Do undergraduates compete with graduates?

I'm fairly sure that medical schools take in a certain number of undergrads and a certain number of grads, so the two don't compete. Does anyone know for sure?

What do you mean?

A100 and A101 (GEP) courses are separate, but that's because the GEPs usually cover the first two years of the A100 degree in one year, then join the rest of the undergrad cohort at year 3.

Exactly what I wanted to know, so undergraduates and graduates don't compete for any places?

If you're talking about GEPs then definitely not! As a school leaver, you won't be able to apply to a graduate course as you'll need an undergrad degree. They're two separate courses and count as individual choices on UCAS. So for example, a graduate applying to Southampton's GEP won't be in competition with a school leaver applying to Southampton's A100 course. They will only be in competition with other GEP applicants.

However, graduates can apply to standard A100 courses too, so in that sense, yes there is competition with school leavers, however, being a graduate or being a school leaver shouldn't make a difference: what matters is satisfying the requirements, whether that means having the right A level grades or right degree classification. Once you've done that, it no longer matters what the nature of your qualifications are.

But say you had a scenario where two applicants for the A100 course - 1 school-leaver and 1 graduate - both achieved AAA at A level, but the graduate also achieved a 1st class degree in, say, biochemistry from a highly-ranked institution.

At your average medical school (I know you can't generalise admissions processes, but for argument's sake) would the graduate be looked upon more favourably than the school leaver?

Cheers

I'd say neither, you both meet the entry requirements so other factors come into play: entrance exams, personal statement, voluntary/caring work and shadowing. It's not all down to academia!

But say all of those are the same too (I know it's virtually impossible, but just play along )

I'm fairly sure that medical schools take in a certain number of undergrads and a certain number of grads, so the two don't compete. Does anyone know for sure?

But say you had a scenario where two applicants for the A100 course - 1 school-leaver and 1 graduate - both achieved AAA at A level, but the graduate also achieved a 1st class degree in, say, biochemistry from a highly-ranked institution.

At your average medical school (I know you can't generalise admissions processes, but for argument's sake) would the graduate be looked upon more favourably than the school leaver?

Cheers

At the majority of medical schools grads and school leavers applying for the same 5 year courses are in competition with each other.

I don't know of any schools that consider the two groups seperately for 5 year courses - the 4 year courses are completely different as they're only open to grads anyway.

If both are good enough they'll get interviews - it's the interview performance that then matters not the grades.

Then they would both get through to the interview stage. If having AAA at A levels in addition to a 2:1 is part of the requirements for a graduate applying to an A100 course (this does not happen anywhere btw) then it can hardly be seen as something "extra" given that it's a requirement, not surplus! And if A levels don't count for graduates, then it's irrelevant. But your argument does not take entrance examinations into account, which are very often the main discriminant used when sorting through graduate applicants.



BL do it separately in that grads are selected based on UKCAT score and school leavers on UCAS tarrif. Though once they get to the interview stage, all applicants should be considered equally

If you're sitting on great A levels and a 1st class degree then you're unlikely to be heading the 5 year route. You only need to head the 5 year route if you've got a poor classification degree and poor A levels; especially under the new funding system for grads on 5 year courses.

A lot of the time graduates don't have the A level requirements, hence why they went the graduate route. Some universities are very A levelcentric and wouldn't regard a degree as desirably as 3 A's at A level. If you're sitting on great A levels and a 1st class degree then you're unlikely to be heading the 5 year route. You only need to head the 5 year route if you've got a poor classification degree and poor A levels; especially under the new funding system for grads on 5 year courses.

Not necessarily. There is no GEM in Scotland so Scottish students have no choice but to go the 5 year route (although the 5 year in Scotland is cheaper) and GEM courses in England and Wales are not funded for Scottish students IIRC.