Should I repeat? Or go for GEM

Ana27

I know this is possibly a stupid question- why didn't I try harder first time round?

But, I really want to do medicine, have just finished the leaving this week and know I am not getting the points.

Should I do a science degree (that's what's on my cao now) and go for GEM in 4 years, or repeat now and try and get in as an undergrad?

Please help! Don't know what to do right now! Thanks

beardedmaster

Repeat. I was 19 doing the LC the first time, did very well, and still regret not repeating.
I've just finished my 3rd year in a Science degree (doing very well in it and enjoying it), but still regret not repeating.
GEM & a BSc in a biomedical-related Science is a solidly great idea, if it wasn't for the seriously exorbitant costs of the courses. Sure, a degree in Physiology is the best preparation for GEM, but don't underestimate free fees, ever. I still want to do medicine after my degree, and have a good GAMSAT score, but the fees are simply frightening.

WoolahUrma

beardedmaster wrote: »

Repeat. I was 19 doing the LC the first time, did very well, and still regret not repeating.
I've just finished my 3rd year in a Science degree (doing very well in it and enjoying it), but still regret not repeating.
GEM & a BSc in a biomedical-related Science is a solidly great idea, if it wasn't for the seriously exorbitant costs of the courses. Sure, a degree in Physiology is the best preparation for GEM, but don't underestimate free fees, ever. I still want to do medicine after my degree, and have a good GAMSAT score, but the fees are simply frightening.

Have a look at what you get in the LC. If your lower than 450 I would think that you'll be pushing it to get med next time around. If youre around the 500 mark its probably worth a shot.

Youll be missing out on fees which is a big plus if you go in undergrad.

I did a good LC first time around but did not repeat. Looking back I should have done so. When I was 18 and got the results first time around I couldnt fathom going back in but looking back it might not have been a bad idea.

Again, have a look at your results

Somalion

Well I say that I am going the GEM route and think it suited me better. Now obviously costs are a concern but in 4 years it may be different, still worth a consideration. I know a lot of people who really want medicine at undergrad level, enter it and only a year or two in realise they don't like it at all. I think a different degree has given me a much better level of maturity and understanding of the work involved. But that's just me, each person is different. If I had to do it again I certainly would go this way.

dublindoctor

I don't think either are a bad idea. Medicine is currently being pushed to become a graduate only degree and there are reasons for that. In terms of fee's undergraduate is obviously more desirable, but in saying that there are loans etc in place to help you out further down the line.

I would judge it on your points, if you relatively near the 500+ mark then its probably worth repeating, but no matter how intelligent people are hitting the high 500's and hpat doesnt always happen for people, so really ask yourself are you able for the repeat year and high high points.

If you end up going into science, you can finish after your 3rd year and go straight into medicine with the GAMSAT without doing your 4th year so either way, you would end up graduating the same year or only a year later depending on you going into a 6 or 5 year med degree.

Either way, both are good options, jsut see how the LC results go!

beardedmaster

dublindoctor wrote:

Medicine is currently being pushed to become a graduate only degree and there are reasons for that.

Where'd you hear that?

Taco Chips

dublindoctor wrote: »

I don't think either are a bad idea. Medicine is currently being pushed to become a graduate only degree and there are reasons for that.

I don't think that's either true or desirable for this country.

pc11

dublindoctor wrote: »

If you end up going into science, you can finish after your 3rd year and go straight into medicine with the GAMSAT without doing your 4th year so either way, you would end up graduating the same year or only a year later depending on you going into a 6 or 5 year med degree.

Wait, where did you get this idea? You absolutely do have to finish your degree to do graduate medicine with the GAMSAT. And you have to get a 2:1 to boot.

pc11

beardedmaster wrote: »

Where'd you hear that?

Actually, it is my understanding that in time the idea is that GEM would become the dominant mode for medicine (though not the only one). I think the UK is thinking the same way. There is a desire to have older, more mature med students and spread out the access routes. This is already how the US works and heading that way in Australia.

I gather some European countries are also putting more emphasis on older med students.

olazbabes

Repeat the leaving cert em... New comparitive, 20 Irish picture sequences and the hell of project maths. Personally no for me but for medicine I understand the pressure. If I were you I would have considered doing it abroad-like Canada, Uk other EU. The Hpat is quite tough. It is risky putting a full year to 7 exams in which anything can happen.

caroline1111

pc11 wrote: »

Actually, it is my understanding that in time the idea is that GEM would become the dominant mode for medicine (though not the only one). I think the UK is thinking the same way. There is a desire to have older, more mature med students and spread out the access routes. This is already how the US works and heading that way in Australia.

I gather some European countries are also putting more emphasis on older med students.

I doubt theres a desire for older med students, the desire is probably more for them to pay for the course themselves. Why older med students and not older engineers, vets, etc? In fact the younger you are the better for medicine as you would have a better chance of becoming a surgeon or consultant as the training path is so long...
People always say how grad med is better because the students are more 'mature' - I don't see how doing a 3 or 4 year degree makes you more mature than someone who goes straight into med - surely it would balance out and by the time they have their 5 or 6 year degree done there would be no difference anyway.....

caroline1111

Though yeah it does seem that they are trying to bring in grad med more and more. Can't see it happening in Trinity in the near future though, havn't heard a hint of it.

Taco Chips

I find the whole assumption that undergrad meds are somehow less mature and less suited for medicine than GEMs candidates pretty irritating actually. It's disrespectful, as if people who have a degree are suddenly hugely qualified to become doctors and undergrads are just a bunch of kids. There's a belief out there that most people entering medicine from the LC are doing so for the wrong reasons (parental pressure, immaturity etc...) as if to try and take away from their success and achievement. It goes hand in hand with people saying "oh sure they all got 600 points but they have no social skills" as if the two criteria were mutually exclusive. I'd like to see a comparison of the attrition rates in GEM versus undergraduate actually, the figures may be quite illuminating.

The facts are that nearly every doctor in the country right now entered undergrad and are of quite a high standard internationally. I believe that unis want to move to a graduate structure for reasons of greed due to the huge tuition fees, but no other reason. Not exactly desirable in my opinion, I think the undergrad system works better and gives doctors a better chance at long term careers.

WoolahUrma

caroline1111 wrote: »

I doubt theres a desire for older med students, the desire is probably more for them to pay for the course themselves. Why older med students and not older engineers, vets, etc? In fact the younger you are the better for medicine as you would have a better chance of becoming a surgeon or consultant as the training path is so long...
People always say how grad med is better because the students are more 'mature' - I don't see how doing a 3 or 4 year degree makes you more mature than someone who goes straight into med - surely it would balance out and by the time they have their 5 or 6 year degree done there would be no difference anyway.....

I dont think that its the degree as much as the age. Most people that I know are better equiped to deal with most things by their mid twenties.

The difficulty in attaining your specialisation is more a reflection of the pyramid system in Ireland that is driving all med students abroad to get to where they want to go within their profession. There arent enough consultant jobs in this country for the population.

As far as I know gem students tend to finished higher in their class than school leavers. I dont think that that's a reflection of their higher intelligence, it's the maturity level, I think.

pc11

Taco Chips wrote: »

I find the whole assumption that undergrad meds are somehow less mature and less suited for medicine than GEMs candidates pretty irritating actually. It's disrespectful, as if people who have a degree are suddenly hugely qualified to become doctors and undergrads are just a bunch of kids. There's a belief out there that most people entering medicine from the LC are doing so for the wrong reasons (parental pressure, immaturity etc...) as if to try and take away from their success and achievement. It goes hand in hand with people saying "oh sure they all got 600 points but they have no social skills" as if the two criteria were mutually exclusive. I'd like to see a comparison of the attrition rates in GEM versus undergraduate actually, the figures may be quite illuminating.

The facts are that nearly every doctor in the country right now entered undergrad and are of quite a high standard internationally. I believe that unis want to move to a graduate structure for reasons of greed due to the huge tuition fees, but no other reason. Not exactly desirable in my opinion, I think the undergrad system works better and gives doctors a better chance at long term careers.

I believe the attrition rates in GEM are practically zero (except for money reasons which are a totally different matter). I don't know the rates for undergrads but I would think they are higher for sure. So, I'm not sure what point you're making here.

This is not an attack on undergrads. No-one is saying a school-leaver won't be a good doctor. But, it's common sense that (all things being equal) a 27 year old who has studied, perhaps researched, and worked/travelled for a few years is in a different place to a 17 year old.

Actually some of what you refer to about parental pressure, immaturity or unrealistic expectations of medicine in school-leavers is certainly true. I do agree high performing students can also have excellent social skills, though many don't. Trust me, I studied with high performers and I taught them in TCD later.

At the risk of sounding old and condescending (sorry!), you will agree with that later on.

Again, that's NOT to say an undergrad won't be a good doctor, far from it. And I don't believe there's any suggestion of doing away with undergrad medicine. What is a possibility is making the balance of entry more towards GEM.

Actually, I think your post does illustrate one issue: you refer to 600 points and the 'achievement'. There is a sense that some students are in it for just that reason. This motivation is largely absent for GEM. Many of us already have pretty good careers and high achievements, we're not doing GEM for those reasons. Many doing GEM are lawyers, engineers, scientists, pharmacists usually with excellent degrees and often with Masters and PhDs.

What you say about limited progression for older students is of course true, but that just demonstrates that opportunities should be better for GEM students, not that we are less able. Our age is out of our control (dammit!).

And I agree the greed thing may be a factor, though I'm not sure how the figures work out as regards the net cost to the college.

dublindoctor

pc11 wrote: »

Wait, where did you get this idea? You absolutely do have to finish your degree to do graduate medicine with the GAMSAT. And you have to get a 2:1 to boot.

You only need a level 8 degree, which you get in science after third year with a 2:1 qualifying you for GAMSAT. The 4th year is to bring you up to an honours degree, but GAMSAT only requires a level 8 degree.

And what PC11 said in relation to med being Graduate only is pretty accurate...Taco Chips it is a very real thing that med will become only graduate, and for ireland it would be hugely desirable because it would generate alot of $$$$$$ and also a more mature medical workforce would probably reduce emigration.

Med students in ireland is like a bucket with a leak. Doctors are leaking out of ireland and emigrating, and instead of the government stopping the leak, they are just adding more water...Ireland is small and really does not need 6 major medical schools.

pc11

dublindoctor wrote: »

You only need a level 8 degree, which you get in science after third year with a 2:1 qualifying you for GAMSAT. The 4th year is to bring you up to an honours degree, but GAMSAT only requires a level 8 degree.

Sorry, but this is all kinds of wrong. You need an Honours degree. I don't know of any college that offers a 2:1 Hons degree in Science in 3 years, certainly not UCD, TCD etc. I don't know where you're getting this idea from and I'm certain you can't post a link to back it up.

(EDIT: I may have been wrong on this)

dublindoctor wrote: »

And what PC11 said in relation to med being Graduate only is pretty accurate...Taco Chips it is a very real thing that med will become only graduate, and for ireland it would be hugely desirable because it would generate alot of $$$$$$ and also a more mature medical workforce would probably reduce emigration.

You are misquoting me. I didn't say "grad only", I said grad may become the main route, not the only route.

dublindoctor wrote: »

Med students in ireland is like a bucket with a leak. Doctors are leaking out of ireland and emigrating, and instead of the government stopping the leak, they are just adding more water...Ireland is small and really does not need 6 major medical schools.

It's true that med. students are leaving and this is very bad. But, reducing the number of places is not the answer.

flipflp

pc11 wrote: »

Sorry, but this is all kinds of wrong. You need an Honours degree. I don't know of any college that offers a 2:1 Hons degree in Science in 3 years, certainly not UCD, TCD etc. I don't know where you're getting this idea from and I'm certain you can't post a link to back it up.

Hey You actually can graduate with a three year Level 8 Science degree from UCD. The difference is that a three year degree is a "General Science" one, whereas the four year degree is an Honours degree in your specialised subject (e.g. Genetics, Biochemistry, Cell and Molecular...etc).

Here's a link: http://www.ucd.ie/science/courses/faqs.html, the second point covers what I said above.

dublindoctor

pc11 wrote: »

Sorry, but this is all kinds of wrong. You need an Honours degree. I don't know of any college that offers a 2:1 Hons degree in Science in 3 years, certainly not UCD, TCD etc. I don't know where you're getting this idea from and I'm certain you can't post a link to back it up.



You are misquoting me. I didn't say "grad only", I said grad may become the main route, not the only route.




It's true that med. students are leaving and this is very bad. But, reducing the number of places is not the answer.

Well your claws are out.
After third year, you can graduate with a level 8, and as far as I am aware this is enough to allow you do the GAMSAT. Im not writing the prospectus for a college, just voicing what I have heard so chill out. http://www.ucd.ie/science/courses/faqs.html This covers what I said

Apologies for misquoting you, but the point remains that grad med is most probably going to become more prominent in the future.

You are misquoting me, never did I say they should reduce the number of places. The answer clearly remains in work and pay conditions, regardless of this, 6 medical schools in Ireland is a large number

Taco Chips

pc11 wrote: »

I believe the attrition rates in GEM are practically zero (except for money reasons which are a totally different matter). I don't know the rates for undergrads but I would think they are higher for sure. So, I'm not sure what point you're making here.

Don't you think that misjudging the costs of GEM and the huge commitment of those loans is a sign of immaturity? I know the circumstances aren't as clearcut as that but consider too that it's easier for a person in undergraduate medicine to drop out without a huge burden of debt than it is for a postgrad. So how many students in GEM are sticking with the course even if they don't like it just because the debt pile up is too much to back out of?

Actually some of what you refer to about parental pressure, immaturity or unrealistic expectations of medicine in school-leavers is certainly true. I do agree high performing students can also have excellent social skills, though many don't. Trust me, I studied with high performers and I taught them in TCD later.

Isn't parental pressure a factor for GEMs students too? Same for unrealistic expectations of medical school. Everyone who isn't in medical school has unrealistic expectations of what it is, doesn't matter if they are 17 or 27. I'm in undergrad med and sure there are people here and there who are a bit awkward socially. But this is maybe 5/6 people out of 180. And college is a maturing experience. The person they are when they enter at 17 will be completely different to who they are when they leave at 22. And all the better for it.

Again, that's NOT to say an undergrad won't be a good doctor, far from it. And I don't believe there's any suggestion of doing away with undergrad medicine. What is a possibility is making the balance of entry more towards GEM.

My impression from reading online and talking to many doctors was that there was nothing wrong with undergrad model, far from it. It's been producing high quality doctors for many years. But unis wanted a way to ramp up their income and in the process shouldered older 'mature' students with an enormous debt mountain in the process. Hardly something that should be encouraged.

Actually, I think your post does illustrate one issue: you refer to 600 points and the 'achievement'. There is a sense that some students are in it for just that reason. This motivation is largely absent for GEM. Many of us already have pretty good careers and high achievements, we're not doing GEM for those reasons. Many doing GEM are lawyers, engineers, scientists, pharmacists usually with excellent degrees and often with Masters and PhDs.

The point I was making wasn't that, rather that this idea of people who get 600 points aren't socially able for medicine is an over emphasized sound bite. I hear it repeated so often and I just wonder why it is focused on so much since it isn't true.

And there are plenty of mature students (in the traditional sense) and people who already have degrees (Canadians/Americans) in my year. Guess what, the top rankings of the class are still filled with a majority of LC entrants. Then a mixture of everyone around the middle and the bottom end.

dublindoctor wrote: »

And what PC11 said in relation to med being Graduate only is pretty accurate...Taco Chips it is a very real thing that med will become only graduate, and for ireland it would be hugely desirable because it would generate alot of $$$$$$ and also a more mature medical workforce would probably reduce emigration.

Med students in ireland is like a bucket with a leak. Doctors are leaking out of ireland and emigrating, and instead of the government stopping the leak, they are just adding more water...Ireland is small and really does not need 6 major medical schools.

Medicine will definitely not become only graduate entry. There may be a desire for some colleges to expand the GEM route to increase their income in tuition fees but that desire isn't there across all faculties. TCD for example have no intention of starting up a graduate program in the foreseeable future.

And on your second point, yes med students are emigrating from Ireland. This issue is frequently discussed on boards. The working conditions and training system in this country is deplorable. So the solution to that would be to increase the number of older students with enormous loans that have less mobility of labour and are in essence tied down and forced to stay in the country? Sounds like an excellent plan to create motivated and efficient doctos.

Paella

GEM here and in complete agreement with Taco Chips. The assumption that GEM students are better equipped for medicine simply by virtue of their age doesn't make sense to me and there's nothing I've seen that would suggest that undergraduates are in any way less professional, understanding or sympathetic than graduates.

GEM as it stands is a big moneymaker for the colleges and the reasons for it's adoption by UCD, RCSI, etc. are financial. The GEM system is just supplementing the current undergrad route (a route that has had no problems in delivering entirely competent doctors) and I personally can't see GEM becoming dominant.

And on a separate note, in the UK, a lot of the current 4 year GEM courses are actually becoming 5 year courses.

pc11

dublindoctor wrote: »

Well your claws are out.

Oh please. I've stuck carefully to facts. You are offering misinformation to students still in school which I am correcting.

dublindoctor wrote: »

After third year, you can graduate with a level 8, and as far as I am aware this is enough to allow you do the GAMSAT. Im not writing the prospectus for a college, just voicing what I have heard so chill out. http://www.ucd.ie/science/courses/faqs.html This covers what I said

No. After 3rd year, you may get a General Degree if you do so badly you can't progress to 4th year. This is not an Honours degree, so you can't get a 2:1 Hons, so it can't be used for GEM.

dublindoctor wrote: »

You are misquoting me, never did I say they should reduce the number of places. The answer clearly remains in work and pay conditions, regardless of this, 6 medical schools in Ireland is a large number

You said there are too many med schools and clearly implied there were too many med students when you said "they are just adding more water ...".

So, you want to reduce the schools and have more places in them? How will that fix anything?

beardedmaster

pc11 wrote: »

No. After 3rd year, you may get a General Degree if you do so badly you can't progress to 4th year. This is not an Honours degree, so you can't get a 2:1 Hons, so it can't be used for GEM.

You're going to have to research your facts a bit more I'm afraid. The properties of being "Level 8" and an "Honours degree" are not the same thing. Not for science in UCD anyway.

What is true is that if you get lower than a 2:2 standard at the end of 3rd year, you leave with a BSc in General Science. You can choose to leave after 3 years either if you like, not everyone leaves because of grades.
If you finish 4th year, you get a BSc (Hons) in whatever specialisation you have. Both are Level 8. 4-year degree is Honours.

I'm going to further illustrate my case by posting an email I sent to UCD Admissions, and their response.

Email sent to UCD admissions, 08/02/12 wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam

My name is (beardedmaster) and I am a Stage 2 Science student, studying (subject).
I intend to pursue entry into the GEM course in UCD upon finishing my BSc.

The entry requirements for the UCD GEM course state what is needed is a "Minimum grade of second-class honours, grade 1 (2.1) in first Honours Bachelor's degree (NFQ Level 8). The degree can be in any discipline."
This is based on this page - https://myucd.ucd.ie/program.do?programID=87

In the UCD Science degrees, there is an option of leaving after 3 years and receiving a BSc (General Science), as opposed to a specialised degree which would be received after 4 years.
Students who do not achieve a GPA above 2.48 must leave after 3rd year, but to leave after 3 years and receive the BSc in General Science is still an option for students of higher GPAs.

The students who leave after 3 years "would be awarded a BSc (General Science) degree which would be classified as a Level 8 degree on the NQAI scale."
This is based on this page - http://www.ucd.ie/registry/academicsecretariat/nfq.htm

I am emailing to enquire as to whether or not graduates of this 3-year Level 8 degree are eligible to apply for the UCD GEM degree. The BSc degree is of Level 8, but there is no mention of it being an "Honours" degree.
I am not sure if it being a Level 8 degree makes it an Honours or not, and/or it is eligible.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,
(beardedmaster)

UCD Admissions, 10/02/12 wrote:

Dear (beardedmaster),

The BSc General Science degree is acceptable to meet the criteria for applying to GEM.

Kind Regards,

Gerard Casey

Admissions

beardedmaster

By the way, more proof -

http://www.ucd.ie/registry/academics...t/progsnfq.htm

Students who do not progress to Stage 4 of the BSc programme but who have achieved 180 ECTS credits with a minimum of 100 ECTS credits at level 2 or above and a minimum of 40 ECTS credits at level 3 or above will be awarded a BSc (General Science) Level 8

WoolahUrma

So are the LC entry or the gem students better?

Two fairly polarised opinions here that are in no way useful in the context of the thread.

Is the gem program well characterised as older students with enormous loans that have less mobility of labour and are in essence tied down and forced to stay in the country?

Or LC a bunch of jumped up, socially awkward children that are mad to make mommmy and daddy super proud?

One thing that comes across from this and other threads is that

1. people have a hard time focusing on the title of the thread

2. we should organise a big rumble between the gem and the LC entrants to sort out who is the better class of med student (gangs of new york style) Trinity are not eligable as they dont have a gem program.

pc11

beardedmaster wrote: »

You're going to have to research your facts a bit more I'm afraid. The properties of being "Level 8" and an "Honours degree" are not the same thing. Not for science in UCD anyway.

What is true is that if you get lower than a 2:2 standard at the end of 3rd year, you leave with a BSc in General Science. You can choose to leave after 3 years either if you like, not everyone leaves because of grades.
If you finish 4th year, you get a BSc (Hons) in whatever specialisation you have. Both are Level 8. 4-year degree is Honours.

I'm going to further illustrate my case by posting an email I sent to UCD Admissions, and their response.

As a UCD science grad myself, I always understood that a General degree was not considered an Honours degree. But, even so, if UCD state they will accept it for GEM then I defer to that and I stand corrected. That's a major surprise to me, and I presume to most people, including yourself since you had to go ask them.

But, even if it is Level 8, I didn't think you could get a 2:1 Hons in a General degree, so how does it meet the criteria? Aren't General degrees issued without a grade like a first, 2:1 etc or is that not right any more? (This link does say that Level 8 is indeed equivalent to Honours: http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/about_NFQ/framework_levels_award_types.html so I think it is generally true that Level 8 is Honours, I think this UCD Science is a special case and not applicable generally)

I think this must have changed since my time there. Then, a General degree was a bit like a pass degree, it definitely wasn't an honours degree and there were no grades, you just got it when you did badly in 3rd year. There were no Level 7/8 or GEM then.

beardedmaster

I was pretty sure it would be counted, especially given the second link I gave, which directly states it to be Level 8. However, dropping out of a degree wasn't some I took lightly, so I wanted to triple-check it'd be eligible for GEM.
I ended up continuing on though, heading into 4th year next year. Did the GAMSAT this year and my score should be good enough to carry on, so I won't need to do it again in 4th year, hopefully.

BSc in General Science has been a level 8 since 1998.
http://www.ucd.ie/registry/academicsecretariat/progsnfq.htm

dublindoctor

pc11 wrote: »

Oh please. I've stuck carefully to facts. You are offering misinformation to students still in school which I am correcting.




No. After 3rd year, you may get a General Degree if you do so badly you can't progress to 4th year. This is not an Honours degree, so you can't get a 2:1 Hons, so it can't be used for GEM.




You said there are too many med schools and clearly implied there were too many med students when you said "they are just adding more water ...".

So, you want to reduce the schools and have more places in them? How will that fix anything?

well as I said twice, leaving after 3rd year IS a level 8 degree and CAN be used for gamsat. And what I said was that Ireland was small, and really doesn't need 6 med schools. Nothing about reducing numbers. It was clearly about the number of med schools, not the number of students.

pc11

beardedmaster wrote: »

I was pretty sure it would be counted, especially given the second link I gave, which directly states it to be Level 8. However, dropping out of a degree wasn't some I took lightly, so I wanted to triple-check it'd be eligible for GEM.
I ended up continuing on though, heading into 4th year next year. Did the GAMSAT this year and my score should be good enough to carry on, so I won't need to do it again in 4th year, hopefully.

BSc in General Science has been a level 8 since 1998.
http://www.ucd.ie/registry/academics...t/progsnfq.htm

Indeed, that's risky alright.

I actually just called RCSI admissions and they said BSc (General) would probably be acceptable even without "Hons" in the title. They did say that level 8 and Honours are considered synonymous. As I say, call me surprised, but there you go, I'm willing to be wrong. So, are BSc General Degrees given a grade now then? It's that, rather than then Level 7/8 thing that I was doubtful about. It was definitely different back in the stone age when I was there.

This link seems to imply that BSc General should really be Level 7 and that would match the structure in other colleges:
http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/about_NFQ/framework_levels_award_types.html

But, I guess if UCD class it as Level 8 then that's that. It does seem anomalous, but there you go. Thanks for the info.

Edit: Ah, I just saw your last link now. it does state that BSc (General) used to be Level 7 which accords with my understanding. I'm showing my age.

pc11

dublindoctor wrote: »

well as I said twice, leaving after 3rd year IS a level 8 degree and CAN be used for gamsat. And what I said was that Ireland was small, and really doesn't need 6 med schools. Nothing about reducing numbers. It was clearly about the number of med schools, not the number of students.

Ok, I have been corrected, though I didn't say it wasn't Level 8, I thought it wasn't an Hons degree. It seems it has changed since my time there. I stand corrected.

But, I'm still unclear how having the same number of students in fewer schools changes anything?

dublindoctor

pc11 wrote: »

Ok, I have been corrected, though I didn't say it wasn't Level 8, I thought it wasn't an Hons degree. It seems it has changed since my time there. I stand corrected.

But, I'm still unclear how having the same number of students in fewer schools changes anything?

It was just an observation that there are 6 med schools here, and it's a small country...I wasn't making comments at reducing students, the problem of people leaving is due to poor pay and working conditions.

So back to the topic, for the LC students, you can do a science degree and grad med in 7 years, if all goes to plan, or repeat and do med in either 5 or 6 years makingi 6 or 7 in total!

PC11 you seem fairly up to speed with GAMSAT etc, what do you think will happen to the scores this year, stay the same or increase/decrease....Do you think the fact that the scores being in the same percentiles as last year will be an indication that scores may stay the same?

pc11

dublindoctor wrote: »

It was just an observation that there are 6 med schools here, and it's a small country...I wasn't making comments at reducing students, the problem of people leaving is due to poor pay and working conditions.

So back to the topic, for the LC students, you can do a science degree and grad med in 7 years, if all goes to plan, or repeat and do med in either 5 or 6 years makingi 6 or 7 in total!

PC11 you seem fairly up to speed with GAMSAT etc, what do you think will happen to the scores this year, stay the same or increase/decrease....Do you think the fact that the scores being in the same percentiles as last year will be an indication that scores may stay the same?

Or they could do another 3 year degree like Arts or Commerce. I have my own thoughts on the relative merits of the various degrees, but some people here don't like to hear that different degrees are easier or harder.

Well, predicting in general is a mug's game. Look at the posts here from a few years ago predicting GAMSAT scores would continue to go up, they were wide of the mark.

I don't really have any special understanding of the percentile curves or GAMSAT marking however, and I'm a little sceptical of those who claim such knowledge.

That said, I can't see them going up. Apart from the financial challenge, I have a theory that there was a pent-up demand for graduates to do medicine before GEM started and the first few years partly satisfied that, so the pool of candidates may have eased a little by now. Just an idea though.

pc11

Taco Chips wrote: »

Don't you think that misjudging the costs of GEM and the huge commitment of those loans is a sign of immaturity?

Ah here, that's quite a reach. We take these loans because we have to. We have no other way. That's actually quite an unfair statement and even a bit cruel TBH. Don't underestimate how intense a pressure that money troubles can be on people. Hopefully you won't ever feel that but you may. I could turn your point around and ask how many undergrads are doing it because there's little risk, but let's not do that.

Taco Chips wrote: »

So how many students in GEM are sticking with the course even if they don't like it just because the debt pile up is too much to back out of?

If I dropped out of GEM I would be much BETTER off financially as I would just return to IT. There's no way I would stick at it and accumulate more debt if I hated it when I could easily get a high paying job. Speaking for the older GEMs, we are generally earning much more now than a junior doctor will earn for years. We are choosing to quit established careers for this, so you can assume we have thought it through pretty well, by and large. If people's money circumstances change, that's not necessarily a reflection of their judgement, you know.

Taco Chips wrote: »

Isn't parental pressure a factor for GEMs students too?

Ah here, again. Some of us are in our 30s and even 40s. One would assume parental pressure is long, long gone by now. If anything, our parents will think we're crazy giving up established jobs and our lives for GEM.

Taco Chips wrote: »

And college is a maturing experience. The person they are when they enter at 17 will be completely different to who they are when they leave at 22. And all the better for it.

Right, you're making my point for me. All experience changes you, including college, work, life, travel, etc. This is exactly what I was saying.

Taco Chips wrote: »

My impression from reading online and talking to many doctors was that there was nothing wrong with undergrad model, far from it. It's been producing high quality doctors for many years. But unis wanted a way to ramp up their income and in the process shouldered older 'mature' students with an enormous debt mountain in the process. Hardly something that should be encouraged.

Yup, I said undergrads can certainly be excellent doctors. No-one here said anything about 600 point students being anti-social except you. And if you're saying GEMs have too much debt, I totally agree with you! I would be all for having our debt mountain reduced, that's for sure. As we have shorter careers, it's a tough mountain to climb. But that's not a reflection on GEMs, that's a reflection on the system. It's not our fault the fees are so high, it's not our fault the funds are hard to get, it's not our fault the career opportunities are restricted. But you know what? You too will spend most of your adult life in debt, get used to it.

You know, I've been very careful not to criticise undergrads, but you're having quite a go at GEMs. Not cool. You sound a bit threatened in fact, no idea why.

Taco Chips wrote: »

And there are plenty of mature students (in the traditional sense) and people who already have degrees (Canadians/Americans) in my year. Guess what, the top rankings of the class are still filled with a majority of LC entrants. Then a mixture of everyone around the middle and the bottom end.

That may well be, I don't know, and whether that means anything is an open question. Again, you seem to be insulting GEMs. Why, I don't know.

Again, no-one is criticising undergrads. It's not about undergrad and GEM being in opposition, I was pretty careful to say that. Why can't we all just get along?

Taco Chips

pc11 wrote: »

Yup, I said undergrads can certainly be excellent doctors. No-one here said anything about 600 point students being anti-social except you. And if you're saying GEMs have too much debt, I totally agree with you! I would be all for having our debt mountain reduced, that's for sure. As we have shorter careers, it's a tough mountain to climb. But that's not a reflection on GEMs, that's a reflection on the system. It's not our fault the fees are so high, it's not our fault the funds are hard to get, it's not our fault the career opportunities are restricted. But you know what? You too will spend most of your adult life in debt, get used to it.

You know, I've been very careful not to criticise undergrads, but you're having quite a go at GEMs. Not cool. You sound a bit threatened in fact, no idea why.



That may well be, I don't know, and whether that means anything is an open question. Again, you seem to be insulting GEMs. Why, I don't know.

Again, no-one is criticising undergrads. It's not about undergrad and GEM being in opposition, I was pretty careful to say that. Why can't we all just get along?

I'm not insulting GEMs, I'm just challenging an attitude that is definitely out there about GEMs being assumed to be better students than undergrads. It may not be explicit but it's definitely there and it's disrespectful. Trust me I don't feel threatened by any GEMs, or any other student for that matter. It just irks me when people are quick to jump on the 'older students are better than younger' train.

Anyway this has gotten silly so I don't want to get into it further, I think I've made my feelings known. Please know that I wasn't insulting GEMs in any way, I have admiration for their commitment and med school is hard for everyone.

caroline1111

WoolahUrma wrote: »

.

As far as I know geOr LC a bunch of jumped up, socially awkward children that are mad to make mommmy and daddy super proud?m students tend to finished higher in their class than school leavers. I dont think that that's a reflection of their higher intelligence, it's the maturity level, I think.

As far as I know they don't actually, what would make you think that?

Or LC a bunch of jumped up, socially awkward children that are mad to make mommmy and daddy super proud?

In fairness its probably the same for some grads, they just didnt get in first time round..

Don't get me wrong, I think that grad med is great and there will be many people with degrees that are useful and who have a real passion for medicine and will be great doctors but I feel that the current system isn't selective enough. Now almost anyone who can afford to can do it whilst many young people may just miss out on a place o people far better suited just can't afford it...

WoolahUrma

caroline1111 wrote: »

As far as I know they don't actually, what would make you think that?



In fairness its probably the same for some grads, they just didnt get in first time round..

Don't get me wrong, I think that grad med is great and there will be many people with degrees that are useful and who have a real passion for medicine and will be great doctors but I feel that the current system isn't selective enough. Now almost anyone who can afford to can do it whilst many young people may just miss out on a place o people far better suited just can't afford it...

The sarcasm obviously didn't jump off the page then? That line was ment to poke fun at the sentiment expressed toward some LC entrants on this thread. To clarify, that is not my opinion of LC entrants. My understanding is that gem people do better overall in the degree. Ill have to post a link up to where I read that later on. Almost anyone who can afford it gets in? Going by what I've read that is not the case. The gamsat requires what the institutions regard as the intelligence required. Do you know better? Could the same argument be levelled at those who attend grinds schools? If you want to go down the "privileged people are disproportionately represented in med" route, then you can wipe alot of the LC grinds school out as well and move to a system that takes your class rank into account.

If your going to kick out "the privileged", you'll be sending a hefty percentage of the LC crowd home as well.

Maybe they could introduce interviews which would weed out a few right goofs from both sides of it

caroline1111

WoolahUrma wrote: »

The sarcasm obviously didn't jump off the page then? That line was ment to poke fun at the sentiment expressed toward some LC entrants on this thread. To clarify, that is not my opinion of LC entrants. My understanding is that gem people do better overall in the degree. Ill have to post a link up to where I read that later on. Almost anyone who can afford it gets in? Going by what I've read that is not the case. The gamsat requires what the institutions regard as the intelligence required. Do you know better? Could the same argument be levelled at those who attend grinds schools? If you want to go down the "privileged people are disproportionately represented in med" route, then you can wipe alot of the LC grinds school out as well and move to a system that takes your class rank into account.

If your going to kick out "the privileged", you'll be sending a hefty percentage of the LC crowd home as well.

Maybe they could introduce interviews which would weed out a few right goofs from both sides of it

I agree about there being some privilged leaving certers, but I thought one of the points of grad med was that the intelligent, non-priviliged could get in after their undergrad.
As for the gamsat requiring what the universities regard as the intelligence required, I don't really see how this is the case as there is no minimum cut off?

WoolahUrma

caroline1111 wrote: »

I agree about there being some privilged leaving certers, but I thought one of the points of grad med was that the intelligent, non-priviliged could get in after their undergrad.
As for the gamsat requiring what the universities regard as the intelligence required, I don't really see how this is the case as there is no minimum cut off?

I agree that the fees are getting too high and it's going that way but to be honest, for most people that are considering it, it is doable. Get the loan, pay it off eventually. Thats the way it is in the UK and the states for undergrad.

I've met a few lads now that will be doing the course and I've spoken to a few more. I think that that characterises them fairly well. Intellectually capable and diverse (psychology, pharmacy, philosophy, something else begining with p, law etc) passionate about doing medicine.

Final point; 485 is the minimum points for med in ucd but I think 535 were the lowest points before hpat to get in. Does someone who gets 550ish having repeated in a private college turn out to be a better doctor than the guy who gets 500 first time out, does a degree in whatever and does gem? I doubt it and for that matter, if a guy gets 600 points in a public school, is he going to be a better doctor then the guy that scrapes by having repeated in a fee paying school? I don't think that I could say yes with any degree of certainty. I reckon that the 485 is what they think is the requirment to pass the exams during the course. The higher points that we're looking at in LC entry is more a reflection of how competitive it is for the places that are there. Both arguments are a bit redundant. Once you can pass the exams that are set during the course then you have what it takes so to speak.

Final final point; What does it matter? I honestly don't think that either route produces better doctors. This arguement gets a bit septic when you starts to point out the pros and cons of either route as grads and undergrads alike take some of these points as a personal slight against them. Regarding minimum gamsat score, I agree that there should be a minimum. UL at the moment has the lowest cut off but from what I've heard, that's no reflection on the course which in terms of workload is the toughest in Ireland. So, again, if they are not able for the profession, rest assured, they won't make it through the four years.

nomoreexams

I have to say after reading through some of the ludicrous arguments on this thread I have to say I find this childish and churlish. There are pros and cons to being either an undergrad or a GEM. As far as I'm concerned we're all in the same boat- and we all have a struggle ahead of us fighting against a government and a public who doesn't see our problems as a priority so to have us undermining each other is foolish.

To answer the question of the thread, I did a non-science degree and started a career. I'm glad I did it this way. I'm a lot more confident now than I was post LC and trust my instinct now without doubting myself. This confidence came from working- not from studying. Had I opted to do medicine from LC I would have made a terrible doctor. This was just me. An absolute subjective reason for why I'm happy with my decision to go off and work and make mistakes and live a little. I don't doubt that there are some very sociable, caring, intelligent people who will make fantastic doctors that start med as an undergrad but there's no harm is having a mix of people in med just as there is in every other career out there. So in my opinion it's no harm to have a degree in another discipline (as someone else said, you might love it) there is the major issue of the increase cost of doing it this way though, once you're aware of that.

Abby19

Ana27 wrote: »

I know this is possibly a stupid question- why didn't I try harder first time round?

But, I really want to do medicine, have just finished the leaving this week and know I am not getting the points.

Should I do a science degree (that's what's on my cao now) and go for GEM in 4 years, or repeat now and try and get in as an undergrad?

Please help! Don't know what to do right now! Thanks

beardedmaster wrote: »

Repeat. I was 19 doing the LC the first time, did very well, and still regret not repeating.
I've just finished my 3rd year in a Science degree (doing very well in it and enjoying it), but still regret not repeating.
GEM & a BSc in a biomedical-related Science is a solidly great idea, if it wasn't for the seriously exorbitant costs of the courses. Sure, a degree in Physiology is the best preparation for GEM, but don't underestimate free fees, ever. I still want to do medicine after my degree, and have a good GAMSAT score, but the fees are simply frightening.

nomoreexams wrote: »

I have to say after reading through some of the ludicrous arguments on this thread I have to say I find this childish and churlish. There are pros and cons to being either an undergrad or a GEM. As far as I'm concerned we're all in the same boat- and we all have a struggle ahead of us fighting against a government and a public who doesn't see our problems as a priority so to have us undermining each other is foolish.

To answer the question of the thread, I did a non-science degree and started a career. I'm glad I did it this way. I'm a lot more confident now than I was post LC and trust my instinct now without doubting myself. This confidence came from working- not from studying. Had I opted to do medicine from LC I would have made a terrible doctor. This was just me. An absolute subjective reason for why I'm happy with my decision to go off and work and make mistakes and live a little. I don't doubt that there are some very sociable, caring, intelligent people who will make fantastic doctors that start med as an undergrad but there's no harm is having a mix of people in med just as there is in every other career out there. So in my opinion it's no harm to have a degree in another discipline (as someone else said, you might love it) there is the major issue of the increase cost of doing it this way though, once you're aware of that.

Ana27 - there are pros and cons of doing medicine straight from school, as there are doing another degree and then studying medicine as either a GEM or a mature student. However there are massive financial implications of doing another degree before medicine. I am a mature student, and yes there are benefits to having worked, etc., but thought it might be worthwhile listing the costs of doing another degree first.

There are some valid points in this thread but then it seemed to get a bit away from your original question and kind of developed into an undergraduate vs GEM debate/argument. The US have used the GEM route for decades, the UK/Ireland the undergraduate route all produce capable/competent doctors. The US has the USMLEs, the UK/Ireland have memberships of the various colleges.

The undergraduate route you have to pay the Student contribution. Here is some info from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/third_level_education/fees_and_supports_for_third_level_education/fees.html
Most colleges charge an annual student contribution, formerly called the student services charge. It is also known as a registration fee and it covers student services and examinations. The amount of the contribution varies from one institution to another. The maximum rate of the student contribution for the academic year 2013-2014 is €2,500.

Budget 2013: It was announced that the student contribution will be €2,750 in 2014-2015 and €3,000 in 2015-2016.

You may be eligible for a grant, there are various levels, some levels pay this charge, some also provide financial support towards living expenses, etc. But SUSI this year was really late in granting some claims. Medicine as an undergraduate is either a 5/6 year course, so this charge is close to €15k/18k.

GEM - you need a minimum of a 2.1 degree and sit the GAMSAT, places are allocated in Ireland purely on that score. This is expensive, you will pay approximately €60k in fees. You will also need to live, eat, buy books, etc. It is difficult to get funding, check out some of the threads posted here. Unless you have quite a substantial credit history you will probably require a guarantor.

Mature route - realistically you need a degree, and they take this into account, along with your work experience, voluntary experience, personal statements, and you have to sit the HPAT, and then they interview you. And as you already have a degree then you have to pay fees. And ultimately mature medicine is expensive. Fees in Trinity have remained constant since 2009 at €8,456 http://www.tcd.ie/Treasurers_Office/...es_2012-13.pdf giving a 5 year total of €42,280.
RCSI - this year's rates http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=112&n=202&a=745#Fees are €15,890. The undergraduate (straight from school fee is €10,127 http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=112&n=202&a=745#Fees) and I don't think you are eligible for this rate as you need to be allocated a spot on the MEP route. That means 5 years in RCSI is currently €79,450, or 6 years is €95,340.
If you already have a degree you are not eligible for a grant or other fee funding - this applies to both the mature and GEM route.

This is a huge level of debt to graduate with. The current intern starting salary is €30,257, and the Haddington Road deal is being voted on at the moment and this will reduce overtime pay and delay pay increments. Take home pay after tax, Medical Council and IMO memberships and various medical exams is probably half that. Yes there is overtime on top of that, but you may not be paid for all of it, and may soon be capped if the HSE ever implements EWTD.

If you are sure that medicine is the course, career and lifestyle for you, then yes I would seriously consider repeating your LC. If you are not sure - then maybe a year spent repeating and looking into things may confirm that it is right for you, or you may decide on something completely different.

You have the summer to think about this - You may want to look at your finances, and possibly discuss the financial ramifications with your parents/guardians (would they be willing/in a position to act as guarantor?). Talk to your careers guidance counsellor - is it realistic that you will get probably around 540/550 points. Also over the summer when the HPAT results are released - have a look at that and see how you did. You may have a fabulous result, and be pleasantly pleased with your LC and have enough points anyway. If not - can you improve on your LC and/or your HPAT?

I hope I haven't overloaded you with info, but feel free to PM me.

And remember - what do they call the person who comes last in Med School ... Doctor - and that applied to all routes

e1994

I did my leaving cert last year and got 540 with a HPAT of 175 so I missed out on medicine and my second choice physio. I had myself worked down before the results came out, thinking I would have got around 480 so I was overjoyed with my results and accepted OT probably in too much haste without weighing up my options when first round offers came out.

I now have a year of OT done and find myself researching medicine courses once again. Its not that I don't like my course, I do! It's just I can't get the idea of medicine out of my head and now wish I had thought more seriously about repeating last August. The GAMSAT just looks so intimidating and I almost think that even at this stage would I nearly be better off just repeating the leaving cert, rather than finishing my course and then pursuing GEM.

I don't know what to do!