BMAT Essay Marking Thread

I'd say 3C, maybe a 3B (I notice on the markscheme that they do give out a lot of As and Bs, so they may be quite lenient).

The main reason I give it only a 3 is because in places the argument gets convoluted.

Paragraph 1: you say 'the appeal is understandable as it deviates from usual behaviours'. That by itself is not a fair justification of the appeal imo. For example, murder of fellow humans is 'deviation from usual behaviours' but murderers are not looked upon favourably. I think this paragraph should have discussed the selflessness of deprioritising one's own health - that's (I think) what Chancellor's really getting at.

Paragraph 2: the level of ease of maintaining good health is actually pretty irrelevant to the priority one should place on it; just because it takes 15 minutes to create a balanced meal nowadays as opposed to 5 days when we were cavemen, doesn't change the importance of having a balanced diet.

Paragraph 3: you pretty much end up saying looking after your child is the most important thing in the world, and hence your health is the most important thing in the world. Can't have it both ways. I know what you're trying to get at here but in a discussion of your essay a tutor might ask 'what if you were in a situation where you had to sacrifice your life or your child's?'.

The spelling is fine; your grammar and the sentence structure can get pretty muddled though. I don't want to nitpick here, PM me if you want more details.

Oh and don't be put off, I think I'm probably a harsher analyst than the markers AND you did say this was your first essay in a while

Hi guys, I was wondering if someone could please have a read through my essay. Any feedback + scoring would be greatly appreciated. I will be using this thread from now on, so if you have any essays that you would like to have someone look through, I will be more than willing to help with this whenever I can.

P.s: I would appreciate it if someone could mark this as harshly as possible, I would appreciate any constructive feedback.

#12DaysLeft

Waheed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essay Question: ''If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."-- Albert Einstein.
Write a unified essay in which you address the following:
What do you understand by this statement? Use examples to discuss this statement, giving both sides of the argument.

Essay Answer:

Einstein's statement stresses the fluid nature of science, and how scientific knowledge is always changing. Scientific 'fact' is very delicate, and there is a degree of flexibility in what we hold to be true and 'factual'. Different scientists have different perceptions and interpretations of the world around us- what appears to be fact may actually be far from the truth. Einstein had an uncanny ability to think extremely logically, critically and thoroughly about the world around him- this gift allowed him to articulate many extraordinary theories. For example; 'The Theory of Relativity' and the scientifically renowned equation 'E=MC^2', these theories overturned many perceived facts at the time- and are examples of how sometimes all it takes is one mind and one theory to change how we view the world forever.

Since the dawn of civilisation, scientists and philosophists have been trying to uncover the secrets and intricacies of life as we know it. The scientific approach of experimentation and 'hypothesis-building' have allowed many scientists to develop new theories that have been tested experimentally and found to be true by other scientists and therefore replace what is publicly perceived as being 'factual'. For example, hundreds of years ago scientists used to think that the Earth was the centre of the universe- this was in fact a widely agreed theory and was considered to be the truth. It was only after scientists like Nicholas Coppernicus created their theories that this theory (of Earth being the centre of the universe) , was overturned. Coppernicus theorised that not everything orbitted the Earth and laid the foundations to discover that the Earth actually orbits the the sun and the sun is just one star amongst millions of others in our galaxy.

However, I believe that this argument by Einstein may be slightly arrogant. It is not always the case that new theories are in fact the truth and therefore changing the facts could in fact result in misleading people if the new theory hasn't been scrutinised. What is considered fact, especially in the modern scientific world has often had to undergo thorough scrutinisation and had to have been corroborated by thousands of scientists in order to be considered fact. For example, the theory that light is the fastest thing in our universe has been around for hundreds of years, it has been corroborated by many scientist, and Einstein himself. This is why new discoveries and theories for example; the "God particle" have to be thoroughly analysed before even considering changing the facts.

I think you have some good points, there is room for improvement but I think you answer all parts of the Q. Although I think you could expand on how 'the resulting informations is handled' (in the last paragraph) by perhaps giving an example, for e.g: Terrorist attacks and nuclear fission bombs and the controversy behind this (for example; national security vs public threat).

Overall, I think it is quite a short essay, but you have a rather concise way of delivering it, this, along with the good examples, I think will give you 3.5/4 A/B, I think you could score a 5 by perhaps elaborating a bit more on certain points (as mentioned above). I gave you a A/B in quality of English as I noticed a repetitive mistake where you said 'and' instead of 'an' for e.g: 'how dangerous AND area of research can be', although I have realised that they are quite lenient with the QOE so it may score an A)

Hope this helps

Sure



About a 4.5B, I'd say. Your points are varied, logical and pertinent to the questions. The only thing I might suggest to make it into a 5 is to discuss where patients should draw the line in getting health advice from popular publications. Clearly sometimes it's good, and sometimes it's misinformation - should patients only believe anything with sources? Should health advice in popular publications be regulated, perhaps?

This is not explicitly asked for in the original question, but I think it's a natural continuation of the argument. Though I guess space and time were two limiting factors for you.

Your level of writing is strong overall, and probably the closest to an A of the essays I've read here. However, there are a few too many slips (particularly words used in an incorrect context for their meaning) for me to feel totally confident about saying it's a solid A. If you want the gory details, PM me.

I would give this an A for grammar, unlike the person above.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Hello all! I would appreciate it if someone had a look at this essay


The most essential part of a student's instruction is obtained not in the lecture-room, but at the bedside.
Why is clinical study the most essential part of medical education? Why is study in the classroom also important? Why is a balance of clinical and academic study necessary for a career in medicine?

It could be argued that clinical study is the most essential part of medical education as it teaches students how to deliver a good quality of care. By spending time at the bedsides of patients, students can learn how to empathise with patients and their relatives, and therefore learn how to comfort patients. In addition, through clinical study, the students may learn to practise some key procedures such as taking blood, which cannot be learnt simply from lectures or textbooks. Clinical study will also give the students a realistic experience of the functionings of a hospital and the importance of teamwork amongst colleagues. All of these skills are vital to become a good doctor and cannot be taught without clinical experience.

However, classroom study is also of great experience and a doctor is a scientist, and therefore requires sound scientific knowledge of the human body. Some aspects of medicine require great precision which is learnt most effectively by classroom study; for example, a surgeon must have a good knowledge of anatomy in order to perform operations correctly. Additionally students will not be able to carry out procedures correctly unless they know they science behind them; otherwise, they my be putting the patient's health at risk. Therefore classroom study is important to gain the scientific knowledge that precedes its application.

A balance of clinical and classroom study is essential for a career in medicine, as a doctor is both a scientist and a carer. Scientific knowledge, gained through classroom study, is essential in delivering appropriate treatment to patients (for example, prescribing the correct drugs). However, a doctor has a duty to deliver good care to patients, many of whom may be in fragile states, and clinical study helps students to empathise with this.

Hello all! I would appreciate it if someone had a look at this essay


The most essential part of a student's instruction is obtained not in the lecture-room, but at the bedside.
Why is clinical study the most essential part of medical education? Why is study in the classroom also important? Why is a balance of clinical and academic study necessary for a career in medicine?

It could be argued that clinical study is the most essential part of medical education as it teaches students how to deliver a good quality of care. By spending time at the bedsides of patients, students can learn how to empathise with patients and their relatives, and therefore learn how to comfort patients. In addition, through clinical study, the students may learn to practise some key procedures such as taking blood, which cannot be learnt simply from lectures or textbooks. Clinical study will also give the students a realistic experience of the functionings of a hospital and the importance of teamwork amongst colleagues. All of these skills are vital to become a good doctor and cannot be taught without clinical experience.

However, classroom study is also of great experience and a doctor is a scientist, and therefore requires sound scientific knowledge of the human body. Some aspects of medicine require great precision which is learnt most effectively by classroom study; for example, a surgeon must have a good knowledge of anatomy in order to perform operations correctly. Additionally students will not be able to carry out procedures correctly unless they know they science behind them; otherwise, they my be putting the patient's health at risk. Therefore classroom study is important to gain the scientific knowledge that precedes its application.

A balance of clinical and classroom study is essential for a career in medicine, as a doctor is both a scientist and a carer. Scientific knowledge, gained through classroom study, is essential in delivering appropriate treatment to patients (for example, prescribing the correct drugs). However, a doctor has a duty to deliver good care to patients, many of whom may be in fragile states, and clinical study helps students to empathise with this.

Review on request:



So I'm going to disagree with jollygood slightly and say this is probably around a 3.5B/A.

Here's why. The question asks you specifically why clinical study is the most essential part of medical education. You do provide reasons for why it is important, but you also provide reasons for why theory is important. This is fine as that's what the questions asks you to do, but you never go on to compare the benefits of clinical study directly to the benefits of classroom study, and then conclude that the benefits of clinical study outweigh those of classroom study. Given the way you've structured your essay, you should somewhere ultimately be concluding that patient empathy plays a greater role in being a good doctor than anything else.

The other problem is that I find a couple of your points less than convincing. For example, in the first paragraph you say 'some procedures simply cannot be learnt from textbooks'. Then in the second paragraph you say 'students cannot carry out a procedure correctly unless they know the science behind them'. Which is it? If it is one or the other, you clearly can't use this point to support both sides of the argument. If (as is actually the case) most procedures require both, you should state this - and then it is not a permissible argument for clinical study being the most essential. Finally, though your example of the surgeon needing to know anatomy is perfectly fine, it doesn't really support an argument of 'precision that you can only get from the classroom' - I would say precision is learned from doing actual surgeries moreso, wouldn't you? I think you mean something a bit different to precision here.

A couple of points that I probably would have tried to include would be, on the classroom side, that a sound scientific base is required to be able to deal with unusual presentations or reactions which may not be extensively well known in literature; again on the classroom side, the importance of keeping up to date with the latest drug trials and studies; and on the practical side, that the difference between idealised conditions in a study or laboratory and a clinical setting is vast - and that's why doctors exist and we don't just let patients self-treat from the internet .

OK this feedback is already getting longer than your essay itself lol . . . I'll quickly point out some grammatical errors. 1st para, last line: becoming. Same line: taught should be replace with learnt/learned. 2nd para, first line: experience should be replaced with value. Same line: full stop after experience/value, start a new sentence. Next line: precision is probably not really what you mean. Last para, last line: either should be 'empathise with them' or something like 'achieve this'.

I repeat my disclaimer that I may be harsher than the real markers, but I hope you find this helpful anyway

Great essay i would say. If i were the examiner i would have given you 4/4.5A. You have addressed all parts of the question in a clear order.

Hey,
Can you please have a look at my essay and possible suggest a mark?

'You must be honest and open and act with integrity'
Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might honesty, openness and integrity be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might a good doctor be justified in being less than perfectly honest or open in the course of their professional practice?

My answer:
The statement explains that doctors must be truthful and unreserved when discussing treatments with patients or other authorities, such as senior consultants. Doctors should at all times not consider personal gain or bias when judging treatment and should uphold the same moral values for all people.

In order to build a good rapport with the patient, honesty, openness and integrity are key in a doctor. By building up trust with the patient, they will, in return, be more open about their symptoms or condition, as they believe in the doctor's integrity and judgement. A better relationship will be built, which is beneficial to the doctor and patient. For the doctor, it would mean that the patient will be more likely to follow suggested treatment and for the patient, it would mean that they can be confident that the treatment is in their best interests.

However, in some situations doctors may feel compelled to break this trust, if they feel it is in the best interest of the patient. An instance would be if a patient's family ask about the patient's condition, the doctor cannot be open and divulge information due to patient confidentiality. Another example would be if a patient consults the doctor about non-accidental injuries and requests the doctor from communicating with other authorities. Here, the doctor may feel to disregard the request, if they feel that the patient may be endangered or if it is in the their best interests.

In most instances, doctors have to be open, honest and act with integrity when consulting patients, however, it may be necessary at times to sacrifice openness and honesty, if it is in the belief, that it is in the patient's best interest.

Any suggestions on how to improve it would very welcome

Hi guys, I was wondering if someone could please have a read through my essay. Any feedback + scoring would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Essay Question: ''If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."-- Albert Einstein.
Write a unified essay in which you address the following:
What do you understand by this statement? Use examples to discuss this statement, giving both sides of the argument.

Essay Answer:

Einstein's statement stresses the fluid nature of science, and how scientific knowledge is always changing. Scientific 'fact' is very delicate, and there is a degree of flexibility in what we hold to be true and 'factual'. Different scientists have different perceptions and interpretations of the world around us- what appears to be fact may actually be far from the truth. Einstein had an uncanny ability to think extremely logically, critically and thoroughly about the world around him- this gift allowed him to articulate many extraordinary theories. For example; 'The Theory of Relativity' and the scientifically renowned equation 'E=MC^2', these theories overturned many perceived facts at the time- and are examples of how sometimes all it takes is one mind and one theory to change how we view the world forever.

Since the dawn of civilisation, scientists and philosophists have been trying to uncover the secrets and intricacies of life as we know it. The scientific approach of experimentation and 'hypothesis-building' have allowed many scientists to develop new theories that have been tested experimentally and found to be true by other scientists and therefore replace what is publicly perceived as being 'factual'. For example, hundreds of years ago scientists used to think that the Earth was the centre of the universe- this was in fact a widely agreed theory and was considered to be the truth. It was only after scientists like Nicholas Coppernicus created their theories that this theory (of Earth being the centre of the universe) , was overturned. Coppernicus theorised that not everything orbitted the Earth and laid the foundations to discover that the Earth actually orbits the the sun and the sun is just one star amongst millions of others in our galaxy.

However, I believe that this argument by Einstein may be slightly arrogant. It is not always the case that new theories are in fact the truth and therefore changing the facts could in fact result in misleading people if the new theory hasn't been scrutinised. What is considered fact, especially in the modern scientific world has often had to undergo thorough scrutinisation and had to have been corroborated by thousands of scientists in order to be considered fact. For example, the theory that light is the fastest thing in our universe has been around for hundreds of years, it has been corroborated by many scientist, and Einstein himself. This is why new discoveries and theories for example; the "God particle" have to be thoroughly analysed before even considering changing the facts.

Feedback? Thanks!

Hi there,
Please take a look and criticize my essay. My first one so far (yes, very late I know ) so I didn't time myself.

Q3 2009
It is an obscenity that rich people can buy better medical treatment than poor people.

Explain the argument behind the statement. What assumptions does it make? Argue to the
contrary, that patients are entitled to spend money on better healthcare if they choose to.


The statement argues that allowing people to pay for better medical treatment would result in a difference of treatment between members of the society who can afford to pay and those who have no option but to use the services provided by the NHS. This results in inequality between different classes of people for healthcare.
Therefore, the statement assumes that the NHS provides a lower standard of care then private care where rich people can buy better health care.

It can be argued that if there is better healthcare available and people can afford for this premium care, they should be entitled to spend money on better healthcare if they wish. It can also be argued that stopping people from seeking for better healthcare goes against their human rights.

The NHS is limited in resources resulting in long waiting lists and delays for treatment. Allowing rich people to spend on better healthcare would help ease off the pressure on the NHS as they seek for private healthcare. The benefits of this include:



The statement brings about the question of morality. Humans are all equal so should be given the same level of healthcare. However, in this capitalist society we live in, where the rich often get the best things in life, it is not an obscenity to spend what you earn, so this should not be the case with healthcare either.

Wow for a first try! Your answer is very similar to the answer of this question in the 400 BMAT Qn book, so probably a similar score - might have been 4? A though definitely

Posted from TSR Mobile