Gamsat Distribution of Marks

**Bakkur** · 21-11-2007, 01:50 AM

Ah, thank you for that. The supplied graph is pretty hard to decipher clearly...
This is pretty interesting. This year there seem to have been more high scores than the last two. So I guess it was easier?

(hello, new poster, just found this forum)

**Imhotep** · 21-11-2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Bakkur

Ah, thank you for that. The supplied graph is pretty hard to decipher clearly...
This is pretty interesting. This year there seem to have been more high scores than the last two. So I guess it was easier?

(hello, new poster, just found this forum)

I did a quick analysis of the data from 2006 (from the graph provided on this thread) and the average (mean) was 58. This time round the average was 55.5 - so in actual fact the scores, on average, were lower - it's just that the spread of scores is wider this year (with some people scoring much high and others scoring much lower than the results shown on the 2006 graph).

Draw from that what inferences you will (but given the approximate nature of the data no estimate of statistical significance can be made).

Stephen

**AkumA** · 21-08-2009, 03:53 PM

what does a score of 60/75 in section 1 equate to a gamsat score for section 1?

**AimsRJ** · 21-08-2009, 04:32 PM

I'm afraid the scoring system isnt known. It is very roughly approximate to % score I believe but there is no way of knowing how to predict scores.

**astronaut** · 01-07-2010, 12:40 PM

Approximate centiles for UK GAMSAT, September 2009:

5th - 44
10th - 46
20th - 49
25th - 51
40th - 53
50th (median) - approx. 55.5
60th - 58
75th - 60
80th - 62
90th - 65
95th - 67

**md-4-me** · 24-07-2010, 04:24 AM

Hey astronaut!

Where did you get those numbers from, it's soooo different from what I've seen. I mean, the median, I agree with, but the spread: keeping in mind that the GAMSAT is on a scale of 100, the idea that 67 is the 95th percentile seems strange (surely I could be wrong but I'm just wondering about your source??).

Thanks!

**md-4-me** · 24-07-2010, 04:32 AM

Sorry! I read the graph wrong. Your numbers make sense.

**astronaut** · 26-07-2010, 04:34 PM

Sorry, I should have made it clear: these aren't from ACER, I just superimposed a normal distribution over the curve that they supplied with the results.