The Student Room Group

Medical schools should stop cherry picking league data

http://student.bmj.com/student/view-article.html?id=sbmj.h1359

I read this on the student BMJ and found it to be both interesting and a well needed point.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Also, research produced should not bump medical schools up league tables, because this research is not produced by undergrad medical students, and this research does not benefit undergrad medical students.
Reply 2
Original post by Okorange
http://student.bmj.com/student/view-article.html?id=sbmj.h1359

I read this on the student BMJ and found it to be both interesting and a well needed point.


Not just medical schools. Most universities do it. As do secondary schools and sixth forms. There are so many different league tables so they just pick which one presents them best.
I guess when it comes to medicine it's very hard to say what uni is best. So many factors go into it. And in the end you still come out with a standard medical degree. So it doesn't really matter.
Lol welcome to the real world.

The webpage is interesting though.

Original post by bob5124
...because this research is not produced by undergrad medical students, and this research does not benefit undergrad medical students.


Often it is, and sure it does.
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 4
Original post by nexttime
Lol welcome to the real world.



Often it is, and sure it does.


You can now explain in great detail why research being produced by PHDs should bump undergrad medical courses up the league tables.
It's nonsense, but that's what happens when universities become businesses and have to sell themselves to prospective students, sorry, customers.
Reply 6
Original post by bob5124
Also, research produced should not bump medical schools up league tables, because this research is not produced by undergrad medical students, and this research does not benefit undergrad medical students.


I agree, schools like St Andrews which don't have a clinical school suffer greatly because theres no way they can produce a large volume of medical research without a hospital and consultants.

At the same time, research could be split off into its own league table.
Original post by bob5124
You can now explain in great detail why research being produced by PHDs should bump undergrad medical courses up the league tables.


As I say, sometimes it is by undergrads: those on intercalation and very occasionally those in other years.

Clinical medicine and the performance (and interpretation) of clinical research should not be separable. Practically, that means that teachers who partake in research are more likely to teach its importance, and more likely to involve their students. The research grants tend to also get used for facilities that sometimes have overlap: having a rich university is never a bad thing.

It's not a reliable indicator, but what aspect of a league table is?
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 8
The doctors who teach med students are pretty much a completely different bunch than the guys doing research for the university though
(edited 7 years ago)
Reply 9
From my own personal experience, professional university teachers are often much better lecturers than practicing clinicians at lecturing, they tend to be more engaging and develop rapport with students that they teach since they teach entire units rather than a lecture at a time.

In the early stages of pre-clinical medicine, the material is basic and professional lecturers are most appropriate.

With that being said, the further advanced in your training you get, the more beneficial researchers and clinician lecturers get. Once you hit the clinical stages of your training, lecturers who will cite research in their studies and develop your interest in it are most beneficial.
Do you think? Not for one second saying that you are wrong at all, but I disagree. If my clinical advisers, or supervisors, or doctors on the ward had started citing research at me then I would have switched off. Personally on the ward all I want to know is, what is wrong, why, and what should I do next! Not, blah blah and blah et al discovered this in 1999.....
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Zakadoh
Do you think? Not for one second saying that you are wrong at all, but I disagree. If my clinical advisers, or supervisors, or doctors on the ward had started citing research at me then I would have switched off. Personally on the ward all I want to know is, what is wrong, why, and what should I do next! Not, blah blah and blah et al discovered this in 1999.....


And I just noticed you mentioned mostly lecturers, so maybe Im not the best jusdge becasue I haaaaate lectures, but the ones I have attended that have been 'this is the situation and this is what you do' have been far more helpful. Give the citations in the last (optional) slide!

And that is not to say you shouldnt keep your finger on the pulse, but for me, and it is personal, learning medicine to be an F1 is about learning the bread and butter of medicine. Read the research of course if it interests you, but its not the best way to learn
In total honesty, I think medschool league tables are completely ridiculous. On the wards my teaching has been given by graduates from Med schools around all the world and their alma matter is not an indication of their ability as a doctor.

Some of the highest ranked medschools have some of the worst outcomes for their students in post grad exams. One of my mates is at Birmingham and their medschool ranking fluctuates all the time. However, you look at their graduates and how they fair on post grad exams and frankly their medschool does insanely well, well above average. If jobs were based off their alma matter, they wouldn't get a look in due to their poor ranking but in reality they churn out some of the country's best doctors.

I'm all for a standardised USMLE type exam which means regardless of your institution you all sit the same exam and every medschool churns out doctors of an accepted standard and we scrap rankings. People would then base their medschool choices less off rankings and more off the location, course type, uni type etc.
Reply 13
Original post by Zygomaticus

I'm all for a standardised USMLE type exam which means regardless of your institution you all sit the same exam and every medschool churns out doctors of an accepted standard and we scrap rankings. People would then base their medschool choices less off rankings and more off the location, course type, uni type etc.


Or alternatively, it would serve to highlight the large differences in achievement between unis, and some of them would start to get VERY unpopular
It shows you how totally daft all this sort of marketing rubbish is. Yes MARKETING is all League Tables are about. No academic gives them any regard at all - its purely a recruitment/marketing tool.

Top Uni for Joint Honours in Underwater Basket Weaving. Highest Student Satisfaction rating from students who were bribed with a prize draw for completing the survey. Best Student City for a Uni founded on a Thursday. It gets sillier every year.

But the number of naive 17/18 year olds who take all of this 'data' seriously is astonishing - poor advice from schools, parents with no knowledge of any University, or teenagers being too lazy to make a considered decision themselves - there are numerous reason why they think this stuff means something and use it to choose their University.

Go to Open Days, look around with your eyes wide open, ask questions, and find out all you can about the structure of that course, and any extras like health care placements, interesting intercal. opportunities etc. This is what actually matters - not contrived marketing headlines.
Original post by Zakadoh
The doctors who teach med students are pretty much a completely different bunch than the guys doing research for the university though


Your med school is very different to mine then! I'm very surprised there is a med school out there where the teachers aren't either dedicated researchers or clinicians (who at a teaching hospital would certainly have some research going on).

Original post by Zakadoh
Do you think? Not for one second saying that you are wrong at all, but I disagree. If my clinical advisers, or supervisors, or doctors on the ward had started citing research at me then I would have switched off. Personally on the ward all I want to know is, what is wrong, why, and what should I do next! Not, blah blah and blah et al discovered this in 1999.....


Oh dear dear dear!

Here folks were witnessing the death of evidence based medicine. Who cares about evidence anyway - just do whatever you want. Fetch the leeches!
Original post by nexttime
Your med school is very different to mine then! I'm very surprised there is a med school out there where the teachers aren't either dedicated researchers or clinicians (who at a teaching hospital would certainly have some research going on).



Oh dear dear dear!

Here folks were witnessing the death of evidence based medicine. Who cares about evidence anyway - just do whatever you want. Fetch the leeches!


Yep it must be, because the overwhelming majority of doctors who have taught me have certainly not been involved with active research. Dedicated clinicians sure, but the impression that an undergraduate student is going to be surrounded by dedicated teams of researchers is a nonsense to me. Some of the doctors I have learnt from have been researchers for sure, but they are in the minority.

Hahaha! The guidelines are compiled based on the research, they are the definition of evidence based and structure medicine in a nice 'what is wrong and so what do I do next' format, that is why they exist. Learning the guidelines and how you should investigate and treat patients is the basis of medical school. As I said, it is personal for sure, but I find learning medicine practically in this way far easier and more applicable than wasting hours of my time pouring over research methodology. Whoever compiled the guidelines has already done that for me!
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Zakadoh
Yep it must be, because the overwhelming majority of doctors who have taught me have certainly not been involved with active research. Dedicated clinicians sure, but the impression that an undergraduate student is going to be surrounded by dedicated teams of researchers is a nonsense to me. Some of the doctors I have learnt from have been researchers for sure, but they are in the minority.


I take it your school isn't ranked very highly in research? :p:

Yeah that's very different.

Hahaha! The guidelines are compiled based on the research, they are the definition of evidence based and structure medicine in a nice 'what is wrong and so what do I do next' format, that is why they exist. Learning the guidelines and how you should investigate and treat patients is the basis of medical school. As I said, it is personal for sure, but I find learning medicine practically in this way far easier and more applicable than wasting hours of my time pouring over research methodology. Whoever compiled the guidelines has already done that for me!

Using guidelines is more acceptable. From what you said it sounded like you wanted to be told about cases with no reference to why they were doing anything (being told about Smith et al 1999 sounds just as cumbersome as being told about British Thoracic Society asthma guideline 2013).

I do dispute that learning guidelines is the point of med school though - it categorically isn't. Any idiot can follow a guideline for the reasons you describe. The reason we have doctors is to interpret guidelines (and they are guidelines, not rules) in the context of the patient in front of you. Sometimes this will require looking at the primary evidence, and being confident and capable of going through such evidence is a more basic and necessary skill a med student should have than blindly memorising guidelines that you can just look up when you need them and which change regularly anyway. THAT is what medical school is for.
Original post by nexttime
I take it your school isn't ranked very highly in research? :p:

Yeah that's very different.



Using guidelines is more acceptable. From what you said it sounded like you wanted to be told about cases with no reference to why they were doing anything (being told about Smith et al 1999 sounds just as cumbersome as being told about British Thoracic Society asthma guideline 2013).

I do dispute that learning guidelines is the point of med school though - it categorically isn't. Any idiot can follow a guideline for the reasons you describe. The reason we have doctors is to interpret guidelines (and they are guidelines, not rules) in the context of the patient in front of you. Sometimes this will require looking at the primary evidence, and being confident and capable of going through such evidence is a more basic and necessary skill a med student should have than blindly memorising guidelines that you can just look up when you need them and which change regularly anyway. THAT is what medical school is for.


Not at all, but the researchers are busy researching while the medical students are in the hospital, on the wards, with their doctor teams learning medicine. I wouldnt have wanted it to be any different to be fair. The experience that I do remember of being in lectures with some of the more prominent researchers left me feeling like I had wasted my time as they filled me in on the minutiae of whatever they were researching at the time, which to be honest for the most part was esoteric, above the required level of knowledge for an undergraduate, far too specialist and not in the least bit helpful in preparing me for life as an F1.

You took what I said too literally in my first point, clearly I am not going to practice medicine with no regard for why I am doing what I am doing! I am in no way crediting you with more or less ability or competence based on a few sentences you have scrawled onto TSR, you could do me the same favour! A degree in medicine is there to provide you with the skills necessary to function as a safe foundation doctor. Thats it. You obviously have a different approach to me, and thats fine, but I dont believe I said at any point that the guidelines werent open to interpretation and should be blindly followed, so I find it a little odd that you would assume that is what I believed. If you hadnt learnt the guideline, how would be able to interpret it?

Anyway, have to agree to disagree Im afraid about how much primary research needs to play a role in undergraduate medical education. For me, I avoid it at all costs, but each to their own.
Original post by Zakadoh
Not at all, but the researchers are busy researching while the medical students are in the hospital, on the wards, with their doctor teams learning medicine.


On the wards is where clinical research happens. Drug trials, trials of diagnostic approaches, etc.

Anyway, have to agree to disagree Im afraid about how much primary research needs to play a role in undergraduate medical education. For me, I avoid it at all costs, but each to their own.

I think that is a tragic, tragic attitude and until your approach changes you will be a significantly worse doctor than you would otherwise be.

Quick Reply