For anyone who is serious about getting into a post-graduate
medical program in Australia, Paging Dr is a gold mine for useful information.
Wanting to completely procrastinate from the everest of lab work my supervisor
demands of me, I began trawling the forum for some tidbits that might aid my
soon-to-be summer of study.
Section III is usually the section that most people will focus on for study, and it makes sense; it's much easier to identify topics to study for Organic Chemistry than trying to figure which Penguin Classic Novel will be probed on the next GAMSAT or which Nietzche quote will be the stimulus for SII. However, neglecting to improve SI would be like training for a triathlon without touching a bike until event day. Also, the study for SI might even translate to a higher score in SIII; remember, the GAMSAT is a measure of your logical reasoning, not your memory.
I’ll admit, being a Bachelor of Science graduate, and a Biomedical Science Honours student, Section III should be my best section. Unfortunately, I’ve never bettered 62 for SIII; ironically enough, the tepid, boring Science student who’s supposed to be a mediocre communicator got two back-to-back scores over 70 for SII. However, the one section I’ve never been able to crack higher than 58 is SI, reasoning in humanities and social sciences. Surely if I managed to get around 70 for ALL sections, that would no doubt bump up my score to something I could be confident applying with.
One thing that I’ve noticed for high achievers on SI is that the majority are either Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Commerce or Bachelor of Law students (I’m not saying BSc or BBiomed students don’t do well). They all maintain high scores in this section, which just goes to show that the GAMSAT is anything BUT biased against have students from a non-Science background, especially if you want to go to UoMelb who only weighs SIII equally.
The concepts within these degrees aren’t too different from those you’d learn in a Science or Biomedical Science degree; for example, an understanding of how a mutation in the liver enzyme Glucose-6-Phosphatase can present clinically as a build-up of fat and glycogen isn’t too far off from say, understanding how a change in the quality of a previously highly desired product can affect the supply-demand relationship for retailers and consumers alike (as you can tell I’ve done absolutely NO economics or commerce since Year 11, when I accidentally walked into the wrong room where Year 11 commerce was taught). But further reading into a commerce text will reveal that the concepts require a more global understanding of a system whereas in Science, the constant attempt to discern the intricacies of a specific pathway can get you lost as to the actual place of this pathway in a more universal scale (for me anyway).
Another thing that I’ve noticed is that most of the mistakes I made with the ACER material for SI were consistently because of my failure to recognize the context of the question being asked within the entire situation of the stimuli, not just the paragraph or sentence from which it is being taken. Granted, by the time I did the ACER practice tests this year I was so mentally exhausted I barely had the energy to fling the book across the room, but after the release of GAMSAT results this year I reviewed my answers and identified this. Not a big discovery, but a discovery nonetheless.
So, where to go from here? One could be stubborn and concede that SI is genetically pre-determined and what you get is all the reasoning in humanities and social sciences you will ever achieve. Another way to take it would be to see whether the study of some economics or law, which aren’t as technical as scientific concepts (Organic Chem anyone?) but still need some familiarity, can actually encourage this ‘global’ thinking that will enable a higher score on the GAMSAT. It makes sense that SI requires this of potential candidates, as you don’t want a doctor who’s going to tell you about some anomaly within your biological makeup without thinking (i) how its going to affect your lifestyle, (ii) how its going to affect your future, and (iii) how these ramifications are going to affect you (psychologically, as well as practically; I’m thinking Type 1Diabetics and regular insulin shots?).
To remedy this, I bought an ‘economics’ textbook from a Co-Op bookshop that will act as my introduction to a subject I learned about for a brief 4 seconds in Year 11. It may put another workload on top of my Science studying and may not make a difference, but if anything at least by the end concepts like ‘Keynesian Interest Rate Theory’ will not be alien to me.
I’ve always believed that obtaining a good SI score has always been about luck; I also believe that the harder I work, the luckier I get (2012 GAMSAT study excepted). In good SII practice to back-up my contention, I will leave you with a quote from someone I have never heard of but puts what I think into a more elegant rhetoric;
“The only thing that overcomes hard luck is hard work.”
-Harry Golden
Success and nothing less.
MTC
Ps. Props to Mark Twain for the title quote, definitely a reader you should check out.
Section III is usually the section that most people will focus on for study, and it makes sense; it's much easier to identify topics to study for Organic Chemistry than trying to figure which Penguin Classic Novel will be probed on the next GAMSAT or which Nietzche quote will be the stimulus for SII. However, neglecting to improve SI would be like training for a triathlon without touching a bike until event day. Also, the study for SI might even translate to a higher score in SIII; remember, the GAMSAT is a measure of your logical reasoning, not your memory.
I’ll admit, being a Bachelor of Science graduate, and a Biomedical Science Honours student, Section III should be my best section. Unfortunately, I’ve never bettered 62 for SIII; ironically enough, the tepid, boring Science student who’s supposed to be a mediocre communicator got two back-to-back scores over 70 for SII. However, the one section I’ve never been able to crack higher than 58 is SI, reasoning in humanities and social sciences. Surely if I managed to get around 70 for ALL sections, that would no doubt bump up my score to something I could be confident applying with.
One thing that I’ve noticed for high achievers on SI is that the majority are either Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Commerce or Bachelor of Law students (I’m not saying BSc or BBiomed students don’t do well). They all maintain high scores in this section, which just goes to show that the GAMSAT is anything BUT biased against have students from a non-Science background, especially if you want to go to UoMelb who only weighs SIII equally.
The concepts within these degrees aren’t too different from those you’d learn in a Science or Biomedical Science degree; for example, an understanding of how a mutation in the liver enzyme Glucose-6-Phosphatase can present clinically as a build-up of fat and glycogen isn’t too far off from say, understanding how a change in the quality of a previously highly desired product can affect the supply-demand relationship for retailers and consumers alike (as you can tell I’ve done absolutely NO economics or commerce since Year 11, when I accidentally walked into the wrong room where Year 11 commerce was taught). But further reading into a commerce text will reveal that the concepts require a more global understanding of a system whereas in Science, the constant attempt to discern the intricacies of a specific pathway can get you lost as to the actual place of this pathway in a more universal scale (for me anyway).
Another thing that I’ve noticed is that most of the mistakes I made with the ACER material for SI were consistently because of my failure to recognize the context of the question being asked within the entire situation of the stimuli, not just the paragraph or sentence from which it is being taken. Granted, by the time I did the ACER practice tests this year I was so mentally exhausted I barely had the energy to fling the book across the room, but after the release of GAMSAT results this year I reviewed my answers and identified this. Not a big discovery, but a discovery nonetheless.
So, where to go from here? One could be stubborn and concede that SI is genetically pre-determined and what you get is all the reasoning in humanities and social sciences you will ever achieve. Another way to take it would be to see whether the study of some economics or law, which aren’t as technical as scientific concepts (Organic Chem anyone?) but still need some familiarity, can actually encourage this ‘global’ thinking that will enable a higher score on the GAMSAT. It makes sense that SI requires this of potential candidates, as you don’t want a doctor who’s going to tell you about some anomaly within your biological makeup without thinking (i) how its going to affect your lifestyle, (ii) how its going to affect your future, and (iii) how these ramifications are going to affect you (psychologically, as well as practically; I’m thinking Type 1Diabetics and regular insulin shots?).
To remedy this, I bought an ‘economics’ textbook from a Co-Op bookshop that will act as my introduction to a subject I learned about for a brief 4 seconds in Year 11. It may put another workload on top of my Science studying and may not make a difference, but if anything at least by the end concepts like ‘Keynesian Interest Rate Theory’ will not be alien to me.
I’ve always believed that obtaining a good SI score has always been about luck; I also believe that the harder I work, the luckier I get (2012 GAMSAT study excepted). In good SII practice to back-up my contention, I will leave you with a quote from someone I have never heard of but puts what I think into a more elegant rhetoric;
“The only thing that overcomes hard luck is hard work.”
-Harry Golden
Success and nothing less.
MTC
Ps. Props to Mark Twain for the title quote, definitely a reader you should check out.
Pps. I apologise for the pretentious sign-offs I have posted, and will continue
to post on my blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment