Written tests for selection into medicine have demonstrated reliability and there is accumulating evidence regarding their validity, but we know little about the broader impacts or consequences of medical school selection tests from the perspectives of key stakeholders. In this first Australian study of its kind, we use consequential validity as a theoretical lens to examine how medical school students and applicants view and experience the Graduate Medical Schools Admission Test (GAMSAT), and the consequences of testing. Participants (n = 447) were recruited from five graduate-entry medical schools across Australia and a publicly available online test preparation forum. An online survey was used to gather demographic information, and quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed via descriptive statistics and qualitative data were thematically analysed. The findings showed there was a considerable financial burden associated with preparing for and sitting the GAMSAT and moderate agreement regarding the GAMSAT as a fair selection method. The main unintended consequences of using the GAMSAT as a selection tool included barriers related to test affordability and language, and socialisation into the hidden curriculum of medicine. Selection tools such as the GAMSAT have some limitations when the goals are to support equitable participation in medicine and professional identity development. Our study highlights the value interpretive and theoretically-informed research in contributing to the evidence base on medical school selection.