Importance of reputation of university

Hey I heard there was a debate about he importance of a universities reputation when studying medicine on a thread somewhere. Anyone care to link it?

If you really care, do a search. But those threads are **** because this is how they always go:

Various trolls and non-medics: *insert subjective non-evidence based BS opinion trololol*

Medical students/doctors: Prestige/reputation is completely unimportant in medicine, apply wherever you like and think you can get into.

Who are you going to believe?

If you really care, do a search. But those threads are **** because this is how they always go:

Various trolls and non-medics: *insert subjective non-evidence based BS opinion trololol*

Medical students/doctors: Prestige/reputation is completely unimportant in medicine, apply wherever you like and think you can get into.

Who are you going to believe?

^

Posted from TSR Mobile

If you really care, do a search. But those threads are **** because this is how they always go:

Various trolls and non-medics: *insert subjective non-evidence based BS opinion trololol*

Medical students/doctors: Prestige/reputation is completely unimportant in medicine, apply wherever you like and think you can get into.

Who are you going to believe?

I'm curious to know if there is a difference *outside* of the FPAS/specialty applications, which obviously are done using a transparent and strict selection criteria that don't reference the institution where you studied. For example, does institution play a role in gaining access to summer research placements, or elective placements, or when going for leadership positions? Do Oxford grads have an easier time of it from their higher ups and consultants than Peninsula or Keele grads?

Hey I heard there was a debate about he importance of a universities reputation when studying medicine on a thread somewhere. Anyone care to link it?

I've never encountered any particular bias from consultants, and have worked entirely within the "golden triangle" so you'd think it would be more common there.

I have, however, heard of some cocky Oxford medical students who felt it was appropriate to insult a registrar (Liverpool grad, clinically excellent) teaching them, on the grounds he "didn't go to a proper university."

I have, however, heard of some cocky Oxford medical students who felt it was appropriate to insult a registrar (Liverpool grad, clinically excellent) teaching them, on the grounds he "didn't go to a proper university."

I'm curious to know if there is a difference *outside* of the FPAS/specialty applications, which obviously are done using a transparent and strict selection criteria that don't reference the institution where you studied.

For example, does institution play a role in gaining access to summer research placements, or elective placements, or when going for leadership positions? Do Oxford grads have an easier time of it from their higher ups and consultants than Peninsula or Keele grads?

Just curious!

There's some pretty good evidence out there that Oxbridge grads do better at postgrad exams like the MRCP, so it's not unlikely to suppose they do better when applying for positions as well. But I doubt that's anything to do with people positively selecting for Oxbridge grads, and more to do with the type of person who goes to Oxbridge

The simple answer is "no - it doesn't make any difference" and that is genuinely correct 99.5% of the time. The prestige of your medical school makes very little difference and is simply overshadowed by other things (grades, publications, prizes, clinical experience, personality, etc).

It's probably true that some stuffy Oxbridge/London-education consultants will have funny views about Peninsula and Keele. I really don't think it's an important consideration for most, though. In a way, it could even be an advantage to be at a medical school where students aren't clawing each others' eyes out* as there might be more opportunities to distinguish yourself.

* clearly an exaggeration !!

I'm also not well informed about medicine but I always thought its teaching had universal standards in the UK?

In my experience its more the foreign-educated doctors, where frequently prestige and hierarchy are everything, who have these kind of views.