[Reality_Check1]

Originally Posted by Reality_Check1

cliona88 - your GAMSAT score is terrible no two ways about it. Does that mean you will be a bad doctor - no not at all. Does that mean you will have to work harder than any person currently in a GEM programme just to pass - yes probably.

Originally Posted by Reality_Check1

If you bothered to read my post I said nothing about people with a lower score not being allowed in just that they would have to work harder

Originally Posted by Big_G

The implication here from you is that people below what you got in GAMSAT will not make good doctors. Therefore why should they bother?

Replying to this thread anymore is pointless. Despite me making the same point over and over again you choose to ignore that and still plough on with your conclusions trying to twists my words to make a point I'm not making.

At best we could blame your "low stupidity tolerance" that causes you to overlook the opinions of others believing you are always right (some may call this arrogance but whatever). At worst it is trolling and I have no interest in being tangled up in it for your entertainment

[Joe2011]

Originally Posted by Reality_Check1

It's not that the honesty is refreshing its just a viewpoint that you agree with. Its something that this thread has developed into nobody is willing to listen to the other side they just blindly thank any viewpoint that agrees with their own while trying to pick holes in the other sides argument.

By saying the above you are saying that the other side is being dishonest or mischievous in their information

btw I thought it was a good post too and wish him/her the best of luck.

You are actually barking up the wrong tree there. I am not someone on one of the lower scores who is justifying lower scores, nor am I someone who thinks that the gamsat proves nothing. However, this person is honest enough to say that they got an exceptionally impressive result, without insisting that this will/won't make them a good Doctor. I have no doubt that gamsat is a useful indicator of where someone's ability stands at that point in time. As someone who came from a non science background, I learnt an awful lot of scientific material in order to succeed at section 3. I have no doubt that this helps me in medicine, but it doesn't necessarily make me smarter than someone who didn't prepare in this manner. Granted, it was a great incentive to learn the sciences as it was an obstacle I needed to overcome. I don't think that people who compensate for a poor section 3 score by writing a good essay have proved themselves to be any smatter than the average either. However, I fully believe that they deserve a place, as they have played the system that's there and succeeded. I don't think its honest to tell someone on a lower score that they don't have the ability to do medicine when I don't even know them. They have played the system that currently exists, regardless of the system that existed when I was playing it (ie a score of 54 will probably get you in now). They deserve the same chance to pass or fail that everyone else who played the system got. If they fail, then there is no argument, but they are worthy of that chance.

[Biologic]

Can people please quote the posts they're accusing of being egotistical? Because I'm pretty sure that if someone thinks my posts were composed to make myself feel in some way superior, they haven't read my posts.
As Reality Check said, every point that I want to make in response to the most recent posts, I have already made.

I saw many who thought very highly of themselves end up being clinically incompetent including more than one Trinity Scholar. I also saw the reverse where people who scraped in became excellent. I also saw final exams not reflect very accurately clinical abilities but academic ones.

Anecdotal evidence etc...

[BarnhallBull]

So... Nobody out there from UCC so?!

[cliona88]

Originally Posted by BarnhallBull

So... Nobody out there from UCC so?!

I don't think so. I asked the same question a few months back and got no response from anyone!

[BarnhallBull]

Originally Posted by cliona88

I don't think so. I asked the same question a few months back and got no response from anyone!

Crazy isn't it? So many posters from the other three and not a single one from UCC, kinda scared of going there now in case they've all been murdered or something

[Palo Alto]

I'm intent on UCC as well, will def get an offer so also looking to hear from people!

[cliona88]

Originally Posted by BarnhallBull

Crazy isn't it? So many posters from the other three and not a single one from UCC, kinda scared of going there now in case they've all been murdered or something

Yeah you'd imagine there'd be at least one. When you go there you can tell us all about it

[Tazzle]

Originally Posted by BarnhallBull

Crazy isn't it? So many posters from the other three and not a single one from UCC, kinda scared of going there now in case they've all been murdered or something

Not murderers. Honest. Here's something I typed up last year.

~Disclaimer: They keep changing aspects of the course. Your year will be similar but different.~

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...20&postcount=8

[BarnhallBull]

Originally Posted by Tazzle

Not murderers. Honest. Here's something I typed up last year.

~Disclaimer: They keep changing aspects of the course. Your year will be similar but different.~

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...20&postcount=8

That's fantastic, exactly what I was looking for but couldn't find anywhere! You've really sold it well too!

[Big_G]

Originally Posted by Reality_Check1

I think the GAMSAT is only really a relevant screening tool if the cut-off point is kept around 57/58 - otherwise whats really the point? Lets be honest (and I dont mean to offend anyone) but that isnt a terribly high score to get. If it goes any lower there would be no point sitting an exam at all as anyone with half an iota of intelligence would be getting in.

I was wrong earlier when I said you implied that people below your score shouldn't be getting in, you actually outright stated it. And then you went on to imply anybody below that score only had half an iota of intelligence. Wow.

No twisting of words there.

Anyway I still fail to see the gravity of the situation. How does it affect the people on higher scores when people on lower scores get in?

[MLH1]

Anyone want to make predictions about this years scores after the floodgates were opened up last year?

[yit]

What has been/do people think will be the absolute lowest score that somebody can get in on? Would be good if somebody answered so at least something constructive might be said on this thread for once

[Biologic]

Originally Posted by yit

What has been the absolute..... lowest score that somebody can get in on? Would be good if somebody answered so at least something constructive might be said on this thread for once

54. It's in the title of the thread. And then again in the first line of the thread.

[j.mcdrmd]

Originally Posted by MLH1

Anyone want to make predictions about this years scores after the floodgates were opened up last year?

Maybe anyone with €100,000 + interest.