Are the GAMSAT cut-offs too low?

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'.

sam34

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've already been warned to cop on. this time its a ban.

badboyblake

alcomoholic wrote: »

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

Believe it or not; plenty of people that get 2.2. degrees - have worked hard throughout their degrees,
but through bad luck in an exam, an unfavourable project, a personality clash with a tutor or even illness - they messed up the last part of their degree programme.
Believe it or not; plenty of people that get 2.1 degrees - slacked off during the majority of their degree programmes; failing exams left right and center but managed to pull off a 2.1 result by winging exams at the end, or by getting a very favourable project and/or tutor.
Which would have the better work ethic?
The diligent, hard working one who messed up at the final hurdle or the lucky slacker who winged it at the end?
My point is here is not to provide excuses but to demonstrate real life uncovered and real life goes beyond 2.1's or 2.2's.
In agreement with Sweetface At the very least Considering that the 2.1 degree requirement cannot be rectified i.e. (by doing a masters or professional exams) I consider that requirment (and it seems many others do too) to be grossly unfair.
And on a final note; A 2.2. degree is not "barely scraping a pass" as you put it - it's just off a 2.1 degree.
A pass degree is "barely scraping a pass".
Alcomoholic have you been drinking?

bluewall

I have to agree with all the pro 2.2'ers. Accepting 2.2's is only going to up the Gamsat cut off. Think this year was definitely a freak year in terms of the scores going so low. Although, Gamsat is a very tough exam and I don't think it is necessarily a true representation of someone's ability to perform in medical school. There are definitely people who will have offers this year who applied to sit the exam late on, with very little prep, scored a very middle of the road mark in comparison to previous cut-off's and now find themselves with a place on a GEM course.

I have felt for the past few years, and even more so this year, that the exclusion of people with 2.2's is particularly harsh. So much so, that my advice to younger people who want to do med and can't get in through undergrad level is to choose a degree that you may have some interest in but more importantly one where you are guaranteed a good chance of achieving a 2.1 - save yourself the hassle, generally speaking.

People who study sciences are at a direct disadvantage here. Sure, they will have great opportunities to score well in the gamsat itself etc. but the amount of work and effort required to score a 2.1 is quite disproportionate to the amount of work a lot of non-science students have to do to gain the same degree.

Personally, I think a few in UL might struggle this year. Perhaps a higher number of drop outs following an intake with a lower cut-off is what it would take for them (CAO or individual GEM's) to realise that considering 2.2's is probably the future.

I'm not saying I agree that gamsat is the best tool to choose between candidates, but perhaps allowing all disciplines with a 2.1 to apply along with all science candidates (from a list of approved courses?) with a mimimum 2.2 to apply might be a fairer approach? Then we wouldn't see such low gamsat cut-offs ever again I would imagine.

Sid_Justice

Listen, a lot of people talking nonsense on this thread. How can you simultaneously argue that:

You should drop the minimum requirement for degree (2.1 - 2.2) despite the fact your degree is supposed to reflect 3/4 years work

Increase the GAMSAT cut-off which reflects a much more arbitrary amount of time and effort.

Biologic

Guys I really don't understand the argument that dropping the 2.1 requirement should be done to increase GAMSAT cutoffs. There are 2 selection criteria for GEM; degree and GAMSAT. Both test for different qualities in a candidate, so why would they lower one requirement just to increase the other? They want people with both the aptitude to understand the information (GAMSAT tests for this) and the ability to sit yourself down and study it (degree cutoff tests for this). It makes no sense to prioritise GAMSAT over the degree requirement as both are equally important. There seems to be the idea that the 2.1 requirement is just a random stipulation the colleges put there to reduce their workload of applicants.
Having said that, I'd definitely support a list of approved courses being allowed entry with a 2.2 (pharmacy etc) because the level of work in those far exceeds most 2.1s. It seems pretty absurd that someone with a 2.2 in medicine is technically deemed ineligible/incapable for graduate entry medicine (I understand that this would never come up, but the point stands). The average Joe Schlob with a 2.2 in Daytime TV shouldn't qualify for a place though IMO.

kapow

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18341459

When looking at exam marks in GEM Years 1 -4 GPA levels (i.e. previous level of degree obtained) was the most significant indicator of academic performance, next was interviews, followed by GAMSAT scores.

With an average of 55% of college students being awarded either a 1.1/2.1 degree I'd have to agree that the 2.1 is a good criteria to have. If you open up GEM courses to those with 2.2 degree's you may as well abolish the entire "degree hurdle" aspect of applying for GEM; as all degree holders aside from those with 3rd class degrees will be able to apply (about 85% of all students?).

badboyblake

kapow wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18341459

When looking at exam marks in GEM Years 1 -4 GPA levels (i.e. previous level of degree obtained) was the most significant indicator of academic performance, next was interviews, followed by GAMSAT scores.

With an average of 55% of college students being awarded either a 1.1/2.1 degree I'd have to agree that the 2.1 is a good criteria to have. If you open up GEM courses to those with 2.2 degree's you may as well abolish the entire "degree hurdle" aspect of applying for GEM; as all degree holders aside from those with 3rd class degrees will be able to apply (about 85% of all students?).

Why not open it up to those with professional qualifications then?
How about those with Healthcare professional qualifications?
All degrees are not equal; A degree in Media studies is not equal to a Pharmacy degree.

In Britain to Qualify as a Pharmacist in the final pre-reg exam, 70% is the pass mark (plus 70% in a calculations exam where no calculator is allowed) and this is after five years of training (4 year Masters degree + 1 year pre-reg).

It does my nut in that someone could get on a GEM course in Ireland with a 2.1 in basket weaving/heritage studies/citizen/media/bar attendance studies - whatever you're having yourself. Whereas a Pharmacist with a 2.2 degree who has worked in a top UK medical teaching hospital as part of a multidisciplinary team participating in ward rounds, worked in medicines information etc is excluded.
Where is the sense in that???

In the University where I studied Pharmacy in England, Media studies degree students could elect to do their degree by project only i.e. no written Exams!!!
Not surprisingly more than 80% of media studies students got 2.1's.
Compare that to a Pharmacist qualification.
Yet the 2.1 holder of a joke media studies degree fulfills the 2.1 GEM requirement and the 2.2 Pharmacy degree holder does not.
Again I ask; Where is the sense in that???

imported_guy

badboyblake wrote: »

Why not open it up to those with professional qualifications then?
How about those with Healthcare professional qualifications?
All degrees are not equal; A degree in Media studies is not equal to a Pharmacy degree.

In Britain to Qualify as a Pharmacist in the final pre-reg exam, 70% is the pass mark (plus 70% in a calculations exam where no calculator is allowed) and this is after five years of training (4 year Masters degree + 1 year pre-reg).

It does my nut in that someone could get on a GEM course in Ireland with a 2.1 in basket weaving/heritage studies/citizen/media/bar attendance studies - whatever you're having yourself. Whereas a Pharmacist with a 2.2 degree who has worked in a top UK medical teaching hospital as part of a multidisciplinary team participating in ward rounds, worked in medicines information etc is excluded.
Where is the sense in that???

In the University where I studied Pharmacy in England, Media studies degree students could elect to do their degree by project only i.e. no written Exams!!!
Not surprisingly more than 80% of media studies students got 2.1's.
Compare that to a Pharmacist qualification.
Yet the 2.1 holder of a joke media studies degree fulfills the 2.1 GEM requirement and the 2.2 Pharmacy degree holder does not.
Again I ask; Where is the sense in that???

im sorry but you just come off as a guy who is really sore because he missed out on a 2.1

every country has standards for admissions, australia takes into account GPA + GAMSAT + interview, we have a 2.1 requirement instead of a GPA requirement, which is pretty similar, most colleges take into account the final two years of your degree, some take into account final 3 years, some take into account ALL of your years with certain weights... i.e. 1st year 10%, 2nd year 20%, 3rd year 30%, and final year 40% or variations there of.

we dont have an interview because, someone's uncle, cousin, brother, grandfather, sisters's fiance's brother could be the interviewer since the country is so small, and they will automatically be let in.

where do we draw the line? i'd say 2.1 is fair, or i actually think it should be a 1st. since we're trying to pick out the best and the brightest, although there should be exceptions for healthcare related degrees, but no they shouldnt go below a 2.1. a 2.1 is only 60%... which is a C minus... A C fecking minus. cop on. and to be honest a 1st is only a B- as well. we should be taking into account people's GPA and not the final degree, because it gives people false sense of security i.e. someone doing feck all in first few years and then scraping a first/2.1.

foreverandever

I disagree that only people with a 2:1 should get, I know people who only got 2:2s in their degrees just to unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances before their finals and now they are denied the chance to do medicine as a postgraduate. If the gamsat score can be so low I don't know why a 2:1 is such a necessity. I personally feel that an interview should come in at some point, it surely wouldn't be too difficult to arrange for a few doctors who do interviews in England to come over for a week hence eliminating the nepotism that can occur in Ireland.

imported_guy

imported_guy wrote: »

im sorry but you just come off as a guy who is really sore because he missed out on a 2.1

every country has standards for admissions, australia takes into account GPA + GAMSAT + interview, we have a 2.1 requirement instead of a GPA requirement, which is pretty similar, most colleges take into account the final two years of your degree, some take into account final 3 years, some take into account ALL of your years with certain weights... i.e. 1st year 10%, 2nd year 20%, 3rd year 30%, and final year 40% or variations there of.

we dont have an interview because, someone's uncle, cousin, brother, grandfather, sisters's fiance's brother could be the interviewer since the country is so small, and they will automatically be let in.

where do we draw the line? i'd say 2.1 is fair, or i actually think it should be a 1st. since we're trying to pick out the best and the brightest, although there should be exceptions for healthcare related degrees, but no they shouldnt go below a 2.1. a 2.1 is only 60%... which is a C minus... A C fecking minus. cop on. and to be honest a 1st is only a B- as well. we should be taking into account people's GPA and not the final degree, because it gives people false sense of security i.e. someone doing feck all in first few years and then scraping a first/2.1.

Are you comparing university grades with leaving cert grades ? It doesn't really work like that, perhaps for MCQ type exams, but certainly not for essay type exams, which form the bulk of written assessment. Anything over 70% is the cream of the crop in university, like an A would be in leaving cert and 75% is distinction. So 75% is like an *A1*. But I suppose you'd call that 'only' a B2. An old uni professor we had in UCC told us that NONE of us would get more than 75% in an exam for him, no matter how well we knew our stuff. In his words "Shakespeare would have written it better".