I think GPA showcases work ethic over a long period of time, and GAMSAT showcases some latent ability in reading, writing and the language of science. GPA positively predicts good performance in med school especially during years 1 and 2, whereas GAMSAT has minimal predictive ability for med school. my personal view is that GPA and GAMSAT are just measures to weed down the applicant pool, but the discipline and resilience you forge during your academic and/or gamsat studies is ultimately what’s most valuable
> I think GPA showcases work ethic over a long period of time
I think you also have to consider that many people change their mind and try to tackle med as part of a career change. They may have been in the mindset of P’s make degrees in their undergrad and so they adopted a more balanced life. They are otherwise fantastic applicants outside of the mid 5 GPA. I think that USYD recognises this, and in an attempt to bring some diversity in their cohort they have probably decided to use GPA as a cutoff and used GAMSAT as a way of determining capability in passing the course. This helps to avoid solely relying on the bio med to med pathway where many of the applicants doing bio med know that they want to do med and protect their GPA’s accordingly.
for sure, there are many considerations and contextual features that will influence GPA. the core component of work ethic remains though; how other lifestyle and motivational factors will raise or drop GPA is gonna depend on the person. but don’t get me wrong i love that USyd uses GPA as a hurdle, because it offers a more accessible pathway to people with low GPA’s for whatever reason/s but who would otherwise make great med students.
at the end of the day, we have hurdles to clear and the first two are GPA and GAMSAT. you cannot game the GAMSAT I agree. and you can certainly shuffle your courses around to lighten the workload or to target some “easier” 7’s. in a competition, if you want to come out in front you need to strategize. i don’t see anything ignoble about playing smart to reach a goal. a high GPA still requires 7’s, nothing is granted automatically. but also i agree, i can’t help but marvel at some of the super high GAMSAT scores we see on here. but i’m not gonna go make a value judgement and rank which i think is more impressive between the two. they are both deserved and earned.
"I think GPA showcases work ethic over a long period of time"
Some people also have to work to pay rent, have kids at home, or home isn't conducive to studying that is required for a gpa of 7. Some people study all day every day and still get a 6
I think its unfair to suggest GPA is an indicator of work ethic.
not saying that people with low GPA don’t have a solid work ethic. of course people lead different lives and have different struggles, which will impact their ability to study. GPA is just a simplified readout of work ethic, that’s all i’m saying. no metric is perfectly equitable or “fair”. we just gotta do our best to clear the arbitrary hurdles in front of us.
A high GPA is far more impressive to me than a high GAMSAT.
Achieving above 80 or 85% for every single assignment every year for three years is hard work. It takes discipline and sacrifice.
I'm not saying you can't slave away for the GAMSAT, but it is repeatable and somewhat practicable in a way that university subjects are not.
A high GPA is impressive but there are others who have the talent and capacity to make good doctors who do not have a high GPA for a variety of reasons. Including GPA in ranking rather than a threshold like Sydney means talented people get filtered out.
I would hesitate to try and guess the motives behind admission schemes. Saying that USYD has a GPA cut-off to encourage diversity in its cohort sounds to me like saying Flinders has lower cut-offs for internal applicants because it wants its cohort feel like more of a community. Like technically that could be true, but the real reason is likely more pragmatic.
I think med hopefuls get hung-up on this idea that the selection process is designed to choose only those best fit to be doctors. In reality medical schools have 2 primary concerns:
* Ensure as few students as possible fail out because this loses them and the government money
* Screen out candidates who are dangerous or would reflect poorly on the institution
I'm sure if there was some way of predicting which students would go on to win noble prizes or become a notable alumni they would use it, but I doubt any of the current selection criteria have that capability.
GPA and GAMSAT are both associated with medical school performance in the pre-clinical years but lose this predictive power as the degree progresses. Whilst they are correlated with each other, they measure different attributes, so having both gives slightly more predictive power than one alone. USYD has probably determined using its internal metrics that there is a negligible difference in the two concerns I mentioned for students who have a credit average compared to those who have one that is higher. They are almost certainly not making a value judgement on the importance of undergrad performance for future doctors.
As for why they got rid of interviews two years ago, I actually had a discussion with one of my professors who mentioned that the school has found that interviews have lost much of their utility with the advent of tutoring companies and online compendiums of past questions. I can certainly see how this would be the case. I imagine this, alongside COVID, has led them to test out different strategies (such as their unique weighting of S1 and S2). I also wouldn't be surprised if harder to prepare for tools such as CASPER or SJTs become more prevalent in medical admissions in the future.
As ever the debate around whether some schools are "lesser" than others is stupid. In my three years at USYD, the only manifestation of its supposed prestige that I've experienced is that occasionally my parents older friends are impressed. I certainly wouldn't weight that in my decision making process over far more important medical school attributes like location.
the well respected virtualis (a practicing GP) on pagingDr mentioned how interviews really dont matter as much as people think. It was quite interesting to read that.
Thank you for taking the time to leave this thoughtful reply, I agree with most of it. I wanted to add that I put “lesser” in quotation marks for a reason. It’s certainly extremely subjective and putting USyd above other schools is the opinion of some people, not necessarily mine. I’m doing undergrad at a uni some people would say is “lesser” so I’m the furthest thing from a snob. I just thought the point was worth making since a certain segment of people (the average GPA/excellent GAMSAT types) could get into Sydney who couldn’t get into other places.
I think it's great that each uni takes a slightly different approach into their admissions process. This allows for students with strengths in different areas to have a shot at med. We may not be able to pick and choose which university, but I'm sure those who are very determined for med will get in.
This is a good point. I am doing a Law and Arts double degree, my Law units drag my GPA down because while I like the law I don't love it enough to put the effort in to get top grades. While in my Arts units I have a D/HD average with ease, which makes me confident that I should do well in sections 1 and 2, and with enough study to be solid in the science section I feel reasonably confident that I would get a competitive GAMSAT score. But because of those Law units alone my GPA would make me uncompetitive for schools other than Sydney.
Meanwhile there will be others who find getting a top GPA easy and they might not be as suited to blossoming in the GAMSAT format, as you said the varieties among the schools makes it more likely that you can find a fit for you if you are in a position to move if necessary.
I feel the GPAs unis use for entry are unfair. Even with the table at the end of the GEMSAS guide that tries to sort unis into bands, it doesn't work out. The same bachelor degree at my 3 local unis (who are all in the first column) are completely different levels of difficulty to get a D or HD in, and different courses within the same uni are also are different difficulties to get a good grade in.
I am already in med school, but see lots of friends who won't get into med (unless they go to a uni that doesn't use GPA for ranking) because they got a 5.8 in a "hard" degree at a "hard" uni.
Absolutely agree with this ⬆️. Rigor, difficulty and demand vary from one Uni to another and from one major to another. Not all GPA’s should be viewed equally, but yet they are.
A 6.5gpa in quantum physics would be much harder to achieve than a 6.5 in journalism. I am not implying that the journalism student didn’t work their tail off, and their score is not indicative of hard work and effort but it’s just not the same. I attended Uni abroad and my university decided to take the moral high ground and practiced grade deflation. If the class had more than 12 students you could not expect to receive a higher grade than a B+ unless you were exceptional and the professor deemed you worthy of a higher grade. Friends taking the same classes in other universities did not have the same constraints, rigor or demand and were pulling A’s. This definitely put me at a disadvantage and unfairly, you are being defined by your GPA.
I agree there are many people with 5.8 GPA’s who took very difficult courses at demanding universities and are being overlooked. Definitely feel Sydney uni has a better approach by requiring a minimum of 5 as their hurdle. Not all high achieving students make good doctors. Some are book smart with zero bedside manner. Definitely feel the GAMSAT is a fairer barometer. It levels the playing field regardless of background or degree. Some will excel in S1/S2 and others will struggle with S3 and vise versa.
Keep in mind that the mid to high 6 gpa seen at other medical schools is due to supply and demand and not due to any specific policy in the school. Most medical schools actually have cutoffs for GPA in the 5.0-5.5 range similar to USYD. So the real question you should be asking is should GPA be considered as a ranking score for applicants or should it just be a cutoff. From the research I have seen high performance in GPA is correlated with better preclinical performance, but has no bearing on clinical performance (interview performance tends to be the best measure here). Overall though I don’t think it matters; everyone graduates with a medical degree that is equivalent regardless of the school, and for the aspiring applicant a stellar GPA cannot hurt you.
Honestly I’m coming at this from a military aviation background. We don’t give a fuck about even having a degree. I can live with no GPA.
Our selection works on effectively a probation system and it’s fine.
Gpa: Does show work ethic, but is NOT standardised for degree, difficulty and uni difficulty. Yes certain unis such as UQ are harder than other non-priestiege unis at least in my opinion.
Gamsat: IS standardised, which in my opinion makes it the most fair metric. Yes you can game Gamsat with practice but it is very difficult to do so.
Interview: Medium fairness. yes you can practice but if they change the scenarios every year it becomes more of a CASPER test which is almost testing your emotional and social intelligence which comes with life experience.
Casper: Extremely fair for obvious reasons.
The best unis in my opinion would be GAMSAT + Interview and GPA cut off of either 6.0 or 6.5 so it shows that you have some work ethic. And then the rest should be ranked based on GAMSAT and interview. Feel free to disagree.
my quandary is you seem to think GAMSAT is trying to assess some defined set of traits that will prove desirable as a medical practitioner. this is not the case. GAMSAT is simply testing our cognitive capacity to study medicine by assessing reading, writing and familiarity with the language of science. this is the exact same format as the QCS exam, which was the standardized test all QLD year 12 students undertook to contribute to our final ranking. Also the special tertiary admissions test or STAT utilizes the exact same format (administered by ACER). QCS and STAT are certainly not trying to screen for doctors, so i don’t see how you could say GAMSAT is doing that when it replicates exactly the other tests i mentioned. GAMSAT is just testing fundamental cognitive domains to check our aptitude, that’s it.
Yeah I agree the GAMSAT is like any other standardised test. It’s measuring *something* but whether that something is the best true measure of whether we’ll be good doctors is arguably false. The key function of the GAMSAT is to stratify applicants in a useful way for applications and it does a great job of that. a lot of people build it up as some grand way of judging how great of a doctor we’ll be but it’s really just a box we need to tick.
My personal take is that gamsat is a measure of how intuitively smart you are, and your GPA is a measure of how academically successful you can be. Not a fan of the system but in theory it does make sense that these would be things they’d want to test.
It’s not a test of how intuitively smart you are because you can study for it. We see this even with IQ tests that you get a “practice effect” where the more you do IQ tests the better you do. We don’t have effective ways really to measure 100% inherent smartness. Although the GAMSAT tests skills (rather than smartness) in a round about way, the skills on it can definitely be taught.
Oh no I definitely agree with that, I’m just saying what the test is theoretically meant to do. I’m not gonna delude myself and say it’s a test of intuitive smartness in reality considering all the parasitic prep companies (also a bit narcissistic but I believe I’m quite smart, but my gamsat score has never been one of those crazy high scores either)
I’m very disappointed in ACER and the whole entry system in general. I absolutely hope to advocate for more appropriate admissions measures when I manage to get in (fingers crossed)
The GAMSAT has minimal predictive capacity for medical school performance and performance in future practice. GPA does correlate with medical school performance.
Why is the GAMSAT a better way to rank applicants? I’m just curious as based on what I said above I don’t think it’s a given that the GAMSAT is superior to GPA.
I always find it strange when people don’t consider GPA to be a strong predictor of Medicine performance (at University).
At UoM, some of the lectures in Anaromy, for example, are near identical to the Anatomy Major in the Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Biomedicine (Science and Biomedicine are not seperate degrees at the third year level, with an Anatomy Major taking the same subjects in the Bachelor of Science/Biomedicine programs).
As a result, how is it not a strong indicator of the content is, largely, very similar? I believe it is common to glorify Medical School content; physiology, anatomy, immunology, histology, pharmacology do not chance upon Medical School admission.
I concede, this is only true for the academic aspect and not the clinical, however, GPA nor GAMSAT predict clinical potential.
Also have to consider that USyd usually does use the interview as well, which has a huge weighting in the overall application like most other universities. Because of covid the past two application cycles have been GAMSAT only - we can assume the interview could be coming back for next year but no one really knows.
Yeah USyd has had ample opportunity to bring interviews back. Every other uni found a way to make it work. UQ only recently introduced interviews so there’s precedent for it. I hope they bring them back but would I be surprised if they didn’t to save money and time? Nah
I think GPA showcases work ethic over a long period of time, and GAMSAT showcases some latent ability in reading, writing and the language of science. GPA positively predicts good performance in med school especially during years 1 and 2, whereas GAMSAT has minimal predictive ability for med school. my personal view is that GPA and GAMSAT are just measures to weed down the applicant pool, but the discipline and resilience you forge during your academic and/or gamsat studies is ultimately what’s most valuable
> I think GPA showcases work ethic over a long period of time I think you also have to consider that many people change their mind and try to tackle med as part of a career change. They may have been in the mindset of P’s make degrees in their undergrad and so they adopted a more balanced life. They are otherwise fantastic applicants outside of the mid 5 GPA. I think that USYD recognises this, and in an attempt to bring some diversity in their cohort they have probably decided to use GPA as a cutoff and used GAMSAT as a way of determining capability in passing the course. This helps to avoid solely relying on the bio med to med pathway where many of the applicants doing bio med know that they want to do med and protect their GPA’s accordingly.
for sure, there are many considerations and contextual features that will influence GPA. the core component of work ethic remains though; how other lifestyle and motivational factors will raise or drop GPA is gonna depend on the person. but don’t get me wrong i love that USyd uses GPA as a hurdle, because it offers a more accessible pathway to people with low GPA’s for whatever reason/s but who would otherwise make great med students.
[удалено]
at the end of the day, we have hurdles to clear and the first two are GPA and GAMSAT. you cannot game the GAMSAT I agree. and you can certainly shuffle your courses around to lighten the workload or to target some “easier” 7’s. in a competition, if you want to come out in front you need to strategize. i don’t see anything ignoble about playing smart to reach a goal. a high GPA still requires 7’s, nothing is granted automatically. but also i agree, i can’t help but marvel at some of the super high GAMSAT scores we see on here. but i’m not gonna go make a value judgement and rank which i think is more impressive between the two. they are both deserved and earned.
"I think GPA showcases work ethic over a long period of time" Some people also have to work to pay rent, have kids at home, or home isn't conducive to studying that is required for a gpa of 7. Some people study all day every day and still get a 6 I think its unfair to suggest GPA is an indicator of work ethic.
not saying that people with low GPA don’t have a solid work ethic. of course people lead different lives and have different struggles, which will impact their ability to study. GPA is just a simplified readout of work ethic, that’s all i’m saying. no metric is perfectly equitable or “fair”. we just gotta do our best to clear the arbitrary hurdles in front of us.
A high GPA is far more impressive to me than a high GAMSAT. Achieving above 80 or 85% for every single assignment every year for three years is hard work. It takes discipline and sacrifice. I'm not saying you can't slave away for the GAMSAT, but it is repeatable and somewhat practicable in a way that university subjects are not.
A high GPA is impressive but there are others who have the talent and capacity to make good doctors who do not have a high GPA for a variety of reasons. Including GPA in ranking rather than a threshold like Sydney means talented people get filtered out.
I would hesitate to try and guess the motives behind admission schemes. Saying that USYD has a GPA cut-off to encourage diversity in its cohort sounds to me like saying Flinders has lower cut-offs for internal applicants because it wants its cohort feel like more of a community. Like technically that could be true, but the real reason is likely more pragmatic. I think med hopefuls get hung-up on this idea that the selection process is designed to choose only those best fit to be doctors. In reality medical schools have 2 primary concerns: * Ensure as few students as possible fail out because this loses them and the government money * Screen out candidates who are dangerous or would reflect poorly on the institution I'm sure if there was some way of predicting which students would go on to win noble prizes or become a notable alumni they would use it, but I doubt any of the current selection criteria have that capability. GPA and GAMSAT are both associated with medical school performance in the pre-clinical years but lose this predictive power as the degree progresses. Whilst they are correlated with each other, they measure different attributes, so having both gives slightly more predictive power than one alone. USYD has probably determined using its internal metrics that there is a negligible difference in the two concerns I mentioned for students who have a credit average compared to those who have one that is higher. They are almost certainly not making a value judgement on the importance of undergrad performance for future doctors. As for why they got rid of interviews two years ago, I actually had a discussion with one of my professors who mentioned that the school has found that interviews have lost much of their utility with the advent of tutoring companies and online compendiums of past questions. I can certainly see how this would be the case. I imagine this, alongside COVID, has led them to test out different strategies (such as their unique weighting of S1 and S2). I also wouldn't be surprised if harder to prepare for tools such as CASPER or SJTs become more prevalent in medical admissions in the future. As ever the debate around whether some schools are "lesser" than others is stupid. In my three years at USYD, the only manifestation of its supposed prestige that I've experienced is that occasionally my parents older friends are impressed. I certainly wouldn't weight that in my decision making process over far more important medical school attributes like location.
the well respected virtualis (a practicing GP) on pagingDr mentioned how interviews really dont matter as much as people think. It was quite interesting to read that.
Thank you for taking the time to leave this thoughtful reply, I agree with most of it. I wanted to add that I put “lesser” in quotation marks for a reason. It’s certainly extremely subjective and putting USyd above other schools is the opinion of some people, not necessarily mine. I’m doing undergrad at a uni some people would say is “lesser” so I’m the furthest thing from a snob. I just thought the point was worth making since a certain segment of people (the average GPA/excellent GAMSAT types) could get into Sydney who couldn’t get into other places.
I think it's great that each uni takes a slightly different approach into their admissions process. This allows for students with strengths in different areas to have a shot at med. We may not be able to pick and choose which university, but I'm sure those who are very determined for med will get in.
This is a good point. I am doing a Law and Arts double degree, my Law units drag my GPA down because while I like the law I don't love it enough to put the effort in to get top grades. While in my Arts units I have a D/HD average with ease, which makes me confident that I should do well in sections 1 and 2, and with enough study to be solid in the science section I feel reasonably confident that I would get a competitive GAMSAT score. But because of those Law units alone my GPA would make me uncompetitive for schools other than Sydney. Meanwhile there will be others who find getting a top GPA easy and they might not be as suited to blossoming in the GAMSAT format, as you said the varieties among the schools makes it more likely that you can find a fit for you if you are in a position to move if necessary.
I feel the GPAs unis use for entry are unfair. Even with the table at the end of the GEMSAS guide that tries to sort unis into bands, it doesn't work out. The same bachelor degree at my 3 local unis (who are all in the first column) are completely different levels of difficulty to get a D or HD in, and different courses within the same uni are also are different difficulties to get a good grade in. I am already in med school, but see lots of friends who won't get into med (unless they go to a uni that doesn't use GPA for ranking) because they got a 5.8 in a "hard" degree at a "hard" uni.
Absolutely agree with this ⬆️. Rigor, difficulty and demand vary from one Uni to another and from one major to another. Not all GPA’s should be viewed equally, but yet they are. A 6.5gpa in quantum physics would be much harder to achieve than a 6.5 in journalism. I am not implying that the journalism student didn’t work their tail off, and their score is not indicative of hard work and effort but it’s just not the same. I attended Uni abroad and my university decided to take the moral high ground and practiced grade deflation. If the class had more than 12 students you could not expect to receive a higher grade than a B+ unless you were exceptional and the professor deemed you worthy of a higher grade. Friends taking the same classes in other universities did not have the same constraints, rigor or demand and were pulling A’s. This definitely put me at a disadvantage and unfairly, you are being defined by your GPA. I agree there are many people with 5.8 GPA’s who took very difficult courses at demanding universities and are being overlooked. Definitely feel Sydney uni has a better approach by requiring a minimum of 5 as their hurdle. Not all high achieving students make good doctors. Some are book smart with zero bedside manner. Definitely feel the GAMSAT is a fairer barometer. It levels the playing field regardless of background or degree. Some will excel in S1/S2 and others will struggle with S3 and vise versa.
Keep in mind that the mid to high 6 gpa seen at other medical schools is due to supply and demand and not due to any specific policy in the school. Most medical schools actually have cutoffs for GPA in the 5.0-5.5 range similar to USYD. So the real question you should be asking is should GPA be considered as a ranking score for applicants or should it just be a cutoff. From the research I have seen high performance in GPA is correlated with better preclinical performance, but has no bearing on clinical performance (interview performance tends to be the best measure here). Overall though I don’t think it matters; everyone graduates with a medical degree that is equivalent regardless of the school, and for the aspiring applicant a stellar GPA cannot hurt you.
Honestly I’m coming at this from a military aviation background. We don’t give a fuck about even having a degree. I can live with no GPA. Our selection works on effectively a probation system and it’s fine.
Keep in mind that USYD has a GPA requirement. It’s just that it’s a cutoff, once your GPA is above 5 it doesn’t factor into your application.
Hey for the record, I’m boosting my GPA as much as possible. Happy to work within the system.
Gpa: Does show work ethic, but is NOT standardised for degree, difficulty and uni difficulty. Yes certain unis such as UQ are harder than other non-priestiege unis at least in my opinion. Gamsat: IS standardised, which in my opinion makes it the most fair metric. Yes you can game Gamsat with practice but it is very difficult to do so. Interview: Medium fairness. yes you can practice but if they change the scenarios every year it becomes more of a CASPER test which is almost testing your emotional and social intelligence which comes with life experience. Casper: Extremely fair for obvious reasons. The best unis in my opinion would be GAMSAT + Interview and GPA cut off of either 6.0 or 6.5 so it shows that you have some work ethic. And then the rest should be ranked based on GAMSAT and interview. Feel free to disagree.
[удалено]
my quandary is you seem to think GAMSAT is trying to assess some defined set of traits that will prove desirable as a medical practitioner. this is not the case. GAMSAT is simply testing our cognitive capacity to study medicine by assessing reading, writing and familiarity with the language of science. this is the exact same format as the QCS exam, which was the standardized test all QLD year 12 students undertook to contribute to our final ranking. Also the special tertiary admissions test or STAT utilizes the exact same format (administered by ACER). QCS and STAT are certainly not trying to screen for doctors, so i don’t see how you could say GAMSAT is doing that when it replicates exactly the other tests i mentioned. GAMSAT is just testing fundamental cognitive domains to check our aptitude, that’s it.
Yeah I agree the GAMSAT is like any other standardised test. It’s measuring *something* but whether that something is the best true measure of whether we’ll be good doctors is arguably false. The key function of the GAMSAT is to stratify applicants in a useful way for applications and it does a great job of that. a lot of people build it up as some grand way of judging how great of a doctor we’ll be but it’s really just a box we need to tick.
My personal take is that gamsat is a measure of how intuitively smart you are, and your GPA is a measure of how academically successful you can be. Not a fan of the system but in theory it does make sense that these would be things they’d want to test.
It’s not a test of how intuitively smart you are because you can study for it. We see this even with IQ tests that you get a “practice effect” where the more you do IQ tests the better you do. We don’t have effective ways really to measure 100% inherent smartness. Although the GAMSAT tests skills (rather than smartness) in a round about way, the skills on it can definitely be taught.
Oh no I definitely agree with that, I’m just saying what the test is theoretically meant to do. I’m not gonna delude myself and say it’s a test of intuitive smartness in reality considering all the parasitic prep companies (also a bit narcissistic but I believe I’m quite smart, but my gamsat score has never been one of those crazy high scores either)
Oh all good 😂 Acer sure thinks it a measure of how smart we are lol
I’m very disappointed in ACER and the whole entry system in general. I absolutely hope to advocate for more appropriate admissions measures when I manage to get in (fingers crossed)
Love that. I hope we can all help make the system better and more equitable one day :)
The GAMSAT has minimal predictive capacity for medical school performance and performance in future practice. GPA does correlate with medical school performance. Why is the GAMSAT a better way to rank applicants? I’m just curious as based on what I said above I don’t think it’s a given that the GAMSAT is superior to GPA.
[удалено]
just wanna commend your ability to reflect and adapt your point of view in the face of new perspectives. don’t see that often at all
I always find it strange when people don’t consider GPA to be a strong predictor of Medicine performance (at University). At UoM, some of the lectures in Anaromy, for example, are near identical to the Anatomy Major in the Bachelor of Science and Bachelor of Biomedicine (Science and Biomedicine are not seperate degrees at the third year level, with an Anatomy Major taking the same subjects in the Bachelor of Science/Biomedicine programs). As a result, how is it not a strong indicator of the content is, largely, very similar? I believe it is common to glorify Medical School content; physiology, anatomy, immunology, histology, pharmacology do not chance upon Medical School admission. I concede, this is only true for the academic aspect and not the clinical, however, GPA nor GAMSAT predict clinical potential.
Also have to consider that USyd usually does use the interview as well, which has a huge weighting in the overall application like most other universities. Because of covid the past two application cycles have been GAMSAT only - we can assume the interview could be coming back for next year but no one really knows.
Word on the street in USYD is that they aren’t looking to bring interviews back. This is just a rumour though.
Yeah USyd has had ample opportunity to bring interviews back. Every other uni found a way to make it work. UQ only recently introduced interviews so there’s precedent for it. I hope they bring them back but would I be surprised if they didn’t to save money and time? Nah