This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- BMAT Medicine 2024
- Medicine uni suggestions
- Do I need to do the BMAT to get an interview ?
- Low Ucat advice for med uni
- GCSE
- Bmat cut off
- BMAT Isc medical 700 questions book
- Does BSMS look at bmat score when deciding your ranking after the interview?
- BMAT plz help me
- BMAT - Will a low BMAT score affect your application to non-BMAT universities?
- Medical schools application advice
- Do Universities Care About How Many Times You've Resat Your IGCSEs
- how do you choose where to go for university?
- Oxford medicine ?
- Medicine entry 2024
- is it still worth taking the BMAT
- Problems accessing my BMAT results
- Medical elective in Phillipines
- BMAT 2023 help
- Will I be taking the BMAT?
The Big Medicine BMAT 2012 Entry Megathread: Discussion and Questions
Scroll to see replies
Original post by purplefrog
The log in you have allows you to access your score. Though I'm sure your centre's manager or admin officer can access all applicant's scores from within that centre, but not you 
yeah my teacher keeps rubbing that in our faces that although she couldnt see our ukcat results she will see our BMAT ones before us....horrible...i can just see her smug face!!
Original post by cheesecake123
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone (Charles Darwin)
The statement put forward by Darwin says that a scientist or doctor should practise science with no interference of emotions in their task. They should focus on it completely with a methodical approach and there is no room for one's own beliefs to be involved.
Darwin is right in some respects that when scientists are proving a hypothesis, they should not allow their personal beliefs or those of others to interfere. For example, Darwin had been working on the theory of evolution, having a wife who strongly believes in creationism. However this did not discourage him from proving his theory to be valid, and thus it is now one of the most accepted scientific theories. In addition, if doctors treat patients using their own personal beliefs, this could lead to inequality. For example, if a GP meets a patient who is in a similar situation to one the doctor has been in himself, there is a chance of the GP becoming emotional attached and offering better treatment. This leads to an unjust healthcare system as the limited amount of resources is not shared fairly.
On the other hand, doctors can not diagnose and treat patients based on their physical symptoms alone. They must care for a patient with a holistic approach, considering the patients' mental wellbeing as well. For example, it is no good if a doctor treats a terminally ill patient by relieving the physical symptoms using painkillers. The emotional state of the patient must also be taken into account; support and comfort needs to be provided to the patient and the family so that the patient's suffering is alleviated both physically and mentally.
So in order to reconcile these competing concerns, doctors should treat patients considering their physical, mental and spiritual health, putting their scientific knowledge but having empathy at the same time. As for scientists, although they should not let emotions inhibit their work, they should still have a sense of determination and perseverance to find the answer. If scientists did not embrace these two characteristics, it would have been impossible for so many of theories we have now to be existence and science would not have advanced to the point at where it is now.
Sorry for reposting, but i would really appreciate some constructive criticism
The statement put forward by Darwin says that a scientist or doctor should practise science with no interference of emotions in their task. They should focus on it completely with a methodical approach and there is no room for one's own beliefs to be involved.
Darwin is right in some respects that when scientists are proving a hypothesis, they should not allow their personal beliefs or those of others to interfere. For example, Darwin had been working on the theory of evolution, having a wife who strongly believes in creationism. However this did not discourage him from proving his theory to be valid, and thus it is now one of the most accepted scientific theories. In addition, if doctors treat patients using their own personal beliefs, this could lead to inequality. For example, if a GP meets a patient who is in a similar situation to one the doctor has been in himself, there is a chance of the GP becoming emotional attached and offering better treatment. This leads to an unjust healthcare system as the limited amount of resources is not shared fairly.
On the other hand, doctors can not diagnose and treat patients based on their physical symptoms alone. They must care for a patient with a holistic approach, considering the patients' mental wellbeing as well. For example, it is no good if a doctor treats a terminally ill patient by relieving the physical symptoms using painkillers. The emotional state of the patient must also be taken into account; support and comfort needs to be provided to the patient and the family so that the patient's suffering is alleviated both physically and mentally.
So in order to reconcile these competing concerns, doctors should treat patients considering their physical, mental and spiritual health, putting their scientific knowledge but having empathy at the same time. As for scientists, although they should not let emotions inhibit their work, they should still have a sense of determination and perseverance to find the answer. If scientists did not embrace these two characteristics, it would have been impossible for so many of theories we have now to be existence and science would not have advanced to the point at where it is now.
Sorry for reposting, but i would really appreciate some constructive criticism
Hi that's really good i looked at the title of the essay and was like what ....
I was thinking maybe you can also mention a tiny bit about homoeopathy i honestly don't know if its worth mentioning but an idea. Its really good
The overall average is the 5 range for both Sections 1 and 2
That for Section 3 is 3A
( Also, 7 is considered an exceptional score, just saying)
That for Section 3 is 3A
( Also, 7 is considered an exceptional score, just saying)
A little off topic question, sorry
Does anyone know how Cambridge uses the BMAT in the admissions process?
Does anyone know how Cambridge uses the BMAT in the admissions process?
Criticism needed. Thanks
You must be honest and open and act with integrity.
UK General Medical Council, Good Medical Practice 2006
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?
The statement suggests that a good doctor is one that reveals all information to the patient without any distortions or omissions whatsoever.
This is important because in most cases patients need to make crucial decisions concerning their health and course of medical treatment. In order to this and yield results they are prepared for, patients should understand past and current medical treatments and their effects. A good doctor would make sure a patient knows everything and informed decisions are made. If anything is to go wrong, patients have already been made aware of such possibilities and are prepared.
However, there are circumstances where revealing all information would be more harmful than helpful. Doctors are human and are bound to make mistakes but if these mistakes are righted then patients may not need to know they occurred. For example giving a wrong drug dosage and later correcting it before harm occurs. Revealing such a mistake that has not harmed the patient may lead to the patient’s trust in medical practitioners being shaken or even lost. This can be dangerous because a patient may stop seeking medical help from practitioners. In these situations the patient should instead be encouraged to monitor their condition and report any unusual experiences.
In conclusion, a good doctor should strive to be as honest and open as possible and act with integrity but if mistakes are made that do not and will not harm the patient then there is justification in doctors being less than perfectly open and honest.
You must be honest and open and act with integrity.
UK General Medical Council, Good Medical Practice 2006
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?
The statement suggests that a good doctor is one that reveals all information to the patient without any distortions or omissions whatsoever.
This is important because in most cases patients need to make crucial decisions concerning their health and course of medical treatment. In order to this and yield results they are prepared for, patients should understand past and current medical treatments and their effects. A good doctor would make sure a patient knows everything and informed decisions are made. If anything is to go wrong, patients have already been made aware of such possibilities and are prepared.
However, there are circumstances where revealing all information would be more harmful than helpful. Doctors are human and are bound to make mistakes but if these mistakes are righted then patients may not need to know they occurred. For example giving a wrong drug dosage and later correcting it before harm occurs. Revealing such a mistake that has not harmed the patient may lead to the patient’s trust in medical practitioners being shaken or even lost. This can be dangerous because a patient may stop seeking medical help from practitioners. In these situations the patient should instead be encouraged to monitor their condition and report any unusual experiences.
In conclusion, a good doctor should strive to be as honest and open as possible and act with integrity but if mistakes are made that do not and will not harm the patient then there is justification in doctors being less than perfectly open and honest.
guys i just have a question about the bmat. I heard that they have introduced a question for vets, but if I am a medical applicat can I still answer the vets question (if I feel that I can answer it most confidently) or will I be penalised for doing so?
Original post by Nnuunnuu
guys i just have a question about the bmat. I heard that they have introduced a question for vets, but if I am a medical applicat can I still answer the vets question (if I feel that I can answer it most confidently) or will I be penalised for doing so?
You can choose to answer any one of the four questions they provide, so the answer to your question is yes.
Original post by Tench
A little off topic question, sorry
Does anyone know how Cambridge uses the BMAT in the admissions process?
Does anyone know how Cambridge uses the BMAT in the admissions process?
Depends on the College you've applied to.
Original post by Insanity514
Depends on the College you've applied to.
Girton (again, sorry to go off topic)
People injured whilst participating in extreme sports should not be treated by a publicly funded health service.
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Suggest an argument against this statement. To what extent, if any, does the statement justify a change in public attitudes to personal risk taking?
This statement implies that people who carry out tasks that have a high risk of injury shouldn’t have their treatments subsidised. Even though they knew that what they were doing could injure them, they ignored all the risks and now need the public health service to heal them at the expense of other taxpayers who haven’t carried out such risky tasks.
Extreme sports carry a high risk of injury compared to most other careers, such as teaching. Participants would require, on average, more medical attention than people working in other fields. So, even though extreme sport’s participants and people working in other careers contribute equally, people working in extreme sports would require, on average, more resources and time per person.
However, many everyday tasks have many risks attached to them. For example, driving may cause a person to have a car crash, but even though he knew the risks, he chose to ignore them. In fact, everything we do provides a health risk, from a walk in the park to having lunch at a restaurant. Does that mean that we shouldn’t them them through the NHS? Furthermore, extreme sports participants are also taxpayers and contribute to the funding of the NHS, so it would be unfair to single them out as the only group to not receive treatments.
Overall, this statement doesn’t justify a change in public attitudes towards personal risk taking. At first glance, the statement seems quite clear in what we should think about when treating people. However, on further analysis, it’s difficult, or perhaps impossible, to draw a line where someone would qualify for a treatment depending on the risk of the action which inflicted the injury.
Criticism needed please.
+rep for anyone who critiques its.
PS. If you can give a score out of 5, please do
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Suggest an argument against this statement. To what extent, if any, does the statement justify a change in public attitudes to personal risk taking?
This statement implies that people who carry out tasks that have a high risk of injury shouldn’t have their treatments subsidised. Even though they knew that what they were doing could injure them, they ignored all the risks and now need the public health service to heal them at the expense of other taxpayers who haven’t carried out such risky tasks.
Extreme sports carry a high risk of injury compared to most other careers, such as teaching. Participants would require, on average, more medical attention than people working in other fields. So, even though extreme sport’s participants and people working in other careers contribute equally, people working in extreme sports would require, on average, more resources and time per person.
However, many everyday tasks have many risks attached to them. For example, driving may cause a person to have a car crash, but even though he knew the risks, he chose to ignore them. In fact, everything we do provides a health risk, from a walk in the park to having lunch at a restaurant. Does that mean that we shouldn’t them them through the NHS? Furthermore, extreme sports participants are also taxpayers and contribute to the funding of the NHS, so it would be unfair to single them out as the only group to not receive treatments.
Overall, this statement doesn’t justify a change in public attitudes towards personal risk taking. At first glance, the statement seems quite clear in what we should think about when treating people. However, on further analysis, it’s difficult, or perhaps impossible, to draw a line where someone would qualify for a treatment depending on the risk of the action which inflicted the injury.
Criticism needed please.
+rep for anyone who critiques its.
PS. If you can give a score out of 5, please do
Hi,
I have made an open application to Cambridge for medicine, and I've been allocated Magdalene college. On their website it says that they typically " require grades A, A in Sections I and II of the BMAT, though A, B, or B, A, especially where the B is high, will be considered".
the current bmat system is numerical, with scores from 1-9 for sections 1 and 2. So, could anyone please let me know how I can convert the "A" to a score? I'm unaware of what score it is that they require.
Thank you for your help!
here's the website if anyone wants to have a look at it (the info for the bmat is near the bottom):
http://www.magd.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying/subjects/medicine.html
I have made an open application to Cambridge for medicine, and I've been allocated Magdalene college. On their website it says that they typically " require grades A, A in Sections I and II of the BMAT, though A, B, or B, A, especially where the B is high, will be considered".
the current bmat system is numerical, with scores from 1-9 for sections 1 and 2. So, could anyone please let me know how I can convert the "A" to a score? I'm unaware of what score it is that they require.
Thank you for your help!
here's the website if anyone wants to have a look at it (the info for the bmat is near the bottom):
http://www.magd.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying/subjects/medicine.html
(edited 12 years ago)
http://www.admissionstests.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/adt/digitalAssets/109101_BMAT_Section_2.pdf
Can someone explain 13 and 15 please?
Can someone explain 13 and 15 please?
http://www.admissionstests.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/adt/digitalAssets/123910_BMAT_Section_2_2010.pdf
Could someone also explain 15 on this one please?
Could someone also explain 15 on this one please?
can someone help me with a physics question (question 9 section 2). cheers, http://www.admissionstests.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/adt/digitalAssets/109564_BMAT_Introductory_Specimen_Paper.pdf
Original post by Tench
Girton (again, sorry to go off topic)
Dunno much about Girton
You can always email them.Colleges like trinity and st john's use bmat before interview and only interview candidates in the top quartiles using the bmat, whilst other colleges may use the bmat after interview.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=34065661&highlight=
^ there's a small thread on this
(edited 12 years ago)
It varies, but you can expect an A to be over 6 with a B being between a low(ish) 5 and the threshold for an A I believe.
Yeh I assumed, an A would be over 6, but still, I'm unsure
Original post by meowinglex
Hi that's really good i looked at the title of the essay and was like what ....
I was thinking maybe you can also mention a tiny bit about homoeopathy i honestly don't know if its worth mentioning but an idea. Its really good
I was thinking maybe you can also mention a tiny bit about homoeopathy i honestly don't know if its worth mentioning but an idea. Its really good
thaaank you soo much! i just needed to know what someone else thought. but thank you for the suggestion as well. yeaaaahh cos homeopaths focus on the patients' physical, mental and emotional state when diagnosing. When looking at patients' histories, they also look at any physical or emotional illnesses the patient may have suffered from.
brilliant
Original post by soulcrasher
People injured whilst participating in extreme sports should not be treated by a publicly funded health service.
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Suggest an argument against this statement. To what extent, if any, does the statement justify a change in public attitudes to personal risk taking?
This statement implies that people who carry out tasks that have a high risk of injury shouldn’t have their treatments subsidised. Even though they knew that what they were doing could injure them, they ignored all the risks and now need the public health service to heal them at the expense of other taxpayers who haven’t carried out such risky tasks.
Extreme sports carry a high risk of injury compared to most other careers, such as teaching. Participants would require, on average, more medical attention than people working in other fields. So, even though extreme sport’s participants and people working in other careers contribute equally, people working in extreme sports would require, on average, more resources and time per person.
However, many everyday tasks have many risks attached to them. For example, driving may cause a person to have a car crash, but even though he knew the risks, he chose to ignore them. In fact, everything we do provides a health risk, from a walk in the park to having lunch at a restaurant. Does that mean that we shouldn’t them them through the NHS? Furthermore, extreme sports participants are also taxpayers and contribute to the funding of the NHS, so it would be unfair to single them out as the only group to not receive treatments.
Overall, this statement doesn’t justify a change in public attitudes towards personal risk taking. At first glance, the statement seems quite clear in what we should think about when treating people. However, on further analysis, it’s difficult, or perhaps impossible, to draw a line where someone would qualify for a treatment depending on the risk of the action which inflicted the injury.
Criticism needed please.
+rep for anyone who critiques its.
PS. If you can give a score out of 5, please do
Explain the reasoning behind this statement. Suggest an argument against this statement. To what extent, if any, does the statement justify a change in public attitudes to personal risk taking?
This statement implies that people who carry out tasks that have a high risk of injury shouldn’t have their treatments subsidised. Even though they knew that what they were doing could injure them, they ignored all the risks and now need the public health service to heal them at the expense of other taxpayers who haven’t carried out such risky tasks.
Extreme sports carry a high risk of injury compared to most other careers, such as teaching. Participants would require, on average, more medical attention than people working in other fields. So, even though extreme sport’s participants and people working in other careers contribute equally, people working in extreme sports would require, on average, more resources and time per person.
However, many everyday tasks have many risks attached to them. For example, driving may cause a person to have a car crash, but even though he knew the risks, he chose to ignore them. In fact, everything we do provides a health risk, from a walk in the park to having lunch at a restaurant. Does that mean that we shouldn’t them them through the NHS? Furthermore, extreme sports participants are also taxpayers and contribute to the funding of the NHS, so it would be unfair to single them out as the only group to not receive treatments.
Overall, this statement doesn’t justify a change in public attitudes towards personal risk taking. At first glance, the statement seems quite clear in what we should think about when treating people. However, on further analysis, it’s difficult, or perhaps impossible, to draw a line where someone would qualify for a treatment depending on the risk of the action which inflicted the injury.
Criticism needed please.
+rep for anyone who critiques its.
PS. If you can give a score out of 5, please do
Well it is definitely very good, but you could justify the argument using more examples perhaps, or just make another point supporting the statement. e.g. you could say that the money spent to treat those few people who take part in extreme sports could be used to benefit a larger group of people such as people suffering from diabetes or heart disease.
the argument against is good though
you could perhaps also include the argument of smokers being aware of the consequences from smoking, yet the NHS still has to pay for their treatment. same for alcohol-related illnesses. so if smokers and alcoholics receive free treatment, then there is no reason for why extreme sports players should not be allowed.hope this helps
Original post by meowinglex
Your telling me!
I have so much to do and my eyes just keep sliding to
the abandoned BMAT book sitting alone on the corner of my desk.
¬_¬ So stressed out
I have so much to do and my eyes just keep sliding to
the abandoned BMAT book sitting alone on the corner of my desk.
¬_¬ So stressed out
I cannot wait for next week to be over and done with. I swear I´m going to spend all of next weekend doing absolutely nothing. I´m going to get up really late, stay in my PJ´s all day long, watch all of the shows I´ve been putting off, do my nails all pretty and then resume doing nothing again. Yup.
Related discussions
- BMAT Medicine 2024
- Medicine uni suggestions
- Do I need to do the BMAT to get an interview ?
- Low Ucat advice for med uni
- GCSE
- Bmat cut off
- BMAT Isc medical 700 questions book
- Does BSMS look at bmat score when deciding your ranking after the interview?
- BMAT plz help me
- BMAT - Will a low BMAT score affect your application to non-BMAT universities?
- Medical schools application advice
- Do Universities Care About How Many Times You've Resat Your IGCSEs
- how do you choose where to go for university?
- Oxford medicine ?
- Medicine entry 2024
- is it still worth taking the BMAT
- Problems accessing my BMAT results
- Medical elective in Phillipines
- BMAT 2023 help
- Will I be taking the BMAT?
Latest
Last reply 13 minutes ago
Zoom to Zoology? Uni open days, applications & more 2021-Present - a parents takePosted 21 minutes ago
What'll happen if a uni told me that my application is given to other schools?Posted 22 minutes ago
So I made the worst decision of my life. I chose Biochemistry as my degree.Last reply 25 minutes ago
Deloitte Graduate Scheme 2024Last reply 56 minutes ago
Meeting Uni requirements via college AND GCSELast reply 1 hour ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 hours ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
