This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- 6med BMAT
- bmat exam
- BMAT Section 3 | Post & Reflection | 2023 FINAL SESSION
- BMAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- BMAT 2023 entry discussions megathread *Updated 14th October 2022*
- BMAT Section 3 Essay
- Bmat cut off
- best revision tool for bmat
- Low UCAT - High BMAT (UCL, Imperial, Cambridge)
- BMAT section 3 tips?
- BMAT 2023 help
- Official: University of Leeds A100 2023 entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- How long to prepare for the BMAT?
- What were the BMAT essay questions for 2023 again?
- Changing an option on UCAS from medicine to biological sciences
- Buckingham PreMed exams
- KCL Dentistry 2025 Entry
- EPQ - my dilemma
- resitting my Gcse
- Plovdiv Medical Uni
BMAT Essay Marking Thread
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Plebbles
Patients should not be offered choices in their medical treatment; doctors know what is best for them.
The author is stating that he believes patients should have not input into their own treatment on the basis that doctors know what is best for the patient.
Doctors may know what is best for a patient’s health; however, they may not know what is the best means of treatment for the patient from a personal point of view. The treatment a doctor deems most suitable for a patient may not be suitable for them as an individual. For example, the treatment of diabetes through self-injection of insulin on a daily basis may not benefit a particularly forgetful individual, or someone who is scared of needles. This could lead to poor self care (good). However, if the patient is involved with the medical treatment they will be more likely to care for themselves to a greater extent which will increase the chance of the treatment being effective. On the other hand the doctor is more knowledgeable and knows the best treatment options; as opposed to the typically small amount of knowledge a patient has to judge their own decisions. If a doctor is to independently make the decision of a patient’s treatment then there are the implications that if there is a problem with the treatment then the doctor is solely responsible for any issues such as side effects of medication. In accordance with the statement the patients do expect the doctor to find a cure for whatever affliction they may be suffering with and intervention of the patient may restrict the options or reduce the ability of the doctor to do find a suitable and effective cure.
I believe it’s fair to assume that doctors do possess superior knowledge to that of the patients and will therefore be able to find a cure if allowed to do so without the patient’s intervention. However, I do think that on moral grounds the patient should be allowed to have a say in the treatment they undergo as ultimately it is their body they’re manipulating, however detrimental the effects on the doctor’s ability to treat the patient.
The author is stating that he believes patients should have not input into their own treatment on the basis that doctors know what is best for the patient.
Doctors may know what is best for a patient’s health; however, they may not know what is the best means of treatment for the patient from a personal point of view. The treatment a doctor deems most suitable for a patient may not be suitable for them as an individual. For example, the treatment of diabetes through self-injection of insulin on a daily basis may not benefit a particularly forgetful individual, or someone who is scared of needles. This could lead to poor self care (good). However, if the patient is involved with the medical treatment they will be more likely to care for themselves to a greater extent which will increase the chance of the treatment being effective. On the other hand the doctor is more knowledgeable and knows the best treatment options; as opposed to the typically small amount of knowledge a patient has to judge their own decisions. If a doctor is to independently make the decision of a patient’s treatment then there are the implications that if there is a problem with the treatment then the doctor is solely responsible for any issues such as side effects of medication. In accordance with the statement the patients do expect the doctor to find a cure for whatever affliction they may be suffering with and intervention of the patient may restrict the options or reduce the ability of the doctor to do find a suitable and effective cure.
I believe it’s fair to assume that doctors do possess superior knowledge to that of the patients and will therefore be able to find a cure if allowed to do so without the patient’s intervention. However, I do think that on moral grounds the patient should be allowed to have a say in the treatment they undergo as ultimately it is their body they’re manipulating, however detrimental the effects on the doctor’s ability to treat the patient.
you write a nice essay pebbles and better than what i did but you need to be very careful if you choose this type of question. there are very clear guidelines on this issue and if you do not know these you will dig a big hole for yourself. for example it is not moral grounds that gives patient a say on the treatment - the law sates they have this. the legal position is very clear on the issue of patient autonomy and you have missed this vital point in the answer.
the default position is that adult are competent and competent adults alone make all decisions regarding their healthcare. the doctors job is only to make sure the patient is fully informed of the options and it is for the patients alone to chose their treatment. the question is a trap as any suggestion that doctors can make the decision for competent patient is wrong - it is against guidelines and against the law.
i have underlined two points where you seem to suggest that as doctors know more than patients it is therefore acceptable that can make decisions for them. this will mark you down as the legal position and GMC guidelines clearly state otherwise.
similarly there was question before that states 'Under what circumstances might an honest doctor be justified in being less than perfectly truthful over the course of his or her professional practice.'
This is a huge trap as there would be very few circumstances would this be acceptable to be dishonest. Only if harm would be caused if you were honest. For example if a cancer patient stated they would hang themselves if their cancer was not curable and then perhaps you would be justified in being not perfectly truthful.
Best to avoid legal issues if you are unsure on the law surround it and good luck for the BMAT exam.
Hey all tried an essay from 'past paper' timed and ill copy it up now. Be brutal if you wish it will only help, I struggled with this essay so it could be quite lame.
Here goes:
Our unprecedented survival has produced a revolution in longevity which is shaking the foundation of societies around the world and profoundly altering our attitudes to life and death.
I feel that this statement refers to how advances in technology and medicine has meant that people are now living longer and so this is also leading to a gradual increase in the human population. With more aging there is more life and so perhaps and altered attitude towards death and life as a whole.
It can be argued that our survival has effected societies around the world. For example in India and China where there is a large human population. More people means that there is increased famine and poor quality of life for the majority as the world only has a limited amount of resources. This in general affects societies across the world who respond to such natural disasters. Growing human population puts increased pressure and demands on the earth as it only has a finite amount of resources. Equally advances in medicine have lead to the creation of vaccines, where previously diseases limited the human population, now they don't. This increases age and longevity and also changes peoples views on life and death.
However it can also be argued that since the worlds population has been increasing over time then it can sustain the pressures and demands exerted by humans. In this case overall human societies are not affected because the world is able to cope with them. Furthermore increased age and population perhaps preserves the foundations of society as elderly people are able to express their culture from their societies and teach children. If age and longevity did not increase then perhaps the culture of societies would have died out with the people and so would not be passed on between generations. So age may not shake the foundations of society.
To conclude I feel that despite the reasons against the above statement, our increased age and longevity has altered our attitudes to life and death. Where previously life may have been short such as during the plague, now people live longer and so have more time to think about death. I feel that the ever increasing human population will take its toll on the world at which point the worlds societies may be affected.
Here goes:
Our unprecedented survival has produced a revolution in longevity which is shaking the foundation of societies around the world and profoundly altering our attitudes to life and death.
I feel that this statement refers to how advances in technology and medicine has meant that people are now living longer and so this is also leading to a gradual increase in the human population. With more aging there is more life and so perhaps and altered attitude towards death and life as a whole.
It can be argued that our survival has effected societies around the world. For example in India and China where there is a large human population. More people means that there is increased famine and poor quality of life for the majority as the world only has a limited amount of resources. This in general affects societies across the world who respond to such natural disasters. Growing human population puts increased pressure and demands on the earth as it only has a finite amount of resources. Equally advances in medicine have lead to the creation of vaccines, where previously diseases limited the human population, now they don't. This increases age and longevity and also changes peoples views on life and death.
However it can also be argued that since the worlds population has been increasing over time then it can sustain the pressures and demands exerted by humans. In this case overall human societies are not affected because the world is able to cope with them. Furthermore increased age and population perhaps preserves the foundations of society as elderly people are able to express their culture from their societies and teach children. If age and longevity did not increase then perhaps the culture of societies would have died out with the people and so would not be passed on between generations. So age may not shake the foundations of society.
To conclude I feel that despite the reasons against the above statement, our increased age and longevity has altered our attitudes to life and death. Where previously life may have been short such as during the plague, now people live longer and so have more time to think about death. I feel that the ever increasing human population will take its toll on the world at which point the worlds societies may be affected.
Original post by sn8595
Okay I'll make note. Thanks so much again! 
no worries
Original post by suncake
I thought this was pretty good. I've been a bit nit-picky with the grammar, but some of your sentences are a bit long-winded, and you shouldn't use contractions in an essay like this.
You gave a balanced argument, with a great example against the quote. Your example for the quote could be a bit more specific - the side effects thing was a bit vague.
Your conclusion is very well reasoned.
I'd probably give it a 4B... although this is the first essay I've tried to mark, so that may not be very accurate.
You gave a balanced argument, with a great example against the quote. Your example for the quote could be a bit more specific - the side effects thing was a bit vague.
Your conclusion is very well reasoned.
I'd probably give it a 4B... although this is the first essay I've tried to mark, so that may not be very accurate.
I don't think this is near a 4. Honestly, I would give it a 2A, as I think the examples given are either not strong enough or not justified as much as they should be. It needs to be more concise and get more points in - aim for three of each point they require (although this should be balanced with examples). The balance is good so given there are two markers, it might go up to a 2.5 but otherwise I think more time should have been spent planning it out.
I've seen this question, I thought it was quite difficult, so well done for attempting it. Less likely to be thrown by anything on the day.
A decent attempt - this was difficult.
Try to answer the question fully - it's the easiest way to get marks. Even if it's just a sentence covering every part of the questions asked. You didn't tell us how our thoughts on life and death have changed, except at the end when you were trying to conclude. An example to illustrate your point would do. The conclusion didn't take into consideration any of the other points raised during the essay. You didn't weigh them up - you can get marks for doing that.
To help you do this, plan before you write. It'll give it structure. Decide for 5minutes, what will go into this essay? What arguments can I come up with? Then it'll write quicker because you have already thought about your ideas.
Another thing I'd say is the language in here could be better. Be careful how you word things, and don't repeat yourself.
Original post by raveen789
Our unprecedented survival has produced a revolution in longevity which is shaking the foundation of societies around the world and profoundly altering our attitudes to life and death.
I feel that [you don't really need to say this, it's an essay. It is already assumed that you will give your opinion. You could say 'the essence of the statement is' 'the statement is saying that...' etc.] this statement refers to how advances in technology and medicine has meant that people are now living longer and so this is also leading to a gradual increase in the human population. With more aging there is more life and so perhaps and altered attitude towards death and life as a whole.
It can be argued that our survival has effected societies around the world. For example in India and China where there is a large human population. More people means that there is increased famine and poor quality of life for the majority [this isn't necessarily true in India and China, what are you basing the assertion that most Chinese and Indian people have a poor quality of life on? Perhaps it would be less controversial and subjective to say that large proportions of people in highly populated countries like India and China have a poor quality of life, compared to other countries, due to overcrowding] as the world only has a limited amount of resources. This in general affects societies across the world who respond to such natural disasters. Growing human population puts increased pressure and demands on the earth as it only has a finite amount of resources. Equally advances in medicine have lead to the creation of vaccines, where previously diseases limited the human population, now they don't [I would re-word this, or make a new sentence]. This increases age and longevity and also changes peoples views on life and death [how? This is one of the objectives of the essay, to explain the reasoning behind the statement].
However it can also be argued that since the worlds population has been increasing over time then it can sustain the pressures and demands exerted by humans. In this case overall human societies are not affected because the world is able to cope with them. [These sentences seem to be a repeat of each other. The first sentence didn't make sense to me. I could understand the 2nd sentence better. Try not to ramble, know what you're going to write down before you write it] Furthermore increased age and population perhaps preserves the foundations of society as elderly people are able to express to practice their culture from their societies and teach children. If age and longevity did not increase then perhaps the culture of societies would have died out with the people and so would not be passed on between generations. So age may not shake the foundations of society. [I don't really understand this point. I know it's difficult with such a tough question, but even if you explain your ideas very basically, you will get decent marks for it. If the examiner cannot understand what you're saying, then you won't get credit for that point.]
To conclude I feel that despite the reasons against the above statement, our increased age and longevity has altered our attitudes to life and death. Where previously life may have been short such as during the plague, now people live longer and so have more time to think about death. I feel that the ever increasing human population will take its toll on the world [woah! this sounds almost apocalyptic!] at which point the worlds societies may be affected.
I feel that [you don't really need to say this, it's an essay. It is already assumed that you will give your opinion. You could say 'the essence of the statement is' 'the statement is saying that...' etc.] this statement refers to how advances in technology and medicine has meant that people are now living longer and so this is also leading to a gradual increase in the human population. With more aging there is more life and so perhaps an
It can be argued that our survival has effected societies around the world. For example in India and China where there is a large human population. More people means that there is increased famine and poor quality of life for the majority [this isn't necessarily true in India and China, what are you basing the assertion that most Chinese and Indian people have a poor quality of life on? Perhaps it would be less controversial and subjective to say that large proportions of people in highly populated countries like India and China have a poor quality of life, compared to other countries, due to overcrowding] as the world only has a limited amount of resources. This in general affects societies across the world who respond to such natural disasters. Growing human population puts increased pressure and demands on the earth as it only has a finite amount of resources. Equally advances in medicine have lead to the creation of vaccines, where previously diseases limited the human population, now they don't [I would re-word this, or make a new sentence]. This increases age and longevity and also changes peoples views on life and death [how? This is one of the objectives of the essay, to explain the reasoning behind the statement].
However it can also be argued that since the worlds population has been increasing over time then it can sustain the pressures and demands exerted by humans. In this case overall human societies are not affected because the world is able to cope with them. [These sentences seem to be a repeat of each other. The first sentence didn't make sense to me. I could understand the 2nd sentence better. Try not to ramble, know what you're going to write down before you write it] Furthermore increased age and population perhaps preserves the foundations of society as elderly people are able to express to practice their culture from their societies and teach children. If age and longevity did not increase then perhaps the culture of societies would have died out with the people and so would not be passed on between generations. So age may not shake the foundations of society. [I don't really understand this point. I know it's difficult with such a tough question, but even if you explain your ideas very basically, you will get decent marks for it. If the examiner cannot understand what you're saying, then you won't get credit for that point.]
To conclude I feel that despite the reasons against the above statement, our increased age and longevity has altered our attitudes to life and death. Where previously life may have been short such as during the plague, now people live longer and so have more time to think about death. I feel that the ever increasing human population will take its toll on the world [woah! this sounds almost apocalyptic!] at which point the worlds societies may be affected.
A decent attempt - this was difficult.
Try to answer the question fully - it's the easiest way to get marks. Even if it's just a sentence covering every part of the questions asked. You didn't tell us how our thoughts on life and death have changed, except at the end when you were trying to conclude. An example to illustrate your point would do. The conclusion didn't take into consideration any of the other points raised during the essay. You didn't weigh them up - you can get marks for doing that.
To help you do this, plan before you write. It'll give it structure. Decide for 5minutes, what will go into this essay? What arguments can I come up with? Then it'll write quicker because you have already thought about your ideas.
Another thing I'd say is the language in here could be better. Be careful how you word things, and don't repeat yourself.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by suncake
I'm guessing you have a dodgy space bar? 
Intro's alright, nice and concise. Perhaps you could give a basic example of "self-inflicted diseases".
You definitely need to use an example in your argument for.
I'm not sure about the relevance of the last two sentences in the 3rd paragraph. Also, I think you should expand on the "moral obligation" part a bit more.
Interesting use of rhetoric but personally I'd leave it out, you should answer that question explicitly - maybe talk about the consequences of making only certain people pay, and how it wouldn't be possible to judge who should/shouldn't pay etc.
- Not bad though, you make some good arguments for and against. Disregarding your merging together of words, I'd probably give it between 2B and 3A, mainly due to the fact that you never mentioned what a "self-inflicted disease" is.
Intro's alright, nice and concise. Perhaps you could give a basic example of "self-inflicted diseases".
You definitely need to use an example in your argument for.
I'm not sure about the relevance of the last two sentences in the 3rd paragraph. Also, I think you should expand on the "moral obligation" part a bit more.
Interesting use of rhetoric but personally I'd leave it out, you should answer that question explicitly - maybe talk about the consequences of making only certain people pay, and how it wouldn't be possible to judge who should/shouldn't pay etc.
- Not bad though, you make some good arguments for and against. Disregarding your merging together of words, I'd probably give it between 2B and 3A, mainly due to the fact that you never mentioned what a "self-inflicted disease" is.
I thought he did in the first line:
'This statement suggests that those in society who through their own actions cause harm to their health, should not have the right to free treatment.'
Original post by suncake
I'm guessing you have a dodgy space bar?
Intro's alright, nice and concise. Perhaps you could give a basic example of "self-inflicted diseases".
You definitely need to use an example in your argument for.
I'm not sure about the relevance of the last two sentences in the 3rd paragraph. Also, I think you should expand on the "moral obligation" part a bit more.
Interesting use of rhetoric but personally I'd leave it out, you should answer that question explicitly - maybe talk about the consequences of making only certain people pay, and how it wouldn't be possible to judge who should/shouldn't pay etc.
- Not bad though, you make some good arguments for and against. Disregarding your merging together of words, I'd probably give it between 2B and 3A, mainly due to the fact that you never mentioned what a "self-inflicted disease" is.
Intro's alright, nice and concise. Perhaps you could give a basic example of "self-inflicted diseases".
You definitely need to use an example in your argument for.
I'm not sure about the relevance of the last two sentences in the 3rd paragraph. Also, I think you should expand on the "moral obligation" part a bit more.
Interesting use of rhetoric but personally I'd leave it out, you should answer that question explicitly - maybe talk about the consequences of making only certain people pay, and how it wouldn't be possible to judge who should/shouldn't pay etc.
- Not bad though, you make some good arguments for and against. Disregarding your merging together of words, I'd probably give it between 2B and 3A, mainly due to the fact that you never mentioned what a "self-inflicted disease" is.
Thanks so much for the reply. For some strange reason the spacing got altered, when it was copied across.
Studying four science A levels means that getting back into the essay writing has been a bit of a challenge. Should examples be offered for every point? Or just a couple throughout. Also in the introduction do you need to explain the statement in even greater detail. Elaborating on self-inflicted diseases and the healthcare system? Thanks again for any helpOriginal post by Pride
I've seen this question, I thought it was quite difficult, so well done for attempting it. Less likely to be thrown by anything on the day.
A decent attempt - this was difficult.
Try to answer the question fully - it's the easiest way to get marks. Even if it's just a sentence covering every part of the questions asked. You didn't tell us how our thoughts on life and death have changed, except at the end when you were trying to conclude. An example to illustrate your point would do. The conclusion didn't take into consideration any of the other points raised during the essay. You didn't weigh them up - you can get marks for doing that.
To help you do this, plan before you write. It'll give it structure. Decide for 5minutes, what will go into this essay? What arguments can I come up with? Then it'll write quicker because you have already thought about your ideas.
Another thing I'd say is the language in here could be better. Be careful how you word things, and don't repeat yourself.
A decent attempt - this was difficult.
Try to answer the question fully - it's the easiest way to get marks. Even if it's just a sentence covering every part of the questions asked. You didn't tell us how our thoughts on life and death have changed, except at the end when you were trying to conclude. An example to illustrate your point would do. The conclusion didn't take into consideration any of the other points raised during the essay. You didn't weigh them up - you can get marks for doing that.
To help you do this, plan before you write. It'll give it structure. Decide for 5minutes, what will go into this essay? What arguments can I come up with? Then it'll write quicker because you have already thought about your ideas.
Another thing I'd say is the language in here could be better. Be careful how you word things, and don't repeat yourself.
Thanks a lot! this is my 2nd essay, first was from a book something to do with doctors making decisions for their patients. In comparison that was a piece of cake. So i thought id try one from a past paper. I think some of the things i said were a bit extreme looking back on it. I did not really know how to weigh my points up due to the question so in all honesty i rambled. Whereas in the first essay my conclusion was much better. I did plan for 15 mins then did the essay in 15.
Wanted to say thanks again
Also what would your points be out of interest?
Original post by Superheroe
I don't think this is near a 4. Honestly, I would give it a 2A, as I think the examples given are either not strong enough or not justified as much as they should be. It needs to be more concise and get more points in - aim for three of each point they require (although this should be balanced with examples). The balance is good so given there are two markers, it might go up to a 2.5 but otherwise I think more time should have been spent planning it out.
Ahh, okay. Clearly I haven't read enough example essays yet to be a good judge of the grading
Original post by Pride
I thought he did in the first line:
'This statement suggests that those in society who through their own actions cause harm to their health, should not have the right to free treatment.'
'This statement suggests that those in society who through their own actions cause harm to their health, should not have the right to free treatment.'
Meh, I guess... I personally would've given a quick example - "..actions, such as binge drinking, cause harm.." - as I wouldn't want to be too vague. That's just my opinion though
Original post by Tobeadoc
Thanks so much for the reply. For some strange reason the spacing got altered, when it was copied across. Studying four science A levels means that getting back into the essay writing has been a bit of a challenge. Should examples be offered for every point? Or just a couple throughout. Also in the introduction do you need to explain the statement in even greater detail. Elaborating on self-inflicted diseases and the healthcare system? Thanks again for any help
Studying four science A levels means that getting back into the essay writing has been a bit of a challenge. Should examples be offered for every point? Or just a couple throughout. Also in the introduction do you need to explain the statement in even greater detail. Elaborating on self-inflicted diseases and the healthcare system? Thanks again for any helpI'd definitely try to fit at least one example in for every point. Nah, the intro doesn't need to be in great detail, but I think briefly explaining the reasoning behind the quote helps stop it sounding like you've just reworded it. No problem... I hope my advice doesn't turn out to be a load of rubbish ahah
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by raveen789
Thanks a lot! this is my 2nd essay, first was from a book something to do with doctors making decisions for their patients. In comparison that was a piece of cake. So i thought id try one from a past paper. I think some of the things i said were a bit extreme looking back on it. I did not really know how to weigh my points up due to the question so in all honesty i rambled. Whereas in the first essay my conclusion was much better. I did plan for 15 mins then did the essay in 15.
Wanted to say thanks again
Also what would your points be out of interest?
Wanted to say thanks again
Also what would your points be out of interest?
wow lol, put me on the spot...
umm. Our unprecedented survival has produced a revolution in longevity which is shaking the foundation of societies around the world and profoundly altering our attitudes to life and death.
Well I'd talk about how advancements in modern medicine had influenced life expectancy
how people expect to live to around 80, early deaths shock us and are considered a waste of a life
how we don't allow natural selection to take its toll on the weak. We feel responsibility to look after our elderly. We also have religious beliefs, perhaps made more popular by the fear of death - perhaps that's caused by our longevity. We can fight death, it seems
I'd talk about how it might be inevitable with a mechanism like natural selection that a superior species would rise up exponentially. I'd be talking about how it's not just logical but it has empirical applications, eg. when you have a classroom of varied abilities, it's possible that a few children in that class will start to shine, and the rate they improve increase exponentially. Whereas the others may not be able to compare, and may even feel demotivated.
and to conclude, whether it's a bad thing, and trying to answer the question closely.
Original post by suncake
Ahh, okay. Clearly I haven't read enough example essays yet to be a good judge of the grading
Meh, I guess... I personally would've given a quick example - "..actions, such as binge drinking, cause harm.." - as I wouldn't want to be too vague. That's just my opinion though
Meh, I guess... I personally would've given a quick example - "..actions, such as binge drinking, cause harm.." - as I wouldn't want to be too vague. That's just my opinion though
well you're right. I think people are often daunted by the pruospect of coming up with examples to illustrate the point. It's sometimes people's automatic response to play it safe when you're under the pressure of writing a short essay.
Original post by Pride
wow lol, put me on the spot...
umm. Our unprecedented survival has produced a revolution in longevity which is shaking the foundation of societies around the world and profoundly altering our attitudes to life and death.
Well I'd talk about how advancements in modern medicine had influenced life expectancy
how people expect to live to around 80, early deaths shock us and are considered a waste of a life
how we don't allow natural selection to take its toll on the weak. We feel responsibility to look after our elderly. We also have religious beliefs, perhaps made more popular by the fear of death - perhaps that's caused by our longevity. We can fight death, it seems
I'd talk about how it might be inevitable with a mechanism like natural selection that a superior species would rise up exponentially. I'd be talking about how it's not just logical but it has empirical applications, eg. when you have a classroom of varied abilities, it's possible that a few children in that class will start to shine, and the rate they improve increase exponentially. Whereas the others may not be able to compare, and may even feel demotivated.
and to conclude, whether it's a bad thing, and trying to answer the question closely.
umm. Our unprecedented survival has produced a revolution in longevity which is shaking the foundation of societies around the world and profoundly altering our attitudes to life and death.
Well I'd talk about how advancements in modern medicine had influenced life expectancy
how people expect to live to around 80, early deaths shock us and are considered a waste of a life
how we don't allow natural selection to take its toll on the weak. We feel responsibility to look after our elderly. We also have religious beliefs, perhaps made more popular by the fear of death - perhaps that's caused by our longevity. We can fight death, it seems
I'd talk about how it might be inevitable with a mechanism like natural selection that a superior species would rise up exponentially. I'd be talking about how it's not just logical but it has empirical applications, eg. when you have a classroom of varied abilities, it's possible that a few children in that class will start to shine, and the rate they improve increase exponentially. Whereas the others may not be able to compare, and may even feel demotivated.
and to conclude, whether it's a bad thing, and trying to answer the question closely.
Sorry I did not mean to put you on the spot
I just wanted know your opinions out of interest
I missed quite a lot!Original post by Pride
well you're right. I think people are often daunted by the pruospect of coming up with examples to illustrate the point. It's sometimes people's automatic response to play it safe when you're under the pressure of writing a short essay.
I guess so. Thinking of examples off the top of your head is pretty hard in these situations.
Original post by raveen789
Hey all tried an essay from 'past paper' timed and ill copy it up now. Be brutal if you wish it will only help, I struggled with this essay so it could be quite lame.
Here goes:
Our unprecedented survival has produced a revolution in longevity which is shaking the foundation of societies around the world and profoundly altering our attitudes to life and death.
I feel that this statement refers to how advances in technology and medicine has meant that people are now living longer and so this is also leading to a gradual increase in the human population. With more aging there is more life and so perhaps and altered attitude towards death and life as a whole.
It can be argued that our survival has effected societies around the world. For example in India and China where there is a large human population. More people means that there is increased famine and poor quality of life for the majority as the world only has a limited amount of resources. This in general affects societies across the world who respond to such natural disasters. Growing human population puts increased pressure and demands on the earth as it only has a finite amount of resources. Equally advances in medicine have lead to the creation of vaccines, where previously diseases limited the human population, now they don't. This increases age and longevity and also changes peoples views on life and death.
However it can also be argued that since the worlds population has been increasing over time then it can sustain the pressures and demands exerted by humans. In this case overall human societies are not affected because the world is able to cope with them. Furthermore increased age and population perhaps preserves the foundations of society as elderly people are able to express their culture from their societies and teach children. If age and longevity did not increase then perhaps the culture of societies would have died out with the people and so would not be passed on between generations. So age may not shake the foundations of society.
To conclude I feel that despite the reasons against the above statement, our increased age and longevity has altered our attitudes to life and death. Where previously life may have been short such as during the plague, now people live longer and so have more time to think about death. I feel that the ever increasing human population will take its toll on the world at which point the worlds societies may be affected.
Here goes:
Our unprecedented survival has produced a revolution in longevity which is shaking the foundation of societies around the world and profoundly altering our attitudes to life and death.
I feel that this statement refers to how advances in technology and medicine has meant that people are now living longer and so this is also leading to a gradual increase in the human population. With more aging there is more life and so perhaps and altered attitude towards death and life as a whole.
It can be argued that our survival has effected societies around the world. For example in India and China where there is a large human population. More people means that there is increased famine and poor quality of life for the majority as the world only has a limited amount of resources. This in general affects societies across the world who respond to such natural disasters. Growing human population puts increased pressure and demands on the earth as it only has a finite amount of resources. Equally advances in medicine have lead to the creation of vaccines, where previously diseases limited the human population, now they don't. This increases age and longevity and also changes peoples views on life and death.
However it can also be argued that since the worlds population has been increasing over time then it can sustain the pressures and demands exerted by humans. In this case overall human societies are not affected because the world is able to cope with them. Furthermore increased age and population perhaps preserves the foundations of society as elderly people are able to express their culture from their societies and teach children. If age and longevity did not increase then perhaps the culture of societies would have died out with the people and so would not be passed on between generations. So age may not shake the foundations of society.
To conclude I feel that despite the reasons against the above statement, our increased age and longevity has altered our attitudes to life and death. Where previously life may have been short such as during the plague, now people live longer and so have more time to think about death. I feel that the ever increasing human population will take its toll on the world at which point the worlds societies may be affected.
Just wondering how long did it take you to write/type this? It's a whole 100 words longer than the one I just wrote in half an hour, haha. Did it fit on one side of A4?
Original post by suncake
I guess so. Thinking of examples off the top of your head is pretty hard in these situations.
Just wondering how long did it take you to write/type this? It's a whole 100 words longer than the one I just wrote in half an hour, haha. Did it fit on one side of A4?
Just wondering how long did it take you to write/type this? It's a whole 100 words longer than the one I just wrote in half an hour, haha. Did it fit on one side of A4?
When I write my essays on the exam paper, I tend to fit in 400+ words. I do have smallish handwriting though.
Original post by AJ2895
When I write my essays on the exam paper, I tend to fit in 400+ words. I do have smallish handwriting though.
Oh :O Do you leave line spaces for paragraphs?
Original post by suncake
I guess so. Thinking of examples off the top of your head is pretty hard in these situations.
Just wondering how long did it take you to write/type this? It's a whole 100 words longer than the one I just wrote in half an hour, haha. Did it fit on one side of A4?
Just wondering how long did it take you to write/type this? It's a whole 100 words longer than the one I just wrote in half an hour, haha. Did it fit on one side of A4?
Hey it took me 15 ish mins I timed myself half an hour. Did 15 mins planning as well. I used the print off from my the BMAT website for section 3 as the official thing to practise on since that's what i would be given in the real thing
My last essay I got almost 500 words in there, that's by starting a paragraph on the next line. I was purposely writing small to give myself lots of room should I cross stuff out. I've got a spare line.
I think I'll type it tomorrow, I've just been advising on this thread.
edit: I plan for 5 mins, and go as fast as I can.
I think I'll type it tomorrow, I've just been advising on this thread.
edit: I plan for 5 mins, and go as fast as I can.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by raveen789
Hey it took me 15 ish mins I timed myself half an hour. Did 15 mins planning as well. I used the print off from my the BMAT website for section 3 as the official thing to practise on since that's what i would be given in the real thing
Original post by Pride
My last essay I got almost 500 words in there, that's by starting a paragraph on the next line. I was purposely writing small to give myself lots of room should I cross stuff out. I've got a spare line.
I think I'll type it tomorrow, I've just been advising on this thread.
edit: I plan for 5 mins, and go as fast as I can.
I think I'll type it tomorrow, I've just been advising on this thread.
edit: I plan for 5 mins, and go as fast as I can.
Wow. Alright, I really need to think faster, write faster, and write smaller
Original post by Pride
My last essay I got almost 500 words in there, that's by starting a paragraph on the next line. I was purposely writing small to give myself lots of room should I cross stuff out. I've got a spare line.
I think I'll type it tomorrow, I've just been advising on this thread.
edit: I plan for 5 mins, and go as fast as I can.
I think I'll type it tomorrow, I've just been advising on this thread.
edit: I plan for 5 mins, and go as fast as I can.
I can't remember where I read it but if you write more than 500-600 words you get penalised for it? ( I think it was one of the examiner comments on the 400 qs book)
(before i begin i got 2A, which cut me short of imperial. i met the cut-off in all the other sections. according to the bmat examiners, i get a minimum of 3 for adressing every point of the question, without misunderstanding it. last year, i tried to give 'original' arguments. imperial do not care if i get above a 3. i will play it safe (though use good examples, and a compelling argument!). So i want an essay which adresses all parts of the argument, and uses solid (but safe!) arguments.
ESSAY 1:
"mapping the human genome has been compared with putting a man on the moon"
what do you understand with the statement above? explain why the study of genetics could be helpful in medicine. discuss the extent to which reliance on genetics may be dangerous ?
From what i understand, the statement implies that both the Human Genome Project, along with the first moon landing were both breakthroughs of the time, using human ingenuity, in addition to comprehensive teamwork and technology to achieve influential milestones in human history.
The study of genetics can enable us to gain a deeper insight into what causes many diseases. With this knowledge, we could tailor make medicines to suit a persons own genome, hence avoiding allergic reactions to medicines for instance. We could also locate genes which cause disease, and knowing which ones are responsible can be a stepping stone to finding cures for such conditions.
However, over reliance on genetics can effect society on a global scale. Viruses for instance, along with infections and illnesses with no genetic cause, can not be cured with only genetic knowledge of medicine;they require the knowledge of other scientific disciplines.
Hence, although there is a lot to benefit from genetics in medicine, it should be considered along side other disciplines to enable society to cope with a wide array of illness, be it genetic, or non genetic.
Essay 2
Write a unified essay in which you address the following:
What do you understand by the word 'effective" in the context of education? Explain how it might be argued that being taught is more effective than learning through discovery.
The term "effective" in the context of education could mean the manner of teaching which can enable a student to apply learnt knowledge in exams, whilst also gaining an appreciation, interest, and further curiosity in the subject.
Being taught is more effective than learning through discovery. For instance, a teacher has experience and knows how best to convey across complex concepts in the manner students can best understand, thus enabling them to apply this understanding during exams correctly. Self learning through discovery could lead to confusion or a mistake in comprehending simple concepts, which would cause problems when a student must apply these concepts to more complex questions requiring a correct knowledge of basic principles. A teacher with experience can lay out effective methods to ensure students can understand and apply concepts correctly, and with their watchful eye, can weed our any misunderstandings before they effect a student during examinations.
However,education is not just intended for passing exams. My definition of 'effective' also spans the level of a students appreciation and interest in their respective subject. Hence, teachers who are experts, passionate, and well learned in their respective subject can find effective ways to stimulate interest in a student for their subject, something a student learning through discovery may not get the time , or the exposure to do.
ESSAY 1:
"mapping the human genome has been compared with putting a man on the moon"
what do you understand with the statement above? explain why the study of genetics could be helpful in medicine. discuss the extent to which reliance on genetics may be dangerous ?
From what i understand, the statement implies that both the Human Genome Project, along with the first moon landing were both breakthroughs of the time, using human ingenuity, in addition to comprehensive teamwork and technology to achieve influential milestones in human history.
The study of genetics can enable us to gain a deeper insight into what causes many diseases. With this knowledge, we could tailor make medicines to suit a persons own genome, hence avoiding allergic reactions to medicines for instance. We could also locate genes which cause disease, and knowing which ones are responsible can be a stepping stone to finding cures for such conditions.
However, over reliance on genetics can effect society on a global scale. Viruses for instance, along with infections and illnesses with no genetic cause, can not be cured with only genetic knowledge of medicine;they require the knowledge of other scientific disciplines.
Hence, although there is a lot to benefit from genetics in medicine, it should be considered along side other disciplines to enable society to cope with a wide array of illness, be it genetic, or non genetic.
Essay 2
Write a unified essay in which you address the following:
What do you understand by the word 'effective" in the context of education? Explain how it might be argued that being taught is more effective than learning through discovery.
The term "effective" in the context of education could mean the manner of teaching which can enable a student to apply learnt knowledge in exams, whilst also gaining an appreciation, interest, and further curiosity in the subject.
Being taught is more effective than learning through discovery. For instance, a teacher has experience and knows how best to convey across complex concepts in the manner students can best understand, thus enabling them to apply this understanding during exams correctly. Self learning through discovery could lead to confusion or a mistake in comprehending simple concepts, which would cause problems when a student must apply these concepts to more complex questions requiring a correct knowledge of basic principles. A teacher with experience can lay out effective methods to ensure students can understand and apply concepts correctly, and with their watchful eye, can weed our any misunderstandings before they effect a student during examinations.
However,education is not just intended for passing exams. My definition of 'effective' also spans the level of a students appreciation and interest in their respective subject. Hence, teachers who are experts, passionate, and well learned in their respective subject can find effective ways to stimulate interest in a student for their subject, something a student learning through discovery may not get the time , or the exposure to do.
(edited 11 years ago)
Related discussions
- 6med BMAT
- bmat exam
- BMAT Section 3 | Post & Reflection | 2023 FINAL SESSION
- BMAT 2024 Entry Discussions Megathread
- BMAT 2023 entry discussions megathread *Updated 14th October 2022*
- BMAT Section 3 Essay
- Bmat cut off
- best revision tool for bmat
- Low UCAT - High BMAT (UCL, Imperial, Cambridge)
- BMAT section 3 tips?
- BMAT 2023 help
- Official: University of Leeds A100 2023 entry Applicants and Offer Holders thread
- How long to prepare for the BMAT?
- What were the BMAT essay questions for 2023 again?
- Changing an option on UCAS from medicine to biological sciences
- Buckingham PreMed exams
- KCL Dentistry 2025 Entry
- EPQ - my dilemma
- resitting my Gcse
- Plovdiv Medical Uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
