Traditional and GEM entry to Medicine

2Scoops wrote: »

They'd be found out quick enough, so.

Yea but it's a it pointless taking in people who won't do that well.

My concern with all this was never that people won't be ale to complete the undergrad course. It's the longer term implications, and the fact that we may be leaving out BETTER candidates.

Though I do worry a bit about the above statistic relating to everyone passing the exams. Does make me wonder a bit. Just my opinion though.

2Scoops wrote: »

But they only take the people with the best test scores; how are better candidates being left out?

The reason I said we MAY be leaving out better candidates is that:

A) More than the exam, it's who we let sit the exam. Someone with a 2:1 in photography is allowed sit it. But there was a vet on here a while ago, he graduated from UCD with a 2:2, and he wants to change career. A guy like that would probably be a good asset to medicine. But he wouldn't even be allowed sit GAMSAT. Same with someone who has a 2:2 in pharmacy or physio. We all know that not all degrees are created equal. I trained with a lot of people who got a 2:2 in pharmacy who were light years smarter than my flatmate who got got a 2:1 in art history.

If the GAMSAT was simply replacing the few graduate entry places they have every year, I could understand that. I got in by interview, which is equally as balls a way to judge as GAMSAT. I have no problem with that being replaced. But this seems to be a rollout of a whole load of places for med school.. Why not give these places to the students who have 520 points who've worked hard over the space of 2 years, rather than the few months it takes to do GAMSAT. I still maintain success at the LC is, by and large, a good indication of work ethic and smarts. I don't know what these kids haven't got that the GAMSAT people do. These kids are under ferocious pressure for uni places. They'd make great docs. So, give them the places I reckon.

C) The med students I teach in Oz are starting to come through from the other allied professions. The smart ones are doing pharmacy and physio, so that will help them with med school. Then they leave these understaffed professions and go and do med. That's great. But if these kids had of been allowed into med straight from school, we could have left someone else do their pharmacy or physio course.

So, look, I don't really wanna get into a big GEM row. I know the GEM students get a bit sensitive about it, and I can understand that. But I'm not making up my experiences, which is all I have to go on. It's a regular topic of conversation in the mess that the GEM students from certain backgrounds are not great. They'll pass med school. But they won't be great docs. Though, in fairness, there are lots of them that are great.

But I think if we're going to change graduate entry, there's better ways. Would introducing pre-med degree help, like in the states. Let everyone with 450+ points in. At the end of 2 years, you go and do physio, pharm, radiography or med, and it's competitive. Test a broad range of skills.

I just think think medicine has to be bloody hard to get into. It should take years of work. The punters deserve docs who are up to that, in my opinion.

But, I know it's here to stay, and I'll cope with that. the health service won't collapse. But I do think we're not maximising the recruitment of our smartest kids.

2Scoops wrote: »

I think that adopting the US system would be a great improvement, but it would never go over with the powers that be: all grad entry, all do the MCAT, all do interviews. Can't say fairer than that.

I agree. In the US medicine is bloody hard to get into. But it seems fair. I agree that it's not going to be adopted here any time soon, though. I just think we're being fooled into thinking that GEM has been adopted because it's the best. Whereas in my opinion, it's been adopted because it's convenient.

Though I'd have probably been booted back to the lab by the US system, admittedly :P

2Scoops wrote: »

These people will still be eligible to sit GAMSAT later, assuming they can manage a 2.1 degree. This way, the very high LC achievers get fast-tracked, since you love them so much :P, and the not-quites get to compete on a level playing field in years to come. It also means that even more high LC achievers, who didn't pick medicine first time around because they thought they'd like art history or some other nonsense, get a second bite at the cherry. Your experiences with Australian grad med grads aside, this system seems like it will make places available for more high achievers, not less. Unless they can't beat the rest in a straightforward test, in which case maybe they're not that smart.

Yea, I've thought about that, too, tbh. BUt what I'm wondering about is whether they're going to do other health degrees, thus taking up places on those degrees, which are competitive anyway. Or will they do "easy" degrees, to make sure they get their 2:1. It's also a very costly way of doing medicine.

One of the things influencing my thinking here (and you might be ale to tell me if this is the case i Ireland) is the fact that in the UK and Oz most students do an intercalated BSc during their medical degree. This is usually in something they've developed an interest in during their pre-clinical years. This doesn't happen with GEM students. But I feel the degree is useful for th med students. The budding surgeons do anatomy degrees. The medics do pharmacology. The hippies like me do a public health BSc. I htink these degrees are better for them than the random ones they do before medicine.

But I do agree with you. I think in years to come the "getting into medicine industry" will focus on these bright kids getting a 2:1 in a degree and then sitting the GAMSAT.

Presumably people can pay for GAMSAT and HPAT prep courses too?

I think you need only look at the stats for the amount of people who get over 550 points to see how hard it is to do when you're 17.

I don't think the concerns that a lot of docs have about GAMSAT is borne out of some right wing ideology.

The arguments have all been spelled out above. The LC is something that kids from less privileged backgrounds can nail if they have the talent. Granted, they have less chance of doing well than richer kids. But that is the same for a lt of things. My neighbour is in med school through the access programme. There's been no data to suggest these kids do any better. Indeed, my neighbour has failed a good few of his exams. But I'm sure he'll pass eventually.

It could also be argued that GAMSAT still favours the well off as much as the LC. You've got to pay for 2 degrees, and then there's the GAMSAT prep materials/courses. From my (australian) experience, these kids tend to go into med school straight after their primary degree. They're mostly still being funded by parents. But that may not be the case in Ireland.

BUt my experience is definitely that they're not as good as the bright kids who get in from school.

Someone with a degree in photography who does well in the humanities it of the exam and averagely in the science bit will not be any better as a doctor than someone who is interested only in science.

I think a lot of those issues assume that the leaving cert is inherently unfair. That's not true. Life is inherently unfair.

Sure, some kids are disadvantaged at school. But there was never anything stopping a disadvantaged kid going on to do a degree, and apply to med as a graduate. That's what I did, before there was GEM. Nothing has changed on that front. And, while I don't have stats to hand, I don't get the impression that medicine in oz has become somewhere that has a different demographic. GEM has been around here for a good while, and the majority of medical students are still middle class.
Sure, there are free fees for the first degree. But there's still living expenses in the current environment, and then about 100k to go to postgrad med school. This is not conducive to attracting kids from disadvantaged background.

The concerns raised about GEM are subjective, but they are also widespread. I'm glad you think it will take a few years for GEM to truly declare itself. I agree. But why take the risk? Why is only medicine taking the risk? Ireland has a tradition of producing excellent doctors. I would much rather we gave the extra places to the leaving cert kids, so they only have to do one degree, and it would serve to take the horrendous pressure off them.

I said it above. Medicine should be bloody hard to get into. We owe that to patients. It's not any more. It can be done with a few months hard work.

2scoops is far more intelligent than me, and has probably brought up the most sensible suggestion...everyone doing the american style entrance test. That is probably truly the fairest way to play it.

etymon wrote: »

yeah, but do the super bright LC whizkid and the (as you are implying) somewhat less intellectually gifted Gamsat student not have to reach the same standard to get the same letters after their name when they get into med school anyway? So what is the problem? Are you saying all med places should be reserved for 17 year olds?

That's ridiculous. If we all knew what we wanted to do at 17 life would be extremely boring.

Also - college places are never 'wasted'. We all have the prerogative to change our minds. Why should I be stuck being a lawyer for the rest of my life if I hate it? Why should I be limited to similar careers or even non-scientific ones if I choose to change over? Can you imagine only getting one shot at opportunities in life? We would be extremely unhappy people if that was the case.

Anyway, if someone can get 600 points in the Leaving Cert and get a crap score in the HPAT you would wonder what sort of way their mind works anyhow.

I never said all med school places should be reserved for 17 year olds. I'm saying that our entire expansion shouldn't be made through GAMSAT. If you'd read the thread above, me and 2scoops were actually talking about how grad entry for all would be the fairest way to do med school. Have a read through the above posts to see that.

There have always been way to get into med as a graduate. But GAMSAT isn't the way to do it, IMO.

I'm also not saying you shouldn't have a right to change your mind.You should have that right, to an extent. It shouldn't be at the cost of some kid not being able to make his choice for the first time, though.

The point about GAMSAT is that it can be done quickly. We owe it to patients to ensure med school is very very hard to get into. BUt that's not what GAMSAT is about. It's about convenience. And that's just wrong.

It's also not about graduating med school. You could lower the requirements even below those of GAMSAT and most would still pass med school. After graduation is where it gets tough. Postgrad exams make undergrad medicine seem like a walk in the park.

It's also about who deserves it. Sure, leave places open for graduates. But we need to relieve the bottleneck at the leaving cert level, and that's where we get most of our best candidates. That's also where we get people who are going to have the time to intercalate. It's also where we'll get people wasting pharmacy and physio and nursing places so they can get into med.

Nothing about GAMSAT makes it look like a better option than opening up more LC places. Sure, for you it does. that's why you defend it. I'd be doing GAMSAT if I was in your shoes, and I'd feel I'd have to defend it.

But it's very very hard to see how GAMSAT is better for healthcare....people with generally lower LC scores, who won't intercalate, places wasted at third level by people wanting a stepping stone to med, people with a 2:2 in tough degrees not even allowed sit the exam.

None of it makes sense to me. I'm not slagging it off for the fun. But I just don't see the benefits.