Are the GAMSAT cut-offs too low?

caroline1111

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.

eh... rubbish (apart from the first two points)...

bubbleking

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

How can you compare a LC student, 17/18 yrs of age who has mastered the ability to regurgitate spoon-fed grinds to achieve maximum points and seen nothing of the world and go - 'there you go - a ticket to sit an exam (GAMSAT) for you to study medicine in 4 years-if you do well enough in it' and, say, a social worker who deals face to face with adults and children in the most harrowing circumstances, has travelled the world, worked in the slums of india, is highly professional in their work and would make an excellent doctor....but somehow only got a 2.2 degree, so the LC student is 'better or at least as good' ??? I could go on and list many examples of scenarios such as Physiotherapists, the Clinical Nurse Managers, Clinical Psychologists, SLTs, Radiographers, Dentists, Vets, Teachers, Pharmacists, etc. etc. who may not have achieved great results in their undergrad, for whatever reason, but have matured and developed widsom and life-skills, critical thinking skills no amount of high marks in college exams can buy.
BTW I'm not knocking anyone who gets great results in the LC, fair play to them, but the undergrad degree is there for their taking, they don't have the burden of a 100K loan and the longer course earns them an extra couple of years in wisdom and maturity.

imported_guy

I think you're missing a point here, as micra boy said, a 2.2 is a mediocre degree, regardless of what you study. It means you got between 50 and 60% overall. Most modules in medicine have a passing mark of 50%. If you get below 50% you fail. life experiences only get you so far. I bet alot of aborigonies have great life experiences, but are the acedmically capable of studying medicine? hard to know.

hurdygurdy85

As far as the minimum 2.1 entry requirement being unfair-well that's possibly right in some ways. Im sure there are some candidates out there with 2.2's who would make fantastic doctors. But the reality of the situation is that a 2.1 is required for GEM in Ireland and there's no getting around it. When I was doing my finals years ago, all I wanted was a 2.1 minimum, the only reason being so that I could apply for GEM. It's the only part of the entry requirements that you can't change-you can sit the GAMSAT as many times as is necessary (and I did sit it a few times) but the grade of your degree can never be changed (I knew I only had 1 chance at my finals-maybe in some other degrees it's possible to repeat).

Obviously there are people out there who obtained their first degree before they decided to go for GEM, and as a result did not know the implications of having below a 2.1 with regards to applying for GEM. These people have my sympathy aswell as people who encountered unusual/difficult personal circumstances and didn't perform during finals etc. But for other people who knew what the minimum standards for GEM applications were but simply failed to put enough work in, well they've just shot themselves in the foot really.

hurdygurdy85

e

hurdygurdy85 wrote: »

Obviously there are people out there who obtained their first degree before they decided to go for GEM, and as a result did not know the implications of having below a 2.1 with regards to applying for GEM.

I'm with you there 100% hurdygurdy, have worked alongside allied health professionals (medical scientists, physios and radiographers) who graduated with these so called 'mediocre' 2.2 degrees pre 2006/2007 when GEM was introduced and have gone on to gain 2.1 and better masters qualifications, posts of seniority in their field, are of invaluable help to the young interns when they are thrown in at the deep end each summer, and who NCHDS and consultants depend heavily upon in their treatment of patients to get their own job done. People like this are excluded from GEM. Tell me these people are 'mediocre'. I don't believe you. They have more behind them than some with 1.1/2.1s in other things and don't doubt that they would be well able to handle GEM if they were let in. I know there's always the UK for them if they wanted it, but why should they be good enough for the UK and not good enough for Ireland? Ireland is excluding potentially great candidates like these. I said all that before as have some others. I don't think, however, that people with 2.2s in non-healthcare related or science degrees like heritage studies/women's studies/latin/greek and roman civilisation/ etc. should be eligible though. Perhaps the criteria for entry could be reviewed.

frigate gumption

imported_guy wrote: »

life experiences only get you so far. I bet alot of aborigonies have great life experiences, but are the acedmically capable of studying medicine? hard to know.

with the exception of those aborigines adept at the skill of truffling for witchetty grubs, an aborigine should never be allowed to train as a medical doctor.

eyescreamcone

Why not run the GEM entry like the undergrad entry?

Undergrad: LC + HPAT
GEM: degree result + GAMSAT???

The present system of saying all degrees are equal is unfair in my opinion.
This is even more unfair when some degrees are 3 years (Arts, Law) and some are 4.

eyescreamcone

Would someone who completed a 3 year degree have to pay for 4th year GEM???

It could be argued that as they have not done a 4th year already they should not have to pay for their first attempt at a 4th year.

foreverandever

Who would decide what merit to give each degree? And different degrees branch in the later years so should they be divided into different merits too? As for the 3 year vs 4 year degree, well that's just life!

eyescreamcone

foreverandever wrote: »

Who would decide what merit to give each degree? And different degrees branch in the later years so should they be divided into different merits too? As for the 3 year vs 4 year degree, well that's just life!

Hard to say that a degree in Dentistry, Pharmacy or say Engineering is not a much more difficult degree to obtain than some of the following CIT level 8 degrees:

Applied Art (Ceramics) - BA
Bar Mgt - BBus
Tourism - BBus

All 2.1s are not equal by a long shot!!!

foreverandever

I'd argue that there a very few degrees in college that you don't have to work hard for to get a 2:1 or higher in. And people who already have pharmacy, dental degrees should find the GAMSAT part easier because of the science would have covered in their degree.

eyescreamcone

I'd open it up to everyone who has a level 8 degree.
Add your GAMSAT to your degree score though.

If you have a Masters - get a 5 point bonus or something
Same for a PhD.

Nobody can complain about being excluded then.

A 2.2 with a higher degree is as good if not better than a 2.1 anyway.

Even a pass degree - let him in if he can ace the GAMSAT and pass out those with better degree scores.

If he pays his fees and passes his med exams good luck to him!

foreverandever

Well I already think people with 2:2 should be allowed do the GAMSAT and definitely does who topped up with a 2:1 masters but otherwise I don't see the point in assigning certain scores to certain degrees. What difference does it make what other peoples degrees are in? It's graduate medicine, not graduates-from-certain-degrees med. People who don't get into medicine via the LC will start doing pharm and dent and going straight into med and leave Ireland with a shortage of dentists and pharmacists. As you say, if they're good enough for the GAMSAT and can pay then let them in!

sam34

frigate gumption wrote: »

with the exception of those aborigines adept at the skill of truffling for witchetty grubs, an aborigine should never be allowed to train as a medical doctor.

cop on.

infracted.

sam34

folks I've deleted a few posts that consisted of bitching and taking swipes at other posters.


seriously. how many times does it need to be said?

leave the personal comments out of it.

frigate gumption

sam34 wrote: »

cop on.

infracted.

pretty surrrre I was highlighting the idiocy and unnoticed blatant racism of that post I quoted not quite intending to be racist myself. over the head. :pac:

MLH1

Any news from anyone getting offers in Round 1 or 2 now, bout how the points might have fallen further?

ljg1

I think that if the universities had a choice, they would choose to take all the people on a 2.1 or lower, consider all their credentials including background and experience, and interview them. In fact this was said at the UL open evening this year. Prof Paul Finucane said they would love to have interviews but the HEA decided that the 2.1 plus GAMSAT cutoff would be the way they would pick candidates.
Nepotism wouldn't be such a problem if they brought in external interviewers from the UK or elsewhere. I might be wrong but I think it may be more to do with the cost of the whole interview process than nepotism. In fairness they're paying half the fees, so its their choice how they assess candidates. I'm not saying its fair but we have to accept that that's the way, otherwise nobody would be able to afford the course.

kermicrzy

Its funny that you cant get into UL without an interview as a North American but yet for Irish students there is (usually) lower GAMSAT requirements. There isnt even an interview requirement for UCD or UCC (yeah!).

I just find this a bit odd. Thought I would share...

ljg1

As far as I was aware, most if not all of the North Americans do MCAT so there isn't a lower GAMSAT requirement for Irish students to get in. They don't have interviews for any EU student here, UL, UCC, RCSI or UCD. Its all done via the CAO. The HEA have nothing to do with North American students, that's why the universities can pick and choose who they take from there.

Sid_Justice

kermicrzy wrote: »

Its funny that you cant get into UL without an interview as a North American but yet for Irish students there is (usually) lower GAMSAT requirements. There isnt even an interview requirement for UCD or UCC (yeah!).

I just find this a bit odd. Thought I would share...

What are you talking about? The Canadians go through a very rigorous selection process including multiple interviews and group exercises to get into UL.

sorry i misread your post

imported_guy

kermicrzy wrote: »

Its funny that you cant get into UL without an interview as a North American but yet for Irish students there is (usually) lower GAMSAT requirements. There isnt even an interview requirement for UCD or UCC (yeah!).

I just find this a bit odd. Thought I would share...

Sid_Justice wrote: »

What are you talking about? The Canadians go through a very rigorous selection process including multiple interviews and group exercises to get into UL.

lol.

jimdeans

Sid_Justice wrote: »

What are you talking about? The Canadians go through a very rigorous selection process including multiple interviews and group exercises to get into UL.

:pac:

frigate gumption

jimdeans wrote: »

:pac:

There's nothing funny in what you underlined.

bubbleking

It would be great if interviews did come in then UL would stop getting childish abuse for admitting duds

Sid_Justice

no duds in ul bubbleking what are you talking about?

McMuffin

There's only one med school with a problem of nepotism and we all know which one that is. Only one college needs to have its entrance system shook up in order to allow for fair entrance through interview.

imported_guy

McMuffin wrote: »

There's only one med school with a problem of nepotism and we all know which one that is. Only one college needs to have its entrance system shook up in order to allow for fair entrance through interview.

interviews will just drive down the points even lower, it will be harder to fill places, not that its easy now, alot of the places go on to round 3 as people back off and round 3 cut offs arent posted yet... they will be in a few days though

taitzu

has anyone actually looked at st georges or nottingham or peninsula?????? you can get a 2.2....... hmmmmm

people take these things far too personally, not good medical candidates if you ask me...

not that you did..

bubbleking

taitzu wrote: »

has anyone actually looked at st georges or nottingham or peninsula?????? you can get a 2.2....... hmmmmm

people take these things far too personally, not good medical candidates if you ask me...

not that you did..

your GAMSAT score needs to be a lot higher if you got a 2.2 IIRC?