Traditional and GEM entry to Medicine

tallaght01

<posts split from previous GEM thread>

I think it was nesf who posted figures about how easily they're giving out 2:1 degrees nowadays. I know I shared a flat at uni with some guys who were total dossers, but all got 2:1 minimum with not a huge amount of work, except for knuckling down in the last few months. They mostly did arts/social science degrees, and one did sports science.

Really lovely guys, and good friends of mine. But they'd probably be able to knuckle down to GAMSAT, but woulnd't be able for the lifetime of study/membership exams etc that a medical career entails.

2Scoops

They'd be found out quick enough, so.

tallaght01

2Scoops wrote: »

They'd be found out quick enough, so.

Yea but it's a it pointless taking in people who won't do that well.

My concern with all this was never that people won't be ale to complete the undergrad course. It's the longer term implications, and the fact that we may be leaving out BETTER candidates.

Though I do worry a bit about the above statistic relating to everyone passing the exams. Does make me wonder a bit. Just my opinion though.

2Scoops

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's the longer term implications, and the fact that we may be leaving out BETTER candidates.

But they only take the people with the best test scores; how are better candidates being left out?

tallaght01

2Scoops wrote: »

But they only take the people with the best test scores; how are better candidates being left out?

The reason I said we MAY be leaving out better candidates is that:

A) More than the exam, it's who we let sit the exam. Someone with a 2:1 in photography is allowed sit it. But there was a vet on here a while ago, he graduated from UCD with a 2:2, and he wants to change career. A guy like that would probably be a good asset to medicine. But he wouldn't even be allowed sit GAMSAT. Same with someone who has a 2:2 in pharmacy or physio. We all know that not all degrees are created equal. I trained with a lot of people who got a 2:2 in pharmacy who were light years smarter than my flatmate who got got a 2:1 in art history.

If the GAMSAT was simply replacing the few graduate entry places they have every year, I could understand that. I got in by interview, which is equally as balls a way to judge as GAMSAT. I have no problem with that being replaced. But this seems to be a rollout of a whole load of places for med school.. Why not give these places to the students who have 520 points who've worked hard over the space of 2 years, rather than the few months it takes to do GAMSAT. I still maintain success at the LC is, by and large, a good indication of work ethic and smarts. I don't know what these kids haven't got that the GAMSAT people do. These kids are under ferocious pressure for uni places. They'd make great docs. So, give them the places I reckon.

C) The med students I teach in Oz are starting to come through from the other allied professions. The smart ones are doing pharmacy and physio, so that will help them with med school. Then they leave these understaffed professions and go and do med. That's great. But if these kids had of been allowed into med straight from school, we could have left someone else do their pharmacy or physio course.

So, look, I don't really wanna get into a big GEM row. I know the GEM students get a bit sensitive about it, and I can understand that. But I'm not making up my experiences, which is all I have to go on. It's a regular topic of conversation in the mess that the GEM students from certain backgrounds are not great. They'll pass med school. But they won't be great docs. Though, in fairness, there are lots of them that are great.

But I think if we're going to change graduate entry, there's better ways. Would introducing pre-med degree help, like in the states. Let everyone with 450+ points in. At the end of 2 years, you go and do physio, pharm, radiography or med, and it's competitive. Test a broad range of skills.

I just think think medicine has to be bloody hard to get into. It should take years of work. The punters deserve docs who are up to that, in my opinion.

But, I know it's here to stay, and I'll cope with that. the health service won't collapse. But I do think we're not maximising the recruitment of our smartest kids.

2Scoops

I think that adopting the US system would be a great improvement, but it would never go over with the powers that be: all grad entry, all do the MCAT, all do interviews. Can't say fairer than that.

tallaght01

2Scoops wrote: »

I think that adopting the US system would be a great improvement, but it would never go over with the powers that be: all grad entry, all do the MCAT, all do interviews. Can't say fairer than that.

I agree. In the US medicine is bloody hard to get into. But it seems fair. I agree that it's not going to be adopted here any time soon, though. I just think we're being fooled into thinking that GEM has been adopted because it's the best. Whereas in my opinion, it's been adopted because it's convenient.

Though I'd have probably been booted back to the lab by the US system, admittedly :P

2Scoops

tallaght01 wrote: »

Why not give these places to the students who have 520 points who've worked hard over the space of 2 years, rather than the few months it takes to do GAMSAT. I still maintain success at the LC is, by and large, a good indication of work ethic and smarts.

These people will still be eligible to sit GAMSAT later, assuming they can manage a 2.1 degree. This way, the very high LC achievers get fast-tracked, since you love them so much :P, and the not-quites get to compete on a level playing field in years to come. It also means that even more high LC achievers, who didn't pick medicine first time around because they thought they'd like art history or some other nonsense, get a second bite at the cherry. Your experiences with Australian grad med grads aside, this system seems like it will make places available for more high achievers, not less. Unless they can't beat the rest in a straightforward test, in which case maybe they're not that smart.

tallaght01

2Scoops wrote: »

These people will still be eligible to sit GAMSAT later, assuming they can manage a 2.1 degree. This way, the very high LC achievers get fast-tracked, since you love them so much :P, and the not-quites get to compete on a level playing field in years to come. It also means that even more high LC achievers, who didn't pick medicine first time around because they thought they'd like art history or some other nonsense, get a second bite at the cherry. Your experiences with Australian grad med grads aside, this system seems like it will make places available for more high achievers, not less. Unless they can't beat the rest in a straightforward test, in which case maybe they're not that smart.

Yea, I've thought about that, too, tbh. BUt what I'm wondering about is whether they're going to do other health degrees, thus taking up places on those degrees, which are competitive anyway. Or will they do "easy" degrees, to make sure they get their 2:1. It's also a very costly way of doing medicine.

One of the things influencing my thinking here (and you might be ale to tell me if this is the case i Ireland) is the fact that in the UK and Oz most students do an intercalated BSc during their medical degree. This is usually in something they've developed an interest in during their pre-clinical years. This doesn't happen with GEM students. But I feel the degree is useful for th med students. The budding surgeons do anatomy degrees. The medics do pharmacology. The hippies like me do a public health BSc. I htink these degrees are better for them than the random ones they do before medicine.

But I do agree with you. I think in years to come the "getting into medicine industry" will focus on these bright kids getting a 2:1 in a degree and then sitting the GAMSAT.

etymon

The point of the GAMSAT is that science and non-science grads alike are held to the same standard. I think anyone who passed a primary degree should be eligible; if you can't reach the standard required in the Gamsat, then tough luck. But it shouldn't depend on what grade you got in your degree; we all were guilty of arsing around in college and I know I picked my final year subjects on an easy-to-score-high in basis, which definitely doesn't make me smarter than the person who chose the tough subjects and scored lower in their final degree.
The 2:1 requirement reminds me too much of LC points and their uselessness, which I thought was the whole point of the Gamsat; displaying a mature aptitude not cram-smart intelligence.

liberal

etymon wrote: »

The point of the GAMSAT is that science and non-science grads alike are held to the same standard. I think anyone who passed a primary degree should be eligible; if you can't reach the standard required in the Gamsat, then tough luck. But it shouldn't depend on what grade you got in your degree; we all were guilty of arsing around in college and I know I picked my final year subjects on an easy-to-score-high in basis, which definitely doesn't make me smarter than the person who chose the tough subjects and scored lower in their final degree.
The 2:1 requirement reminds me too much of LC points and their uselessness, which I thought was the whole point of the Gamsat; displaying a mature aptitude not cram-smart intelligence.

Going into medicine you need someone that can study there back side off....this isn't the only quality needed but it is one of the most important

The high LC points proved someone was able for the heavy work load, the 2:1 proves it, but to a lesser extent

etymon

Yeah, I agree you have to be able to study study study but what I'm saying is anyone who crams can get a 600 point LC; you can't just cram for the Gamsat so it's a valid route for those whom the LC (and I suppose in many disciplines, college degrees) did not suit. I would prefer an MCAT sort of exam because I am better at cramming but am slowly coming around to the (very irritating) Gamsat way of thinking!

sillymoo

Correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure it takes mare than cramming to get 550+ points in the leaving cert. When I did my LC I put in 2 years solid work to get 550+ with a lot of sweat and tears shed. I think you would have to be exceptionally bright to cram for a LC exam and come out with an A1.

Just a point to think about.

Saintly

sillymoo wrote: »

Correct me if im wrong but im pretty sure it takes mare than cramming to get 550+ points in the leaving cert. When I did my LC I put in 2 years solid work to get 550+ with a lot of sweat and tears shed. I think you would have to be exceptionally bright to cram for a LC exam and come out with an A1.

Just a point to think about.

Mmm - not so sure if I agree with that. Back in the day, I got 520 points with a few A1s, which either matched/ was close enough to points for med then - I was certainly a solid, steady worker but I don't remember being overly stressed by the LC experience - had a keen interest in sports which also took up time and was only sacrificed after the infamous mocks. Life did seem to stop after mocks, mind you! I did a tutition course at weekends which brought my science subjects up to speed big time. I was confident I would get the course of my choice - social work - don't know how much effort it would have taken to bring those other grades up to the 550 mark or if I had it in me.

Really think the LC is about steady work, rather than being exceptionally bright. And anyone who thinks the LC is a level playing field is kidding themselves. One section of the population can pay for grinds, private tutition courses etc which will assist with grades. Others can't. Access programmes in Trinity etc are only a band aid on that issue... I think the Gamsat is a welcome addition to entry to medicine.

Last yr, I helped some friends prep for the Gamsat essay section and watched as they steadily worked through first yr uni level of science, over 6-9 months, entirely self motivated. It seemed like a similar work ethic for both exams from this outsider's perspective..

tallaght01

Presumably people can pay for GAMSAT and HPAT prep courses too?

I think you need only look at the stats for the amount of people who get over 550 points to see how hard it is to do when you're 17.

Saintly

tallaght01 wrote:

Presumably people can pay for GAMSAT and HPAT prep courses too?

Some may choose to - but my point is that some people who may not have been in a position to fund extra tutition at LC level may be able to do so at later stage in their working life - i.e. apply for a loan, save, work etc. The link between socio-economic status and educational performance is well established - hence access programmes. What do docs on the forum think of those? They have been up and running for a while now, I'm sure some people would have had classmates from those programmes.

tallaght01 wrote:

I think you need only look at the stats for the amount of people who get over 550 points to see how hard it is to do when you're 17.

I take your point, these are absolutely bright kids but I'd be interested to know how many of those students benefited (or rather didn't) from extra private tutition which assist in getting those extra points. The LC is often represented as a level playing field - which completely ignores the boom business of grinds/private tutition/specialist schools in Ireland. I've worked with lots of bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds - who given support through the access programmes have done v well in their chosen careers. One of our past interns came through the access programme and apparently flew through med school and seemed to be regarded as a competent, capable and bright doc. I've also seen kids who would have really benefited from grinds - not a realistic option in some low income households. As a leftie, I'm quite happy that the LC isn't the only show in town (obviously speaking with regard to access to medical school as opposed to concerns raised re GEM programmes!)

tallaght01

I don't think the concerns that a lot of docs have about GAMSAT is borne out of some right wing ideology.

The arguments have all been spelled out above. The LC is something that kids from less privileged backgrounds can nail if they have the talent. Granted, they have less chance of doing well than richer kids. But that is the same for a lt of things. My neighbour is in med school through the access programme. There's been no data to suggest these kids do any better. Indeed, my neighbour has failed a good few of his exams. But I'm sure he'll pass eventually.

It could also be argued that GAMSAT still favours the well off as much as the LC. You've got to pay for 2 degrees, and then there's the GAMSAT prep materials/courses. From my (australian) experience, these kids tend to go into med school straight after their primary degree. They're mostly still being funded by parents. But that may not be the case in Ireland.

BUt my experience is definitely that they're not as good as the bright kids who get in from school.

Someone with a degree in photography who does well in the humanities it of the exam and averagely in the science bit will not be any better as a doctor than someone who is interested only in science.

Saintly

tallaght01 wrote:

don't think the concerns that a lot of docs have about GAMSAT is borne out of some right wing ideology.

I was being glib with the leftie comment. And probably conjured up images of scruffy tree hugging social workers for anyone reading it. I genuinely didn't realise a lot of docs have concerns about GAMSAT. It's something that has come up with a lot of close friends in med, who have been hauled in to help the GAMSAT folks and they've been positive.

tallaght01 wrote:

The arguments have all been spelled out above. The LC is something that kids from less privileged backgrounds can nail if they have the talent. Granted, they have less chance of doing well than richer kids.

Absolutely recognise that different people have different opinions about the nature/quality of postgrad med education and I wasn't weighing in on that one. My point is that the argument that the LC is fairer for everyone isn't valid. Realistically, how many entrants into undergrad medicine come from disadvantaged backgrounds?! And I disagree - talent alone is not enough to get these kids into uni - you're ignoring the issues they may face - many of them have to work through school years, chewing into valuable study time, can't afford grinds etc. I'm not anti LC -just realistic, it is NOT a level playing field and shouldn't be the only show in town.

tallaght01 wrote:

It could also be argued that GAMSAT still favours the well off as much as the LC. You've got to pay for 2 degrees, and then there's the GAMSAT prep materials/courses.

Free fees in Ireland over the last decade or more. Gamsat prep can be as cheap as uni level science books and a high degree of personal motivation - I don't know if half the courses are offered in Ireland, though one friend did fly to London for a workshop..

tallaght01 wrote:

Someone with a degree in photography who does well in the humanities it of the exam and averagely in the science bit will not be any better as a doctor than someone who is interested only in science.

I absolutely agree - but where is the evidence to suggest that they will be worse? Personally, I think that most of the concerns raised about GEM are subjective and it will take a couple of years in Ireland before people can really judge how postgrad medicine works here.

tallaght01

I think a lot of those issues assume that the leaving cert is inherently unfair. That's not true. Life is inherently unfair.

Sure, some kids are disadvantaged at school. But there was never anything stopping a disadvantaged kid going on to do a degree, and apply to med as a graduate. That's what I did, before there was GEM. Nothing has changed on that front. And, while I don't have stats to hand, I don't get the impression that medicine in oz has become somewhere that has a different demographic. GEM has been around here for a good while, and the majority of medical students are still middle class.
Sure, there are free fees for the first degree. But there's still living expenses in the current environment, and then about 100k to go to postgrad med school. This is not conducive to attracting kids from disadvantaged background.

The concerns raised about GEM are subjective, but they are also widespread. I'm glad you think it will take a few years for GEM to truly declare itself. I agree. But why take the risk? Why is only medicine taking the risk? Ireland has a tradition of producing excellent doctors. I would much rather we gave the extra places to the leaving cert kids, so they only have to do one degree, and it would serve to take the horrendous pressure off them.

I said it above. Medicine should be bloody hard to get into. We owe that to patients. It's not any more. It can be done with a few months hard work.

2scoops is far more intelligent than me, and has probably brought up the most sensible suggestion...everyone doing the american style entrance test. That is probably truly the fairest way to play it.

etymon

Well, I could have gotten medicine with my LC points (except did no science) so I suppose I was what you class as a 'bright kid' but dread to think what sort of doctor I would have made as my college years were, retrospectively, a strange sort of alcohol-blurred haze! I think any future patients of mine will be glad I didn't go down that route!

suspectpackage

I think people who do well in the gamsat have the knowledge to get A1s in Chemistry and Biology at LC standard easily. They would do well in physics too and you have to be decent in English.

I think that the difference between people who do well in a course or don't is how much work they put in and how smart they are about the work they put in.

When people are paying 50k to do a course and getting a 50k loan for living expenses, you can bet your ass they are going to be studying as much as they need to to get the results they need.

Tallaght I think is not realizing that there is not a "special" type of person who can do medicine. It is a person who is willing to work hard and smart who will do well in any endeavor. Paying 300 euro to do the Gamsat, paying 50k for fees and paying 50k living expenses is enough to cop people on imo.

A bit of an elitist attitude from tallaght I feel, and it is unnecessary.

tallaght01

suspectpackage wrote: »

I think people who do well in the gamsat have the knowledge to get A1s in Chemistry and Biology at LC standard easily. They would do well in physics too and you have to be decent in English.

I think that the difference between people who do well in a course or don't is how much work they put in and how smart they are about the work they put in.

When people are paying 50k to do a course and getting a 50k loan for living expenses, you can bet your ass they are going to be studying as much as they need to to get the results they need.

Tallaght I think is not realizing that there is not a "special" type of person who can do medicine. It is a person who is willing to work hard and smart who will do well in any endeavor. Paying 300 euro to do the Gamsat, paying 50k for fees and paying 50k living expenses is enough to cop people on imo.

A bit of an elitist attitude from tallaght I feel, and it is unnecessary.

:rolleyes: Why does this "elitist" nonsense get trawled out when people give opinions on stuff like this.

The issue is simple, to my eyes:

A) You can nail GAMSAT with a few months work, which shows nothing about your work ethic.

Only half of GAMSAT is testing scientific ability.

C) It does nothing to alleviate any of the pressure on the kids doing the LC, who have arguably worked harder and are smarter.
You talk about there not being a special type of person who can do medicine. Well, there's nothing particularly special abut people who get a 2:1 in a average degree, and study science for a few months.

D) The GAMSAT students just, to me, don't seem to be as good as their peers who came from school. I would take a kid who's worked for 2 solid years, against a backdrop of being a teenager, and all the temptation that entails, over someone who has done a bit of work through uni, and then went for it at GAMSAT time. The LC isn't perfect. But I think it's much better than GAMSAT.

It's not rocket science. It's not elitism. It's an opinion. And it's not just my opinion. It's far more elitist not to listen to people's concerns because you're now a medical student.

etymon

ehhh... 'A' and 'C' above are totally contradictory. You can nail the LC with a few months' study too. I did it and I know a good few people who did it too. Not how most people get their high points but it definitely happens.
Think it's a bit unfair to say only LC high achievers should be doing medicine. I got a great LC but did no sciences due to awful career guidance in Transition Year who never pointed out the college courses I would miss out on as a result. Should I be barred from trying to do medicine just because I did a primary degree in the humanities? Does it mean I am not able for it? Eh... no....
And by the way, I have a great 'work ethic'

tallaght01

etymon wrote: »

ehhh... 'A' and 'C' above are totally contradictory. You can nail the LC with a few months' study too. I did it and I know a good few people who did it too. Not how most people get their high points but it definitely happens.
Think it's a bit unfair to say only LC high achievers should be doing medicine. I got a great LC but did no sciences due to awful career guidance in Transition Year who never pointed out the college courses I would miss out on as a result. Should I be barred from trying to do medicine just because I did a primary degree in the humanities? Does it mean I am not able for it? Eh... no....
And by the way, I have a great 'work ethic'

The point is most people seem to do the GAMSAT in a few months. Whereas most people who get the points for med in the LC don't do it in a few months. There's no point in basing policy on the exceptions.

I would say I'm more impressed by a LC person who has, at 17 years of age, had the maturity and work ethic, to get the points for medicine, than someone who has most humanities degrees.

That might be controversial, but I think a lot of people would share that opinion. I'm not saying you can't complete med school. I'm just not sure why you deserve it more than some kid who's just missed it at the LC, after 2 years of solid work. That kid would also be very likely to also do an intercalated degree, which you proably won't. I would argue that kid's intercalated pharmacology degree will be more useful to his patients than your philosophy degree.

So, now the bright LC kid will go and do physio, so he can get into med. So, we waste a physio place now, too.

etymon

yeah, but do the super bright LC whizkid and the (as you are implying) somewhat less intellectually gifted Gamsat student not have to reach the same standard to get the same letters after their name when they get into med school anyway? So what is the problem? Are you saying all med places should be reserved for 17 year olds?

That's ridiculous. If we all knew what we wanted to do at 17 life would be extremely boring.

Also - college places are never 'wasted'. We all have the prerogative to change our minds. Why should I be stuck being a lawyer for the rest of my life if I hate it? Why should I be limited to similar careers or even non-scientific ones if I choose to change over? Can you imagine only getting one shot at opportunities in life? We would be extremely unhappy people if that was the case.

Anyway, if someone can get 600 points in the Leaving Cert and get a crap score in the HPAT you would wonder what sort of way their mind works anyhow.

P.S. wondering - if it takes A two years to get the same points B gets in the LC after studying for a couple of months how do you figure A is smarter ?! Could be a possible Gamsat Q!

MicraBoy

The point is most people seem to do the GAMSAT in a few months. Whereas most people who get the points for med in the LC don't do it in a few months. There's no point in basing policy on the exceptions.

Most people who sit GAMSAT are either working full time or studying full time in their primary degree. Nailing GAMSAT while doing either of those does show a good work ethic. It shows commitment, energy and smarts. GAMSAT must be an extremely difficult experience for some one who has a non-science background and I don't think you can dismiss them as easily as that. The weighting of the science section of GAMSAT clearly favours those with a science background or those with the potential to do well in a scientific field.

I would say I'm more impressed by a LC person who has, at 17 years of age, had the maturity and work ethic, to get the points for medicine, than someone who has most humanities degrees.

Speaking as someone who did their LC barely a week after turning 17, I know I worked much harder and smarter as I matured in college than I ever did as a 16 year old.

That might be controversial, but I think a lot of people would share that opinion. I'm not saying you can't complete med school. I'm just not sure why you deserve it more than some kid who's just missed it at the LC, after 2 years of solid work. That kid would also be very likely to also do an intercalated degree, which you proably won't. I would argue that kid's intercalated pharmacology degree will be more useful to his patients than your philosophy degree.

So, now the bright LC kid will go and do physio, so he can get into med. So, we waste a physio place now, too.

I don't see why the two streams can't co-exist together. an LC'er who really wants to do medicine will aim for that, but now they have a back door entry option. There are back doors into loads of degrees (through PLC/dipolma/cert courses). It is elitist to suggest medicine should be different, coz NEWSFLASH:IT AIN'T :P

tallaght01

etymon wrote: »

yeah, but do the super bright LC whizkid and the (as you are implying) somewhat less intellectually gifted Gamsat student not have to reach the same standard to get the same letters after their name when they get into med school anyway? So what is the problem? Are you saying all med places should be reserved for 17 year olds?

That's ridiculous. If we all knew what we wanted to do at 17 life would be extremely boring.

Also - college places are never 'wasted'. We all have the prerogative to change our minds. Why should I be stuck being a lawyer for the rest of my life if I hate it? Why should I be limited to similar careers or even non-scientific ones if I choose to change over? Can you imagine only getting one shot at opportunities in life? We would be extremely unhappy people if that was the case.

Anyway, if someone can get 600 points in the Leaving Cert and get a crap score in the HPAT you would wonder what sort of way their mind works anyhow.

I never said all med school places should be reserved for 17 year olds. I'm saying that our entire expansion shouldn't be made through GAMSAT. If you'd read the thread above, me and 2scoops were actually talking about how grad entry for all would be the fairest way to do med school. Have a read through the above posts to see that.

There have always been way to get into med as a graduate. But GAMSAT isn't the way to do it, IMO.

I'm also not saying you shouldn't have a right to change your mind.You should have that right, to an extent. It shouldn't be at the cost of some kid not being able to make his choice for the first time, though.

The point about GAMSAT is that it can be done quickly. We owe it to patients to ensure med school is very very hard to get into. BUt that's not what GAMSAT is about. It's about convenience. And that's just wrong.

It's also not about graduating med school. You could lower the requirements even below those of GAMSAT and most would still pass med school. After graduation is where it gets tough. Postgrad exams make undergrad medicine seem like a walk in the park.

It's also about who deserves it. Sure, leave places open for graduates. But we need to relieve the bottleneck at the leaving cert level, and that's where we get most of our best candidates. That's also where we get people who are going to have the time to intercalate. It's also where we'll get people wasting pharmacy and physio and nursing places so they can get into med.

Nothing about GAMSAT makes it look like a better option than opening up more LC places. Sure, for you it does. that's why you defend it. I'd be doing GAMSAT if I was in your shoes, and I'd feel I'd have to defend it.

But it's very very hard to see how GAMSAT is better for healthcare....people with generally lower LC scores, who won't intercalate, places wasted at third level by people wanting a stepping stone to med, people with a 2:2 in tough degrees not even allowed sit the exam.

None of it makes sense to me. I'm not slagging it off for the fun. But I just don't see the benefits.

tallaght01

MicraBoy wrote: »

Most people who sit GAMSAT are either working full time or studying full time in their primary degree. Nailing GAMSAT while doing either of those does show a good work ethic. It shows commitment, energy and smarts. GAMSAT must be an extremely difficult experience for some one who has a non-science background and I don't think you can dismiss them as easily as that. The weighting of the science section of GAMSAT clearly favours those with a science background or those with the potential to do well in a scientific field.

A) You can repeat the exam as many times as you want, I've just found out!!!! Working or not, there's only so much time it takes to learn basic sciences. Plus it's hardly that difficult if you have any kind of science degree!!

MicraBoy wrote: »

speaking as someone who did their LC barely a week after turning 17, I know I worked much harder and smarter as I matured in college than I ever did as a 16 year old.

I don't think that should inform policy, personally.

MicraBoy wrote: »

I don't see why the two streams can't co-exist together. an LC'er who really wants to do medicine will aim for that, but now they have a back door entry option. There are back doors into loads of degrees (through PLC/dipolma/cert courses). It is elitist to suggest medicine should be different, coz NEWSFLASH:IT AIN'T :P

:rolleyes: The oul elitism thing again. I do think the public are owed a god standard of doc. I think elitism is better than defending a system because it benefits you more than it does the healthcare system. I'm not sure that's any better of a quality in a med student than elitism

Plus medicine is different. It and vet seem to be the only courses where GAMSAT is used.

There has always been a back door into medicine. But it demanded very high standards. People used to either have to go back and sit the LC, or they had to do very well in a relevant degree. Fair enough, give a few more places to graduates proportionally, as we expand places. But not them all.

MicraBoy

A) You can repeat the exam as many times as you want, I've just found out!!!! Working or not, there's only so much time it takes to learn basic sciences. Plus it's hardly that difficult if you have any kind of science degree!!

As you can the LC!

I don't think that should inform policy, personally.

Erm my personal experience is as valid as yours. You have relied on yours repeatedly in this thread.

The oul elitism thing again. I do think the public are owed a god standard of doc.

Well at least we agree on that. Don't see that it is relevant unless you think the GradMed degree itself is poor quality and people who graduate from it with honours are still poor doctors?

Echani

A) You can nail GAMSAT with a few months work, which shows nothing about your work ethic.

Studying solidly for a few months says nothing about your work ethic? What's the cutoff - once you study 3 hours a night for 5-6 months? I studied 8-14 hours daily for 6 weeks this summer for my USMLE, my work ethic must be dreadful.

The point about GAMSAT is that it can be done quickly. We owe it to patients to ensure med school is very very hard to get into. BUt that's not what GAMSAT is about. It's about convenience. And that's just wrong.

Where is that coming from? I don't think anyone who has sat the GAMSAT would call it a matter of convenience. It's an extremely tough exam, the only other I've sat so far which outdoes it is the USMLE Step 1. And you need (or needed during the year I took it) to be in the top <10% to be competitive.

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's also about who deserves it. Sure, leave places open for graduates. But we need to relieve the bottleneck at the leaving cert level, and that's where we get most of our best candidates. That's also where we get people who are going to have the time to intercalate. It's also where we'll get people wasting pharmacy and physio and nursing places so they can get into med.

Until there is solid evidence that the IRISH graduate entry students are worse than the LC students after graduation, you can't keep conjecturing that the LC produces our best candidates. We still go through the Irish medical eduction, so your experiences with GEM students elsewhere in the world don't really hold over here.

On another point, I don't think intercalated degrees during medicine are the norm in Ireland yet, I've certainly heard nothing of it from my college or UCD; so that's not something we GEM students are missing out on as far as I'm aware.

etymon

Echani wrote: »

I studied 8-14 hours daily for 6 weeks this summer for my USMLE, my work ethic must be dreadful.

I know what you mean. I currently have 2 jobs and am studying 2/3 hours a day for the Gamsat too. I just feel so lazy! Man, if I nail that Gamsat, I'm going to feel sooooo guilty.

suspectpackage

tallaght01 wrote: »

A) You can repeat the exam as many times as you want, I've just found out!!!! Working or not, there's only so much time it takes to learn basic sciences. Plus it's hardly that difficult if you have any kind of science degree!!





I don't think that should inform policy, personally.




:rolleyes: The oul elitism thing again. I do think the public are owed a god standard of doc. I think elitism is better than defending a system because it benefits you more than it does the healthcare system. I'm not sure that's any better of a quality in a med student than elitism

Plus medicine is different. It and vet seem to be the only courses where GAMSAT is used.

There has always been a back door into medicine. But it demanded very high standards. People used to either have to go back and sit the LC, or they had to do very well in a relevant degree. Fair enough, give a few more places to graduates proportionally, as we expand places. But not them all.

On one hand you have a 17 year old who has gotten 600 points in the LC by doing 2-3 hours studying per day (on top of school) over the course of two years.

On the other hand you have a 24-25 (not sure what the average age of a GEMer is? Probably close to 26-27 actually), who has already done 4 years in college and gotten a degree. Plenty more life experience than the young 17 year old and KNOWS what they want to do in life and is prepared to get a 100k loan to get into the course. Has covered Chemistry and Biology to A1 level in leaving cert imo, and also Organic Chem to college standard, and also some physics. As well as very good English skills and most likely A1 level at LC too.

Personally, I'd take the mature person who knows what they want over the 17 year old who has shown a work ethic but hasn't got the life experience of the older candidate.

Now, there is another point. You question the merits of the GEMer AFTER the course.

However, the GEMer has gone through an intensive 4 year course and has the same qualifications that the pimply faced teenager will get eventually. So how are they any less qualified to be good or bad after the course? Didn't the GEMer get a 100k loan to do the course? Did they do that so they could do the course and then piss about afterwards?

finty

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm also not saying you shouldn't have a right to change your mind.You should have that right, to an extent. It shouldn't be at the cost of some kid not being able to make his choice for the first time, though.

Were you not going on about life not being fair a few posts ago? What about people repeating the leaving cert? Should we all get one go at the leaving cert, get a score and have to live the rest of our life by that? And you go on about aleviating the horrendous pressure on young people doing the leaving cert?

tallaght01 wrote: »

If you'd read the thread above, me and 2scoops were actually talking about how grad entry for all would be the fairest way to do med school. Have a read through the above posts to see that.

But it's very very hard to see how GAMSAT is better for healthcare....people with generally lower LC scores, who won't intercalate, places wasted at third level by people wanting a stepping stone to med, people with a 2:2 in tough degrees not even allowed sit the exam.

So does your plan of graduate entry for all result in "wasted" places at 3rd level? Was your 1st degree wasted?

tallaght01 wrote: »

A) You can repeat the exam as many times as you want, I've just found out!!!! Working or not, there's only so much time it takes to learn basic sciences. Plus it's hardly that difficult if you have any kind of science degree!!

you can go back and do the leaving cert as many times as you want. What exactly is your point here?

The GAMSAT tests peoples application of their scientific knowledge. Science subjects in the leaving cert are based on a set curriculum, learn it all off and you get 100%.

The leaving cert doesnt in any way test peoples ability to reason and solve problems, GAMSAT does. Surely these abilities are important in a good doctor?

tallaght01

finty wrote: »

Were you not going on about life not being fair a few posts ago? What about people repeating the leaving cert? Should we all get one go at the leaving cert, get a score and have to live the rest of our life by that? And you go on about aleviating the horrendous pressure on young people doing the leaving cert?



So does your plan of graduate entry for all result in "wasted" places at 3rd level? Was your 1st degree wasted?



you can go back and do the leaving cert as many times as you want. What exactly is your point here?

The GAMSAT tests peoples application of their scientific knowledge. Science subjects in the leaving cert are based on a set curriculum, learn it all off and you get 100%.

The leaving cert doesnt in any way test peoples ability to reason and solve problems, GAMSAT does. Surely these abilities are important in a good doctor?

Of course you should be allowed repeat the leaving. But doing that takes a lot more commitment than doing GAMSAT. Plus to repeat the leaving to get good points you have to do 6 papers. it's not comparable to the GAMSAT. You can proaly d GAMSAT 4 times in one year. It just seems a bit too easy to do that.

The way i think graduate entry should work (if you'd read above rather than just jumping in because you're angry) is that everyone does a pre-health science 'degree'. So, you do your basic biomedical sciences and some pathology for 2 years or whatever. Then, you all apply for whatever courses you want...physio,med, pharm, whatever. On a competitive basis. Very much like the U.S system.

My first degree wasn't wasted as it was biomedical sciences. If I'd taken up a physio degree that would arguably have been a place wasted.

Problem solving is all very well. It is important. But if you can problem-solve to the extent that you can pass honours maths, or honours physics, which the majority of medicine candidates from the LC will have done, then that's evidence enough. What they also have, that the GAMSAT people don't seem to have as much f, is evidence that they've cracked their nuts for 2 years, and can recall lots of information under pressure.

I know that's annoying to hear. But I guess I'm just more concerned about what's good for patients, rather than what's good for you. But I do see your point, and you have to be concerned for your own career.

But let's not kid ourselves that GAMSAT was the best they could come up with. It was the most convenient. Getting annoyed won't change that.

DrIndy

This whole moronic perception of elitist medicine actually pisses me off - please desist in using the phrase. It is only used by people who cannot achieve the entrance requirements - no medical class is at any times elitist - although despite the best efforts to the contrary, that is all that is perceived by certain envious other parts of society.

This is an example of Godwins law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Instead of an reductio ad Hitlerum - we instead have an reductio ad electissimus. If you cannot counter Tallaght01's salient counterarguments without referring to the word "elitism" - then stop (I would post similar points but he has beaten me to it).

MicraBoy

I know that's annoying to hear. But I guess I'm just more concerned about what's good for patients, rather than what's good for you. But I do see your point, and you have to be concerned for your own career.

But let's not kid ourselves that GAMSAT was the best they could come up with. It was the most convenient. Getting annoyed won't change that.

What's annoying to hear is your sweeping generalisation that people who do GAMSAT have not worked hard in:

A) Leaving Cert
Primary degree/Postgraduate level
C) Studying for GAMSAT.

We can discuss the merits of GAMSAT with out insulting the work ethic of those who choose to take it.

And then in the ultimate pot/kettle/blackism yourself and Indy get your knickers in a twist over being called elitist.

finty

tallaght01 wrote: »

Of course you should be allowed repeat the leaving. But doing that takes a lot more commitment than doing GAMSAT. Plus to repeat the leaving to get good points you have to do 6 papers. it's not comparable to the GAMSAT. You can proaly d GAMSAT 4 times in one year. It just seems a bit too easy to do that.

The way i think graduate entry should work (if you'd read above rather than just jumping in because you're angry) is that everyone does a pre-health science 'degree'. So, you do your basic biomedical sciences and some pathology for 2 years or whatever. Then, you all apply for whatever courses you want...physio,med, pharm, whatever. On a competitive basis. Very much like the U.S system.

My first degree wasn't wasted as it was biomedical sciences. If I'd taken up a physio degree that would arguably have been a place wasted.

Problem solving is all very well. It is important. But if you can problem-solve to the extent that you can pass honours maths, or honours physics, which the majority of medicine candidates from the LC will have done, then that's evidence enough. What they also have, that the GAMSAT people don't seem to have as much f, is evidence that they've cracked their nuts for 2 years, and can recall lots of information under pressure.

I know that's annoying to hear. But I guess I'm just more concerned about what's good for patients, rather than what's good for you. But I do see your point, and you have to be concerned for your own career.

But let's not kid ourselves that GAMSAT was the best they could come up with. It was the most convenient. Getting annoyed won't change that.

Who is angry? Just because I've pointed out the contradictions in your argument from one post to the next I'm angry? amused more like.

How exactly is setting up a graduate entry programme more convenient than just increasing the number of undergrad medicine places?......I'd like this point explained, you've made it more than once.

tallaght01

Simple. It's quicker. they need more docs fast. So, they've made more places to get people out quickly. That's why it's convenient. A U.S style system wouldn't be palatable, as discussed above.Every single person in medicine knows that.

I never said GAMSATers don't work hard. I'm saying you don't need to have worked harder than the LC kids to get in.

Like I kept saying, we owe it to patients that people have worked very very very hard to get into medicine. A lot of GAMSATers haven't worked particularly hard. I work with lots of them, who did it after a few months study. But that's far from the only issue.

I know you don't like to hear that. I know Micraboy gets frustrated that people actually practising have concerns. You can call it elitist as often as you want. But, from what i can see, my concerns relate to healthcare of the population. His concerns relate to him. I could return the personal attacks on that basis, but I wouldn't do that. I'm finished arguing with those who have to resort to that kind of thing. But you need to able handle heated debate rationally and politely for a career in medicine. Patients will say things you don't like, and so will colleagues. people will attack your research. You can't turn around and tell them they're just being elitist lol.

Interestingly, GAMSAT is likely to become part of the medicine "industry" in years to come. It's starting to get that way in oz. The kids who would be the equivalent of 530 point LC students are now including their undergrad degree as part of the medicine process from the start. It's going to be interesting to see how it pans out.

finty

DrIndy wrote: »

This whole moronic perception of elitist medicine actually pisses me off - please desist in using the phrase. It is only used by people who cannot achieve the entrance requirements - no medical class is at any times elitist - although despite the best efforts to the contrary, that is all that is perceived by certain envious other parts of society.

DrIndy,

you are so funny!

The irony is someone who tells people not to use the term elitist; then goes on to say that someone who does is "moronic", couldn't "achieve the entrance requirements" and that its somehow borne of envy.


Let me paraphrase what you have just said.

Stop calling me elitist, I am just smarter than you morons and you are all jealous!!

HELLO!!

Hitler will be on next giving out that somebody called him a Nazi.

:rolleyes:

Goonerette

tallaght01 wrote: »

You can proaly d GAMSAT 4 times in one year. It just seems a bit too easy to do that.

Actually, you can't. It's only held once a year in each country.

sillymoo

These arguements are going around in circles.

Those who did well and got in doing the leaving cert deserve to be there. Yes a lot got in by repeating the leaving cert and going to "grind schools" but they still deserve their place. As far as I am aware you can also repeat the GAMSAT and pay for Gradmed courses and the like?

Those who got in via GEP also deserve to be there. They have also worked hard and are prepared to go into debt to do medicine.

It really is not fair to try and compare these two routes through Irish medical schools yet as the first GEP class is only due to graduate next year.

This thread has deviated way off topic and im surprised it has not been closed 2 pages ago.

tallaght01

sillymoo wrote: »

These arguements are going around in circles.

Those who did well and got in doing the leaving cert deserve to be there. Yes a lot got in by repeating the leaving cert and going to "grind schools" but they still deserve their place. As far as I am aware you can also repeat the GAMSAT and pay for Gradmed courses and the like?

Those who got in via GEP also deserve to be there. They have also worked hard and are prepared to go into debt to do medicine.

It really is not fair to try and compare these two routes through Irish medical schools yet as the first GEP class is only due to graduate next year.

This thread has deviated way off topic and im surprised it has not been closed 2 pages ago.

I think that's sort of ignoring the issue, though. it's a bit of a "why can't we all just get along" way of thinking.

I guess this is an issue of what benefits healthcare on the whole, and what benefits graduate students. It's not always easy to reconcile the two. It's a healthy debate to have. And it's a debate that goes on in hospitals everywhere.
I know it annoys people. But it's a debate that has a place.

sillymoo

No its not ignoring the issue. If anything you are ignoring the title of the thread.

The title of this thread is "Whats the strangest degree from a GEM student" and I dont think this is the place to discuss GEM entry V's LC entry and I think you as a moderator should have closed this thread when it went off topic.

But you are very much involved in the arguing so perhaps Indy or Sam should.

Yes the debate has its place but not on this thread.

tallaght01

But you were arguing the point too!!!!!

I would have had nothing to take issue with if you didn't.

'You can't just rock in and say "yea they all deserve a place etc etc, GAMSAT is fine" and then demand we stop talking about it.

I'm more than happy for the thread to be split, if the others want. We don't usually do that here for off topic stuff, as conversations evolve. But I have no probs with it.

sillymoo

tallaght01 wrote: »

But you were arguing the point too!!!!!

I would have had nothing to take issue with if you didn't.

'You can't just rock in and say "yea they all deserve a place etc etc, GAMSAT is fine" and then demand we stop talking about it.

I'm more than happy for the thread to be split, if the others want. We don't usually do that here for off topic stuff, as conversations evolve. But I have no probs with it.

But its ok for you to "rock in" and totally change the topic of a thread?????

tallaght01

What;s that got to do with the point I made to you?

People had long stopped talking about what degrees they had when I started getting heavily involved in that side of things.

But, like I said, we don't get too stressed about off topicness here, unless people are trying to take about the original topic intermittently.

DrIndy

Ok - topic split into two threads.

let the debate rock on - I will chuck in my 2c later on!

sillymoo

tallaght01 wrote: »

What;s that got to do with the point I made to you?

People had long stopped talking about what degrees they had when I started getting heavily involved in that side of things.

But, like I said, we don't get too stressed about off topicness here, unless people are trying to take about the original topic intermittently.

Yes I gave a balanced view. I did not argue the toss either way. There should be another thread for that argument.

You dont get stressed about off topicness as you brought it off topic.

What started as a nice thread has become you arguing against the GEP's which I dont think is fair.

I am not going to argue with you Tallaght as I have seen that arguing with you is pointless in a lot of cases so this is the last im going to say on this.

tallaght01

sillymoo wrote: »

I am not going to argue with you Tallaght as I have seen that arguing with you is pointless in a lot of cases so this is the last im going to say on this.

There's really no need to be wanky about things. It's just not called for, in fairness.

Whatever about the rest of your point, which a PM could have easily sorted, you're just being nasty now.

DrIndy

come on folks - lets step back.

tone it down.

amen

The high LC points proved someone was able for the heavy work load

not true. Just means you have good memory attention. And anyway learing in university is different from school.
Min entry requirements for medicene last time I checked were relatively easy (several honours) but of there is a lackof places so the points go up.

I think if you have a primary honours degree and want to to sit the Gem you should be allowed to.

I have a 2.2 in Physics from 1994 and at that time out of 30 who graudated there were 2 1.1s, 4 2.1s and the rest 2.2s (a few fails).

this year on the same course nearly everyone got a 1.1 or 2.1. The population hasn;t got smarted grades have inflated.