rolling through in order to accomodate the increase in Ochsner students. Tulane subsequently became very upset that their students were getting less preference and having less opportunity to rotate through.

However none of that has any bearing, nor have I ever heard anything that even remotely approximates the claim that you are making right now. And considering the excellent feedback Ochsner gets both from the UQ-O cohort and the Australian traditionals, along with my own experiences and those of others I know, plus the fact that UQ-O grads have been doing extremely well on the USMLE Step 2 CK I find it very hard to believe the claim you are making. Our biggest problem in this regard has been UQ traditional students clamoring to do rotations here because they find the clinical education to be so much better than back in Australia.

Do you have anything to actually support the claim you are making, or is it just hearsay on your part? Because I have my own hearsay, experience, plus a lot more, that I think quite effectively counters your claim unless you can bring something else to actually support it.

 

[qldking]

'Our biggest problem in this regard has been UQ traditional students clamoring to do rotations here because they find the clinical education to be so much better than back in Australia.'

Australians go to Ochsner because they have the idea New Orleans is how it was 20 years ago, not because of any perceived improvement in the clinical experience.

 

[nybgrus]

'Our biggest problem in this regard has been UQ traditional students clamoring to do rotations here because they find the clinical education to be so much better than back in Australia.'

Australians go to Ochsner because they have the idea New Orleans is how it was 20 years ago, not because of any perceived improvement in the clinical experience.

You are flagrantly inadequate and really should keep your incredibly bad and half baked ideas to yourself.

 

[nybgrus]

You are flagrantly inadequate and really should keep your incredibly bad and half baked ideas to yourself.

That should be ignorant, not inadequate.

 

[pitman]

Australians go to Ochsner because they have the idea New Orleans is how it was 20 years ago, not because of any perceived improvement in the clinical experience.

I love how you always make such confident assertions about matters and people you so obviously know nothing about. It reveals a lot about your character.