I remember sitting in front of my computer, in the dead of night. The GAMSAT was a few months away. Medical school felt like just a dream. Section 2. Essays.
"Urgh."
I was dreading it. In the end, Section 2 was easily my best section. I scored 88, in the top 0.1% of all GAMSAT sitters. Truly though, without one single tip, I don't think I would have scored anything near that. This article is for everyone that feels equally as lost for S2.
In my experience of mentoring 1,300+ students for the GAMSAT, every single student has the same problem in their first few essays I review. The writing feels so... fake. It's rigid, robotic, and anything but natural. It feels like people have been forced at gunpoint to sit and write an essay with the most majestical language they can conjure. It comes from a widely accepted myth that good writing is that which uses "big" and "complicated" words you might find in a thesaurus. This, many students believe, is the key to expressing your "intellect" to the marker and ensuring they are aware of your breadth of vocabulary.
This, of course, could not be further from the truth.
The reality is that Section 2 is not a test of your writing. If it was, then every single journalist in the country would quit their jobs and apply for medicine. It's a test of you. A test of your character. A test of your capability as a potential medical school candidate.
You see, as many of you have been quick to point out, there is absolutely no link between writing eloquent essays about Capitalism in Task A and a proficient medical school student. Completely different skill sets, right? Exactly. Your biggest mistake is thinking Section 2 is a test of your writing ability. Why would ACER, or any medical school, really, truly care about how much you know any economic theory, political ideology, or ancient philosopher?
So now, I'm sure, you're more confused than you were before you opened this article. So what is S2 testing you on?
A Pseudo Interview
In 2021, the University of Sydney boldly made the decision to permanently remove interviews from their Medical School application process. Yet in the same year, the NSW-based institution decided to use its own, proprietary ranking system using GAMSAT scores. Thanks to hours of research and number crunching from Discord and Reddit users alike, we have a rough idea of how it works: a huge weighting placed on S1 and S2, and minimal weighting on S3.
So why, unlike most other medical schools which give S3 an extra weighting, did USyd make this call? And is it a coincidence that this unique ranking system was changed in the same year they removed interviews? Not at all.
USyd realised what the best Section 2 students have known for a while: that S2, essentially, is a pseudo-interview. It tests and evaluates the same qualities that an interview would. Whether or not you, as a candidate, can exhibit the personal qualities of a moral, compassionate, and proficient doctor.
See this sample paragraph below. Pay attention to the way attributes of compassion and empathy are embedded into this essay on cynicism.
"It seems to me that individuals who are increasingly cynical to those who have previously wronged them tend to limit their capacity for forgiveness and growth. It is, it must be said, a fairly natural response to distrust someone that has wronged us. It is, evolutionarily speaking, a critical component of our psyche, so as to learn from past betrayals and conflict and ensure we sustain survival. To that extent however it appears to me likely that this kind of evolutionary instinct is particularly limiting in a 21st century contemporary West that is fairly civilised. Sure, a natural response to a bad experience. But wherein do we account for the learning and reformation that can emerge from such difficult interactions? To be cynical is to be pessimistic. It's a kind of worldview which assumes the worst in humanity and honestly, fair enough. Slavery, colonialism and greed. Characteristics that embodied even the most "liberal" and "free" civilisations of the West. We can't knock the instinctive human desire to act with a level of self-interest and lack of integrity. Yet whilst this is the easy choice, it isn't especially the smartest. It seems to me that relationships, especially with close family and friends, require a degree of openness to forgiveness to stand a chance of progressing. Conflict, after all, is inevitable. Betrayal too, is only an argument away. Yet if we give up on each other and simply assume the worst, wherein can we engage in meaningful reconciliation? Indeed, 18th century philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau spoke widely in his treatise Emile on the inherent goodness of man. Whilst these sentiments are traditionally upheld by the Christian faith too, it seems to me to be a more productive way to view the world. The horrors of humanity's past seem to haunt us like a Dickensian Christmas Past. It's the recognition of these horrors that we establish a more cynical view of our peers, family and friends. My girlfriend of 3 years and I have been in so many arguments, I've lost count. I promise, they weren't all my fault. Even still however, it's an underlying trust and willingness to believe the other person that has allowed us to resolve issues every time. The second either of us were to fall suspicious or cynical, would spell the end to our relationship. Cynicism kills. Trust and forgiveness flourish."
Unsure what an exemplar S2 essay looks like? Check out the Expert Essay Collection for 25 top-percentile essays so you can model ideas, structure and evidence.
