Are the GAMSAT cut-offs too low?

sam34

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

folks, absolute final warning on this and all gem threads. its an important and emotive subject for people. there's absolutely no need for the kind of above petty, snide and goading comment or any other like it.

zero tolerance from here on in.

Molly_88

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.

Have u completed a college degree or even gone to college for that matter...?

sam34

sam34 wrote: »

folks, absolute final warning on this and all gem threads. its an important and emotive subject for people. there's absolutely no need for the kind of above petty, snide and goading comment or any other like it.

zero tolerance from here on in.

Molly_88 wrote: »

Have u completed a college degree or even gone to college for that matter...?

god almighty. how clear do I need to make it?

banned.

badboyblake

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

You have avoided the kernal of the issue... taking the GEM entrance rules as they currently stand aside, Please demonstrate with relevant evidence (without emotion) how a 2.1 degree holder of a degree like Media studies (major questions about standards aside) makes for a better candidate to enter GEM, than the 2.2 degree holder of a Medicine relevant Health Profession?

MLH1

Ok first of all, I am not a woman and yes my profession is medlab.

In regards to my opinion meaning f all, I am merely expressing my opinion which as a person in a democracy I believe I am entitled to do. From sitting the GAMSAT a number of times and gaining a good insight into it as an exam I firly believe its a bloody hard exam and anyone who gains 58+, in more than entitled to a place in medicine, regardless of whether they have a pass degree in media studies from Tipperary IT or a 1.1 in Dentistry.

I can assure you I did not take the GAMSAT on a whim, I have a very good knowledge of the Irish medical profession and the options facing current Irish medical graduates and also the changing system. From this knowledge mainly I decided against studying Medicine as for me I felt it required far too much of a life commitment for me personally, in comparison to say completing a Pharmacy degree whereby you would be done and dusted with a Pre- Reg year after 5 years.

If I were to go in medicine, I would spend 100k to put myself in a situation whereby I would have a 6 month non-permanent (both in terms of location and contract) job, work 80+ hours a week, well into my late 30's, be lightyears off my peers whereby I would be in a situation to buy a home or take out a mortgage, given both aspects of having a permanent job in a fixed location.

I do feel that completing an allied health professional degree, working in the healthcare system, sitting the GAMSAT 3 times, obtaining an offer of a place on a GEM program, and most of all being seeing my family being treated in the Irish healthcare system entitles me to an opinion worth more than f all.


I know people who would put my academic intelligence to shame who obtained pass or 2.2 degrees, and would be more than happy for them to treat me as doctors. I certainly feel the 2.1 requirement is a joke and should be dropped.

I never implied I was an expert on the topic I just viewed my opinion.

chanste

Interesting thread, just thought I'd post my 2 cents...

I think people with a 2.2 should be allowed to apply, and hell even if they have a 2.2 with a score of 54/53 in GAMSAT, what is the problem? That is still a higher calibre of applicant than any other undergraduate course is getting (And I know medicine has a lot of responsibility but in my opinion that's were personal responsibility and maturity come in).

If people are not academically capable of doing medicine they will not pass the exams that are required during the course itself, if they CAN pass them, I believe having seen first hand how difficult they are, fair play to that person and they are good enough in my book. I've said it before in this forum but the GEM course is very hard, and people are either gonna be seriously gifted, or (like most) they will have to work their ass off to keep up.

foreverandever

MLH1 wrote: »

If I were to go in medicine, I would spend 100k to put myself in a situation whereby I would have a 6 month non-permanent (both in terms of location and contract) job, work 80+ hours a week, well into my late 30's, be lightyears off my peers whereby I would be in a situation to buy a home or take out a mortgage, given both aspects of having a permanent job in a fixed location.

I do want to say one thing and mods it's not taking a dig, that while I understand the debt part, it is alot of money although 12grand a year for fees isn't ridiculous compared to what non-EUs have to pay but owning your own house shouldn't be a reason not to do medicine. On the continent people rent for most of their lives and it's no problem and eventually you will settle down somewhere and usually it's not difficult for doctors to take out mortgages (obviously depends on their credit state). I feel it's harder for women to do medicine later in life because of trying to balance families and when it is the right time to get pregnant (probably never with this course) but at least if you qualify young you can have alot of your moving around done before families really come into the picture.

As for not having a set cut-off (not a point you made MLH1, someone else did) there has to be a certain standard. Most of the Irish doctors in this country got through via the LC and they were usually the best in the country that year (and yes the luck of the day/memorising/good teachers etc does play a part) but it was obviously a good system because most of the doctors I've come across are very competent and hard workers. While we've all heard/had a few horror stories about doctors, that's the case with every profession. I do believe if they start letting everyone who applies in, it will change the calibre of the doctor Ireland are producing. The reason the GEM course was started was because Ireland is short on doctors, not because the undergraduate course wasn't working.

badboyblake

foreverandever wrote: »

I do believe if they start letting everyone who applies in, it will change the calibre of the doctor Ireland are producing.

Nobody is saying they should let everybody who applies in.
Do you think it's fair that someone can apply for GEM with a 2.1 degree in a non-relevent subject (where that degree can be of a questionable standard) whereas a 2.2 degree holder in a medically relevant profession that takes a lot of work to get into - can't apply to GEM?

MicraBoy

badboyblake wrote: »

Nobody is saying they should let anybody in.
Do you think it's fair that someone can apply for GEM with a 2.1 degree in a non-relevent subject (where that degree can be of a questionable standard) whereas a 2.2 degree holder in a medically relevant profession that takes a lot of work to get into - can't apply to GEM?

For a start there is no such thing as a non-relevant subject. Everyone is bringing there own experience to the the mix. Secondly a person who gets a 2.2 in a related field has already proven they are only mediocre in the area, that's not really a great criteria for entry either.

The problem is this argument is based purely on the bias shown towards Arts based degrees that is pretty typical of the entire system. The reality is that the NFQ standards are there for a reason and that's to make comparison of the effort required. You can't just dismiss that with anecdotal evidence.

I don't think the requirement for 2.1 should be dropped, in today's grade inflated world it's not too much to ask. I would agree with imported_guy it would be preferable to have a GPA based requirement so that more than just the final year's marks count. That would help eliminate anomalies who have a really bad set of final exams. Although I think they are probably the exception rather than the norm.

badboyblake

MicraBoy wrote: »

Secondly a person who gets a 2.2 in a related field has already proven they are only mediocre in the area, that's not really a great criteria for entry either.

The problem is this argument is based purely on the bias shown towards Arts based degrees that is pretty typical of the entire system. The reality is that the NFQ standards are there for a reason and that's to make comparison of the effort required. You can't just dismiss that with anecdotal evidence.

Obtaining a professional qualification in health care profession is not mediocre as you put it. I know several 1.1 degree holders who failed their Healthcare professional entrance exams - how do you explain that?
If you think a media studies degree where you don't have to complete exams to obtain the degree is equivalent to a Healtcare profession degree then you are hugely mistaken.
And that is not anecdotal evidence it is factual evidence.

jtsuited

First off, and I'm not trying to backseat mod, the general behaviour in this forum (in relation to GEM) is absolutely insane.....between people having a go at each GEM course, and then worse, people getting ridiculously defensive about everything, every GEM thread is descending into mudslinging matches.

I wouldn't mind if they were good mudslinging matches based on empirical data but nearly every fight that breaks out is based on hearsay or 'i heard this from x and x is a consultant who fights crime at night' (ok maybe not the last bit).
Then comes the 'are you even a med student or doctor, if not then stfu' type posts.

If someone comes on with an elitist attitude (and is a 'dead cert for getting RCSI etc'), don't rise to the bait. If someone comes on warning of the financial realities we all may be facing, don't shoot them down as just being doomsday prophets.

Then of course, there is the old cliched 'oh arts students are flaky humanities graduates who clearly don't know their arse from their elbow' argument. Tbh, I think there is a certain amount of truth in that, but the Gamsat clearly weeds them out. At least I hope it does.


Not once have we seen the distibution of degree scores mentioned on this thread between heritage studies/basket weaving/media studies/humanities/social sciences vs the same for pharmacy etc.

Secondly, the idea of opening up the gamsat for people with 2.2s is a tricky one. I don't know anybody who graduated with less than a 2.2 (granted it's in the non-science areas) and without being a prick, putting most of those people in the gamsat would lead to a crazy amount of 'deadwood' in there, which would perhaps drastically effect the marking curves - crucially the mechanics of the marking curves etc are kept very very very vague by acer so it's hard to judge.

The funniest thing about this whole debacle, is the lack of thick skin shown on this forum. Everyone's zippity quick to get their defenses up. It's probably worth remembering what being an actual doctor is going to be like, because from my albeit limited knowledge you have to deal with a lot more sh1t than a few people poo-pooing your credentials and doubting your chances of succeeding in a challenging area.

/rant.

badboyblake

jtsuited wrote: »

Secondly, the idea of opening up the gamsat for people with 2.2s is a tricky one. I don't know anybody who graduated with less than a 2.2 (granted it's in the non-science areas) and without being a prick, putting most of those people in the gamsat would lead to a crazy amount of 'deadwood' in there, which would perhaps drastically effect the marking curves - crucially the mechanics of the marking curves etc are kept very very very vague by acer so it's hard to judge.

So you're basically saying all the 2.2 degree holders & qualified Docs from the Medical degrees at St George's, Nottingham, Penninsula are "deadwood".
That's a pretty disparaging thing to say, can you produce the empirical evidence (seeing as you are big on that in the rest of your post) to back your claim up?

MicraBoy

badboyblake wrote: »

Obtaining a professional qualification in health care profession is not mediocre as you put it.

I said a 2.2 is a mediocre degree (in any discipline).

badboyblake wrote: »

I know several 1.1 degree holders who failed their Healthcare professional entrance exams - how do you explain that?

I can't explain it because I don't understand the point you are making. I didn't reference professional exams.

badboyblake wrote: »

If you think a media studies degree where you don't have to complete exams to obtain the degree is equivalent to a Healtcare profession degree then you are hugely mistaken.
And that is not anecdotal evidence it is factual evidence.

I'm afraid the agreed national and international standards authorities disagree, but if you can provide the empirical data, then great, otherwise you are still in anecdotal territory.

People in media studies spend many hours crafting their skill that doesn't lend itself to a 3hr exam, it doesn't mean they haven't put the required hours in (that's anecdotal).

badboyblake

MicraBoy wrote: »

People in media studies spend many hours crafting their skill that doesn't lend itself to a 3hr exam, it doesn't mean they haven't put the required hours in (that's anecdotal).

So how do you objectively prove that 2.1 media studies degree holders who didn't complete exams have the academic ability to complete a medical degree?
After all they haven't done any exams!
A degree with no exams is subjective by definition.

Biologic

What's all this got to do with the GAMSAT cut-off for this year?

bubbleking

I think it stands to reason that people who got a 2.2 in their degree wont do very well in the GAMSAT either

this is excluding a minuscule percentage of people who got a 2.2 due to anything other than their own short comings.

badboyblake

bubbleking wrote: »

I think it stands to reason that people who got a 2.2 in their degree wont do very well in the GAMSAT either

this is excluding a minuscule percentage of people who got a 2.2 due to anything other than their own short comings.

How do you know they won't?
Your statement doesn't stack up against the fact that the Gamsat requirement for St George's (which accepts 2.2 degrees) is in or around 60.

jtsuited

badboyblake wrote: »

So you're basically saying all the 2.2 degree holders & qualified Docs from the Medical degrees at St George's, Nottingham, Penninsula are "deadwood".
That's a pretty disparaging thing to say, can you produce the empirical evidence (seeing as you are big on that in the rest of your post) to back your claim up?

No I was saying that based on the people I know who got 2.2s (in the humanities and social sciences), I'd be willing to bet that allowing such a huge number of people like that (think of the amount of arts graduates with 2.2s) would introduce a significant amount of deadwood.

It's such a blindingly obvious matter I didn't think I'd need data to support it, but I'll try to do it through logical deduction...

It doesn't take a huge amount of aptitude or hard work to do an arts degree. It certainly doesn't take a huge amount of either to get a 2.2.
Given the huge amounts of 2.2 Arts graduates currently with no career prospects, opening up the gamsat to them could cause a lot of deadwood that would throw the results off significantly.

I'm saying it's a very real possibility, not a foregone conclusion.

badboyblake

A final post from me on this topic as I think I've argued it to death at this stage.
I think it's deeply unfair not to let 2.2 degree holders have a crack at it for all the reasons I have outlined.

At the very, very least 2.2 primary degree holders who have "topped up" so to speak with a 2.1 Masters or a professional qualification should be allowed to apply.

I think the Gamsat is a good exam, I'm a big believer in objectively proving your suitablity by one's exam results; Why not let the candidates who have obviously proven academic ability (those with a 2.1 masters or a healthcare profession) have a fair shot at it?

It's a shame the Irish GEM schools can't adopt a fairer set of entry requirements like St George's, Nottingham etc have.

I believe ultimately this would benefit patients greatly.

jtsuited

badboyblake wrote: »

So you're basically saying all the 2.2 degree holders & qualified Docs from the Medical degrees at St George's, Nottingham, Penninsula are "deadwood".
That's a pretty disparaging thing to say, can you produce the empirical evidence (seeing as you are big on that in the rest of your post) to back your claim up?

oh and if you read my post, I was talking specifically of arts degrees. so no I'm not 'basically' saying 'all the 2.2 degree holders & qualified docs from the medical degrees at St Georges etc...are deadwood'.

bubbleking

serious argument - if you are going to let people with a 2.2 sit the exam why shouldn't we allow leaving cert students to do it also?

badboyblake

bubbleking wrote: »

serious argument - if you are going to let people with a 2.2 sit the exam why shouldn't we allow leaving cert students to do it also?

Maybe Cos it's GRADUATE entry Medicine.

That's defo it from me folks.

KizzyMonster

bubbleking wrote: »

serious argument - if you are going to let people with a 2.2 sit the exam why shouldn't we allow leaving cert students to do it also?

The point is that it's for graduates: Different learning speed and skills to leaving cert students...

bubbleking

KizzyMonster wrote: »

The point is that it's for graduates: Different learning speed and skills to leaving cert students...

you could argue the point that some of the better leaving cert students (the ones that would be competing in the GAMSAT) would be better , or at least as good as those who hold 2.2 degrees.

So if you allow people with 2.2 degrees to apply why not LC students

imported_guy

bubbleking wrote: »

you could argue the point that some of the better leaving cert students (the ones that would be competing in the GAMSAT) would be better , or at least as good as those who hold 2.2 degrees.

So if you allow people with 2.2 degrees to apply why not LC students

whats the point in having graduate medicine in the first place? why not just increase undergraduate places?

bubbleking

imported_guy wrote: »

whats the point in having graduate medicine in the first place? why not just increase undergraduate places?

I presume because its quicker and cheaper (for the government) to produce docs through GEM routes

spagboll

The gamsat doesn't count for anything, people doing grind course and sitting the exam multiple times really defeats the point of it.

But you don't need to be too smart to be a doctor from what I've seen, the job is intensive but sho level seems bog basic, we need more bodies in white coats, hopefully more nice and personable people, not the nasty spiteful types that are popping up on this forum

Sid_Justice

Obviously you can't just increase undergrad cao places because who would pay for it?

you can't really say the top 100 get their fees at 2k a year and the other get it at 15k. the purpose of grad entry was, imo, to increase the number of doctors trained per year, to place most of the burden of paying for that training onto the doctor, and 3 to change the profile of young doctors from 17 year old pimply virgins who've been preparing for the lc since they were in 2nd year to mature, reasonable people, certain they want the career, knowledgeable of the baggage that comes with it and not going to become little brat doctors.

i also think there was some intention to move medical students away from private secondary school types to more varied profiles but i don't think that worked, in fact i think it's more biased than it was. it also evened the playing field a bit allowing men another chance because women have been outperforming in the leaving cert for some time now.

basically the sign on the door is :

Wanted
Preferably male
preferably not completely thick
must have a number of bad experiences with doctors so motivated not to turn out the same
must have 15k per year
must be willing to work in this ****e country
no one with rare consultancy ambitions need apply

foreverandever

spagboll wrote: »

The gamsat doesn't count for anything, people doing grind course and sitting the exam multiple times really defeats the point of it.

But you don't need to be too smart to be a doctor from what I've seen, the job is intensive but sho level seems bog basic, we need more bodies in white coats, hopefully more nice and personable people, not the nasty spiteful types that are popping up on this forum

Yeah that's true, although the only reason we need more doctors are because currently they spend so much time doing administrative work and jobs that could be done by others

namga

Sid_Justice wrote: »

you can't really say the top 100 get their fees at 2k a year and the other get it at 15k. the purpose of grad entry was, imo, to increase the number of doctors trained per year, to place most of the burden of paying for that training onto the doctor, and 3 to change the profile of young doctors from 17 year old pimply virgins who've been preparing for the lc since they were in 2nd year to mature, reasonable people, certain they want the career, knowledgeable of the baggage that comes with it and not going to become little brat doctors.

Come off it. First of all you are proposing a stereotype that just because someone does well in their leaving cert, that they must be entitled and socially deficient? The calibre of doctor this country is producing from the LC, seems on average, to be pretty good and most of them are happy with their choice of career. I have a few problems with the LC, but most people who did well worked very hard.

I get that people may have really liked to do medicine at LC, but imagining people with superior LC results are somehow inadequate in other ways is a silly and spiteful way to make themselves feel better.