[7589200]

i think that

just ignoring the fact that different medical schools have students of different abilities > "potential differences in the ways medical schools teach"

in terms of unfairness

the latter being the medical school's problem to be honest, patients want doctors who are competent by a set standard, not what the medical school 'thinks'

there's no doubt about that

If it was up to me, id have a pass/fail exam set by the university and then some kind of merit exam which can be used to rate students and is the same for everyone in the country.

[MisDee]

Medical schools are dishonest? I seriously didn't know that. If that's the case shouldn't all medical school exams be external then? That would make more sense than a final merit exam.

[7589200]

(Original post by MisDee)
Medical schools are dishonest? I seriously didn't know that. If that's the case shouldn't all medical school exams be external then? That would make more sense than a final merit exam.

I said that the pass/fail should be left to a final exam set by the university because that exam should be trusted as its gmc accredited and there are external examiners. It would be unfair to fail students based on exams they were not specifically taught for because this has become somewhat of an expectation nowadays in all education.

A merit exam then ranks students nationally and the better jobs go to students that rank more highly in that exam and the other character assessments and whatnot. If universities don't pepare their students properly for this exam then its their fault (perhaps this is what you misconstrued as dishonesty?) - the worst that happens is that the students from these universities dont end up working in London, but in somewhere not as popular.

In my opinion, that system is SO much fairer than ranking students within their own medical school.

lol I dont get why people are so against being ranked against other students from other universities?! Surely if they're all equally good, every one will do equally well? And if they're not, letting those differences not manifest until a later stage - is that a good thing?

[MisDee]

IMO if a national final test is required then an intermediate national exam would be required too. Using your logic wouldn't it be better if any diffferences were noted in Year 2/3 rather than 4 or 5? That would make better sense.

I got the dishonesty idea from something you said:

(Original post by Vazzyb)
in terms of unfairness

the latter being the medical school's problem to be honest, patients want doctors who are competent by a set standard, not what the medical school 'thinks'

It is just confusing, if medical school exams are GMC accredited and to be trusted then surely the standard is set by the GMC and not the medical school?

It doesn't really affect me either way as I don't even know whether I will get into medical school yet. I don't hold any strong views for or against, just an unbiased observer.

[theatrical]

(Original post by Jonty99)
I think that EPM thing looks really unfair, given that it marks you relative to your year group within your medical school.

This is the way the vast majority of medical schools operate. At Manchester all exams are marked relative to the cohort taking them - pass marks are calculated using standard deviations from the mean. If you're two standard deviations below the mean for your year group, you fail.

[Egypt]

I think the SJT are not too bad as just one part of the application process. On your first day as an F1 you are probably going to spend far more time in scenarios such as those in SJT than you are regurgitating biochemistry or physiology facts.

I do appreciate core knowledge is essential but SJTs have got to be better than the creative writing tests which were both completely subjective and open to exageration at best, outright lies at worst.

[Beska]

Interesting comment on YouTube (oxymoron, no? ) about the new academic ranking:

(Original post by YouTube comment)
Isn't this system highly unfair towards students who are not made aware from the outset of? their degree that each and every year will count towards getting a job. As far as I was aware our medical school would rank us in quartiles after our 3rd year exams and naturally this seemed like the most important year. However, if we reach final year and are applying for jobs in 2013 only to find out that our selection procedure has completely changed, it definitely puts us at a disadvantage.

It's a fair point - you're told exams don't count, and then suddenly all the exams are made to count. One might say that this is insignificant because everybody should try their hardest in every exam blah blah, but I'm sure, on average, medics would pull their finger out more for their finals rather than an exam in the first term of first year, no?

[wer343lit]

(Original post by theatrical)
This is the way the vast majority of medical schools operate. At Manchester all exams are marked relative to the cohort taking them - pass marks are calculated using standard deviations from the mean. If you're two standard deviations below the mean for your year group, you fail.

Yeah, I can sort of understand it for a pass mark, because at least you can retake exams, but I suppose it does disadvantage those in exceptionally good years.

But effectively, this system is saying that all cohorts are equally academic, and that being in a certain quartile/percentile in one medical school is equivalent to being in that quartile/percentile in another. Which the "average entry tariff" statistics for medical schools, and MRCP pass rates wouldn't exactly lend support to.

[theatrical]

(Original post by Vazzyb)
patients want doctors who are competent by a set standard, not what the medical school 'thinks'

This why every clinical exam a medical school sets is overseen and approved by external examiners from other medical schools.

In my last OSCE (obs, gynae and paeds) we had examiners from Newcastle and Nottingham in some of our stations (in addition to the standard examiners).

The same goes for all degrees - before degrees are awarded they are approved by external examiners from other universities to make sure there is a common standard across degree classifications.

[theatrical]

(Original post by Jonty99)
But effectively, this system is saying that all cohorts are equally academic, and that being in a certain quartile/percentile in one medical school is equivalent to being in that quartile/percentile in another. Which the "average entry tariff" statistics for medical schools, and MRCP pass rates wouldn't exactly lend support to.

I don't think your notion of academic ability really lends itself to clinical medicine. For your ranking it's only years 3 and 4 (years 4 and 5 of six year courses) that count. Clinical learning isn't particularly academic and standards in clinical exams (i.e. OSCEs) are standardised as much as possible across medical schools (by using external examiners).

I'm under no illusion that the pre-clinical years at Cambridge are much more difficult than those at Manchester and other comparable medical schools - due to the material covered and depth. But in the clinical phase their will be little difference and I'd bet little difference in students' clinical ability across medical schools.

My point is, if we were ranked according to our performance during the entire course then yes, I think it would be unfair to use cohort ranking, but as we're only ranked on our performance in the clinial phase I think it is an entirely fair method.

I think you'll be surprised when you make the transition to clinical learning - many of those who excell in the pre-clinical phase see a reversal when it comes to clinicals. Afterall, pre-clinicals isn't medicine, it's the life sciences.

[Elles]

(Original post by theatrical)
I think you'll be surprised when you make the transition to clinical learning - many of those who excell in the pre-clinical phase see a reversal when it comes to clinicals. Afterall, pre-clinicals isn't medicine, it's the life sciences.

I'd be interested in seeing some stats on that.
In my experience (sample size 10) the people who got preclinical distinctions got clinical distinctions too. So i would suspect the majority of people who excel at preclinical do at clinical too although there will be some good anecdotes of counter example!

& disagree that pre-clinicals aren't medicine - I think by the virtue of the range of life science components you're doing they are but pre-clinical medicine.


Yeah, as people have mentioned GP selection loves the situational judgement based questions (whole exam paper of them for neraly 2 hours, then written exercise based around one with reflection at selection centre) and is fond of saying how evidence based they are!

[Daveo]

SJTs are good (but you can definitely learn to 'play the game') They are part of the GP selection test.

[Becca-Sarah]

(Original post by Beska)
It's a fair point - you're told exams don't count, and then suddenly all the exams are made to count. One might say that this is insignificant because everybody should try their hardest in every exam blah blah, but I'm sure, on average, medics would pull their finger out more for their finals rather than an exam in the first term of first year, no?

I think this is my main resentment of changing the system - you can't start moving the goalposts halfway through the game. If they're going to change things, make it so you know when you enter medical school how you have to exit it.

It's quite easy to look at your own year group and figure out roughly where you rank, but there's no way of looking at students elsewhere in the country to see where you stand, so whilst you could be top quartile in your uni, you could be 3rd quartile overall, but you have no way of knowing that until it's all over.

[airtones]

The EPM stuff sounds vaguely okay to me, really I'd just like to know more about what it will actually mean. I would have thought it would be fairer to bring in the new EPM measures for students starting med school this year rather than the 2013 cohort though, because they have worked on the basis of the current system which may now change for them and they could potentially see their quartile change drastically if dfferent pieces of work are given different weightings.

The SJT sounds F***ing horrific - but better than the whitespace questions currently used. The current system is so open to soft-abuse by people who use their connections to get help answering the questions. I'm sure we all know a few of 'those people' who drank their way through medical school, ended up in the 3rd or 4th quartile but somehow got >80 points because they happened to be friends with one of the consultants who marks the questions.

The only downside of the new system is I make a prediction now that by 2013/14 there will be umpteen "courses" promising to improve your ability to answer the SJT costing £X00 for a weekend. Ontop of finals or 4th year revision the last thing I want to be doing is trying to mess around with revision for a stupid judgement test. It will be yet another cash-cow for those awful revision/exam passing companies at the expense of medics, forced into thinking they need it in order to get the job they want.

[Daveo]

Agree about the SJT courses, In fact if anyone had the time or inclination, it would be a good little earner!