BMAT for 2017 Entry Discussion

I'm really stuck on this question:


By how much will the total rent for Covenant Mansion rise (from its previous full occupancy amount) if the renovations are completed?

A £875 B £900 C £1,225 D £1,400

I keep getting the answer 2625 which is obviously not one of the options - is there something really simple I'm missing here?

Hi guys, I just did the specimen paper and got unusually high, I got 26/35 in S1 but I normally get around 18-20, has anyone done it and found it very easy?

Does anyone know how much emphasis Leeds put on Bmat results for dentistry applicants?
Thanks


Posted from TSR Mobile

For initial shortlisting for interview, it's an overall 40 points.

27 points come from GCSE/AS grades (whichever one is better is put forward to the score). 9A* or AAA at AS gets a full 27/27

8 points for predictions (everyone will get 8, since you need AAA for 8, and the requirements are AAA, so yeah).

5 points for BMAT. To get 5, you'd need a combined score of 14.7 (last year anyway).
That would average to 5.6, 5.6, 3.5A.

For initial shortlisting for interview, it's an overall 40 points.

27 points come from GCSE/AS grades (whichever one is better is put forward to the score). 9A* or AAA at AS gets a full 27/27

8 points for predictions (everyone will get 8, since you need AAA for 8, and the requirements are AAA, so yeah).

5 points for BMAT. To get 5, you'd need a combined score of 14.7 (last year anyway).
That would average to 5.6, 5.6, 3.5A.

Wait are the personal statements not included within the scoring system? Also I know I probably sound stupid but if there is a max of 8 points for predictions, 5 Bmat and 27 grades then that makes 40. So do they want you to achieve full marks in everything to get an interview because that would assume you scored full marks in each section!
Or maybe I've just completely misunderstood what you said...


Posted from TSR Mobile

No, you don't have to score full marks. People are ranked in order of their points. Personal statements are then read starting from the top applicants to bottom, and those with good ones are invited to interview. This repeats until all offers have been given.

Can anyone give me any tips for this essay I wrote? It is the first one I've done so it's pretty bad tbh, the question was "should doctors always maintain confidentiality and probity". We had to write about why probity Is important for doctors and circumstances where confidentiality must be breached. Thanks!!!


Probity is defined as being honest and transparent in your dealings with people. It, along with confidentiality, are core values of medical practice and are expected by the vast majority, including the GMC. Probity itself is an integral quality for doctors to possess as patients go to them with extraordinary amounts of trust. Anything less than complete honesty could weaken the doctor-patient relationship so patients may not reveal everything in future cases, which could lead to misdiagnosis. Loss of probity on a larger scale may lead to a general lack of faith in all medical practitioners and the NHS as a whole, which would be catastrophic if people are unwilling to accept care due to lack of trust.

It can be recognised, however, that there are certain situations where revealing confidential patient information is a necessity. For example, in England and Wales, if a child under 16 will not consent to a beneficial procedure it is the doctors mandate to fully inform the parents and get their consent instead, even if this goes against the childs right to confidentiality. In addition, if a vulnerable person is identified as being at risk e.g. Of abuse, the Doctor must breach their trust and report it to social services, abiding by the rule of benevolence in the hippocratic oath. There are also cases such as with infectious disease which must always be reported to the relevant authority e.g. If someone is diagnosed with TB.

In conclusion, doctors should always act with probity and maintain confidentiality unless regulations mean that a breach is necessary for the safety of the patient or those around them.

I think the answer is A. I did what I presume you have done as well, which was to add the new rents together rather than seeing the difference between the old rent and the new rent

1A Initial cost : £600
Final cost : 600x1.5 = £900
So £300 gained

2C initial cost £450
Final cost £450 x 1.5 = £675
So £225 gained

3B initial cost £700
Final cost £700 x 1.5 = £1050
So £350 gained

£300 + £225 + £350 = £875

Please may I ask for some constructive feedback on essay below?

A little learning is a dangerous thing. Explain what you think the author means by this statement. Advance an argument against the statement above i.e., in support of the proposition. What do you think determines whether or not learning can be dangerous thing.

The author suggests that knowledge should be fully attained whenever possible and that learning can only be considered useful if the learner is fully aware of all the related topics regarding a study.

Those that agree with the author argue lack of knowledge can often result in bad decisions with negative consequences. A little learning may also lead to invalid conclusions. When undergoing treatment, a patient must be fully aware of their condition and must give informed consent to any form of treatment. Without informed consent, a patient may undergo a certain form of treatment without realising the potential risks involved such as chemotherapy.

However, it can be argued by followers of deontological ethics that the act of learning and gaining knowledge is intrinsically good. The extent of which this knowledge is insignificant. Any form of learning can be seen as self development and hence this should not be discouraged.

In conclusion, although learning may be considered as a form of self growth; I believe knowledge should always be attained to the fullest before committing any action. Actions should only be committed after fully learning about the topic otherwise society would be based on people reaching invalid conclusions due to 'little learning'.

This isn't a real BMAT question, is it?
There'd be sub-questions underneath the statement that tells you what to discuss, but since yours doesn't have it, it's hard to give a score. You've got an A for quality of English though.

IT is in the 900Q book, those two things I mentioned were the things we had to discuss, and okay thanks anyway aha

Was that the full question?

Well if you've discussed everything it's said to, I'd probably give it 4A. I was just concerned that you may have not answered everything.

It's alright and yeah I answered every part made sure of that. Thanks! I'm pretty happy with that for first one. Any improvements?

Please can someone score this essay? This section is the bane of my life.

When treating an individual patient, a physician must also think of the wider society.

Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that a doctor should only consider the individual he/she is treating at the time. With respect to medical treatments, to what extent can a patient's interest differ from those of the wider population?

This statement considers the notion that certain treatments provided by a doctor (to a patient) may have negative or beneficial impacts to society. The physician must make certain that the most pertinent choice is selected. Such scenarios, such as antibiotic treatments may dispel the infection of the patient with ease, but on the other hand, there is the possibility the patient may not take the full course and consequently contribute to antibiotic resistance; which would indirectly kill many in society. Moreover, patients may refuse treatments that may help them become employable again, in order to help their self-esteem, such as refusing amputation that would stop chronic pain. The physician must consider the possible welfare costs that this patient may accumulate

However, a doctor must always strive to put the wellbeing of a patient first, as mentioned in GMC guidelines. In instances, such as expensive neurosurgery, the costs to society (via the NHS) will inevitably be high, but without it, the patient will likely not survive. Given the Hippocratic oath that many doctors swear by, when a patient is in grave danger, those costs to society may have to be overwritten in favour of the patient's health.

Lastly, an individual patient may prefer to have prescription to costly drugs that are uneccessary for treatment, but useful for his convenience. The wider population would naturally prefer the patient to have conventional treatment, rather than an expensive one. Some patients may also be ex-alcoholics that require liver transplants, but there'd be patients without an alcoholic past who'd require it too. Society would would again favour the the non-alcoholic patient, as he'd likely take better care of the organ, but again, the physician has to decide logically, despite his commitments to the patient, who should receive the liver.

A conclusion isn't necessary in the BMAT if all parts of the question have been answered. It's a waste of the scarce lines you get.

Please can someone score this essay? This section is the bane of my life.

When treating an individual patient, a physician must also think of the wider society.

Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Argue that a doctor should only consider the individual he/she is treating at the time. With respect to medical treatments, to what extent can a patient's interest differ from those of the wider population?

This statement considers the notion that certain treatments provided by a doctor (to a patient) may have negative or beneficial impacts to society. The physician must make certain that the most pertinent choice is selected. Such scenarios, such as antibiotic treatments may dispel the infection of the patient with ease, but on the other hand, there is the possibility the patient may not take the full course and consequently contribute to antibiotic resistance; which would indirectly kill many in society. Moreover, patients may refuse treatments that may help them become employable again, in order to help their self-esteem, such as refusing amputation that would stop chronic pain. The physician must consider the possible welfare costs that this patient may accumulate

However, a doctor must always strive to put the wellbeing of a patient first, as mentioned in GMC guidelines. In instances, such as expensive neurosurgery, the costs to society (via the NHS) will inevitably be high, but without it, the patient will likely not survive. Given the Hippocratic oath that many doctors swear by, when a patient is in grave danger, those costs to society may have to be overwritten in favour of the patient's health.

Lastly, an individual patient may prefer to have prescription to costly drugs that are uneccessary for treatment, but useful for his convenience. The wider population would naturally prefer the patient to have conventional treatment, rather than an expensive one. Some patients may also be ex-alcoholics that require liver transplants, but there'd be patients without an alcoholic past who'd require it too. Society would would again favour the the non-alcoholic patient, as he'd likely take better care of the organ, but again, the physician has to decide logically, despite his commitments to the patient, who should receive the liver.

Hi guys, I just did the specimen paper and got unusually high, I got 26/35 in S1 but I normally get around 18-20, has anyone done it and found it very easy?