1. Congratulations to all who finished UMAT 2017!
    Dismiss Notice

GAMSAT Knowledge for Section III

Discussion in 'GAMSAT' started by GStuart_10, Apr 5, 2017.

  1. GStuart_10

    GStuart_10 New Member

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi Guys,

    I was wondering if you could give me some advice.

    Is it possible to do the GAMSAT not having had any exposure to studying Science/Biology/Physics in year 10, 11, 12 at school or a degree relating to any of those?

    If it is possible where would be the best place to start to gain the required knowledge for section III?

    I would look to take approx. 5-7 to prepare for the September 2018 exam.

    Any pointers/advice/comments would be much appreciated.

    Thanks,
    Gareth
     
  2. nire

    nire Regular Member

    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    28
    yes it is possible. but make sure you touch up on those topics. i know a doctor who didn't study any science in high school or in uni and managed to a get a gamsat score good enough for UQ. which is notorious for its high gamsat scores. so the answer is yes but make sure you practice them.
     
  3. Mana

    Mana Intern (UNDS MBBS) Administrator

    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    1,337
    Occupation:
    Junior Medical Officer
    Yes it is - because the GAMSAT is a test of reasoning, not knowledge. It requires surprisingly little knowledge, in fact, though there is a baseline level of science that you should know for it. There is also a baseline level of humanities that you should know for it as well but people don't seem to take notice at that - I would go so far as to say the humanities and sciences both require low baseline levels of knowledge, but the sciences is stressed because Section 3 is worth double at most universities (and that's the "science" section).

    I would simply do GAMSAT papers and determine where the holes in your knowledge are then. I would not sign up for any university courses to learn the content - this is secondary to the reasoning behind it.
     
  4. chinaski

    chinaski Regular Member

    Messages:
    3,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually, there is a historical perspective here. GAMSAT's section 3 has evolved in the past five years or so, with a noticeable departure from previous years, wherein base knowledge was absolutely required (as reflected in the suggestion that candidates be versed in first year level sciences). More recently it has shifted to being more about reasoning.

    Thing is, ACER still advises candidates to have the same minimum standards in base knowledge: they don't need to advise you ahead of time if they decide to revert back to "old school" section 3. So, beware in getting too comfortable.
     
  5. Mana

    Mana Intern (UNDS MBBS) Administrator

    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    1,337
    Occupation:
    Junior Medical Officer
    While I don't think they are particularly likely to revert back to the GAMSAT of over six years ago based on knowledge, I do think that it is somewhat of a loss in the sense that GAMSAT baseline knowledge could be used to justify a shorter length of graduate entry medicine degrees (i.e. you all scored well in GAMSAT thus we don't need to teach you the basic sciences and can build on that right away). That said, I do think that reasoning is harder to teach than the ability to regurgitate knowledge. For that reason I think the change is positive (and perhaps draws some inspiration from the UMAT - I wouldn't be surprised if there were some common authors and/or editors of the UMAT and GAMSAT).

    The GAMSAT that I sat back in 2012 (five years ago now) was already largely reasoning based, in my opinion. (I have obviously not paid the fee to sit it again any later than that; but I am sure @Perplex or @volvo could give me a slightly updated opinion.) I take it that from your experiences especially of the large cohort on PD as well as your statement above that this has continued to be reflected in the GAMSAT since and evolved further to require more reasoning and less knowledge.

    In that sense - even if it were to revert to the GAMSAT of five years ago, the baseline level of sciences and humanities required is still minimal.
     
  6. chinaski

    chinaski Regular Member

    Messages:
    3,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My comment was more in response to yours - it's not really "surprising" that comparatively little science knowledge is required today if you appreciate how the exam has evolved (from before the era wherein you have personal experience as a candidate). It was never a simple matter of "regurgitating" knowledge, however - reasoning has always played a central role. It was just previously impossible to reason without the necessary theoretical grounding - now it would appear it is.

    Section 1, I would argue, tests skill and ability more than knowledge. Humanities are too slippery to test on bare facts.
     
  7. Mana

    Mana Intern (UNDS MBBS) Administrator

    Messages:
    3,812
    Likes Received:
    670
    Trophy Points:
    1,337
    Occupation:
    Junior Medical Officer
    I agree with this actually - section 1 GAMSAT was remarkably similar to section 1 UMAT when I sat it; with the caveat that if you had a humanities background which gave you a good grasp of the concepts in humanities that you would have scored marginally better than if you hadn't.

    For reference to the OP - section 3 felt much the same except you'd get a marginally better score if you had much better knowledge in the sciences. I actually think that this is exaggerated more by the time pressures faced in the exam rather than the content per se.
     
  8. chinaski

    chinaski Regular Member

    Messages:
    3,911
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yeah, that's a huge departure from yesteryear.
     

Share This Page