This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Studying medicine in Europe

I wasn't getting at the broader social barriers that might obstruct a pathways into a medical school in the UK. I was reiterating what I had said in a previous post that UK medical schools already churn out about the right number of doctors for the needs of the country. If you are unable to get into a British medical school, you should be asking yourself if this is the right profession for you. The British medical schools are taking the brightest applicants (obviously it's not a perfect system) to provide for the future needs of the country. Is bypassing this entrance into the medical profession by going abroad to a school that has lower entrance standards, only to then enter the profession by the back door really such a good thing to do?

Firstly, there aren't enough doctors in this country or else the NHS wouldn't be contracting in doctors from the EU and the commonwealth at FY1, FY2 and SHO levels, but that's a minor point. If you are unable to get into a British medical school, it's probably not because you're not "the brightest" or you're not suitable for "medicine", but because of the sheer numbers of bright sparks applying to do medicine, which means the probability of an individual is reduced. Year on year, there are approximately ~90000 applicants competing for ~9000 places, so 1/10 get in. http://www.ucas.com/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2011/20111024

The vast majority of these people, I'm sure are brilliant and caring people able to cope with the demands of the course and subsequent profession. The limiting factor is the quota for the annual intake, not the ability/personality of the applicants.

Original post by Rat_Bag

Sure, there are lots of people with this, and British medical school admissions will pick the best of these prospective candidates.

You make the gross assumption that a) the British Medical school admissions policy is the best and b) that it is flawless. Any medical student, surgeon or doctor will tell you that there are some people that get into medical school via the admissions process of a UK medical school that should never have been allowed to be a doctor, and there are some people who arguably would make good doctors, but never get the chance, and I doubt you can tell me objectively with evidence about the fidelity of the UK admissions process in selecting "good potential students"

Original post by Rat_Bag

I think you should only study medicine in a country whose language is a language you can speak totally fluently. If you can't, you will miss out terribly during the clinical years of training.

Evidently, I would expect anyone to train in another country to be fluent in that language, hence I talked about spending time learning/practising the language [perhaps 1-2 years], but this is a decision that whoever reading this will have to weigh up in their own minds. Some European and international professionals learn English (to a high level) within a year or 2 and engage in meaningful and complex conversations in the UK, so I don't see why, if a person has the aptitude to scale a feat like this, they can't do so. In addition to this, learning an extra language is an additional skill. I'm English, but I speak French fluently and German semi-fluently, and I'm currently trying learn BSL and Polish, because there is nothing worse (for all the knowledge and clinical acumen you may have) than dealing with an a patient and an acute patient at that, who cannot speak sufficient English for you to take a history. So, far those language skills have come in handy at least 5 times in the last year.

Original post by Rat_Bag

Point is, I've found British graduates of Eastern European medicals schools to be totally unprepared for being a doctor in the UK, so I don't think they get the same high quality experience as they would in the UK, or at least in a country where they are fluent in that county's language.

I find it quite surprising that as a doctor yourself, you could make such a frankly bigoted remark about your colleagues. Neither is this comment generalizable to other medical schools in Europe, whom I would trust have good governance and regulation over the quality of their course and their actual course structure. The fact of the matter is, if they are GMC registered, then they are deemed competent and you cannot insinuate or explicitly claim that their training is any less rigorous. We can all think of a colleague whose practice is below par but I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement like that. What such a doctor might not be used to is UK legislation and NHS procedure within hospital, which can be easily learned. It certainly doesn't stop UK doctors from going abroad to Europe, Australia, New Zealand, US and Canada whose legislature and hospital protocols are often vastly different.

Finally, I'm not really sure what your agenda is, or what you hope to get out of this, because there are several aspiring medics who will log onto this forum, and it seems the message you are giving them is "if you don't get in here then maybe you're not good enough". :-|

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 101

halima iqbal

1

hi, the entry requirements are not high at all.
as ive mentioned a few time, go onto the website, eunicas and that will tell you everything you need to know.
sorry for the late response :smile:

Original post by Macromolecular

Hi,

Do you have the entry requirements for the 2 Italian Universities?

Also, how did you apply?

Thanks

Reply 102

Rat_Bag

1

Original post by medic_armadillo7

Firstly, there aren't enough doctors in this country or else the NHS wouldn't be contracting in doctors from the EU and the commonwealth at FY1, FY2 and SHO levels, but that's a minor point.

Not true anymore. The expansion of the number of medical schools in the UK along with the number of places within existing medical schools, now means that the UK is forecast to produce more medical graduates than there are foundation year posts.

And it's a major point. Medical education is very expensive, there is not point in Britain training doctors if they are then to be unemployed.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

If you are unable to get into a British medical school, it's probably not because you're not "the brightest" or you're not suitable for "medicine", but because of the sheer numbers of bright sparks applying to do medicine, which means the probability of an individual is reduced.

Exactly, I never said people that were unable to get in a British medical school were not bright or unsuitable for medicine in the absolute sense. But in the relative sense, the admissions process aims to take the brightest and most suitable, that's the point.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

Year on year, there are approximately ~90000 applicants competing for ~9000 places, so 1/10 get in. http://www.ucas.com/about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2011/20111024

So you prove my point. 9000 places at entry, for 7000 foundation posts at graduation. Even at a failure rate of 20% (which is much higher than reality), the foundation programme would be oversubscribed by British graduate applicants alone

Original post by medic_armadillo7

The vast majority of these people, I'm sure are brilliant and caring people able to cope with the demands of the course and subsequent profession. The limiting factor is the quota for the annual intake, not the ability/personality of the applicants.

I never said it wasn't. But we don't need that many doctors, this the point. The rationing of places reflects that. The cost of paying for the education means we should not overproduce. It's really that simple. The UK medical education (after decades of neglecting to produce enough) now produces enough doctors.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

You make the gross assumption that a) the British Medical school admissions policy is the best and b) that it is flawless.

I even wrote in my post that it isn't a perfect system. But it's the best system available.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

Any medical student, surgeon or doctor will tell you that there are some people that get into medical school via the admissions process of a UK medical school that should never have been allowed to be a doctor, and there are some people who arguably would make good doctors, but never get the chance, and I doubt you can tell me objectively with evidence about the fidelity of the UK admissions process in selecting "good potential students"

No system is perfect. It is arguably better than the Eastern European system applicable to British applicants, where ability to pay is pretty much the determining factor.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

Evidently, I would expect anyone to train in another country to be fluent in that language, hence I talked about spending time learning/practising the language [perhaps 1-2 years], but this is a decision that whoever reading this will have to weigh up in their own minds.

None of the British graduates of Eastern European medical schools I have encountered have been fluent in the language of the country they studied in. Most just had a basic functional use. This is part of my point; the lack of fluency is probably the reason that they are so unprepared for life as a doctor, because their clinical training years have been so compromised by their language handicap.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

Some European and international professionals learn English (to a high level) within a year or 2 and engage in meaningful and complex conversations in the UK, so I don't see why, if a person has the aptitude to scale a feat like this, they can't do so.

No, most doctors that came from overseas outside Europe have been learning English since a very early age, not just for a year or two after leaving secondary school. Indeed, in most of Europe, English is taught at part of their curriculum even from primary school. This is not the case for British people and Eastern European languages.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

In addition to this, learning an extra language is an additional skill. I'm English, but I speak French fluently and German semi-fluently, and I'm currently trying learn BSL and Polish, because there is nothing worse (for all the knowledge and clinical acumen you may have) than dealing with an a patient and an acute patient at that, who cannot speak sufficient English for you to take a history. So, far those language skills have come in handy at least 5 times in the last year.

I don't deny that learning a language is not an additional skill. I just know for a fact that most British graduates don't actually learn the language of the country they are studying in, and even if they did, they would never reach fluency to the fine precision required for a communication-based training and profession as medicine.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

I find it quite surprising that as a doctor yourself, you could make such a frankly bigoted remark about your colleagues.

It's not bigoted, it's a statement of fact. I've never encountered a graduate of one of these schools whop can take a history when they start. Many have no clinical skills whatsoever (I was shocked that in Czech, they graduate with full registration, and thus eligible to enter at SHO level in UK, and yet they have never taken blood, inserted a cannula, don't a blood gas etc etc, really shocked......same goes for Poland, but at least they graduate with only provisional registration)

Original post by medic_armadillo7

Neither is this comment generalizable to other medical schools in Europe, whom I would trust have good governance and regulation over the quality of their course and their actual course structure. The fact of the matter is, if they are GMC registered, then they are deemed competent and you cannot insinuate or explicitly claim that their training is any less rigorous.

It patently is. Maybe it is a fact that they were not fluent in the language of the country they were studying in, and so didn't get much out of their clinical years (when it's all about communication) hence they were totally unprepared for the role as a doctor. I think the minimal emphasis on clinical skills is indicative of something very wrong.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

We can all think of a colleague whose practice is below par but I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement like that. What such a doctor might not be used to is UK legislation and NHS procedure within hospital, which can be easily learned. It certainly doesn't stop UK doctors from going abroad to Europe, Australia, New Zealand, US and Canada whose legislature and hospital protocols are often vastly different.

It has nothing to do with procedure and legislation. It has to do with basic basic medical knowledge and clinical skills.

Original post by medic_armadillo7

Finally, I'm not really sure what your agenda is, or what you hope to get out of this, because there are several aspiring medics who will log onto this forum, and it seems the message you are giving them is "if you don't get in here then maybe you're not good enough". :-|

By all means re-apply, but bear in mind, the undergraduate medical education system is now sustainable, we produce enough doctors, is it really fair that just because you got money that you can bypass the admission into the profession by going abroad to study in places with lower admission standards?

Reply 103

OMFS_BoneSetter

16

Original post by Rat_Bag

Not true anymore. The expansion of the number of medical schools in the UK along with the number of places within existing medical schools, now means that the UK is forecast to produce more medical graduates than there are foundation year posts.

And it's a major point. Medical education is very expensive, there is not point in Britain training doctors if they are then to be unemployed.

What are you talking about? I work under foreign SHOs drafted in as recently as the new year and foreign FY1/2 doctors drafted in August from other countries. I applied for a job via the UKFPO (the central job application system for graduating doctors) for August 2012. They seemed to be adamant that this wasn't going to happen this year or even in the near future and that in the event of oversubscription of jobs, jobs will invariably be created because the government don't want a situation where they've forked out £250,000 per home medical students taught in the UK only to find that they aren't employed by the NHS and as far as I can tell there are still job agencies advertising unfilled positions for FY2 and SHO levels.

Original post by Rat_Bag

Exactly, I never said people that were unable to get in a British medical school were not bright or unsuitable for medicine in the absolute sense. But in the relative sense, the admissions process aims to take the brightest and most suitable, that's the point.

Of course it aims to take the brightest, but "what it aims to do" and "what it does" are 2 separate things. When you have students with AAA(A*) at A-levels, 36 points or above at IB or high ranking equivalents in other qualifications, there is little to distinguish "the brightest" from "bright students"

Original post by Rat_Bag

So you prove my point. 9000 places at entry, for 7000 foundation posts at graduation. Even at a failure rate of 20% (which is much higher than reality), the foundation programme would be oversubscribed by British graduate applicants alone.

This proves nothing. If you claim to be a medical graduate, you'll realise that some people quit or are kicked out of medical school or have to repeat a year, some transfer onto other courses, some go on to do intercalated BSc, MA or MSc degrees, or dental degrees or even PhDs, some take time out for 1 or more years to have kids or pull out for due to ill-health or other commitments, whilst some foreign medical graduates aim to return to their native country to work, some UK medical students go to work abroad particularly (US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) and a few even change career entirely and go into something like business and finance or law. So, the throughput of native graduates is comparatively smaller than the intake number. It is this discrepancy that is filled out by international graduates and an anticipated number expected to come from the EU. You cannot assume that 9000 medical students = 9000 UK doctors, 5 years later.

Original post by Rat_Bag

I never said it wasn't. But we don't need that many doctors, this the point. The rationing of places reflects that. The cost of paying for the education means we should not overproduce. It's really that simple. The UK medical education (after decades of neglecting to produce enough) now produces enough doctors.

The fact that we have increased waiting times for patients to see certain specialist doctors and surgeons, as of 2012, means that labour and resources are stretched, ergo more doctors = lower waiting times. You have FY1s, FY2 and SHO still working far longer hours than the European Working Time Directive of 48 hours per weeks, with gross understaffing of some wards at some hospitals at certain times of the day or week. That's a pretty strong indicator that more jobs are needed, which the government is slowly attending to. The main driving force for the creation of jobs within a public sector-based healthcare system should be and rightly is its demand by the people that use it, and not its financial expenditure on medical education/jobs.

Original post by Rat_Bag

I even wrote in my post that it isn't a perfect system. But it's the best system available.

No system is perfect. It is arguably better than the Eastern European system applicable to British applicants, where ability to pay is pretty much the determining factor.

Again, this is bigoted, unqualified and possibly erroneous, but I won't dwell on that. Not every institution in Eastern European charges €7-9000.00/yr, equally there are other private institutions in Western Europe that charge lots and also bear in mind that UK universities have switched to charging UK/EU students £9000.00/yr (not that I agree with it), so it is no better!

Original post by Rat_Bag

None of the British graduates of Eastern European medical schools I have encountered have been fluent in the language of the country they studied in. Most just had a basic functional use. This is part of my point; the lack of fluency is probably the reason that they are so unprepared for life as a doctor, because their clinical training years have been so compromised by their language handicap.

If they weren't fluent in the language, I doubt they would've gotten through the rigors of their course, if their course was in that language and if their skills were compromised, the GMC (who know more than you and I on these matters) would revoke their accreditation. However, if it was an English-taught course with only the need to learn whatever foreign language to a conversational level then I see no problem with that, as it is probably adequate for a simple consultation with a

Original post by Rat_Bag

No, most doctors that came from overseas outside Europe have been learning English since a very early age, not just for a year or two after leaving secondary school. Indeed, in most of Europe, English is taught at part of their curriculum even from primary school. This is not the case for British people and Eastern European languages.

I don't deny that learning a language is not an additional skill. I just know for a fact that most British graduates don't actually learn the language of the country they are studying in, and even if they did, they would never reach fluency to the fine precision required for a communication-based training and profession as medicine.

Again, this is an unqualified and partly erroneous statement. 7 years ago I finished from an international school in South-East England. I did the International Baccalaureate with a loads of UK students and international students, some who had learnt English from an early age and some who had entered the country less than a year before. The ones who had learnt English within a year at school offering intensive English courses all went onto to do A-levels or International Baccalaureate (in English) and pass well.
Several unis offer one year intensive masters in ab initio language courses, even in 3-4 yr BA ab initio courses like Russian, Italian, Japanese and Mandarin, students achieve proficiency with 1-2 years, which proves that it is certainly possible.

Reply 104

Aysha92

OP

2

Was looking at Masaryk university in Czech and it said that the course is accredited until 30/10/2015. Does anyone know what that means? Is it that anyone graduating afterwards won't be accredited or that 2015 is the lat year of entry at that university?
Any help appreciated. Thanks

Reply 105

cobra2k10

1

Are there any medical degrees in the EU which are 5 years long like the one in malta?? Outside the UK and ireland?

Reply 106

bogs

Someone mentioned Pleven in Bulgaria earlier. The UK students appear to have a Facebook group set up:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/247329965360986/

Reply 107

kiran_love3

i dnt have good alevels can i do access to science and then apply for medicine in european country

Reply 108

b-beauty

Original post by kiran_love3

i dnt have good alevels can i do access to science and then apply for medicine in european country

The best thing to do is to try and find out what the entry requirements are for each of the schools you are interested in. Some universities may even offer access to medicine programmes but its a matter of whether they teach in english or not.

Reply 109

Farwa

this is an interesting thread ...
*watching*

i am expecting another year full of rejections so this is going to be helpful

Reply 110

abdiz12

12

Original post by kiran_love3

i dnt have good alevels can i do access to science and then apply for medicine in european country

Dude you don't need great Alevels if you got CCC in 2 sciences or more you can apply. Sometimes you dont even need sciences.

Reply 111

kickasskaz01

2

Original post by abdiz12

Dude you don't need great Alevels if you got CCC in 2 sciences or more you can apply. Sometimes you dont even need sciences.

What unis are you talking about?

Reply 112

abdiz12

12

Original post by kickasskaz01

What unis are you talking about?

These ones I'm talking about expect you to sit entrance exams so they lower their entry requirement like the med schools in Italy that teach med in English which are Uni of milan, Pavia uni and bologna uni. The milan program is the best they make you sit the IMAT in london at september. They always ask for grades that allow you to study med in your country of residence, but don't be put off.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 113

GenialGermanGent

20

Original post by Aysha92

I am considering to study medicine in Europe if I don't get in here this year.

Fail. The UK is in Europe. What you mean is continental Europe.

Reply 114

sachinisgod

21

Apparently First Faculty in Charles University (prague) is meant to be really good. Only CCC required but u need to do entrance test in Bio, Chem and/or Phy/ Maths.

Not a bad option, and I am myself considering it after getting 4 rejections :frown:

Reply 115

Aysha92

OP

2

Original post by sachinisgod

Apparently First Faculty in Charles University (prague) is meant to be really good. Only CCC required but u need to do entrance test in Bio, Chem and/or Phy/ Maths.

Not a bad option, and I am myself considering it after getting 4 rejections :frown:

I heard second facualty is better over there because of the lecturers and has a lower drop put rate

Reply 116

sachinisgod

21

Original post by Aysha92

I heard second facualty is better over there because of the lecturers and has a lower drop put rate

Is it? tbh its really hard to get good information from foreign websites. They arnt as good as ours maybe :tongue:

But is it as tough academically, coz i heard that there are tests nearly every week as well as Czech and latin in the first faculty :frown:

Reply 117

username2012

which is the cheapest/best med school in europe? I am very much considering pleven, anyone else?

Reply 118

the_alybot

11

Original post by Aysha92

I heard second facualty is better over there because of the lecturers and has a lower drop put rate

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the deadline for submitting an application Charles University to study medicine had passed?
I don't know, I was having a look on their website and I think I came across a date applications were supposed to be submitted by. I don't remember the exact date but it has passed. Is this true or not? Because after a second round of rejections and a modest improvement in January retakes, I am thinking the only way I'm going to get into medicine now is if I go abroad and I want to know what avenues are open to me. I'd really appreciate it :smile:

Reply 119

sachinisgod

21

Original post by the_alybot

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the deadline for submitting an application Charles University to study medicine had passed?
I don't know, I was having a look on their website and I think I came across a date applications were supposed to be submitted by. I don't remember the exact date but it has passed. Is this true or not? Because after a second round of rejections and a modest improvement in January retakes, I am thinking the only way I'm going to get into medicine now is if I go abroad and I want to know what avenues are open to me. I'd really appreciate it :smile:

i was checking it out today and im sure its end of April/May for submitting the applications. I maybe wrong but check it again :tongue:

Studying medicine in Europe

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you