Are the GAMSAT cut-offs too low?

bubbleking

Ok this thread isn't a bashing of any one person or college so please don't let it turn into that - any example I make is just for the sake of discussion. Do people feel that the GAMSAT cut-offs have gone too low this year? I know there is a supply and demand system in Ireland but look at what GAMSAT was originally designed for - i.e. to test an applicants competency in communication and particularly in Science.

Do people feel that there should be a minimum you should need to score in the GAMSAT before you can be offered a place. Its been stated in another thread that someone was offered a place in UL on 53 even though the official stance from UL is 54*? this is no reflection on that person and Im delighted they got in. It will be interesting to see if the lower cut-offs will correlate with a higher drop out rate.

So what do people think - should there be a minimum you need to score before you can apply?

badboyblake

Could they not remove the 2.1 degree requirement?
I'd say there are plenty of 2.2 degree holders holders who would have competitive scores but are denied places because of this ridiculous requirement.
Let me explain by giving an example of this non-sensical situation at work;
e.g. the holder of a 2.1 degree in basket weaving, Gamsat score 54, No medical or Hospital experience gets a place in UL.
While the holder of 2.2 Pharmacy degree has extensive Hospital experience and a Gamsat score of 60 is denied a place.
Who's idea was it to place the 2.1 degree requirement for graduate entry Medicine in Ireland?
Given the example I have explained above What is the rationale behind the 2.1 degree requirement?
If the Gamsat test is supposed to test aptitude/suitability for Medicine then judge people on their test scores for God sake!
Am I right or am I wrong?

imported_guy

badboyblake wrote: »

Could they not remove the 2.1 degree requirement?
I'd say there are plenty of 2.2 degree holders holders who would have competitive scores but are denied places because of this ridiculous requirement.
Let me explain by giving an example of this non-sensical situation at work;
e.g. the holder of a 2.1 degree in basket weaving, Gamsat score 54, No medical or Hospital experience gets a place in UL.
While the holder of 2.2 Pharmacy degree has extensive Hospital experience and a Gamsat score of 60 is denied a place.
Who's idea was it to place the 2.1 degree requirement for graduate entry Medicine in Ireland?
Given the example I have explained above What is the rationale behind the 2.1 degree requirement?

i didnt know there was a level 8 course in basket weaving

also, you need a certain number of credits to achieve a level 8 degree, and credits depend upon the difficulty of the course/subject being studied... i.e. a 5 credit module in physiology is the same difficulty as a 5 credit module in thermodynamics/german/art-history etc etc, and its not like 2.1 degrees are handed out like candy. someone didnt get a 2.1 in pharmacy, tough luck. there are people with low 50s in australia studying medicine, as they usually use a composite score of GAMSAT + GPA

Sid_Justice

remind me what a 54 in a GAMSAT means. Doesn't it mean you got a score better than 54% of applicants? Does that mean you got 54% of the questions correct, no it does not.

Saying gamsat scores are too low doesn't really say anything about the quality of the candidates, just means there is high supply and not quite so high demand.

Saying someone that got 50 in a GAMSAT is illiterate is also bollox, they could have written an A1 honours English quality essay etc.

I don't think bubbleking understands what the gamsat examination is and shouldn't try and reinvent the wheel. there are people more intelligent than you who designed it.

badboyblake

imported_guy wrote: »

i didnt know there was a level 8 course in basket weaving

also, you need a certain number of credits to achieve a level 8 degree, and credits depend upon the difficulty of the course/subject being studied... i.e. a 5 credit module in physiology is the same difficulty as a 5 credit module in thermodynamics/german/art-history etc etc, and its not like 2.1 degrees are handed out like candy. someone didnt get a 2.1 in pharmacy, tough luck. there are people with low 50s in australia studying medicine, as they usually use a composite score of GAMSAT + GPA

Seeing as you didn't pick up on the sarcasm; I was using the example of basket weaving to cover Arts or media studies degrees.
If you think a Pharmacy degree is as dificult as an Arts degree then you are big time mistaken.
I have done both btw.
The pharmacy degree was much harder and I don't think I would be alone in having that opinion either.
The Gamsat test is an objective way of determining entrance why not use it solely?

Sid_Justice

I think the 2.1 requirement does unfairly treat some in the sense, I would imagine it's harder to get a 2.1 degree in Engineering in UCD than it would be in HRM in NCI, both level 8, both supposedly equivalent.

I would encourage the guys with the pharmacy 2.2s who want to do medicine that have hosp experience to apply to George's or whoever.

imported_guy

badboyblake wrote: »

If you think a Pharmacy degree is as dificult as an Arts degree then you are sadly mistaken.
I have done both btw.
The pharmacy degree was much harder and I don't think I would be alone in having that opinion either.
The Gamsat test is an objective way of determining entrance why not use it solely?

i didnt say anything like that, i was just comparing modules, a 5 credit module is supposed to be a certain challenge, depending on what you study. a normal bachelor degree is like 240 credits, an arts degree is slightly less as most are 3 years, even if it is a level 8.

bubbleking

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I don't think bubbleking understands what the gamsat examination is and shouldn't try and reinvent the wheel. there are people more intelligent than you who designed it.

of course I understand what the score means - this year in Limerick (again not bashing just picking that because its the lowest) there will be people studying who came in the 45th percentile in England and the 55th in Ireland. That's really low imo.

Ireland is the only country who uses GAMSAT scores alone for admission AFAIK. the people who designed GAMSAT did it so it would test a candidates competency to study a 4 year medicine degree. There's a reason why a score of 53-57 wont even get you an interview in England because people smarter than me (and you) have decided that people who dont score higher than that aren't competent enough to study a 4 year medicine degree

badboyblake

imported_guy wrote: »

i didnt say anything like that, i was just comparing modules, a 5 credit module is supposed to be a certain challenge, depending on what you study. a normal bachelor degree is like 240 credits, an arts degree is slightly less as most are 3 years, even if it is a level 8.

Fair enough, point taken.
but the point still stands; surely In the real world a 2.1 degree in Community & Citizen studies (Carlow college, level 8) is not academically superior to a 2.2. degree in Pharmacy?

jtsuited

this is a very fair question imo, and fair play to someone asking it.

I had no science background (have a first in Anthropology and Sociology though lol), studied moderately for less than 3 months, completely fcuked up the gamsat (BIG TIME) and got a 61, putting me in the 90th percentile.

I feel totally scared about my ability to handle a course like graduate medicine (probably because of the likely life/death consequences of me not knowing my sh1t inside out). I know that I didn't fluke the exam, know that I didn't work particularly hard, and I'm embarassingly ignorant about a huge amount of the course content. Yet I could have chosen any GEM course I wanted.

I'm in the top 10% of gamsat takers this year. If I was in the top 45% of applicants for something as serious as this, I wouldn't give the thought any entertainment whatsoever of going to become a doctor.

Get a 2.1 or higher in any level 8 degree and win a coinflip (it's essentially coinflip odds) and you're into medschool? I hate to say it, but that barrier to entry is far too low.

namga

I am sorry to be so blunt, but some of the scores required for entry to UL this year are quite frankly, dismal.

There is a place for some sort of graduate program but the number of places awarded has gotten far too high, and the standard of the lower end of incoming students is something the authorities should be concerned about. A minimum score is required.

Contrast this with the situation where a girl I know who scored 590 didn't get in with her HPAT score (I did not see too much wrong with the old system of undergrad entry - in general, we were getting a very high quality of student going into and coming out of the course). IMO, she clearly has shown a higher degree of commitment and/or intellectual capacity, but students with far less merit will be entering via the graduate route this year.

Its not my aim to bash UL as a course - in fact I hear that the first batch of interns are doing quite well - but there was only thirty of them. I am simply saying whatever course it is, the entry requirements have to be higher.

Biologic

badboyblake wrote: »

Seeing as you didn't pick up on the sarcasm; I was using the example of basket weaving to cover Arts or media studies degrees.
If you think a Pharmacy degree is as dificult as an Arts degree then you are big time mistaken.
I have done both btw.
The pharmacy degree was much harder and I don't think I would be alone in having that opinion either.
The Gamsat test is an objective way of determining entrance why not use it solely?

I completely agree with you about certain degrees being more difficult, but I don't think that's reason enough to lift the 2.1 requirement. GAMSAT (supposedly) tests aptitude for medicine, but aptitude is very distinct from work ethic. The degree requirement tells the admissions office that you also have the ability to study so that they don't select a candidate that winged the GAMSAT and is lazy as sin.
Having said that, I'll freely admit that anyone graduating pharmacy will have put far more work into a 2.2 than I did with my degree. It would be very difficult to have every degree weighted against one another for the purposes of selection though, so they just have to set an arguably unfair benchmark.
With regards to the "all 5 credit modules are all the same difficulty" argument...poppycock. A friend of mine from a different course passed a 5 credit module just for showing up on a class tour to Pfizer, whereas some GEM 5 credit modules were an absolute nightmare last year. Everyone reading this who has been to college knows modules vary wildly in difficulty.
Bubbleking very good thread, I agree with you. I was thinking about this when the cutoffs came out. If GAMSAT really is a good predictor of medical aptitude then accepting 1 in 2 applicants is unfair to the applicants IMO. It's a really difficult course, and people could just end up dropping out with thousands in debt and no job. Unfortunately if there were a minimum cutoff then some colleges would have empty seats, so there's no way the admissions offices would agree to that. Maybe it would be more fair if the bottom scoring, 2.2, or all applicants had to interview for places to ensure they're getting into this for the right reasons.

kermicrzy

Thanks for starting this discussion, its a great topic and I would have to agree to some extent. Take America for example, you apply to medical school with all your MCAT exam scores, undergrad credits, etc etc and then do secondary applications for each school then on to personal statements and even some interviews. They want people are well rounded, been around hospitals and have a bit of cop on-not just good grades on MCAT alone. And I dont think we would disagree with the quality of physicians in America (well most of them anyway!)?!?

Just a side note, a friend of mine who never did science, got in the bottom 10-15% on Section III (but pulled off great essay and Section I score) was offered a place in Limerick. Its going to be some shock to the system when you're learning cellular pathways and pharmacology when you dont even know the basic chem or biology. I wouldnt be surprised if the drop in GAMSAT scores is paralleled with dropouts in the 2-3 months. Some people wont be able to handle it; I just hope I will be able to

heybert

I think the score itself doesn't matter. The percentile score is surely more important.

I did the gamsat in the uk in sept and came in around the 70th percentile and got a 57.
Repeated it in march because I like taking expensive exams and got a 58 which on the new percentile graph puts me close to the 80th percentile. Big difference in percentile but only one point in the score difference.

The issue is that the government have not found an adequate way to target the majority of suitable candidates in Ireland. Be it the massive fees or the poor perception of the working conditions in the hse, not enough people are applying for grad med. They need to find a way to make it more accessible to all in order to increase the competition for places.

I had ul as my first choice and got it. Unfortunately for them it seems as though they've increased their number of places just as demand has dropped, hence one in two people who applied got in.

All that being said, many gems will tell you that people quickly forget about their gamsat results after a few weeks worth or lectures.

Biologic

namga wrote: »

There is a place for some sort of graduate program but the number of places awarded has gotten far too high, and the standard of the lower end of incoming students is something the authorities should be concerned about. A minimum score is required.

But the accrediting institutions aren't likely to drop the examinations standards (hopefully). It's more likely that the standard of graduate will stay the same but the dropout rate will be higher. This is unfair on the dropouts who will be luggered with debt from a course they weren't equipped to deal with in the first place. I agree that the number of places is too high though. The GAMSAT is ineffective if half of all people get in anyway.

Sid_Justice

Setting the 'barrier to entry' to medicine too low is a stupid,mote irrelevant point. If you pass the course, you deserve to be a doctor. If you pass all your exams (>55%) in medschool, I don't see a reason why your knowledge of organic chemistry or leaving cert physics is relevant.

Not everyone that gets into medschool becomes a doctor. The only indicator of ability to be a doctor is ability to get a medical degree, everything else is guess work.

bubbleking

Sid_Justice wrote: »

What do you mean? someone did the gamsat in the uk and got 45 and then did it in Ireland and got 55 and got into UL? Because it seems to me you think 55 in Irish gamsat is equivalent to a 45 in the UK, which you can't know to be true.

Anecdotally, everyone I know that did UK and Irish gamsats did better in the UK, even if they did the UK one before the Irish one.

no thats not what I mean - Im talking about percentiles which is different to the actual score you get in the GAMSAT.

for example - say that this year 1000 people did the GAMSAT exam in Ireland and 2000 did it in England (not exact figures but easy for this example)

Based on the percentile curves a score of 53/54 on the actual GAMSAT puts you in the 45th percentile in England and the 55th in Ireland

that means that out of 2000 people you rank 1100th in England and 450th in Ireland.

Do we really want to have people in our course that aren't able to keep up? I though this would be particularly pertinent to those in UL because of the PBL system i.e. those lagging behind could potentially upset the learning of the whole group?

Sid_Justice

i deleted my post when i saw the error sorry about that, i didn't see your reply.

anyway, feel free to parrot away bubbleking, the time you have on your hands for silly arguments on the internet is coming to an end.

Do we really want to have people in our course that aren't able to keep up?

will somebody please think of the children

bubbleking

Sid_Justice wrote: »

i deleted my post when i saw the error sorry about that, i didn't see your reply.

anyway, feel free to parrot away bubbleking, the time you have on your hands for silly arguments on the internet is coming to an end.



will somebody please think of the children

I kinda went off track there and didnt mean that to sound as patronising as it did anyway cliff notes on my stance

GAMSAT = a test of your competency to be able to handle the material thought over the 4 years of GEM

53/54 = not a satisfactory score anywhere in the world apart from Ireland

Dont get me wrong if people pass the college course then of course they are entitled to be a doctor and nobody will care where they studied

I know you get ultra defensive about UL but it really isn't about that its about admissions on a greater scale

jimdeans

bubbleking wrote: »

Do we really want to have people in our course that aren't able to keep up? I though this would be particularly pertinent to those in UL because of the PBL system i.e. those lagging behind could potentially upset the learning of the whole group?

Unlikely. A friend of ours does some PBL facilitating and says they'll go out of the way not to fail the GEM course people,when I asked him is it hard failing a student.

bubbleking

jimdeans wrote: »

Unlikely. A friend of ours does some PBL facilitating and says they'll go out of the way not to fail the GEM course people,when I asked him is it hard failing a student.

Im not sure what you mean when you say go out of their way? extra grinds and stuff? do you see how the faculty could come under enormous pressure if the end result is expected to be the same but the starting product needs an awful lot more work - a point Im trying to make that will be largely detrimental to the group as a whole

jimdeans

bubbleking wrote: »

Im not sure what you mean when you say go out of their way? extra grinds and stuff? do you see how the faculty could come under enormous pressure if the end result is expected to be the same but the starting product needs an awful lot more work - a point Im trying to make that will be largely detrimental to the group as a whole

Sorry I don't really know much about it. It's just a friend of me and my partner (she's a medic I'm not). He said that the tests are tailored so that it's pretty easy to get the basic pass mark but it's harder to get higher. So most people won't fail.He gets annoyed at it but says the good side is he doesn't have to fail many people,which he hates doingg

FrankAmazing

jimdeans wrote: »

Unlikely. A friend of ours does some PBL facilitating and says they'll go out of the way not to fail the GEM course people,when I asked him is it hard failing a student.

your friend is probably spouting bull.
anyone in ul will tell you otherwise. ten percent of the class fail the exams every year, a handful of those don't bother returning for repeats, and of the repeat sitters the majority will get through but it's certainly no formality. people have failed the repeats in the past.

i feel the way the ul course is organised a large amount of people struggle anyway, although few actually admit it. similarly enough very few people in Ul will acknowledge the deficiencies in the programme.

I personally think that people with gamsat scores of 52 - 55 will probably struggle,and the dropout rate will certainly be higher this yr. when we begin second year next week we will be down 5 people for definite, with possibly one or two more who may not pass the repeats.

we had three people start late last yr (2 weeks into the course; with gamsat scores of circa 54/54) and of those three one dropped out in march, and the other dropped out post june exams.

the fact of the matter is, there'll be plenty of people who chanced their arm at gamsat, got a poor low fifties score, and have by a stroke of luck now gotten into UL. these people will very quickly discover that the UL course is arguably the most difficult of all the GEM courses, and that if they thought GAMSAT was hard, they are now playing in a completely different league of difficulty. Most people in the class describe the course as the most difficult thing they have ever done in their entire lives. while gamsat is by no means the definitive form of intelligence test, it stands to reason that if you got a poor score in the first place, you haven't got into the course based on your intellectual ability, but rather on the back of simple economics, ie supply far outweighs demand.

KizzyMonster

I got a 2.2 and wasn't offered a place even though I was well over the GAMSAT score that people who received offers had...
This 2.1 thing is sh*te, UK and Australia don't require it, why does Ireland?

jimdeans

FrankAmazing wrote: »

your friend is probably spouting bull.
.

Well, our friend is a qualified doctor who has almost finished his PhD and works in a university. You are almost a second year student, so i know who's views I'd trust. I thought it would be good news anyway.

FrankAmazing

i'm merely correcting the incorrect idea spouted that they pass everyone in GEM, and that the exams are designed to be passed easily.

they don't and they aren't.

it's not a case of believing me or not believing me. it's simply the facts.

people fail GEM. GAMSAT is the easy part.

Sid_Justice

jimdeans wrote: »

Sorry I don't really know much about it. It's just a friend of me and my partner (she's a medic I'm not). He said that the tests are tailored so that it's pretty easy to get the basic pass mark but it's harder to get higher. So most people won't fail.He gets annoyed at it but says the good side is he doesn't have to fail many people,which he hates doingg

stop the lies and alluring to these unnamed areas of expertise. "MY friend said this, and he's a doctor and a real doctor (phd) so he must be right"

If he is someone that corrects exam papers? More likely what the case is he's talking about OSCE exams which are greatly favoured towards passing the student.

If he's talking about written exams, it's basically a truism. It's 'easy' to get a 'basic' mark and 'hard' to get a 'higher' score.

If you refute this claim I'd be interested in finding out who this person is who is telling his friends the course is a free pass. If he is a PBL tutor, a medical doctor and a PhD candidate I won't have much trouble contacting him and asking him to explain his opinion.

badboyblake

KizzyMonster wrote: »

I got a 2.2 and wasn't offered a place even though I was well over the GAMSAT score that people who received offers had...
This 2.1 thing is sh*te, UK and Australia don't require it, why does Ireland?

You can take the Gamsat as many times as you like and use the best score.
Yet a 2.2. degree which can't ever be amended/improved upon isn't good enough.
Bizarre isn't the word, Injustice is.

jimdeans

Sid_Justice wrote: »

stop the lies and alluring to these unnamed areas of expertise. "MY friend said this, and he's a doctor and a real doctor (phd) so he must be right"

If he is someone that corrects exam papers? More likely what the case is he's talking about OSCE exams which are greatly favoured towards passing the student.

If he's talking about written exams, it's basically a truism. It's 'easy' to get a 'basic' mark and 'hard' to get a 'higher' score.

If you refute this claim I'd be interested in finding out who this person is who is telling his friends the course is a free pass. If he is a PBL tutor, a medical doctor and a PhD candidate I won't have much trouble contacting him and asking him to explain his opinion.

You can act the Billy Bigballs all you like on here, but I'm not getting our friend to "explain his opinions" to a medical student. I just thought it might be handy for the people worrying about coping with medicine to know that it's hard to fail and there's not much drop out. He's not in UL, though, which I think is where much of the sensitivity comes from.

You've already agreed with me in your post that it's easy to get a pass mark in the written and the practical (assume this is what OSCEs are?) are geared to pass the student. Though when my partner did medicine this didn't seem to be the case. Though they also had a low drop-out rate from what I remember.

EDIT: Just asked my partner...our friend doesn't set exam questions, but he does mark them. And he assesses "clinicals" sometimes.

Sid_Justice

Right, so you're changing your story. I think you should refrain from passing on information your 'partners' friend tells you while out for a few drinks. You're essentially lying so I've no further interest in entertaining your nonsense.

but I'm not getting our friend to "explain his opinions" to a medical student

Well I don't see why you're on this thread, you're not a doctor, a med student or a candidate for either. Your sole area of expertise appears to be your partner is a doctor. Yet you have the audacity to criticize and remark on the entire accreditation system of the profession. You don't even know what an OSCE is.

Biologic

jimdeans wrote: »

You can act the Billy Bigballs all you like on here, but I'm not getting our friend to "explain his opinions" to a medical student. I just thought it might be handy for the people worrying about coping with medicine to know that it's hard to fail and there's not much drop out. He's not in UL, though, which I think is where much of the sensitivity comes from.

You've already agreed with me in your post that it's easy to get a pass mark in the written and the practical (assume this is what OSCEs are?) are geared to pass the student. Though when my partner did medicine this didn't seem to be the case. Though they also had a low drop-out rate from what I remember.

EDIT: Just asked my partner...our friend doesn't set exam questions, but he does mark them. And he assesses "clinicals" sometimes.

To be fair, all this equates to pretty much a null point. All GEM students integrate with the undergrad classes in their clinical years, so at that stage your examiner doesn't know whether you're GEM, undergrad, mature student or HPATer. You're all marked on exactly the same scheme. Given that the clinical years are all that count towards your degree (to any appreciable amount), there can't be any GEM bias.

jimdeans

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Right, so you're changing your story. I think you should refrain from passing on information your 'partners' friend tells you while out for a few drinks. You're essentially lying so I've no further interest in entertaining your nonsense.

You're extremely sensitive. Where did I lie?

And where did i change my story??

jimdeans

Biologic wrote: »

To be fair, all this equates to pretty much a null point. All GEM students integrate with the undergrad classes in their clinical years, so at that stage your examiner doesn't know whether you're GEM, undergrad, mature student or HPATer. You're all marked on exactly the same scheme. Given that the clinical years are all that count towards your degree (to any appreciable amount), there can't be any GEM bias.

I think when he marks papers they maybe sit different papers in the first few years, and I think there are some basic practicals in the early years in medicine nowadays.

Though I'm quite shocked by the reaction here. I thought I was the bringer of good news

namga

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Setting the 'barrier to entry' to medicine too low is a stupid,mote irrelevant point. If you pass the course, you deserve to be a doctor. If you pass all your exams (>55%) in medschool, I don't see a reason why your knowledge of organic chemistry or leaving cert physics is relevant.

Not everyone that gets into medschool becomes a doctor. The only indicator of ability to be a doctor is ability to get a medical degree, everything else is guess work.

If you believe this ,should we just give places to as many people as we can, regardless of their grades? No system is perfect, but these science subjects you list do test students ability to assimilate and present a body of knowledge, which is a good screening process.

The fees are getting v high, but nonetheless everyone seems to be in possession of a not insignificant grant from the HEA that goes towards the cost of their fees.

Given that there is a credible threat of not enough intern places coming on stream, and another credible threat that the people on the lower end of the grade scale may not be able to survive the course, it would make more sense to limit the numbers on the course and apportion the available resources towards a more limited pool of students.

Drop outs cost money for the government and the student. Fees will be wasted if students cannot secure an intern place. I feel the authorities should be pay attention to overcapacity and declining standards.

Biologic

jimdeans wrote: »

I think when he marks papers they maybe sit different papers in the first few years, and I think there are some basic practicals in the early years in medicine nowadays.

Though I'm quite shocked by the reaction here. I thought I was the bringer of good news

It's nothing personal , GEMs just hate when it seems like they're getting an easier ride than the LC entrants. You meant well!
Yeah the first 2 years of exams are separate, though I'm under the impression that's because we cover the stuff at different rates to the LCers. A friend of mine (GEP) lived with a med student from the LC programme and they agreed that the course content is the same. Our last clinical exams (1st GEP) were very similar to the exams the 2nd/3rd year undergrad med students were doing around the same time. At least that's what I could gather from talking to them.

Sid_Justice

namga wrote: »

If you believe this ,should we just give places to as many people as we can, regardless of their grades? No system is perfect, but these science subjects you have put down do test students ability assimilate and present a body of knowledge, which is a good screening process.

This is exactly what we do do. We do give as many places to as many people as we can. We always have. When demand succeeds supply the competition gets rigorous. The point is, if a school has 100 places it takes 100 students. If 1000 people apply the top 100 with the best scores get in. GAMSAT is as good a test as any for screening out people without any academic ability or organisation but there are people with very mediocre GAMSAT score who excel at pre-clinical medicine and vice versa.

namga

Sid_Justice wrote: »

This is exactly what we do do. We do give as many places to as many people as we can. We always have. When demand succeeds supply the competition gets rigorous. The point is, if a school has 100 places it takes 100 students. If 1000 people apply the top 100 with the best scores get in. GAMSAT is as good a test as any for screening out people without any academic ability or organisation but there are people with very mediocre GAMSAT score who excel at pre-clinical medicine and vice versa.

But they seem to be expanding the places so rapidly that nearly everyone who does the exam will get in.

As regards scores correlation with pre clinical medicine - there are always going to be anomalies and outliers, but I would have my money on people with the higher scores doing better.

cece

I contacted the CAO after seeing on another post that someone had been offered a place on 53. The cao said that no offers had been made to anyone with a score of 53 - that may change in the next few weeks.....

MLH1

I think we are getting off topic abit here, I rejected UL with 55, I did the GAMSAT 3 times and my god it was a bollox of an exam. In my opinion it stands to reason that anyone who gets below 56 shouln't really be getting a place on GEM, I think its a reflection on the working conditions of young doctors that the points have fallen so far. From a personal point of view I just couldn't put myself through all the slog again, its no harm working your ass off in college when your 18-22 but I'm just not keen on being an eternal student when already some of my pears are home owners, engaged, permanent jobs but hey that's just my opinion. I might end up a doc at some stage too ya never know. Another point I have known of people to get low 50's in the GAMSAT and resit it and get into GEM. I would expect an increase in drop-out rates this year, Its a looong road ahead 53 or not!!

bubbleking

surely with the new ranking system of students we have upon graduation there rank as a med student could be correlated with their GAMSAT score to see if it is actually a reflection on how well they do

FrankAmazing

bubbleking wrote: »

surely with the new ranking system of students we have upon graduation there rank as a med student could be correlated with their GAMSAT score to see if it is actually a reflection on how well they do

yeah but up until this year the gamsat scores have been more and more competitive. only the top students were getting in. up until now it was about the top 25% of applicants getting in. now it's one in two.
so basically you're going to have to wait until the class of 2015 graduate to then check and even at that you're only gonna get one years worth of data which statistically doesnt show a lot. you'd need a couple of years of data of poor gamsat scorers completing the degree to really start seeing any trends.

although nonetheless i think that's irrelevant.

anyone who completes the course is obviously able for it no matter what score they got in gamsat.

but the hypothesis is that people with the low gamsat scores won't be able to cope with the demands of GEM and will end up failing/dropping out.

Traderdc

I couldn't agree with badaboyblake more. I think that the 2.1 requirement should be lowered to a 2.2 requirement or even a third level degree and there would be far more competition for places.

If you want to be a solicitor for example, everybody who has a primary can apply to sit the entrance exams.

Perhaps bringing in an interview as well as the gamsat is a better way to assess suitability. In any case, I believe that because I got a 2.2 in my primary law degree, this shouldn't be a barrier to me sitting gamsat.

Any suggestions on the best way to lobby the colleges to remove or lower the 2.2 requirement. If enough people get on board, they would have to consider it imo

badboyblake

Traderdc wrote: »

I couldn't agree with badaboyblake more. I think that the 2.1 requirement should be lowered to a 2.2 requirement or even a third level degree and there would be far more competition for places.

If you want to be a solicitor for example, everybody who has a primary can apply to sit the entrance exams.

Perhaps bringing in an interview as well as the gamsat is a better way to assess suitability. In any case, I believe that because I got a 2.2 in my primary law degree, this shouldn't be a barrier to me sitting gamsat.

Any suggestions on the best way to lobby the colleges to remove or lower the 2.2 requirement. If enough people get on board, they would have to consider it imo

It stands to reason that if more people are eligible to gain entrance to Graduate entry medicine i.e. lowering the requrement to 2.2 then the Gamsat score requirement would increase.
I believe that in the UK the score requirements for colleges that accept 2.2 degrees are markedly higher than those that require 2.1 degrees e.g. St George's London.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1025242

badboyblake

Traderdc wrote: »

Perhaps bringing in an interview as well as the gamsat is a better way to assess suitability.

I wouldn't be in favour of interviews Ireland is a small country - nepotism would be rife if interviews formed a part of the selection process.
Better to keep it fair and transparent where those that have the best Gamsat test score get in.
Give 2.2 degreee holders a fair shot at it!

KizzyMonster

Traderdc wrote: »

Any suggestions on the best way to lobby the colleges to remove or lower the 2.2 requirement. If enough people get on board, they would have to consider it imo

+1

badboyblake

badboyblake wrote: »

I wouldn't be in favour of interviews Ireland is a small country - nepotism would be rife if interviews formed a part of the selection process.
Better to keep it fair and transparent where those that have the best Gamsat test score get in.
Give 2.2 degreee holders a fair shot at it!

Think about it also - - a person could get a 2.2 grade in their undergrad and go on to study a masters and wind up with a 2.1 or even a first class in that, and they aren't even eligible to apply for Grad Med. I'm with those of you who believe the 2.1 undergrad grade is unfair and could be excluding significant numbers of potentially excellent candidates from the Grad Med route.

MLH1

Def would be in favour of the 2.1 requirement being dropped.

alcomoholic

MLH1 wrote: »

Def would be in favour of the 2.1 requirement being dropped.

what difference does it make to you. you turned down an opportunity to do medicine. your opinion here means sweet fuck all.

alcomoholic

alcomoholic wrote: »

what difference does it make to you. you turned down an opportunity to do medicine. your opinion here means sweet fuck all.

Oh cop on there's no need for that. MLH1 may have turned it down because she knew in her heart and soul medicine wasn't for her upon careful consideration and I'm sure her decision wasn't taken lightly. In fact her opinion is just as relevant as anybody elses, for all we know she may know someone with a 2.2 from her own profession (I think she's in medlab?) who would love to be a doctor now they're working in the hospital labs, and who can't even apply for Gradmed.

alcomoholic

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh cop on there's no need for that. MLH1 may have turned it down because she knew in her heart and soul medicine wasn't for her upon careful consideration and I'm sure her decision wasn't taken lightly. In fact her opinion is just as relevant as anybody elses, for all we know she may know someone with a 2.2 from her own profession (I think she's in medlab?) who would love to be a doctor now they're working in the hospital labs, and who can't even apply for Gradmed.

her opinion means fuck all.
she half chanced her arse at the gamsat. she got a lucky offer of med two years later, and fuckin rejected it and suddenly thinks she is some sort of expert on the thing. she's an idiot who wouldnt have ventured twice onto this thread if she hadnt randomly opened the post one day to receive her fuckin lucky cao offers. she obviously didnt even put any real thought into the whole medicine as a career thing as when push came to shove she kept her balls in the bread basket and turned down the offer.
get a grip on yourself.
2.2 student shouldnt be allowed near the thing. getting a 2.2 means you did fuck all work for four years,don't expect to survive grad med when you can barely scrape a pass on a basic level eight mickey mouse degree

Biologic

alcomoholic wrote: »

what difference does it make to you. you turned down an opportunity to do medicine. your opinion here means sweet fuck all.

You lied about getting a GEM offer when CAO said nobody has been offered a place on 53. Your posts have consistently been absolute gibberish. Finally, you've already been mod-warned about your gibberish posts twice. Cheerio cheerio cheerio.
MLH, you've already shown a level of maturity that's beyond the above 'gentleman'.