A GAMSAT Score of 54 got you into medicine last year, can it really go any lower!!

Flange/Flanders

Biologic wrote: »

I think that's deceptive towards the student. You're telling them that they've passed an aptitude test for medical school when in reality they will find it extremely difficult. One of the UL students posted a while ago saying that many of the people failing were those on lower GAMSAT scores. If they fail, they're out up to 25k with no way to pay it back. Also, they're costing the taxpayer thousands and taking up a place in medical school.
Again, there's plenty of people out there with 54s who are well able for it. But as GAMSAT scores go down, the proportion of people who would find medical school too difficult goes up. I personally think 54 is way beyond the point where there's an acceptable level of proven aptitude.

Well I dont think it is deceptive towards students, we're all going to be at lease 21, have an undergrad course done, we all know the cost of the course and everyone should have done enough research on the course to know what its entailed. Any review of gem courses (including yours Biologic - which I enjoyed reading, thanks for that ) will tell of the high level of work thats involved. At the end of the day we should all be self aware enough to know our strengths and limitations and if we're fit enough to do medicine.

ciara84

lonelywanderer wrote: »

Why can't there be an interview exactly? Not aware of this...

ireland is a small country, I've a good few doctors in my family/extended family, chances are i'll know someone who knows someone who is on the interview panel for atleast one of the colleges.

lonelywanderer

ciara84 wrote: »

ireland is a small country, I've a good few doctors in my family/extended family, chances are i'll know someone who knows someone who is on the interview panel for atleast one of the colleges.

Is that really the official reason?

jtsuited

Whether it's the official reason or not, it's a big issue. The nepotism would be insane. Everyone knows everyone in this country (in a round about way).

lonelywanderer

They interview for mature entry, though

Biologic

Nanorman wrote: »

Person1 "The GAMSAT is broken, you can get any score if you take it enough times or lucky in multiple choice. I hate it."
People who got under 60 "What a wise person, he speaks like I think!"

Person2 "The GAMSAT is revolutionary, progressive and really has the ability to seek out the most competent of potential doctors. I love it."
People who got over 60 "What a wise person, he speaks like I think!"

I don't think there's anyone on this thread who fits either of those descriptions.

jtsuited

to be fair, i think the point nanorman is making is that one's opinion of the gamsat correlates strongly with what type of score you are sitting on. a fair point imo.

jtsuited

cliona88 wrote: »

I'm gonna guess you're referring to me there. This thread isnt stressing me. The uncertainty of my future is, and mainly trying to save money to resit gamsat. As i don't live in a cloud, I think this would cause most people mild stress. Anyways I didn't ask your opinion regarding my future profession. Why lower the tone of your discussion by making it personal and condescending?

you said the stress of your situation has got to you. That's when you made it personal.
I offered the perfectly reasonable (imo) point that if you find that situation stressful, seriously consider what you're getting into.

Without putting too fine a point on it - I don't know your score, but if you're in the bottom 50s (after more than one go), medical school is not going to be a walk in the park for you. That's not to say you can't do it, but you're in for a hell of a lot more stress than the stress you are facing in gamsat resitting limbo.
I'm sure that will wind you up no end and you'll just dismiss it as someone being condescending and mean on the internet, but I firmly believe it to be true (as would many others on here I would imagine).

Burnout, depression, anxiety and general stress-related awfulness are endemic in medical schools and amongst junior doctors. It's a VERY stressful area to go into.

If you don't want others opinion on your 'future career', ask yourself why.

cliona88

jtsuited wrote: »

cliona88 wrote: »

I'm gonna guess you're referring to me there. This thread isnt stressing me. The uncertainty of my future is, and mainly trying to save money to resit gamsat. As i don't live in a cloud, I think this would cause most people mild stress. Anyways I didn't ask your opinion regarding my future profession. Why lower the tone of your discussion by making it personal and condescending?

you said the stress of your situation has got to you. That's when you made it personal.
I offered the perfectly reasonable (imo) point that if you find that situation stressful, seriously consider what you're getting into.

Without putting too fine a point on it - I don't know your score, but if you're in the bottom 50s (after more than one go), medical school is not going to be a walk in the park for you. That's not to say you can't do it, but you're in for a hell of a lot more stress than the stress you are facing in gamsat resitting limbo.
I'm sure that will wind you up no end and you'll just dismiss it as someone being condescending and mean on the internet, but I firmly believe it to be true (as would many others on here I would imagine).

Burnout, depression, anxiety and general stress-related awfulness are endemic in medical schools and amongst junior doctors. It's a VERY stressful area to go into.

If you don't want others opinion on your 'future career', ask yourself why.

While I appreciate your concern, I can assure you that I am and will be fine.

MLH1

Are the places for GEM increasing this year, It will be interesting to see after the huge drop last year whereby half of GEM CAO applicants gained an offer how will it affect this year, in particular anyone who was a die hard and kept trying the GAMSAT will be in medical school already given last years requirements.

Nanorman

jtsuited wrote: »

to be fair, i think the point nanorman is making is that one's opinion of the gamsat correlates strongly with what type of score you are sitting on. a fair point imo.

Thanks jtsuited! Ya I was just trying to get across exactly what you said. Funny old exam isn't it? It is interesting to see if it will go below 54 this year since the curve is different enough to allow 53s etc in my opinion.

GOING4BROKE

As for will the points go lower. I believe they will due to funding issues. I think the GAMSAT is only really a relevant screening tool if the cut-off point is kept around 57/58 - otherwise whats really the point? Lets be honest (and I dont mean to offend anyone) but that isnt a terribly high score to get. If it goes any lower there would be no point sitting an exam at all as anyone with half an iota of intelligence would be getting in.

I was of the opinion that the graduate entry scheme made a lot of money for the colleges? North Americans pay considerably more then EU students and a lot of this money is uses to supplement other courses in UCD anyways! So unless you mean there may be a shift from EU to North American places I cant see any reason why they would be cutting places. By and large Grad entry med is a cash cow for Irish Uni's and UL are on the verge of completing a brand new building.

Can't wait to hear the debate if points dropped this year for any reason!!!

Reality_Check1

GOING4BROKE wrote: »

As for will the points go lower. I believe they will due to funding issues. I think the GAMSAT is only really a relevant screening tool if the cut-off point is kept around 57/58 - otherwise whats really the point? Lets be honest (and I dont mean to offend anyone) but that isnt a terribly high score to get. If it goes any lower there would be no point sitting an exam at all as anyone with half an iota of intelligence would be getting in.

I was of the opinion that the graduate entry scheme made a lot of money for the colleges? North Americans pay considerably more then EU students and a lot of this money is uses to supplement other courses in UCD anyways! So unless you mean there may be a shift from EU to North American places I cant see any reason why they would be cutting places. By and large Grad entry med is a cash cow for Irish Uni's and UL are on the verge of completing a brand new building.

Can't wait to hear the debate if points dropped this year for any reason!!!

I meant funding from the students perspective. With the bank loans been taken away and the fee's rising (UCD just went to 15k per year) it is not unimaginable that someone in the high 40's who had the cash could secure a place over people with higher GAMSAT scores who just cant afford it.

Im sure there will be a few cases this year where people get the points but cant afford to go! Thats why I think there should be a standardized cut off each year where only the top 25% of people get offered a place. This will insure places are offered on merit and not just to those who can afford them

cliona88

I don't think the universities will do anything until low gamsat scores have a profound effect on their course. Basically if the failure rate rises dramatically then they will be forced to do something. It's not fair when money comes into it but I don't think universities care too much about that.

Flange/Flanders

I agree, I think that universities are more worried about failure rates during college rather than GAMSAT points. You have to remember that a lot of people that get low 50s are only people who sit GAMSAT on a whim to get experience (like I was last year) but that still doesnt mean that they're not fit for the course.

Nonoperational

cliona88 wrote: »

I got a score of 53 so I hope it stays this way for another year at least. I was considering rejecting a place if I got one because of my low score. But when I thought of it, spending another year practising for gamsat isn't going to make me any more intelligent. although a higher score after doing a course such as gradmed may make me appear so. Anyways after achieving a 2.1 in my degree, and studying science over the summer as best I can i think I will be able for it!

Jesus that's mental. If you get the place and want it then take it. Rejecting a place if you got it to try and do better and get offered the same place next year?

jtsuited

noticing a few people trying to trot out the 'anyone can do an expensive prep course and get themselves a high score' line.

i'd be very interested to do a quick poll of people who actually get good Gamsat scores first time round and seeing how many of them did a prep course.

jtsuited

cliona88 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that you can do terribly in the gamsat and pay thousands on courses to improve your chances of achieving a high mark.

this wreaks of a chip on the shoulder. Most people I know who got high marks are smart people, and most got it on their first try without prep courses (i'm only talking about what I've seen in RCSI).

if you want to tell yourself that you're just as capable of studying medicine as those people, fine, but understand that it's just a defence mechanism you're using.

You studied 'as best you can' for a summer and you got a 53. A 53 is, according to most people actually in medical school, an awful score.
And it's not because we spent thousands on prep courses (i know very few people who did these courses).
It's because, according to the percentile curve, there is a very very very significant intellectual gap there.

I don't think Nanorman got the credit for pointing out the glaring issue here. Everybody who does great on their first time on the gamsat more or less thinks it's a fair assessment of your intellectual ability. Not so coincidentally, they don't tend to be the ones struggling in medical school.

And the low 50s crew seem awful quick to jump to any conclusion that hides the fact that there's a very good possibility that they're just not as comparatively bright. They blame 'people spending thousands on prep courses', or keep telling themselves 'the gamsat doesn't decide who will be a good doctor' etc.

Somebody mentioned self-awareness earlier, but if this thread is anything to go by, it might be seriously lacking among graduate medicine applicants.

cliona88

jtsuited wrote: »

cliona88 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that you can do terribly in the gamsat and pay thousands on courses to improve your chances of achieving a high mark.

this wreaks of a chip on the shoulder. Most people I know who got high marks are smart people, and most got it on their first try without prep courses (i'm only talking about what I've seen in RCSI).

if you want to tell yourself that you're just as capable of studying medicine as those people, fine, but understand that it's just a defence mechanism you're using.

You studied 'as best you can' for a summer and you got a 53. A 53 is, according to most people actually in medical school, an awful score.
And it's not because we spent thousands on prep courses (i know very few people who did these courses).
It's because, according to the percentile curve, there is a very very very significant intellectual gap there.

I don't think Nanorman got the credit for pointing out the glaring issue here. Everybody who does great on their first time on the gamsat more or less thinks it's a fair assessment of your intellectual ability. Not so coincidentally, they don't tend to be the ones struggling in medical school.

And the low 50s crew seem awful quick to jump to any conclusion that hides the fact that there's a very good possibility that they're just not as comparatively bright. They blame 'people spending thousands on prep courses', or keep telling themselves 'the gamsat doesn't decide who will be a good doctor' etc.

Somebody mentioned self-awareness earlier, but if this thread is anything to go by, it might be seriously lacking among graduate medicine applicants.

Can you please stop singling out everything that I'm saying. I'm studying science now in case I get offered a place although I don't have to justify myself to you. I don't understand why my situation bothers you so much. Saying that I've got a chip on my shoulder is just plain insulting. Boards is supposed to be a place to have open discussion, not to insult someone. Most importantly when they have already asked you to stop getting personal

Dr Galen

Hi everyone

Can we please keep it nice and civilised in here.

Lets watch our tone with posting in general, but the flipside of that is that people have to not get to caught up on perceived slights etc as well. There is a line of course, so lets try and stay on the right side of it.

Cheers

DrG

caroline1111

It will be interesting to see the long term effects of lowering the entry requirements for medicine in Ireland. Its likely that the majority of people who get into the course will get through it if they work their ass off, but they will be only scraping a pass. There probably isn't going to be a big increase in failure rates as the college will just lower their 'bell-curve', mark the exams a bit easier or something to try and keep it in line with previous years. But what sort of doctors will these people make who just scrape through medical school? They're hardly going to be top consultants pushing back the borders of medicine... But then it wasn't that long ago when it was whoever could afford to pay for college that could become doctors so maybe it won't make that much of a difference afterall. Time will tell I suppose!

Big_G

MLH1 wrote: »

A GAMSAT Score of 54 got you into medicine last year, can it really go any lower!!


Will GEM in Ireland become a joke if in comparison to England, its only a matter of applying and getting a poor result that gets you into the course!

In no way am I bashing any GEM Program I'm sure they are all very intense but a GAMSAT score of 54 does mean someone is an over achiever by any means, until last year GEM was so sought after but if this year follows last year with an increase in places will Ireland GEM become another joke of the country.

In before anyone points it out, yes I know I didn't score too highly with my 55, and I rejected a place on GEM but I just feel this is a topic that needs discussion as it seems to have been skipped over by this forum that GEM took a enormous plunge in entry requirements last year.

Your question is totally irrelevant. A significant proportion of the rest of this thread is either irrelevant or borderline trolling (particularly from the I am so smart, S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T brigade). I would have thought the nonsense competitiveness would have been outgrown during primary degrees. Clearly not.

The only relevant question is what is the quality of the people coming out at the other end of the course? There are also some veiled digs at UL here, even though Canadian graduates from UL are getting their first choices of placement IN CANADA.

Also, there is no perfect aptitude test in existence, all aptitude test scores can be improved with training. GAMSAT is no different.

WRT interviews, bring in external interview panels, nothing new in that. Simples.

spotsanddots

Looks like the number of applications to medicine has increased this year according to the CAO website, however the figure given includes graduate and undergraduate entry!

jtsuited

Big_G wrote: »

There are also some veiled digs at UL here, even though Canadian graduates from UL are getting their first choices of placement IN CANADA.

The Canadian students coming out of UL is irrelevant. They don't sit the gamsat. IN CANADA.

Joe2011

Until there are minimum grades required on section 3 in the Irish system, your argument is essentially flawed. Developing your ability to deliver an essay is impressive, and I am the first to admit that communication skills are essential to becoming a good Doctor. However, I don't see how this compensates for a poor score in section three, when you are studying scientific subjects in medicine. I appreciate that not all of the content on section 3 has not been relevant since studying medicine, but it certainly provides the foundations for learning the appropriate sciences. I really don't think that people who score around 50 in section three on their best attempt (ie the score that they got in on), are qualified to judge someone on 53/54 by their raw score alone, without considering what that score is composed of, and how much scientific knowledge they have accrued since receiving that score.

spotsanddots

Doesn't Australia interview those who have GAMSAT scores of 50??

foreverandever

caroline1111 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see the long term effects of lowering the entry requirements for medicine in Ireland. Its likely that the majority of people who get into the course will get through it if they work their ass off, but they will be only scraping a pass. There probably isn't going to be a big increase in failure rates as the college will just lower their 'bell-curve', mark the exams a bit easier or something to try and keep it in line with previous years. But what sort of doctors will these people make who just scrape through medical school? They're hardly going to be top consultants pushing back the borders of medicine... But then it wasn't that long ago when it was whoever could afford to pay for college that could become doctors so maybe it won't make that much of a difference afterall. Time will tell I suppose!

It will be interesting to see, most of the irish doctors in Ireland currently came through the LC way and they're all extremely qualified and competent. Bringing in graduate medicine was to increase funds to the colleges and hopefully increase the number applying to GP. I presume as well to keep doctors in Ireland. I do think anyone who can get through medicine deserves to be there but I think there must be so sort of cut-off. What happens if the first years end up failing in droves, do the colleges lower their standard to increase the numbers getting through to second year or do they face an investigation as to why so many are failing. Of course these are just theories and if there's one thing these graduate courses didn't plan for, it was the future

Joe2011

I don't understand why people are so concerned with this, rather than just their own standing in the class. Im not in UL, but im sure they will know their failure rates soon enough, when all exam results have been handed out for this year. I know the state has to fund the people who may fail after a year, but these people have also made a significant financial investment themselves. Think of how many people drop out of undergraduate courses each year, at huge expense to the state, with hardly any financial contribution towards it themselves. Also think of the huge number of undergraduate students who rarely turn up to lectures, which are being paid for by the tax payer. This needs to be looked at on a macro scale. In a country that is short of Doctors, the small number who may fail after a year does not place a significant burden on the state compared to the education system as a whole, especially as the HEA subsidy is being reduced to 10,000 this year, so the student is actually making the majority of the contribution themselves. There is also a good chance that a significant amount of those who entered on lower scores will make competent Doctors at the end of their four years. Compare this to the wastage on foreign Doctors who had to be accommodated and paid living expenses, without even practicing, as it was found that they didn't have the correct qualifications.

spotsanddots

Joe2011 wrote: »

I don't understand why people are so concerned with this, rather than just their own standing in the class. Im not in UL, but im sure they will know their failure rates soon enough, when all exam results have been handed out for this year. I know the state has to fund the people who may fail after a year, but these people have also made a significant financial investment themselves. Think of how many people drop out of undergraduate courses each year, at huge expense to the state, with hardly any financial contribution towards it themselves. Also think of the huge number of undergraduate students who rarely turn up to lectures, which are being paid for by the tax payer. This needs to be looked at on a macro scale. In a country that is short of Doctors, the small number who may fail after a year does not place a significant burden on the state compared to the education system as a whole, especially as the HEA subsidy is being reduced to 10,000 this year, so the student is actually making the majority of the contribution themselves. There is also a good chance that a significant amount of those who entered on lower scores will make competent Doctors at the end of their four years. Compare this to the wastage on foreign Doctors who had to be accommodated and paid living expenses, without even practicing, as it was found that they didn't have the correct qualifications.

Agreed!

gembryo

foreverandever wrote: »

It will be interesting to see, most of the irish doctors in Ireland currently came through the LC way and they're all extremely qualified and competent. Bringing in graduate medicine was to increase funds to the colleges and hopefully increase the number applying to GP. I presume as well to keep doctors in Ireland. I do think anyone who can get through medicine deserves to be there but I think there must be so sort of cut-off. What happens if the first years end up failing in droves, do the colleges lower their standard to increase the numbers getting through to second year or do they face an investigation as to why so many are failing. Of course these are just theories and if there's one thing these graduate courses didn't plan for, it was the future

In any course, people are marked against each other on a curve. So although the overall level of intelligence in a GEM course MAY BE lower due to low GAMSAT scores, when compared to an undergrad course (where the students tend to be hightly competent- otherwise they wouldn't have gotten in in the first place), the grades shouldn't differ by very much i.e there will be firsts, 2.1s, 2.2s etc in the pre-clinical years with only a minority failing. This is especially true with grade inflation which appears to be rife in all 3rd level institutions, including UCD, UCC, UL etc. I imagine that this is less of an issue in the clinical years, when people really are assessed only their competence as medical students; and even if people are still graded against each other, because GEMs are then combined with undergrads, this should weed out the lesser mortals, irrespective of whether they came via the undergrad or GEM route.