The yearly CASPer guide is back for 2026, rewritten again. New section on scope this year.

Long post incoming, grab a coffee. I'm a postgrad MD student at University of Melbourne, and I put this out annually. Last year I rewrote the whole thing to make the answers more realistic and less wall-of-text terrifying. This year I've kept that, added a proper section on scope (the most underrated skill in CASPer prep), and updated everything for the current format.

Format changes (current for 2026)

65-85 minutes total (down from 90-110)

11 scenarios: 4 video-response, 7 typed-response

2 questions per scenario (typed used to have 3)

Typed responses scored individually per question, not per scenario

3.5 minutes per typed scenario (down from 5)

That individual scoring point is the one most people miss. The old "I skipped question 3 and still got Q4" stories are effectively dead. Each question has its own mark now. Skipping one is genuinely costly. Time management is not a nice-to-have, it is the foundation of your strategy.

Should you sit it?

I hear people talk themselves out of CASPer every year because they're not seriously considering UNDS or UoW. And year after year, those same people wish they'd sat it once EODs come out. It's cheap compared to GAMSAT, results land well before MMI season (so it functions as a real check-in on your situational judgement), and a CSP offer from UNDS sitting in your back pocket beats an EOD every single time. More options are always better than fewer. You can try and game the system with UWA's GPA changes, or different weightings of bonuses, sure, they all matter, but in the same vein, so does having extra metrics (such as CASPer!).

Typing speed matters more than people admit

The first thing you should do before any scenario practice is find out your words-per-minute. Go to 10fastfingers.com right now, it takes under a minute. Your WPM is not a footnote, it is the ceiling on everything else. A thoughtful, nuanced answer you can't physically get out in time scores nothing.

Here is what your WPM actually means in practice:

Under 55 WPM: you are in genuine trouble and this is where you start. Filler words, scene-setting sentences, and throat-clearing openers are luxuries you cannot afford. Every sentence needs to either hit a tenet or demonstrate critical thinking. Dot-point style answers under timed pressure are worth practising. No amount of scenario knowledge fixes a mechanical bottleneck.

55 to 80 WPM: you have workable throughput. Your focus should be on structure and the quality of your reasoning rather than speed. You can write in full sentences comfortably, but you still need to be deliberate about not over-explaining your first point at the expense of your second.

80+ WPM: you have a genuine advantage. At this speed you can either use the extra capacity for more expansive answers, or bank it as thinking time before you start typing. My own WPM sits above 150, which meant I consistently had time to pause, re-read the scenario, and reconsider my framing before submitting. That is not a small edge.

If you want to improve, typeracer.com is the best tool for it. You race against other people in real time, which creates actual pressure rather than the hollow feeling of solo drills. A focused week of practice can move most people 10 to 20 WPM, and that compounds across every question in the exam.

Time management within a scenario

3.5 minutes for two questions sounds workable. It isn't, if you drift. The split that holds up best: roughly 30 seconds reading and framing both questions before you type a single word, then about 90 seconds per question.

The principle to keep front of mind is diminishing returns. The tenth sentence you add to a question you've already answered well earns you almost nothing. That same time spent starting a fresh answer on Q2 earns you a full new mark. Every extra word on a completed question is competing against unearned marks sitting on the next one. Move on deliberately, not reluctantly.

The skill most students underestimate: scope

Before you even think about empathy, ethics, or problem solving, you have to be answering the right question. This is where I see the biggest gap between Q2/Q3 students and Q4 students, and it almost never gets talked about.

Scope is about correctly identifying what kind of problem the scenario is actually presenting. Most students read a scenario, latch onto the most obvious surface conflict, and answer that. The issue is that the surface conflict is often not what's being tested.

A classic example. You're a team leader and a colleague has been consistently missing deadlines and their work quality has slipped noticeably. A lot of students read this and immediately go into performance management mode: set clear expectations, give them a deadline, escalate if needed. Clean, structured, very Q2.

The Q4 reader pauses and asks: what is actually going on here? Is this a performance issue, or is this a person issue? Those are different problems with different responses. They start by checking in genuinely, asking how their colleague is doing before mentioning the deadlines at all. They also turn the lens on themselves: am I giving this person too much? Is my own workload management contributing to this? That self-awareness is one of the nine tenets, and it shows up here in a way that a surface-level answer completely misses.

The reason scope matters so much is that a beautifully written, empathetic, well-structured answer to the wrong version of the question will still underperform. You can have perfect tone and still miss the mark entirely if you've misread what the scenario is actually asking you to navigate.

Ask yourself before you start typing: what is the real tension here? Who are all the people affected, and what do they each need? What might I be missing about why this situation exists in the first place?

The quartile breakdown

You've probably seen a version of this scenario before. Have a go at it before you read the suggested answers.

Scenario: You are a law student sitting your final exam and notice your close friend, who has always been a strong student, is clearly cheating. What do you do?

Q1: This question underpins the fundamental ethical principle of integrity, which is essential to the legal field. I would speak to my friend privately in a non-confrontational, non-judgmental manner and ask them to report themselves. If they agreed I would leave it there. If not, I would report them myself.

What's wrong: "Non-confrontational, non-judgmental" are instant red flags. Every marker knows that phrasing comes from the same three YouTube videos. You've described acting perfectly without demonstrating any of the skills. The friend is treated as a problem to process, not a person.

Q3: This sounds really tough, and my friend is probably already feeling awful. I'd approach carefully and let them know what I saw, framing it gently. I'd encourage them to come forward themselves and explain why it matters, not just for the rules, but for their own peace of mind. I'd offer to go with them. If they refused, I'd sadly have to report it, but I'd make clear that wasn't something I'd do lightly.

Solid. Genuine empathy, realistic tone, clear ethical position. Missing some depth in problem-solving and self-awareness.

Q4: Knowing what a strong student my friend has been, my first instinct is that something has gone seriously wrong for this to happen. I'd approach after the exam and mention how brutal the pressure has been lately, just to open the door. I'd bring up what I saw and ask if they're okay first, because that is my actual priority in that moment. I'd encourage them to go to the professor themselves and offer to stand beside them when they do. If they're open to it, I'd also offer to share some study strategies that have helped me, because I want to make sure this doesn't happen again. If they ultimately refused to come forward, I'd have to report it, but I'd want them to know it came from care, not judgment.

Why it works: starts with the person, not the problem. No moralising, no lecturing. Priorities are clear and human. Proactive long-term thinking. Demonstrates empathy through actions rather than just announcing it.

What CASPer is actually testing:

Nine tenets, published clearly: collaboration, communication, empathy, fairness, ethics, motivation, problem solving, resilience, self-awareness. Not a checklist, but a lens. Ask yourself as you write: am I looking for chances to collaborate? Is this actually fair to everyone involved? Am I being a martyr in my solution, or a realistic human?

And remember: you are not being assessed on how you'd act as a doctor. You're being assessed on whether you're a decent human being who thinks clearly under pressure. CASPer explicitly states they want to know what you WOULD do, not what you think you SHOULD do. The moral high ground is not the destination. Just be a good person, read the situation well, and show your reasoning. The markers are not mind readers, and likely will not infer for you.

Good luck to everyone sitting this year. If this gets you to Q4, you owe me a coffee. Happy to answer questions below.