[MizzCupcakes]

(Original post by KingofSpades)
Yeh, well I intend to apply to UK unis, Polish and German, depending on my level of German next year. I've read that the ones in Warsaw and Krakow are the best. Do you speak any Polish?

So ur doing ur AS levels? in that case u should study real hard for em and the ukcat get the work experience and be at least almost guaranteed the interview so that u dont even have to think about applying elsewhere...
Nah, none but the admissions lady was very positive that my application would succeed if I were to apply. When I told her about the work experience and IELTS she was like "wow, that is sooo not needed. easy there. Ur grades are good and u just need to pass the exam and pay the fees, then ur in!"

Good luck with ur application and if u have the possibility of getting A's in ur alevels then I suggest u go for it and the uk unis and if u dont get accepted the first time reapply..I think u'll have more fun in the uk, yet again everything is what one makes of it.

[Ledarifique]

Someone made a comment about being disliked if you don't speak Czech. Well most English people won't make the effort to learn Czech so obviously they'd be pissed. Going to uni in CZ is an opportunity to live abroad and learn to speak another language fluently which I'd love to do if it weren't as expensive. It's a shame most English medics can't speak another language, just entirely focused on getting into medical school, pretty sad really.

Studying in Poland, CZ and Hungary will become increasingly popular amongst brits in the years to come. YAY for a more European and less frigid Britain.

[Beska]

(Original post by Jamie)
You said
"Newcastle and Oxbridge were equal at MRCP?"

Link 1 (2008) says..."Most (83%) Oxbridge graduates passed the first part at their initial attempt, as did 67% from Newcastle"

Far from equal.

Fair point! Perhaps the interviewer meant joint top then.

e: As in, top 3. Ugh, I don't know.

[Phalanges]

(Original post by Beska)
According to my interviewer at Newcastle, I thought Newcastle and Oxbridge were equal at MRCP?

When I was interviewed/open daying at Newcastle, they seemed really proud of the fact that "after Oxford and Cambridge, we are the best medical school according to MRCP pass rates". They certainly weren't trying to associate themselves as equals, just distance themselves above the rest.

Just one of the reasons I ended up loathing Newcastle.

[Beska]

(Original post by Phalanges)
When I was interviewed/open daying at Newcastle, they seemed really proud of the fact that "after Oxford and Cambridge, we are the best medical school according to MRCP pass rates". They certainly weren't trying to associate themselves as equals, just distance themselves above the rest.

Just one of the reasons I ended up loathing Newcastle.

My interviewer definitely said "equal", I remember because it made me second guess in my mind. Maybe he minced his words or whatever.

Why do you loathe Newcastle?

e: I just read that paper, it's pretty interesting but most of the methodology is waaay over the top of my head so I'm sorta just blindly believing the results. One could maybe argue that using MRCP performance as a benchmark, not all med schools are actually as equal as made out to be?

[KingofSpades]

(Original post by MizzCupcakes)
So ur doing ur AS levels? in that case u should study real hard for em and the ukcat get the work experience and be at least almost guaranteed the interview so that u dont even have to think about applying elsewhere...
Nah, none but the admissions lady was very positive that my application would succeed if I were to apply. When I told her about the work experience and IELTS she was like "wow, that is sooo not needed. easy there. Ur grades are good and u just need to pass the exam and pay the fees, then ur in!"

Good luck with ur application and if u have the possibility of getting A's in ur alevels then I suggest u go for it and the uk unis and if u dont get accepted the first time reapply..I think u'll have more fun in the uk, yet again everything is what one makes of it.

yes good luck also. see you in Gdansk

[Phalanges]

(Original post by Beska)
My interviewer definitely said "equal", I remember because it made me second guess in my mind. Maybe he minced his words or whatever.

You should email the admissions asking for clarification, recounting what the interviewer said to you and including a link to that paper. I'd love to hear their response.

Why do you loathe Newcastle?

When I applied there it was one of my very favourite choices. But when I went for interviews they just gave me completely the wrong impression; whereas other medical schools were keen to show me why they felt they were the best, Newcastle seemed to be really pushing the "we're the best after Oxbridge" line, which I really didn't like. On my tour, when asked why he chose Newcastle the guide even said "I wasn't good enough for Oxford or Cambridge, and Newcastle was the next best". It just gave me a really bad impression of the place, I felt they should be focusing on why they think they're the best (considering there are myriad factors which determine which med school you pick) and not one statistic showing they're not quite as good as some. After all, by their own standards if you get an offer from Oxbridge why the hell would you pick them? Whereas my other choices gave me reasons why you would.

I also met some awful people at my interviews (other applicants). They made Machiavelli seem decent. You can't blame Newcastle for that, but by the same token I can't pretend that didn't cloud my opinion.

e: I just read that paper, it's pretty interesting but most of the methodology is waaay over the top of my head so I'm sorta just blindly believing the results. One could maybe argue that using MRCP performance as a benchmark, not all med schools are actually as equal as made out to be?

It's one stat, out of many other factors. Med schools have never been equal, it's just that the academic differences are much smaller than for other courses meaning other factors such as lifestyle and location play much bigger determining factors. Personally I'd rather live somewhere I liked for 6 years rather than worrying about my future exam chances, but you are right; is it one objective way in determining the differences between schools.

[Organ]

(Original post by Beska)
My interviewer definitely said "equal", I remember because it made me second guess in my mind. Maybe he minced his words or whatever.

Why do you loathe Newcastle?

e: I just read that paper, it's pretty interesting but most of the methodology is waaay over the top of my head so I'm sorta just blindly believing the results. One could maybe argue that using MRCP performance as a benchmark, not all med schools are actually as equal as made out to be?

But a myriad of factors contribute to a medical school's strengths. MRCP scores (from graduates who entered the medical school years and years ago) isn't the best 'benchmark' for comparison.

[Beska]

(Original post by Organ)
But a myriad of factors contribute to a medical school's strengths. MRCP scores (from graduates who entered the medical school years and years ago) isn't the best 'benchmark' for comparison.

It is pretty much the only benchmark comparing how well medical schools actually teach students. To be fair, apart from Oxbridge and to a lesser extent Newcastle most places are fairly overlapping so I'd agree with Phalanges that location etc. is more important than MRCP scores. Saying that (as the report does), I would guess the majority of this would be down to entry requirements. Oxbridge intrinsically take the brightest students, so it's obvious graduates from these schools would score higher.

[Organ]

(Original post by Beska)
It is pretty much the only benchmark comparing how well medical schools actually teach students. To be fair, apart from Oxbridge and to a lesser extent Newcastle most places are fairly overlapping so I'd agree with Phalanges that location etc. is more important than MRCP scores. Saying that (as the report does), I would guess the majority of this would be down to entry requirements. Oxbridge intrinsically take the brightest students, so it's obvious graduates from these schools would score higher.

The scores are likely to be completely different by the point we take MRCP exams - most medical schools have fundamentally changed the way they teach - I know Liverpool and Aberdeen for example have both changed the curric.

Oxbridge are both six year courses - I would be interested to see how/if intercalation effects the scores.

[MJay91]

If you need any help regarding the Czech Republic, just pm / quote me.

[Blatant Troll]

(Original post by Beska)
It is pretty much the only benchmark comparing how well medical schools actually teach students. To be fair, apart from Oxbridge and to a lesser extent Newcastle most places are fairly overlapping so I'd agree with Phalanges that location etc. is more important than MRCP scores. Saying that (as the report does), I would guess the majority of this would be down to entry requirements. Oxbridge intrinsically take the brightest students, so it's obvious graduates from these schools would score higher.

I can't access the link for some reason, but I think they actually accounted for differences in entry requirements, which made for interesting results in itself. For example, some medical schools also had high entry requirements yet performed comparatively poorly r.e. MRCP pass rates

[Beska]

(Original post by Blatant Troll)
I can't access the link for some reason, but I think they actually accounted for differences in entry requirements and adjusted the results accordingly, which interesting in itself. For example, some medical schools also had high entry requirements yet performed relative poorly r.e. MRCP pass rates

They adjusted them? As I said, I didn't understand the methodology of it at all (it's way above my level) but from my understanding they just acknowledged that the results are 60% down to the fact of differing entry requirements, without actually adjusting anything. High entry requirements and a relatively poor performance must suggest a genuinely lackluster course?

[Blatant Troll]

(Original post by Beska)
They adjusted them? As I said, I didn't understand the methodology of it at all (it's way above my level) but from my understanding they just acknowledged that the results are 60% down to the fact of differing entry requirements, without actually adjusting anything. High entry requirements and a relatively poor performance must suggest a genuinely lackluster course?

Sorry, my OP wasn't particularly clear (you're right - they didn't "adjust" anything) - I've edited it now.

The bit in bold was what I was getting at (a lacklustre course entirely within the context of passing MRCP, however*) that is to say, although Oxford and Cambridge grads satisfied high entry requirements, that doesn't necessarily correlate positively with MRCP performance. By the same token, I seem to recall they noted medical schools that had 'outperformed' relative to their entry requirements.

I don't know what to conclude really they suggest that entry requirements were an important factor, but their analysis also suggests that entry requirements weren't everything. I guess that's a conclusion in itself.

*It's probably worth us stating the obvious - lest someone misdirect their anger at me! - that "medical schools that produce grads that are more likely to ace MRCP" =/= "medical schools that produce better doctors per se"

[Jamie]

(Original post by Organ)
The scores are likely to be completely different by the point we take MRCP exams - most medical schools have fundamentally changed the way they teach - I know Liverpool and Aberdeen for example have both changed the curric.

Oxbridge are both six year courses - I would be interested to see how/if intercalation effects the scores.

"most medical schools have fundamentally changed the way they teach - I know Liverpool and Aberdeen for example have both changed the curric."

Its rather silly to think that a medical school has drastically changed the curicullum.

Who the hell do you think sets it?
It sure as hell isn't some bod at Keele who decides what Keele is going to teach.

Teaching 'style' perhaps. But a drastically new teaching style will always be worse than an old one for a year or two whilst it beds in.

[Organ]

(Original post by Jamie)
"most medical schools have fundamentally changed the way they teach - I know Liverpool and Aberdeen for example have both changed the curric."

Its rather silly to think that a medical school has drastically changed the curicullum.

Who the hell do you think sets it?
It sure as hell isn't some bod at Keele who decides what Keele is going to teach.

Teaching 'style' perhaps. But a drastically new teaching style will always be worse than an old one for a year or two whilst it beds in.

Well sure, but it may change it's relative position on mrcp results - considering the students results on the report would have been taught under previous teaching styles, the mrcp results table can't be expected to stay static. Oxbridge's position I imagine (although I could be wrong) is a combination of the ability of the student body, the teaching style - things like the tutorial system a six year degree etcetera. Surely most of the differences are down to teaching style - say the differnce in student intake can't be massively different between Liverpool and Newcastle (and in terms of A-level scores Liverpool is slightly higher than Newcastle) so the differential factor must be teaching stye? So it isn't a crazy idea that changes in teaching style at Aberdeen and Liverpool (which have rewcently been implemented) could alter it's position on mrcp results surely?

[Jamie]

(Original post by Organ)
Well sure, but it may change it's relative position on mrcp results - considering the students results on the report would have been taught under previous teaching styles, the mrcp results table can't be expected to stay static. Oxbridge's position I imagine (although I could be wrong) is a combination of the ability of the student body, the teaching style - things like the tutorial system a six year degree etcetera. Surely most of the differences are down to teaching style - say the differnce in student intake can't be massively different between Liverpool and Newcastle (and in terms of A-level scores Liverpool is slightly higher than Newcastle) so the differential factor must be teaching stye? So it isn't a crazy idea that changes in teaching style at Aberdeen and Liverpool (which have rewcently been implemented) could alter it's position on mrcp results surely?

You do not and cannot change the teaching style of a university in 1 year. Even 3 years is a stretch

New methods take a while to get right.

Barts is a prime example of that - they were awful about 7 years ago just after they had a big teaching revamp.
Now its far improved.

[Sir Jonathan]

cool thread bro thanks for telling me bout it

[Huw Davies]

I don't think the intercalated year contributes to Oxford\Cambridge's advantage in the slightest - it's very much a basic science year with no clinical context whatsoever for the vast majority. The infection and immunity option, for example, is very much about molecules rather than disease.

[thisismycatch22]

(Original post by Huw Davies)
I don't think the intercalated year contributes to Oxford\Cambridge's advantage in the slightest - it's very much a basic science year with no clinical context whatsoever for the vast majority. The infection and immunity option, for example, is very much about molecules rather than disease.

the mrcp does have a basic science component and a year extra of learning how to think in a rigorous scientific manner could conceivably have a beneficial effect on the test in general