UL Medicine

MLH1 · 26-09-2012 6:24pm

jtsuited wrote: »

quick, simple question....
how many of the 11 that failed the repeats got in through gamsat?

100%

onehardslog · 26-09-2012 11:59pm

The pass mark is 60%, the highest of all the 6 schools in Ireland
UL uses a green, orange and red grading system so students don't get over competitive with each other in years 1 and 2

[/Quote]

If you say the pass mark is 60% in UL, what is it in the other GEM programmes (RSCI, UCD and UCC)?

Tazzle · 27-09-2012 12:55am

onehardslog wrote: »

The pass mark is 60%, the highest of all the 6 schools in Ireland

UL uses a green, orange and red grading system so students don't get over competitive with each other in years 1 and 2

If you say the pass mark is 60% in UL, what is it in the other GEM programmes (RSCI, UCD and UCC)?

UCC is 50%

Reality_Check1 · 27-09-2012 4:23pm

pretty sure UCD is 40% for the first 2 years and the 50% for the clinical years I'm open to correction there though. 60% is a really high pass mark especially in Med school where you can take it from granted the highest mark you will ever get is 80% and that would be with perfect work!

just putting in perspective a 60 is a B- which under the UCD rubric is described as

A thorough and well organised response to the assessment
task, demonstrating
· a broad knowledge of the subject matter
· considerable strength in applying that knowledge to the task set
· evidence of substantial background reading
· clear and fluent expression
· quality presentation with few presentation errors

A substantial engagement with the
assessment task, demonstrating
· a thorough familiarity with the relevant literature or theoretical, technical or
professional framework
· well-developed capacity to analyse issues, organise material, present arguments clearly and cogently well supported by evidence, citation or quotation;
· some original insights and capacity for creative and logical thinking

bill buchanan · 28-09-2012 10:13am

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

pretty sure UCD is 40% for the first 2 years and the 50% for the clinical years I'm open to correction there though. 60% is a really high pass mark especially in Med school where you can take it from granted the highest mark you will ever get is 80% and that would be with perfect work!

just putting in perspective a 60 is a B- which under the UCD rubric is described as

A thorough and well organised response to the assessment
task, demonstrating
· a broad knowledge of the subject matter
· considerable strength in applying that knowledge to the task set
· evidence of substantial background reading
· clear and fluent expression
· quality presentation with few presentation errors

A substantial engagement with the
assessment task, demonstrating
· a thorough familiarity with the relevant literature or theoretical, technical or
professional framework
· well-developed capacity to analyse issues, organise material, present arguments clearly and cogently well supported by evidence, citation or quotation;
· some original insights and capacity for creative and logical thinking

I don't think percentages are all that relvant when you're comparing different exams. It's not 20% harder to pass first year in UL than in UCD.

raftni · 28-09-2012 4:03pm

bill buchanan wrote: »

I don't think percentages are all that relvant when you're comparing different exams. It's not 20% harder to pass first year in UL than in UCD.

yeah it's 100 times harder.

other college exams are modular. UL all subjects (physio, pharm, path, anat etc) are ****ed into one massive end of year exam.

Reality_Check1 · 28-09-2012 6:26pm

ah doubt its harder UL just think it is because you all did worse in the GAMSAT

(joke) before I start a war

bill buchanan · 28-09-2012 6:37pm

raftni wrote: »

yeah it's 100 times harder.

other college exams are modular. UL all subjects (physio, pharm, path, anat etc) are ****ed into one massive end of year exam.

Yea that's the classic PBL exam. One exam, but less info is actually tested. The one exam (with 2 papers. That's becoming the norm anyway) usually isn't the equivalent to all the individual modular exams (ie the end of year mega exam isn't 8-10 papers long) usually, though I don't know if that's the case in UL. So it's a bit of a trade off.

jtsuited · 01-10-2012 9:44am

MLH1 wrote: »

100%

So to answer the question that has plagued this forum for the past 14 months - 'are the gamsat cutoffs too low?' - we now have a definitive answer. Yes, a 54 in gamsat does not guarantee that you are bright enough to study medicine.

Unless those 11 failures were those people who got above 59/60 and chose UL as their first choice. Which is highly unlikely (although I'm open to correction).

raftni · 01-10-2012 1:08pm

Yeah you're right they were all people who got in on low GAMSAT scores. one of the people repeating had sat the gamsat twice every year for four years and couldn't get their score above 53.

there's 164 people in first year and already eight of them have dropped out, after only three weeks.

pc11 · 09-10-2012 12:03pm

raftni wrote: »

two or three students transferred to other schools

I didn't know transfers were really allowed. Where did they transfer to? Was it in Ireland?

raftni · 19-10-2012 2:55pm

14 people already dropped out of first year. I feel sorry for them. each and every one of them screwed over by a school and a system that doesn't care for anything other than their wallets.

Reality_Check1 · 19-10-2012 11:49pm

raftni wrote: »

14 people already dropped out of first year. I feel sorry for them. each and every one of them screwed over by a school and a system that doesn't care for anything other than their wallets.

can you expand on this? what was the specific reason for the drop outs?

Cream_crackers · 21-10-2012 9:11pm

raftni wrote: »

14 people already dropped out of first year. I feel sorry for them. each and every one of them screwed over by a school and a system that doesn't care for anything other than their wallets.

Hi, I'm looking into Gradmed and rather than jump in with my eyes closed and be one of those dropouts, I'd really like an idea of the reading list for first year. Could you please post or pm me your reading list? Thanks

Dr Nic · 22-10-2012 4:38pm

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Apparently the PBL system doesnt have a pass mark per say and the bottom 10% of the class have to fail. The idea behind it is to drive the overall standard up by creating a competitive atmosphere. Last year was an exception and the standard was so low they failed 25% of the class. Bit ridiculous if you ask me

Lol - are you still on here trolling?
That is just not true.

I came back to this forum for something completely different, only to find you still here telling lies. Will any moderator not step in here and get rid of this person?

Dr Nic · 22-10-2012 4:43pm

jtsuited wrote: »

So to answer the question that has plagued this forum for the past 14 months - 'are the gamsat cutoffs too low?' - we now have a definitive answer. Yes, a 54 in gamsat does not guarantee that you are bright enough to study medicine.

Unless those 11 failures were those people who got above 59/60 and chose UL as their first choice. Which is highly unlikely (although I'm open to correction).

I have to agree. I think what is going on now this year, may be an oversight. But if gamsat entry continues to drop & failure rate in year 1 continues to rise then its an absolute disgrace on behalf of the medschools involved.

It probably will continue though. Money talks etc...

ULmedStudent · 26-10-2012 5:06pm

raftni wrote: »

14 people already dropped out of first year. I feel sorry for them. each and every one of them screwed over by a school and a system that doesn't care for anything other than their wallets.

Could you please elaborate on this? The accusation doesn't make much sense on its own, especially without stating the reasons for those students leaving! You're implying that the school are money hungry and somehow are at fault for these people leaving but don't give any reason why.

My own view on it is as follows: the Gamsat is used as a measurement of the abilities of potential medical students. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule (such as those in final year undergrad who do poorly with little prep vs poorer candidates who make many attempts and finally succeed) but for the most part it serves its function. I can confirm from my knowledge that while there are many in UL with poor gamsat scores who are thriving in the course (and will make wonderful doctors), there are very few with high gamsat scores that are failing. Therein lies the difference.

The school sets a number of places each year to suit its vision and plan for the progression of the medical school and it can hardly be held to fault when the potential candidate population is not large enough to ensure that 100% of candidates who enter via the CAO/GAMSAT are of high enough quality to pass.

I know that the school don't want to fail 20% of a class but until the population of students applying is large enough to ensure that more than the 55th percentile get a place there is very little they can do about it. In fact, they are doing the right (and difficult) thing by failing those that they see as unfit to progress.

You seem bitter about the whole experience. If you failed, I can understand that to a degree but your criticism on a public forum should contain more than unsubstantiated accusations.

P.s. 2nd year UL medical student here

chanste · 26-10-2012 5:48pm

UL is fine. It has a few teething problems that go along with being a relatively new course but from what I can see they are usually pretty receptive to suggestions and criticism, and they explain themselves regularly... and very well too. If someone is thinking of going, or for that matter thinking of rubbishing the school, why not go along to an open day and put your concerns to faculty. I've no doubt they will put all concerns to bed.

The failure rates listed above are not the norm. My year (I'm in 4th year) has only had 1 or 2 people have to repeat the year in the whole of the first 3 years. It is a very tough course and I have freely admitted on these boards that I have been a regular attender at the repeat exams.

The advice I would give to anybody considering it is prepare to work hard and if you don't have a plan for how to deal with a repeat year (should it happen to you) then you could leave yourself with a lot of stress (even if you don't end up repeating the fear that you will can be horrifying when you find yourself doing summer repeats. But this advice applies to anybody in ANY medical school.

Reality_Check1 · 26-10-2012 6:17pm

Is the new med building open yet? how will they deal with classes of 140 when the new building has a capacity of 100 per class?

only ask because when I went down to an open day 3 years ago they said the med building would be open by christmas 2010. I guess class sizes were smaller then so smaller rooms wern't a problem

raftni · 27-10-2012 1:45pm

ULmedStudent wrote: »

Could you please elaborate on this? The accusation doesn't make much sense on its own, especially without stating the reasons for those students leaving! You're implying that the school are money hungry and somehow are at fault for these people leaving but don't give any reason why.

My own view on it is as follows: the Gamsat is used as a measurement of the abilities of potential medical students. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule (such as those in final year undergrad who do poorly with little prep vs poorer candidates who make many attempts and finally succeed) but for the most part it serves its function. I can confirm from my knowledge that while there are many in UL with poor gamsat scores who are thriving in the course (and will make wonderful doctors), there are very few with high gamsat scores that are failing. Therein lies the difference.

The school sets a number of places each year to suit its vision and plan for the progression of the medical school and it can hardly be held to fault when the potential candidate population is not large enough to ensure that 100% of candidates who enter via the CAO/GAMSAT are of high enough quality to pass.

I know that the school don't want to fail 20% of a class but until the population of students applying is large enough to ensure that more than the 55th percentile get a place there is very little they can do about it. In fact, they are doing the right (and difficult) thing by failing those that they see as unfit to progress.

You seem bitter about the whole experience. If you failed, I can understand that to a degree but your criticism on a public forum should contain more than unsubstantiated accusations.

P.s. 2nd year UL medical student here

think you've misread the point of my posts.

I'm highlighting the deficiencies in the course for potential candidates, and highlighting the issues with the current entrance system which has allowed poor students to get through.

Chanste you are being slightly misleading in your posts. Is it not true that a student who would have been in your year was thrown out of the school for having failed second year twice. However your point is valid enough, but this is because class of 2014,13,12 had a much harder entrance to get in, thus those students would be of a higher calibre, with far less weak students (as you say yourself, only a handful others and yourself had to do the repeats each year).

The numbers don't lie unfortunately.

I don't know why those 14 students have dropped out of first year. Maybe all of their loan applications were rejected :rolleyes:

And it is fact that 25 people in my year failed first year, at least ten failed the repeats, and a handful of others either left medicine completely, and another small few transferred college.

@realitycheck, the number of first years taken in was 166 (minus 14). the new building has plenty of pbl rooms.

P.s. 2nd year UL medical student here

shaz84 · 29-10-2012 3:00pm

Just out of interest, how are current UL students finding the teaching at UL?

UCD GEM1 here.

kevinmcinerney · 21-01-2013 10:00pm

Does anyone know when the UL scholarships are awarded? I heard its one month into the course. I was hoping it would be awarded before the places were accepted.

nerrad01 · 21-01-2013 10:05pm

kevinmcinerney wrote: »

Does anyone know when the UL scholarships are awarded? I heard its one month into the course. I was hoping it would be awarded before the places were accepted.

Definitely after the course starts in previous years

arzieparzie · 21-01-2013 10:06pm

kevinmcinerney wrote: »

Does anyone know when the UL scholarships are awarded? I heard its one month into the course. I was hoping it would be awarded before the places were accepted.

I know a friend of mine got one but didn't find out until she was a good few weeks in and didn't get it until a couple of weeks ago...

kevinmcinerney · 21-01-2013 10:31pm

Thanks for confirming my fears, arzieparzie. Makes you wonder though. Why would they only offer the scholarship to someone who has already accepted a place thus proving that they can afford the place in the first place. I would really need to know in advance of accepting the place that I was awarded the scholarship for it to be any good. Dang....I can hardly accept the place and drop out in one mnth if I don't get the winning ticket...

hmm...

arzieparzie · 21-01-2013 10:36pm

Ok I'm not one to usually stick my nose in to these debates but I think some of the stuff being said here is a bit mad. The GAMSAT requirement is fine. If people are failing it's because they're not putting in the work not because they have a low GAMSAT score. I know loads people that have a 53/54/55 GAMSAT score and are kicking the higher scoring applicants asses. This course is extremely difficult so it is very easy to fail if you're not keeping up or if you have the wrong study technique. There is a very high pass requirement and it is really difficult to adjust to this method of learning so I don't think the GAMSAT score has anything to do with it, it's about the person themselves. The UL GEMS faculty themselves said that the GAMSAT score means nothing because when they look at exam results there's no more likelihood of a lower scoring person failing than a higher scorer.

arzieparzie · 21-01-2013 10:40pm

kevinmcinerney wrote: »

Thanks for confirming my fears, arzieparzie. Makes you wonder though. Why would they only offer the scholarship to someone who has already accepted a place thus proving that they can afford the place in the first place. I would really need to know in advance of accepting the place that I was awarded the scholarship for it to be any good. Dang....I can hardly accept the place and drop out in one mnth if I don't get the winning ticket...

hmm...

It's a tricky one alright! I think there's an allowance made for it though if you have applied for a scholarship... nobody can afford the fees straight off anyways.. pretty much everyone gets a loan so maybe you could apply for a loan until you see if you get the scholarship just as a back up? I'd ask the people who deal with the scholarships what sort of plan they have in place for it. UL is a really great university and have a great bunch of people that will try to help you as best they can with that sort of stuff.

pc11 · 21-01-2013 11:56pm

arzieparzie wrote: »

Ok I'm not one to usually stick my nose in to these debates but I think some of the stuff being said here is a bit mad. The GAMSAT requirement is fine. If people are failing it's because they're not putting in the work not because they have a low GAMSAT score. I know loads people that have a 53/54/55 GAMSAT score and are kicking the higher scoring applicants asses. This course is extremely difficult so it is very easy to fail if you're not keeping up or if you have the wrong study technique. There is a very high pass requirement and it is really difficult to adjust to this method of learning so I don't think the GAMSAT score has anything to do with it, it's about the person themselves. The UL GEMS faculty themselves said that the GAMSAT score means nothing because when they look at exam results there's no more likelihood of a lower scoring person failing than a higher scorer.

If that were true, then why are they using the GAMSAT score as a method to rank applicants? Either it's a pointless exam and the colleges are being highly negligent in using it and ACER's years of research are useless, or the college is being disingenuous.

All things being equal, a 63 is a better sign of ability than a 53. That doesn't change the fact that putting in the work is necessary for all students. To be blunt, I think 53 is not a very good score. That's not to say that a 53 can not do well in med school, of course.

arzieparzie · 22-01-2013 12:38am

pc11 wrote: »

If that were true, then why are they using the GAMSAT score as a method to rank applicants? Either it's a pointless exam and the colleges are being highly negligent in using it and ACER's years of research are useless, or the college is being disingenuous.

All things being equal, a 63 is a better sign of ability than a 53. That doesn't change the fact that putting on the work is necessary for all students. To be blunt, I think 53 is not a very good score. That's not to say that a 53 can not do well in med school, of course.

I do understand what you're getting at but to be frank I think UL are better qualified to decide whether or not a candidate's score is sufficient or not. I do not think that it is your place to be judging what is a good or bad score without having full and accurate information surrounding the issue.

Gandalf The White · 22-01-2013 12:52am

Hello. I am an international applicant hoping to study medicine at the University of Limerick.

How many medical students will be in the first year class in September 2013? Is there a quota for international students/ how many internationals are typically in each class?

I scored in the low 60s on GAMSAT.

Thank you kindly.

Nonoperational · 22-01-2013 12:53am

Well UL (or any other school) aren't really deciding what an acceptable mark is. As numbers increase and numbers of applicants drop then mathematically the required score is going to keep dropping. There surely has to be a point where it just goes too low. Low 50s is pushing it for me, but that's just my opinion.

arzieparzie · 22-01-2013 1:58am

Nonoperational wrote: »

Well UL (or any other school) aren't really deciding what an acceptable mark is. As numbers increase and numbers of applicants drop then mathematically the required score is going to keep dropping. There surely has to be a point where it just goes too low. Low 50s is pushing it for me, but that's just my opinion.

Well UL have lower requirements largely due to the fact that there are about 140 people in each class, which is roughly 3 times the number in some other universities. If UL felt that the requirements were too low they would cap it and have a smaller class. They would not jeopardise the reputation of the course just to keep numbers up.

Gandalf The White · 22-01-2013 1:59am

arzieparzie wrote: »

Well UL have lower requirements largely due to the fact that there are about 140 people in each class, which is roughly 3 times the number in some other universities. If UL felt that the requirements were too low they would cap it and have a smaller class. They would not jeopardise the reputation of the course just to keep numbers up.

Approximately how many of the 140 students are international students?

arzieparzie · 22-01-2013 2:00am

Gandalf The White wrote: »

Hello. I am an international applicant hoping to study medicine at the University of Limerick.

How many medical students will be in the first year class in September 2013? Is there a quota for international students/ how many internationals are typically in each class?

I scored in the low 60s on GAMSAT.

Thank you kindly.

There are roughly 140 places and approx 40-45 of those are international students.

Flange/Flanders · 22-01-2013 12:24pm

arzieparzie wrote: »

Well UL have lower requirements largely due to the fact that there are about 140 people in each class, which is roughly 3 times the number in some other universities. If UL felt that the requirements were too low they would cap it and have a smaller class. They would not jeopardise the reputation of the course just to keep numbers up.

Hi arzieparzie,

My main concern with UL is how non science grads are coping with PBL? I know in UCD that its tough work for non science grads but by sem 2 they've caught up (from what I've heard anyway!)

arzieparzie · 22-01-2013 12:35pm

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Hi arzieparzie,

My main concern with UL is how non science grads are coping with PBL? I know in UCD that its tough work for non science grads but by sem 2 they've caught up (from what I've heard anyway!)

Hey,

I'm a non science grad and a couple of my friends are the same and it's fine! It's a little tricky learning terms etc but everything is taught from the beginning so although it's a little more difficult it's definitely doable.
The faculty are very understanding that non science grads may struggle and are very helpful when it comes to showing ways to maximise your learning etc. Usually there's a bit of a difference in 1st year between science and non science but that evens out by the end of the year. It's not something I'd be concerned about.
PBL for non science grads is great, it gets your mind going and really teaches you how to connect things. Also, because it's in a group and the thought process is explained it's more beneficial than just being left to your own devices in my opinion.

arzieparzie · 22-01-2013 7:36pm

kevinmcinerney wrote: »

Thanks for confirming my fears, arzieparzie. Makes you wonder though. Why would they only offer the scholarship to someone who has already accepted a place thus proving that they can afford the place in the first place. I would really need to know in advance of accepting the place that I was awarded the scholarship for it to be any good. Dang....I can hardly accept the place and drop out in one mnth if I don't get the winning ticket...

hmm...

Hey I was talking to my friend and they said that what they did was applied for the loan and informed the bank that they were waiting to hear about the scholarship, the bank said it was no problem as they could just apply and if they were accepted not draw down on the loan until they know whether or not they get the scholarship. Just don't pay the first instalment of fees until you know if you get the scholarship and then if you don't you take out the loan to pay the fees and then repay it when qualified.

pc11 · 22-01-2013 11:24pm

arzieparzie wrote: »

I do understand what you're getting at but to be frank I think UL are better qualified to decide whether or not a candidate's score is sufficient or not. I do not think that it is your place to be judging what is a good or bad score without having full and accurate information surrounding the issue.

Was that an attempt at condescension? I'll judge whatever I like, thanks. I did only a few days' study having been out of education for well over a decade, and I was quite ill when I sat the GAMSAT just as a trial run, and I got a 67, so it is my opinion that 53 is indeed low for anyone putting in a good effort. In Australia, for some colleges you need 65 or even higher just to get an interview. Do you think the Australian colleges are qualified to judge??

In UK GAMSAT 2012, a 53 was at the 40th percentile. That means it's well below the average just of those who sat the exam, let alone those who will get in.

So, what information do you think I'm missing? Do you have the full entry score stats for UL and other colleges? DO you have the pass rates and the correlations with GAMSAT? If so, post them. If not, you're speculating like the rest of us. Tell me, what do you think is a good/bad score?

I don't know why you got so defensive, I like UL and their course from what I know of it, I wasn't criticising it. I was making an obvious observation about how scores work and I was careful to say that hard work is essential regardless of GAMSAT score. You should probably re-read my post. I didn't say a 53 means you won't do well later.

arzieparzie · 22-01-2013 11:50pm

pc11 wrote: »

Was that an attempt at condescension? I'll judge whatever I like, thanks. I did only a few days' study having been out of education for well over a decade, and I was quite ill when I sat the GAMSAT just as a trial run, and I got a 67, so it is my opinion that 53 is indeed low for anyone putting in a good effort. In Australia, for some colleges you need 65 or even higher just to get an interview. Do you think the Australian colleges are qualified to judge??

In UK GAMSAT 2012, a 53 was at the 40th percentile. That means it's well below the average just of those who sat the exam, let alone those who will get in.

So, what information do you think I'm missing? Do you have the full entry score stats for UL and other colleges? DO you have the pass rates and the correlations with GAMSAT? If so, post them. If not, you're speculating like the rest of us. Tell me, what do you think is a good/bad score?

I don't know why you got so defensive, I like UL and their course from what I know of it, I wasn't criticising it. I was making an obvious observation about how scores work and I was careful to say that hard work is essential regardless of GAMSAT score. You should probably re-read my post. I didn't say a 53 means you won't do well later.

You seem to have missed the point of what I'm saying. As I stated before I do understand what you're getting at but nobody is in the position to decide what is a good or bad score except the university themselves.
What I mean about not having all the information is that how do you know how many applicants there are to each university in Ireland vs Australia? If an Australian university has a much higher number of applicants then of course their entry requirements are higher. However, you admitted yourself that it is just speculation so I'll reaffirm what I said before. I do not think it is anyone's business to judge what is a good or bad score other than the universities.
Also, i'm very happy for you that you are able to achieve a score of 67 with a mere few days study and being ill to boot. However, maybe you just got lucky (honestly no offence intended). I'm sure there are many people out there who were under similar circumstances and quite possibly many of these people have the potential to achieve in the 60s in the exam but simply had a bad day or there were other factors involved. Again, neither of us have the facts.
It is not my intention to be defensive but rather to show that what you are saying is your opinion and that there are other views to take on the issue.
I'm not suggesting that you don't like UL or the course but the people who are making the decisions on these things have much more experience and information, which leads me to believe that if they are of the opinion that 53 is an adequate score then who are you or I or anyone else to pass judgement on that?

Ellymay3 · 23-01-2013 12:20am

pc11 wrote: »

If that were true, then why are they using the GAMSAT score as a method to rank applicants? Either it's a pointless exam and the colleges are being highly negligent in using it and ACER's years of research are useless, or the college is being disingenuous.

All things being equal, a 63 is a better sign of ability than a 53. That doesn't change the fact that putting on the work is necessary for all students. To be blunt, I think 53 is not a very good score. That's not to say that a 53 can not do well in med school, of course.

I think the fundamental point you are missing is that the GAMSAT is an ENTRANCE exam. The fact that UL accepts applicants with 54's has damn all to do with the calibre of doctor that applicant becomes in the end. There are rigourous examinations and copious amounts of work to get through before they graduate and begin working as doctors.

Anyone reading this thread and is feeling put off from applying because they have a 54/55, do not bother wasting a year of your life studying for and resitting the GAMSAT. Apply. You may as well. Also, I must point out that people with too much self-importance and snobbery (such as is displayed openly in this thread) do get weeded out, and do find it difficult themselves.
We have a laid back course here, in the sense that everyone is approachable, friendly and helpful. We rely on one another to help get us by which makes the dynamic so much more interesting than any sort of program I've ever been on before. Those with their 65's who are too clever or proud to ask for help are those who get left behind.

UL may accept applicants with lower GAMSAT scores (mainly in part to the larger class size) but at least they aren't churning out the types of medics who walk around with their noses in the air, too up themselves to ask for help or admit when they are wrong or struggling.

arzieparzie · 23-01-2013 12:28am

Ellymay3 wrote: »

I think the fundamental point you are missing is that the GAMSAT is an ENTRANCE exam. The fact that UL accepts applicants with 54's has damn all to do with the calibre of doctor that applicant becomes in the end. There are rigourous examinations and copious amounts of work to get through before they graduate and begin working as doctors.

Anyone reading this thread and is feeling put off from applying because they have a 54/55, do not bother wasting a year of your life studying for and resitting the GAMSAT. Apply. You may as well. Also, I must point out that people with too much self-importance and snobbery (such as is displayed openly in this thread) do get weeded out, and do find it difficult themselves.
We have a laid back course here, in the sense that everyone is approachable, friendly and helpful. We rely on one another to help get us by which makes the dynamic so much more interesting than any sort of program I've ever been on before. Those with their 65's who are too clever or proud to ask for help are those who get left behind.

UL may accept applicants with lower GAMSAT scores (mainly in part to the larger class size) but at least they aren't churning out the types of medics who walk around with their noses in the air, too up themselves to ask for help or admit when they are wrong or struggling.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Also, pc11 53 may have been in the 40th percentile in the UK in 2012, however we are in Ireland and 53 was in the 52nd percentile. To be honest now I think I've said my bit and anyone reading this thread can make their own opinions on the matter. :cool:

Nonoperational · 23-01-2013 12:28am

arzieparzie wrote: »

Well UL have lower requirements largely due to the fact that there are about 140 people in each class, which is roughly 3 times the number in some other universities. If UL felt that the requirements were too low they would cap it and have a smaller class. They would not jeopardise the reputation of the course just to keep numbers up.

I respectfully disagree. I think they (or any college) would be very slow to set a cap.

Ellymay3 · 23-01-2013 12:32am

Nonoperational wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. I think they (or any college) would be very slow to set a cap.

Sure what does it matter if they let someone in with a score of 20? If they don't pass exams then they do not progress. How are some of you people not understanding that a GAMSAT score does not secure you an MD??? Hard work IN MEDICAL SCHOOL does. Not poxy entrance exams.

Nonoperational · 24-01-2013 12:19pm

Because it becomes a farce if people are getting in that are completely unequiped to deal with the demands of the course.

arzieparzie · 24-01-2013 1:09pm

Nonoperational wrote: »

Because it becomes a farce if people are getting in that are completely unequiped to deal with the demands of the course.

But how do you know if they're equipped to deal with the course or not? If a person is not able to handle the course then they do not progress. Simples.

chanste · 24-01-2013 3:35pm

Nonoperational wrote: »

Because it becomes a farce if people are getting in that are completely unequiped to deal with the demands of the course.

I think you're forgetting that everyone sitting the GAMSAT has at least a 2.1 degree. While people may argue over how much this means, it at least shows they have either a good work ethic or are very intelligent. Either way you won't qualify for the course if you aren't capable of doing it; certainly not if you are a fool, and the risk of failing is on the students doing the course to decide if they would be able for it; no one is unaware of the reputation medicine has for being very difficult.

I know of a person who repeated GAMSAT after getting score in late 40s and replaced it on next try with score in early 60s. He was not an idiot with a magical spell cast on him to make him a genius... fact is the exam doesn't mean that much and a lot is down to whether or not you have a good day.

bohemian2010 · 31-01-2013 8:41pm

Just to add my two cents, work with UL grads as NCHDs, so have seen 1st hand the high standard of clinical training they underwent, for the posters who think that the standard of students entering the UL gem programme are not of a high enough standard academically, all I can say is that the ones I work with have all passed their post graduate membership exams 1st time (something I didnt do), and from chatting to them, it seems their classmates in other specialties have done the same, The course is naturally going to come under fire as it is still in its relative infancy but the graduates so far have been very reassuring about the standards down in Limerick

Reality_Check1 · 10-02-2013 7:10pm

arzieparzie wrote: »

I do understand what you're getting at but to be frank I think UL are better qualified to decide whether or not a candidate's score is sufficient or not. I do not think that it is your place to be judging what is a good or bad score without having full and accurate information surrounding the issue.

arzieparzie wrote: »

Well UL have lower requirements largely due to the fact that there are about 140 people in each class, which is roughly 3 times the number in some other universities. If UL felt that the requirements were too low they would cap it and have a smaller class. They would not jeopardise the reputation of the course just to keep numbers up.

just a few quick points here not arguing for or against.

1. UL has the lowest GAMSAT score because it is the vast majority of applicants last choice it has nothing to do with class size (UCD is up to 110 and yet the scores are still far higher as you would expect with a more established course)

2. 53 is a bad GAMSAT score based on the percentile curve of people who take the exam. The universities dont care what score you get in on they just want your money. All colleges would take someone with a score of 10 if it came down to it

3. Medicine is medicine just get in and you'll be fine! the better college you go to generally means the easier time you'll have in college I highly doubt it dictates what kinda doc you'll be

jpat90 · 24-02-2013 2:05am

arzieparzie wrote: »

It's a tricky one alright! I think there's an allowance made for it though if you have applied for a scholarship... nobody can afford the fees straight off anyways.. pretty much everyone gets a loan so maybe you could apply for a loan until you see if you get the scholarship just as a back up? I'd ask the people who deal with the scholarships what sort of plan they have in place for it. UL is a really great university and have a great bunch of people that will try to help you as best they can with that sort of stuff.

Hi, I just came across this post while looking for info on costs associated with studying grad med. I sat the GAMSAT in September and got a score of 65, and UL is my top choice. It seems that I have a very good chance of being offered a place with that score, so I've turned to thinking about how I would finance it. Basically, if I accepted the offer, I would be on a very tight budget. It would be amazing to be offered one of the scholarships, but I know that I can't count on that.

Is it possible, in the opinion of any current grad med students, to hold down some part-time work while studying grad med? I know the course must be very intense, and this might sound crazy, but what about 8-10 hours a week? Or maybe taking on a few students for grinds (e.g., LC students, or undergrads in the discipline I qualified in)? I've been researching accommodation prices and there seems to be a fair amount of pretty affordable accommodation close to the uni (e.g., 60 p/w). If I were careful with my money besides, it seems that I would be able to get by on a relatively small budget.

It seems to me that my choice is to either accept a place in the realisation that it will be tough to stay on top financially, or not go at all. I'd really appreciate any advice.

arzieparzie · 07-03-2013 1:14pm

jpat90 wrote: »

Hi, I just came across this post while looking for info on costs associated with studying grad med. I sat the GAMSAT in September and got a score of 65, and UL is my top choice. It seems that I have a very good chance of being offered a place with that score, so I've turned to thinking about how I would finance it. Basically, if I accepted the offer, I would be on a very tight budget. It would be amazing to be offered one of the scholarships, but I know that I can't count on that.

Is it possible, in the opinion of any current grad med students, to hold down some part-time work while studying grad med? I know the course must be very intense, and this might sound crazy, but what about 8-10 hours a week? Or maybe taking on a few students for grinds (e.g., LC students, or undergrads in the discipline I qualified in)? I've been researching accommodation prices and there seems to be a fair amount of pretty affordable accommodation close to the uni (e.g., 60 p/w). If I were careful with my money besides, it seems that I would be able to get by on a relatively small budget.

It seems to me that my choice is to either accept a place in the realisation that it will be tough to stay on top financially, or not go at all. I'd really appreciate any advice.

When it comes to part time work it really depends on the person. It is extremely hard to hold down a job when you're doing this course but if you're very focused and committed it is possible. I've had a part time job until this week and it's been fine but sometimes it was tough. You can only really afford to take off 1 day per week in this course (either Sat or Sun) and that is only if you've been keeping on top of your work. If you get your coursework done early in the week you could work probably 1 day a week but that would mean giving up your free time!
But to be honest this course is so great that if having a part time job is the only way you can make it work then go for it!
I feel like I should warn you though that part time work probably won't be possible in year 3/4 cos you're moving around on clinical rotations

UL Medicine

Comments