GAMSAT 2009 - afterthoughts

etymon

Well, how did everyone get on?
Had such a long, deep sleep after yesterday - really didn't think it would be such a long day.
I sat the exam in Dublin - not sure how many were there but there were about 15 across a row and about 30 rows so that makes about 450? Actually it was really off-putting to see so many there knowing you're all in direct competition with each other!
Anyway I got on okay in all. I think Section I went really well for me but that was always my strong area as I'm a big reader and come from a legal background so I'm used to speed reading long tracts of intensely boring material and picking out the important parts!
The only question I was a bit iffy about was the Eskimo energy supply - especially the Venn diagram - whoever though they would come back to bite you on the ass in later life?! Also the scientist who said 'that's funny'... I though it indicated a problem rather than a solution but talking to people afterward I think I was in the minority.
However, I will say that, objectively, Section I required a very high standard of English and reflection on tone, viewpoint, language etcetera. I don't know how people can study for it if they are more mathematically minded or find it challenging, but I would say maybe pick up whatever novel is on one of those TV book clubs or whatever and join in with the discussion and criticism. Same with maybe leaving cert poetry skills. Join a creative writing class good for both Section I and II. I did one last year as it happened and we even did poetry for two classes which was really useful.
Timing-wise (and I am a fast reader) I finished Section I with five or ten minutes to flick back over it. That is not good for people who need time to read and interpret passages. I would have the same problem with the Science and had to keep a really close on the time. Do not go into the exam without a digital watch to keep yourself straight.
Section II was fine too because, again, the first half of the test was the reason I did it in the first place thinking I might have half a shot.
Section III was the toughie. I hadn't done any science since my Junior Cert and definitely recall failing my mock if not my actual exam. I started studying for the science at the end of January. I bought the two Leaving Cert revision books for Biology and Chemistry and when I had a grasp on those I got two Dummies guides- Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry. They were both brilliant for novices.
By last week I was actually beginning to get a bit excited about counting my lone pairs etc. which just goes to show how anyone can be converted!
The problem with Section III for me was the huge amount of nomenclature. I had to draw out all the options whereas I know others would have been able to picture the formula in their heads and moved on quicker. For instance, the question about bicyclic something or other. I had never seen that arrangement but knew that the question just wanted you to pick up on the nomenclature which was really off-putting when it was all new.
The other problem I had was the amount of questions where you have to substitute numbers into mad looking formulae with all sorts of letters some of which are explained and others which remained mysterious to me. In any event my calculator either didn't have the right buttons or I couldn't find them, not having seen a calculator in the last six years. So I would advise anyone who isn't good at physics etc. to pick up a good calculator if they are thinking of sitting it next year; one with 'log' and brackets and all that. Also - bring a ruler. There were a huge amount of graphs on the paper, some showing four different groups of information, and I was going cross-eyed trying to figure them out.
For example, there was a question on homeostasis and two examples were give - a rat and a seal. I think the rat was meant to represent a human or a mammal or whatever and the seal a cold-blooded animal so I knew the principles or the point of the question. However, the graph was so alien to me that I had to guess most of the questions which was stupid and really annoyed me, although I can see why they would want future doctors to be able to glance at a chart and spot the important info. Graphs and data are a huge part of the exam.
What was NOT on the exam were moles! And I had spent a disproportionate amount of time trying to figure the whole concept out! Actually, I still don't have a clue about them.
Thought the biology sections were fine and made educated guesses (I hope) on the organic. Guessed the physics. Loved the question about the bobble of string in the car, the only physics for dummies on the papers However fifty percent of the paper was definitely guesswork for me and the other fifty percent, well, I would say maybe twenty five I am reasonably sure are right and the rest were guesses between, say, two options so... ok... too much maths.
I can't figure out if I have done enough to get a good score in Section III but on the whole and given my background I was happy, definitely. I would be interested in sitting it again next year, maybe doing some sort of chemistry course where I could do stuff in the lab instead of reading from pages. But I guess I'll just wait and see - I only applied to RCSI and UCD so I guess I will need 60+ overall.
I find it really interesting that the top scorer sets the standard for everybody else. Actually, looking at some of the Australian forums (they had the same paper and had it twelve hours in advance...hint for next year's students with Aussie contacts!!) people found the papers tough on the whole. So I will be coming back when we get the scores to see how everyone did but I hope everyone gets a good shot at college in September.

Edible

What? The Aussies had the same test as as? How unfair! Are you sure?

ImDave

Edible wrote: »

What? The Aussies had the same test as as? How unfair! Are you sure?

Yup, I couldn't believe this myself. I sat the exam in Limerick, and ran home for lunch between Sec II and III. While eating I ventured onto Paging Dr to see how the exam went over there, only to realise that the quotes for Sec II were the same as here. I took a look at the Sec III discussion thread, and, although only two posters had commented at that time, I knew heading back into the exam that we would get a question on platlet half-life and a question on a defibrillator, just to name a few such examples. Crazy stuff!

There were just under 70 people sitting it in UL by my count, so relatively small in comparison. Personally found Sec I a race to the finish, I was going right to the last minute. That question on Inuit energy was wrecking my head for ages. I quite liked the Sec II quotes, as I had prepared a very similar essay to the one on education and using your brains. The task B quotes on age were pretty ok to I found.

Sec III overall not as bad as I expected, although the orgo chem was intense. Nice bit of physics as well which I liked. Overall, think I done OK, but certinaly not well enough. I'm taking the next two weeks off, then launching into study for GAMSAT UK in September.

Eerie

I did the GAMSAT 2 years ago and I distinctly remember some of the questions you were talking about, especially the inuit energy one - that was definately on my paper too and wrecked my head! Just goes to show how much the questions are re-used...

Tazzle

etymon wrote: »

Also the scientist who said 'that's funny'... I though it indicated a problem rather than a solution but talking to people afterward I think I was in the minority.

I think its a safe bet to be in the minority.

Nonoperational

Thats funny definitely indicates a proble imho.

Edible

yep, I went with inidcates a problem too. Didnt get the cartoon with god and the scientist on the mountain though....

etymon

I don't think the Aussies having the same paper as us is really a bit problem - you would have, what, an hour in which to get onto the internet and revise basic concepts of maybe one or two questions - big deal! Although, a point is a point is a point!
Thought I would be nice and relaxed and calm after exam but am going mad to know what I got. Looking on other forums it would seem nobody gets about 70 or so as a high score for S I which might bugger me if that's what I'm relying on...
You would need an actuarial degree to figure out the scoring and weighting system. Well, I would anyway!

Edible - that science/religion cartoon was tricky IMO because it seemed TOO straightforward - obviously the science dude is looking down his nose at religion - or is it? Is there a deeper meaning?! Haha. It kind of p&*ed me off but I just went with what I thought was the obvious answer - science superior to religion.

Edible

yeah i went with that as well.

But when you think about it, an extra hour to plan your essays would make a big difference IMO.....

etymon

the essay - yeah I guess so. I know what you mean.
I would have liked to have known about the lens question and the vampire bat because they irritated me for a long time!

ImDave

What did you guys make of the S1 opening questions (Unit 1 and/or Unit 2, can't really recall at this stage)?

I was pleasantly surprised when I turned the page. It's a pity the paper didn't continue that way :pac:

etymon

Can't remember Section I beginning, all I remember is reading the accident graph and the eskimo one in the reading time and mentally putting down the answers because I knew if I used exam time to read them I would never move on. Awful stuff!
Loved the Philip Larkin and Emily Dickinson poems. I did both for my Leaving Cert oddly enough.
Loved the passage about the cartographer guy giving out about the yoof of today and their little maps!
Thought the trickiest in terms of ambiguous or very similar options was the answer selection to the Abraham Lincoln/other guy speech comparison. Also wasn't mad on the four stages of passion or whatever that psychobabble stuff was. The passage was way too long.
Will never forget the question about falsification - which is a scientific theory - the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, the earth revolves around the sun.
I can't remember what I said in the end but it really really annoyed me and it still does, actually.

Edible

etymon wrote: »

Loved the passage about the cartographer guy giving out about the yoof of today and their little maps!
.

Dammit I didnt answer that one, had to skip a few units (i.e. guess answer c) towards the end and was tryin to figure out which looked the easiest. Skipped the entire unit with the Venn diagram also, although from what I gathered it was quite difficult?

ImDave

ImDave wrote: »

What did you guys make of the S1 opening questions (Unit 1 and/or Unit 2, can't really recall at this stage)?

I was pleasantly surprised when I turned the page. It's a pity the paper didn't continue that way :pac:

Sorry, that should actually have read Sec III. I found the first couple of questions on the heart, and the ECG strip very interesting. Also thought the question(s) on Cushing's syndrome were nice.

ImDave

Edible wrote: »

Skipped the entire unit with the Venn diagram also, although from what I gathered it was quite difficult?

I found that unit pretty confusing. Very demanding on time. I spent far too much time at it, resulting in a knock-on effect for later units. I was really pushing it towards the end, and having to speed read and attempt to interpret poetry is not good.

Anybody hazard a guess at their overall score? I know it's almost impossible to do so, but I feel that I done rather OK overall in Sec I, good task A and average-poor task B, and I think OK in Sec III, depending on how my guessing of the last 10 or so questions works out. Gun to my head, I would say I will be a fair bit off the entry requirement, maybe low 50's.

Edible

I remember the last question on the schizophrenia unit in Section I was really ambiguos. The answer was either the situation was morally wrong, or the results showed removing the machine caused the patient to regress..........

etymon

Well, with SIII I started with the second half of the paper and gave myself 1 hr 20 mins tops. Started with the NMR which I had just revised to get me into the spirit.
Don't remember exact questions in first half of paper but I do remember thinking the second half was a lot easier IMO. Though bio questions were fine and some organic but the rest weren't great.
Hoping for 70 or 80 in the first two sections if that's possible. I was scoring in the 90s on practice tests for SI so hopefully, fingers crossed. Would be over the moon with a 50 in sIII. Was scoring in the 30s on those practice tests! Who knows?!

haemfire

anyone know anything about the rumours that the 2.1 requirement will be dropped???

Alpha1.2

Quite liked section I and II. I did Gamsat in UK 2008 and found the section III much easier in that one than Ireland 2009. Irish one had way more organic (thanks be to jaysus that I studied the crap out of it, plus got grinds from a Trinity postgrad Organic chemist) plus it seems the Irish one had harder organic questions.

Favorite question - The nail growth rate one.... Had the exact same question in English 2008. Seems difficult but secret is purely in the powers.

I got enough points in the English one to do Gradmed here if the points stay the same as last year, but hopefully my org chem work will pull me up just in case points do go up.

Oh and btw, Irish Gamsat is such a rip off. In london you are in this fancy hall in the fancy part of london and they give you lunch! Any arguments about cost of living/wages etc in Ireland are a load of bollox, London rent and wages are above Dublin AND they treat you much better. I was in the Blackrock UCD one for Ireland and couldn't believe how unorganised they were in comparison.