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

gembryo

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

This is true, in my opinion, especially as GEMs in UCD, RCSI and Cork are combined with undergrads for clinical years. This would mean that if the GEMs weren't competent, that more of them would fail to progress past the final two years. However, I wonder can this be said for UL- I'm not sure are their GEMs mixed in with undergrads for the final two years or not? Due to LC requirements, we can be fairly certain that the undergrads are by and large intelligent and competent, so are a fair means of measuring whether the GEMs are competent or not. If UL GEMs aren't mixed in with undergrads, this system of eliminating grade inflation is notably absent. Although I still agree that most would still pass and be competent doctors- after all, they have invested significant money and time and effort into med school, and are generally more motivated than undergrads, so should do fine either way. This isn't meant to be an attack on UL GEMs- just wasn't sure if they are mixed in with undergrads; after all, that is what my argument was based on!

Big_G

jtsuited wrote: »

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

No it isn't. My point is that the GAMSAT is irrelevant and is not an accurate predictor of how good a doctor you will be, no more than the leaving cert is. Your final exams in medicine are a more accurate predictor of how good a doctor you will be, but even they aren't 100% accurate. Plenty of bare pass students become excellent doctors, plenty of gold medallists are unable to handle the application of the science. The Canadian graduates of UL are doing well in their (very competitive) home country and appear to be well respected and I'm told the Irish GAMSAT entrants are well able to compete with the Canadians for exam results.

This thread is evidence (IMO) that GAMSAT certainly isn't keeping out the people wanting to study medicine as an ego massage. In every profession you will get distribution of ability on a bell curve, but you also get a bell curve of interest and one for attitude. Those are the ones that are just as, if not more, relevant.

More is learned about a job in the six months after grad than the four years before it. And the learning doesn't, or shouldn't stop there.

The GAMSAT is merely the gateway. It moderates demand by excluding the lowest on the bell curve of results. No exam predicts how good a doctor you will be. You show by doing.

I think people should worry less about what people are getting in the GAMSAT and more about anatomy, physiology, pathology, diagnosis, how to take an accurate history, analysis and interpretation of test results, etc, etc. The GAMSAT is such small spuds really.

foreverandever

Big_G wrote: »

No it isn't. My point is that the GAMSAT is irrelevant and is not an accurate predictor of how good a doctor you will be, no more than the leaving cert is. Your final exams in medicine are a more accurate predictor of how good a doctor you will be, but even they aren't 100% accurate. Plenty of bare pass students become excellent doctors, plenty of gold medallists are unable to handle the application of the science. The Canadian graduates of UL are doing well in their (very competitive) home country and appear to be well respected and I'm told the Irish GAMSAT entrants are well able to compete with the Canadians for exam results.

This thread is evidence (IMO) that GAMSAT certainly isn't keeping out the people wanting to study medicine as an ego massage. In every profession you will get distribution of ability on a bell curve, but you also get a bell curve of interest and one for attitude. Those are the ones that are just as, if not more, relevant.

More is learned about a job in the six months after grad than the four years before it. And the learning doesn't, or shouldn't stop there.

The GAMSAT is merely the gateway. It moderates demand by excluding the lowest on the bell curve of results. No exam predicts how good a doctor you will be. You show by doing.

I think people should worry less about what people are getting in the GAMSAT and more about anatomy, physiology, pathology, diagnosis, how to take an accurate history, analysis and interpretation of test results, etc, etc. The GAMSAT is such small spuds really.

While the LC may not decide who will turn out a great doctor it either showed you were smart enough to get top marks or hard working enough to get top marks to do med. I've never heard a complaint about the calibre of doctors who entered med through the LC except that there was too many females

Reality_Check1

This thread is both frustrating and funny at the same time. Its gone completely off topic from the original question which was can the points go any lower.
can they; yes
will they; probably

To address a few people specifically

cliona88 - your GAMSAT score is terrible no two ways about it. Does that mean you will be a bad doctor - no not at all. Does that mean you will have to work harder than any person currently in a GEM programme just to pass - yes probably.

A GASMSAT score is a combination of how hard you worked or how smart you are. People in UL tend to get defensive about this but that is the fact of the matter you can dress it up any way you want with "I could score that if I spent thousands on a prep course" Fact of the matter is spending thousands doesnt get you in. Iv no doubt its helpful but there is nobody I can think of in the friends in my class who bothered with any prep courses and they all scored over 60.

jtsuited - We had to jump through hoops and scored redic high just to get into med school. Its only fair we should think others do the same. I can see where you are coming from but your reward is getting your pick of med schools and arguably not having to work as hard as those on a lower GAMSAT score. You could talk here untill you are blue in the face but people will still be bull headed and do their own thing so my advice is just to leave it

To Everyone reading this thread who just thanks any post supporting UL or disagreeing with anyone who bashes UL - "I think UL is great everyone going to other colleges are teh noobs" now thank my post please

Reality_Check1

Also will everyone stop pretending that studying medicine is hard. Its not a p!ss take but its not hard to pass. Like I tell anyone that asks - passing is easy doing well is hard. You'll be in college dont forget to have the craic

BarnhallBull

Anybody out there studying at UCC? I've followed 5 or 6 threads here since getting GAMSAT results and have seen plenty of people in RCSI (or hoping to go), plenty in UL (or hoping to get in, or bashing anyone who goes) and a few here and there in UCD, but i'm not sure i've seen a single person mention UCC?

I sat the GAMSAT first time in March and didn't think it went very well at all, was really a "do it to get experience for London in September" job, but ended up scoring 57 which was a very pleasant surprise and which, based on last years results and my CAO preferences would mean I was going to Cork. I know last years points were way down on previous years but i'm hoping they won't jump back up and that 57 will be good enough to get me in somewhere (and secretly hoping I might just sneak into UCD) but anyway, as UCC seems my most likely destination, would anyone like to give some insight into GEM down there?

Cheers!

Big_G

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

This thread is both frustrating and funny at the same time. Its gone completely off topic from the original question which was can the points go any lower.
can they; yes
will they; probably

I don't think it has gone off topic at all.

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

To address a few people specifically

cliona88 - your GAMSAT score is terrible no two ways about it. Does that mean you will be a bad doctor - no not at all. Does that mean you will have to work harder than any person currently in a GEM programme just to pass - yes probably.

I would guess this to be at the average mark this year. Open to correction.

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

A GASMSAT score is a combination of how hard you worked or how smart you are. People in UL tend to get defensive about this but that is the fact of the matter you can dress it up any way you want with "I could score that if I spent thousands on a prep course" Fact of the matter is spending thousands doesnt get you in. Iv no doubt its helpful but there is nobody I can think of in the friends in my class who bothered with any prep courses and they all scored over 60.

You don't factor in prior knowledge of the subject matter being tested. It gives some people (specifically those who have done degrees in section 3 subject matter) a significant advantage. Or should anyway. The second part of your statement is what is called anecdotal evidence and I'm sure there are plenty of people who can provide anecdotal evidence that spending thousands on a prep course can get you higher scores. Also, there is evidence AFAIK that GAMSAT scores do improve with repeated sittings.

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

jtsuited - We had to jump through hoops and scored redic high just to get into med school. Its only fair we should think others do the same. I can see where you are coming from but your reward is getting your pick of med schools and arguably not having to work as hard as those on a lower GAMSAT score. You could talk here untill you are blue in the face but people will still be bull headed and do their own thing so my advice is just to leave it

The word is ridiculous. So the shortening of the word would be ridic. I think ridic high would be above 70 which would get you into UQ in Brisbane. All you seem to be talking about is how people who got lower scores than you shouldn't be allowed in. I would like to know what difference does it really make? If they can't make it, they shouldn't make it. I don't see how it affects you in any way. There will be nobody at the finish line who hasn't done some work.

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

To Everyone reading this thread who just thanks any post supporting UL or disagreeing with anyone who bashes UL - "I think UL is great everyone going to other colleges are teh noobs" now thank my post please

I'm sure there are people here wanting a dislike or thumbs down button. I know I am.

New_IOC

It's fascinating to see the different cohorts of opinion on this, especially all the guff amounting to "nothing lower than my score should be allowed in". The arrogance!

First off, the disclosure - I'm a UL graduate.

Like a few hundred others, I'll be collecting my bleep for the first time tomorrow morning and starting my first shift as an intern. Gamsat, med school, the stress of finals - all behind me.

Back in the day, I cruised through the LC and with no great effort got myself within spitting distance of a med school place (with, at the time, no real desire to get in). Then went on and got a first in my primary degree. Sat the gamsat, and shot a 69 on my first attempt (about the 99th centile, give or take, for those wondering), so I waltzed into a place on GEM.

I can very safely say that lots of those who got places with scores at the far lower end could kick me up and down the wards in terms of medical skill and knowledge.

I'll be on call with plenty of mid-high 50s gamsatters in the future, and I won't think twice about bleeping them for help. By way of comparison, there's plenty of 9000 point LCers I wouldn't let near my cat.

An earlier comment raises the issue of comparison with undergrads to keep GEM guys honest - and it's a good point. As noted at the time, UL doesn't have in-house undergrads. We do however have shared sites where we do clinical rotations with undergrad and GEM students from other schools. Anyone who wants a verdict on that comparison could ask the students and new interns involved, or the teams who took us on. I know we certainly did.

Bottom line - it's clear from this and previous threads that lots of med students, and lots of those who want to be med students, have 'notions'. As several more senior colleagues have repeatedly pointed out, get over yourselves. Gamsat is an imperfect instrument, not an arbiter of medical prowess.

EngDoc

New_IOC wrote: »

It's fascinating to see the different cohorts of opinion on this, especially all the guff amounting to "nothing lower than my score should be allowed in". The arrogance!

Bottom line - it's clear from this and previous threads that lots of med students, and lots of those who want to be med students, have 'notions'. As several more senior colleagues have repeatedly pointed out, get over yourselves. Gamsat is an imperfect instrument, not an arbiter of medical prowess.

Well said! It's great to see that there are plenty of down to earth people going through the system.

Congrats on getting through to the other end. Would be great to know how you feel about the whole experience, pros and cons. Any regrets? If you had to do it all over again, would you?

Joe2011

New_IOC wrote: »

It's fascinating to see the different cohorts of opinion on this, especially all the guff amounting to "nothing lower than my score should be allowed in". The arrogance!

First off, the disclosure - I'm a UL graduate.

Like a few hundred others, I'll be collecting my bleep for the first time tomorrow morning and starting my first shift as an intern. Gamsat, med school, the stress of finals - all behind me.

Back in the day, I cruised through the LC and with no great effort got myself within spitting distance of a med school place (with, at the time, no real desire to get in). Then went on and got a first in my primary degree. Sat the gamsat, and shot a 69 on my first attempt (about the 99th centile, give or take, for those wondering), so I waltzed into a place on GEM.

I can very safely say that lots of those who got places with scores at the far lower end could kick me up and down the wards in terms of medical skill and knowledge.

I'll be on call with plenty of mid-high 50s gamsatters in the future, and I won't think twice about bleeping them for help. By way of comparison, there's plenty of 9000 point LCers I wouldn't let near my cat.

An earlier comment raises the issue of comparison with undergrads to keep GEM guys honest - and it's a good point. As noted at the time, UL doesn't have in-house undergrads. We do however have shared sites where we do clinical rotations with undergrad and GEM students from other schools. Anyone who wants a verdict on that comparison could ask the students and new interns involved, or the teams who took us on. I know we certainly did.

Bottom line - it's clear from this and previous threads that lots of med students, and lots of those who want to be med students, have 'notions'. As several more senior colleagues have repeatedly pointed out, get over yourselves. Gamsat is an imperfect instrument, not an arbiter of medical prowess.

Your honesty is refreshing, given the way this thread has developed in recent times. More importantly very best of luck tomorrow and with the rest of your career, after completing a tough four years and coming through the far end.

Reality_Check1

Big_G wrote: »

I don't think it has gone off topic at all.

Fair enough

I would guess this to be at the average mark this year. Open to correction.

In or around average I'd say which doesn't mean its not bad

You don't factor in prior knowledge of the subject matter being tested. It gives some people (specifically those who have done degrees in section 3 subject matter) a significant advantage. Or should anyway. The second part of your statement is what is called anecdotal evidence and I'm sure there are plenty of people who can provide anecdotal evidence that spending thousands on a prep course can get you higher scores. Also, there is evidence AFAIK that GAMSAT scores do improve with repeated sittings.

People have to work hard to obtain prior knowledge. Its not as if by signing up to a course after the LC that you automatically obtain the information that someone else doesnt have

I know what anecdotal evidence is.

Repeated sittings have nothing to do with my comment on prep courses

The word is ridiculous. So the shortening of the word would be ridic. I think ridic high would be above 70 which would get you into UQ in Brisbane. All you seem to be talking about is how people who got lower scores than you shouldn't be allowed in. I would like to know what difference does it really make? If they can't make it, they shouldn't make it. I don't see how it affects you in any way. There will be nobody at the finish line who hasn't done some work.

I know you have a monster chip on your shoulder but if you would like to point out one small abbreviation I made in a previous post along with the condescending nature of your post above to make yourself feel better then go ahead.

If you bothered to read my post I said nothing about people with a lower score not being allowed in just that they would have to work harder

I'm sure there are people here wanting a dislike or thumbs down button. I know I am.

It would serve no purpose

Reality_Check1

Joe2011 wrote: »

Your honesty is refreshing, given the way this thread has developed in recent times.

It's not that the honesty is refreshing its just a viewpoint that you agree with. Its something that this thread has developed into nobody is willing to listen to the other side they just blindly thank any viewpoint that agrees with their own while trying to pick holes in the other sides argument.

By saying the above you are saying that the other side is being dishonest or mischievous in their information

btw I thought it was a good post too and wish him/her the best of luck.

Flange/Flanders

Big_G wrote: »

I don't think it has gone off topic at all.


I would guess this to be at the average mark this year. Open to correction.


You don't factor in prior knowledge of the subject matter being tested. It gives some people (specifically those who have done degrees in section 3 subject matter) a significant advantage. Or should anyway. The second part of your statement is what is called anecdotal evidence and I'm sure there are plenty of people who can provide anecdotal evidence that spending thousands on a prep course can get you higher scores. Also, there is evidence AFAIK that GAMSAT scores do improve with repeated sittings.



The word is ridiculous. So the shortening of the word would be ridic. I think ridic high would be above 70 which would get you into UQ in Brisbane. All you seem to be talking about is how people who got lower scores than you shouldn't be allowed in. I would like to know what difference does it really make? If they can't make it, they shouldn't make it. I don't see how it affects you in any way. There will be nobody at the finish line who hasn't done some work.





I'm sure there are people here wanting a dislike or thumbs down button. I know I am.

Best post of the thread so far.

Big_G

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Fair enough




In or around average I'd say which doesn't mean its not bad




People have to work hard to obtain prior knowledge. Its not as if by signing up to a course after the LC that you automatically obtain the information that someone else doesnt have

I know what anecdotal evidence is.

Repeated sittings have nothing to do with my comment on prep courses





I know you have a monster chip on your shoulder but if you would like to point out one small abbreviation I made in a previous post along with the condescending nature of your post above to make yourself feel better then go ahead.

If you bothered to read my post I said nothing about people with a lower score not being allowed in just that they would have to work harder




It would serve no purpose

Ad hominem attacks serve no purpose except to show that you can't rationally debate your point.

The implication here from you is that people below what you got in GAMSAT will not make good doctors. Therefore why should they bother?

I have no chip, I'm no doctor, nor would I ever want to be (no offence intended to anyone here, many of my friends are physicians and surgeons). I paid my undergrad dues with five years of about 30-40 hrs per week managing patients from my second year. I saw many who thought very highly of themselves end up being clinically incompetent including more than one Trinity Scholar. I also saw the reverse where people who scraped in became excellent. I also saw final exams not reflect very accurately clinical abilities but academic ones. I have no chip, I got what I deserved all things considered. Having said that, 5 years on I have discovered a very low stupidity tolerance which puts me in bad stead for dealing with the general public.

I don't know, something about this thread really annoyed me in that I feel it is designed to wound some so that others may feel better about themselves. Not quite trolling, not quite bullying but very unsavoury indeed. Particularly coming from future professionals who should hold themselves to a higher standard, and again really shouldn't worry themselves about this kind of thing at all. It is irrelevant.

Reality_Check1

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

cliona88 - your GAMSAT score is terrible no two ways about it. Does that mean you will be a bad doctor - no not at all. Does that mean you will have to work harder than any person currently in a GEM programme just to pass - yes probably.

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

If you bothered to read my post I said nothing about people with a lower score not being allowed in just that they would have to work harder

Big_G wrote: »

The implication here from you is that people below what you got in GAMSAT will not make good doctors. Therefore why should they bother?

Replying to this thread anymore is pointless. Despite me making the same point over and over again you choose to ignore that and still plough on with your conclusions trying to twists my words to make a point I'm not making.

At best we could blame your "low stupidity tolerance" that causes you to overlook the opinions of others believing you are always right (some may call this arrogance but whatever). At worst it is trolling and I have no interest in being tangled up in it for your entertainment

Joe2011

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

It's not that the honesty is refreshing its just a viewpoint that you agree with. Its something that this thread has developed into nobody is willing to listen to the other side they just blindly thank any viewpoint that agrees with their own while trying to pick holes in the other sides argument.

By saying the above you are saying that the other side is being dishonest or mischievous in their information

btw I thought it was a good post too and wish him/her the best of luck.

You are actually barking up the wrong tree there. I am not someone on one of the lower scores who is justifying lower scores, nor am I someone who thinks that the gamsat proves nothing. However, this person is honest enough to say that they got an exceptionally impressive result, without insisting that this will/won't make them a good Doctor. I have no doubt that gamsat is a useful indicator of where someone's ability stands at that point in time. As someone who came from a non science background, I learnt an awful lot of scientific material in order to succeed at section 3. I have no doubt that this helps me in medicine, but it doesn't necessarily make me smarter than someone who didn't prepare in this manner. Granted, it was a great incentive to learn the sciences as it was an obstacle I needed to overcome. I don't think that people who compensate for a poor section 3 score by writing a good essay have proved themselves to be any smatter than the average either. However, I fully believe that they deserve a place, as they have played the system that's there and succeeded. I don't think its honest to tell someone on a lower score that they don't have the ability to do medicine when I don't even know them. They have played the system that currently exists, regardless of the system that existed when I was playing it (ie a score of 54 will probably get you in now). They deserve the same chance to pass or fail that everyone else who played the system got. If they fail, then there is no argument, but they are worthy of that chance.

Biologic

Can people please quote the posts they're accusing of being egotistical? Because I'm pretty sure that if someone thinks my posts were composed to make myself feel in some way superior, they haven't read my posts.
As Reality Check said, every point that I want to make in response to the most recent posts, I have already made.

I saw many who thought very highly of themselves end up being clinically incompetent including more than one Trinity Scholar. I also saw the reverse where people who scraped in became excellent. I also saw final exams not reflect very accurately clinical abilities but academic ones.

Anecdotal evidence etc...

BarnhallBull

So... Nobody out there from UCC so?!

cliona88

BarnhallBull wrote: »

So... Nobody out there from UCC so?!

I don't think so. I asked the same question a few months back and got no response from anyone!

BarnhallBull

cliona88 wrote: »

I don't think so. I asked the same question a few months back and got no response from anyone!

Crazy isn't it? So many posters from the other three and not a single one from UCC, kinda scared of going there now in case they've all been murdered or something :eek:

Palo Alto

I'm intent on UCC as well, will def get an offer so also looking to hear from people!

cliona88

BarnhallBull wrote: »

Crazy isn't it? So many posters from the other three and not a single one from UCC, kinda scared of going there now in case they've all been murdered or something :eek:

Yeah you'd imagine there'd be at least one. When you go there you can tell us all about it

Tazzle

BarnhallBull wrote: »

Crazy isn't it? So many posters from the other three and not a single one from UCC, kinda scared of going there now in case they've all been murdered or something :eek:

Not murderers. Honest. Here's something I typed up last year.

~Disclaimer: They keep changing aspects of the course. Your year will be similar but different.~

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72968620&postcount=8

BarnhallBull

Tazzle wrote: »

Not murderers. Honest. Here's something I typed up last year.

~Disclaimer: They keep changing aspects of the course. Your year will be similar but different.~

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72968620&postcount=8

That's fantastic, exactly what I was looking for but couldn't find anywhere! You've really sold it well too!

Big_G

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

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 wrong earlier when I said you implied that people below your score shouldn't be getting in, you actually outright stated it. And then you went on to imply anybody below that score only had half an iota of intelligence. Wow.

No twisting of words there.

Anyway I still fail to see the gravity of the situation. How does it affect the people on higher scores when people on lower scores get in?

MLH1

Anyone want to make predictions about this years scores after the floodgates were opened up last year?

yit

What has been/do people think will be the absolute lowest score that somebody can get in on? Would be good if somebody answered so at least something constructive might be said on this thread for once

Biologic

yit wrote: »

What has been the absolute..... lowest score that somebody can get in on? Would be good if somebody answered so at least something constructive might be said on this thread for once

54. It's in the title of the thread. And then again in the first line of the thread.

j.mcdrmd

MLH1 wrote: »

Anyone want to make predictions about this years scores after the floodgates were opened up last year?

Maybe anyone with €100,000 + interest.

BarnhallBull

I think they'll stay pretty much the same, but that's a guess based on absolutely nothing! Don't think there'll be anything like the big change there was last year anyway...

I'm in the position of being (almost) sure i'll get some sort of offer with a score of 57, but not having any clue from where. Points drop by one and it's UCD, stay the same or go up 1 and it's UCC, go up more than one and it's UL... All pretty possible i'd say. I know you shouldn't wish your life away and all that, but I fcuking wish the 2nd of August would hurry up and get here, this is driving me mad Oh well, 3 weeks to go...