The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
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:


Hey, no I think the deadline is 9th May do you've still got about a month or so. You can double check by calling them. Oh and I think each facility has a different deadline, this deadline is for the second faculty.
Reply 121
Original post by sachinisgod
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:


That's why someone who has a deferred entry from them told me. Tell me about it, the websites are so confusing and don't have all the info needed.
That's what's worrying me having to learn the language on top of the medicine course. I don't know if you have weekly tests but I was told on the phoneyou only learn Czech for second faculty, no mention of Latin.
Original post by Aysha92
That's why someone who has a deferred entry from them told me. Tell me about it, the websites are so confusing and don't have all the info needed.
That's what's worrying me having to learn the language on top of the medicine course. I don't know if you have weekly tests but I was told on the phoneyou only learn Czech for second faculty, no mention of Latin.


Yh maybe not latin, but Czech is essential in all faculties and all other unis coz otherwise you'll be lost in the clinical years from 4th year onwards. Youve got to take the medical history yourself and you need to be near fluent after 3 years of learning,
Reply 123
hi everyone. Can someone please shed light on this for me:
I noted that on the University of Malta website, people with overseas qualifications which I am assuming is anything but the Maltese qualifications, they say you must sit a Chemistry and Biology exam. Does one have to fly to Malta to sit these exams or can you sit them in your own country? Thanks in advance.
Reply 124
Original post by sachinisgod
Yh maybe not latin, but Czech is essential in all faculties and all other unis coz otherwise you'll be lost in the clinical years from 4th year onwards. Youve got to take the medical history yourself and you need to be near fluent after 3 years of learning,


Yeah exactly and if something is missed because of this language barrier it could be dangerous. Even though we will be taught the language required it won't include everything and it could result in misdiagnosing.
Reply 125
Original post by Aysha92
Yeah exactly and if something is missed because of this language barrier it could be dangerous. Even though we will be taught the language required it won't include everything and it could result in misdiagnosing.

Three years in-country with regular language tuition and tests will be quite enough for you to manage come clinicals. As long as you actually attempt to make friends with some Czech people at some point and use the Czech you're learning after a while.
Original post by medic_armadillo7
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.


They might create new jobs, but the FPO is now pretty much full. The main argument for expanding the FPO is that medics need it to achieve full registration. Competition past the foundation years is pretty intense now and just about every speciality has an ST3 bottleneck, which can be as low as 2 medics per position offered to 18 medics per position offered in some surgical specialities. The GP VTS schemes are also oversubscribed. It is an undeniable fact that UK medical schools now produce enough medics to fill all the consultant, GP and the vast majority of the undesirable (FTSTA) posts as well.


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"


The predictive power of the admissions procedures is regularly assessed. AFAIK there is no better way to do it. UK medical schools spend a large amount of time and money on identifying the most suitable candidates.

As a an added note from me (I'm from Slovenia, currently studying medicine at oxford): There is a very real difference in the quality of medical education between countries based on my experience in the UK and from what I have heard from a large number of students back home. Moreover, my course seems to be notably better compared even to German courses, which is where a few of my friends have gone.
(edited 12 years ago)
I really want to know, whether after doing medicine in europe is it straightforward to get FY2 posts or very difficult?
Original post by sachinisgod
I really want to know, whether after doing medicine in europe is it straightforward to get FY2 posts or very difficult?


You'd have to research how many F2 stand-alone jobs are being advertised. There will obviously be a limited number and they could end up being over-subscribed.
Original post by AnonymousPenguin
They might create new jobs, but the FPO is now pretty much full. The main argument for expanding the FPO is that medics need it to achieve full registration.


Actually, they do not! And if they did then I wouldn't be starting work with a group of graduate doctors who trained in France, Czech Republic, the US and Malta, as well as a significant number of UK-trained medical graduates. There is a quota that the UKFPO works by, with respect to recruiting graduates and SHOs who trained elsewhere. Naturally, this will change year by year, but the fact that you meet F1s and F2s who weren't trained in the UK, speaks louder than pure speculation to there not being enough jobs or that these jobs are being unfairly taken by 'foreign' doctors, etc, etc.

Original post by AnonymousPenguin
Competition past the foundation years is pretty intense now and just about every speciality has an ST3 bottleneck, which can be as low as 2 medics per position offered to 18 medics per position offered in some surgical specialities. The GP VTS schemes are also oversubscribed. It is an undeniable fact that UK medical schools now produce enough medics to fill all the consultant, GP and the vast majority of the undesirable (FTSTA) posts as well.


The second point you make about oversubscription makes several gross assumptions: Present competition is not due to increasing applicant numbers but due to a reduction in training programs offered particularly with the 'modernization' of specialist training posts that occurred last decade and the changes to their associated pay and employment plans, which have become much more of a hindrance on the NHS and specialist training than was previous thought. Also, this bottleneck in training posts is down to the inflexibility of specialist training posts, which are very much run through schemes as opposed to the older scheme where it was routine and considered the norm to spend 3/4 years as a junior doctor before deciding on a career pathway, which they would often change and go on sabbaticals, do charity work or even do PhDs, before even reaching consultancy level or choosing to become a GP. It is also, very easy to quote astronomical figures from London Deanery on their competition ratios for cardiothoracic surgery or Neurosurgery, when actually you would probably find that there are more jobs out there, it's just that everyone wants the impressive surgical job in London, Manchester, Oxford, Bristol and the other major cities and no-one wants or has even considered the Rehabilitation Medicine job in Aylesbury, the GP post on the Biker Grove estate of Newcastle, psychiatry ST3 job in Stornoway (in the Hebrides) or the Audiological Medicine job in Bangor. Such places are forever trying to get locums to cover for them!

Original post by AnonymousPenguin

The predictive power of the admissions procedures is regularly assessed. AFAIK there is no better way to do it. UK medical schools spend a large amount of time and money on identifying the most suitable candidates.



The predictive power of the admissions procedures is regularly assessed and regularly changed. My point isn't that there is or isn't a better method at present and neither is it about the assessment of the procedures themselves being poor, it's that the means of differentiating these students is poor. If it wasn't, these establishments wouldn't be changing such criteria every 1-3 years. I would imaging that there are possible ways to streamline this, which might involve the respective bureaucratic establishments that govern admissions actually researching good admission methods as opposed to resting on their laurels and purely auditing their admissions against an arbitrarily (or semi-arbitrarily) set standard that is somewhat entrenched in political games and government strategy (more than it needs to be).

Original post by AnonymousPenguin

As a an added note from me (I'm from Slovenia, currently studying medicine at oxford): There is a very real difference in the quality of medical education between countries based on my experience in the UK and from what I have heard from a large number of students back home. Moreover, my course seems to be notably better compared even to German courses, which is where a few of my friends have gone.


I am not saying that the quality of medicine isn't of a high standard or that medicine elsewhere isn't practiced so well. I am saying that you cannot infer that medicine elsewhere isn't as good as medicine taught and practised in the UK, especially when such a statement is based purely on anecdotal evidence and opinion and especially when the GMC has deemed that a graduate from another medical school has passed competency through passing PLAB examination or via their analysis of their medical school leading to their exemption from sitting those exams.

Without making too much of a dig at your last comment, I noticed you said "currently studying medicine at oxford", and in making that comparison of contrasting examples of the 'quality' some other non-UK medical school, you make the slightly bigoted assumption that the medicine you learn is of a higher calibre. Now I know many people at Oxford and other academic institutions of excellence and I know many doctors and those studying medicine here and abroad, and I publicly acknowledge that medicine is universally one of the hardest applied sciences/arts, anyone can study; the long and short of it is, you cannot use that statement to support your comparison, as medicine is a hard subject to grasp and learn, independent of the academic institution you study it at! The bottom line is if the GMC, who are experts in medical education feel that a doctor is competent, regardless of the accredited institution that studied at, then it's not for you or I to say otherwise. Your statement doesn't give you an exceptional advantage over such student only in that you might be more familiar with NHS protocol. In term of treatment and management of a patient, I doubt the non-UK trained doctor will be pressing to have the right leg of a patient who came in with a headache, cut off.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by medic_armadillo7
Actually, they do not! And if they did then I wouldn't be starting work with a group of graduate doctors who trained in France, Czech Republic, the US and Malta, as well as a significant number of UK-trained medical graduates. There is a quota that the UKFPO works by, with respect to recruiting graduates and SHOs who trained elsewhere. Naturally, this will change year by year, but the fact that you meet F1s and F2s who weren't trained in the UK, speaks louder than pure speculation to there not being enough jobs or that these jobs are being unfairly taken by 'foreign' doctors, etc, etc.

I think you misunderstood my point - the argument for expanding the UKFPO to meet demand is that UK medical graduates need it to achieve full registration, not EU graduates. If I have misconstrued your point, I do not understand the argument you are trying to make here.


The second point you make about oversubscription makes several gross assumptions: Present competition is not due to increasing applicant numbers but due to a reduction in training programs offered particularly with the 'modernization' of specialist training posts that occurred last decade and the changes to their associated pay and employment plans, which have become much more of a hindrance on the NHS and specialist training than was previous thought. Also, this bottleneck in training posts is down to the inflexibility of specialist training posts, which are very much run through schemes as opposed to the older scheme where it was routine and considered the norm to spend 3/4 years as a junior doctor before deciding on a career pathway, which they would often change and go on sabbaticals, do charity work or even do PhDs, before even reaching consultancy level or choosing to become a GP.

Whether the competition is high due to changes in the career pathway, due to decreased training opportunities, due to the increased number of graduates, or due to all three, which is probably the case, the fact remains that competition is high and that EU graduates are going to have to compete against UK graduates, which are numerous and plentiful. My point is that anyone considering studying medicine outside the UK should be well aware of the fact that medical careers are increasingly competitive.


It is also, very easy to quote astronomical figures from London Deanery on their competition ratios for cardiothoracic surgery or Neurosurgery, when actually you would probably find that there are more jobs out there, it's just that everyone wants the impressive surgical job in London, Manchester, Oxford, Bristol and the other major cities and no-one wants or has even considered the Rehabilitation Medicine job in Aylesbury, the GP post on the Biker Grove estate of Newcastle, psychiatry ST3 job in Stornoway (in the Hebrides) or the Audiological Medicine job in Bangor. Such places are forever trying to get locums to cover for them!

My numbers are from centralized training programmes. In fact, every centralized ST3 speciality in the CMT stem is oversubscribed. Saying that training posts are going unfilled is as far as I can find patently untrue. http://www.st3recruitment.org.uk/post-information/competition-rates.html - even rehabilitation medicine is 1.61 applicants per position available, meaning that this year that post in Aylesbury is very likely to be filled.



The predictive power of the admissions procedures is regularly assessed and regularly changed. My point isn't that there is or isn't a better method at present and neither is it about the assessment of the procedures themselves being poor, it's that the means of differentiating these students is poor. If it wasn't, these establishments wouldn't be changing such criteria every 1-3 years. I would imaging that there are possible ways to streamline this, which might involve the respective bureaucratic establishments that govern admissions actually researching good admission methods as opposed to resting on their laurels and purely auditing their admissions against an arbitrarily (or semi-arbitrarily) set standard that is somewhat entrenched in political games and government strategy (more than it needs to be).

The criteria are broadly staying the same with the UKCAT and BMAT changing very little. If you lookup the Cambridge report about the BMAT the predictive power of the S2 section is remarkable. I haven't seen anything about the UKCAT though and I do agree that the methods are imperfect, although this is a minor point and it is also off-topic.


I am not saying that the quality of medicine isn't of a high standard or that medicine elsewhere isn't practiced so well. I am saying that you cannot infer that medicine elsewhere isn't as good as medicine taught and practised in the UK, especially when such a statement is based purely on anecdotal evidence and opinion and especially when the GMC has deemed that a graduate from another medical school has passed competency through passing PLAB examination or via their analysis of their medical school leading to their exemption from sitting those exams.

The GMC does indeed certify that the medical education delivered by those schools is of a sufficient standard, although as far as I know their ability to require EU graduates to sit the PLAB, if the institution is accredited in the respective EU country, is very limited. Nevertheless, I fully agree that those schools provide a sufficient level of medical education. However, I would not go as far as to say that it is necessarily of equal quality as the education in the UK. I do accept your point that my view is at least in part based on anecdotal evidence and I do agree with your point that one should be very careful about forming opinions based on anecdotal evidence. However, the available statistical evidence, although limited, does support my view - EU graduates are significantly more likely to be disciplined or struck off by the GMC.


Without making too much of a dig at your last comment, I noticed you said "currently studying medicine at oxford", and in making that comparison of contrasting examples of the 'quality' some other non-UK medical school, you make the slightly bigoted assumption that the medicine you learn is of a higher calibre. Now I know many people at Oxford and other academic institutions of excellence and I know many doctors and those studying medicine here and abroad, and I publicly acknowledge that medicine is universally one of the hardest applied sciences/arts, anyone can study; the long and short of it is, you cannot use that statement to support your comparison, as medicine is a hard subject to grasp and learn, independent of the academic institution you study it at! The bottom line is if the GMC, who are experts in medical education feel that a doctor is competent, regardless of the accredited institution that studied at, then it's not for you or I to say otherwise. Your statement doesn't give you an exceptional advantage over such student only in that you might be more familiar with NHS protocol. In term of treatment and management of a patient, I doubt the non-UK trained doctor will be pressing to have the right leg of a patient who came in with a headache, cut off.

I do apologize for making a "bigoted assumption about the high-quality of teaching at Oxford", although I can assure I do not believe that the Oxford medical school is of a higher calibre than other well-established British medical schools.

You are essentially arguing, to put it explicitly, that the quality of a medical school, and the difficulty of gaining admission, is not in any way correlated to the quality of graduates it produces. I am sorry, but that is a very contra-intuitive statement, which is once again not supported by statistical evidence.

Anyway, you have made a bit of straw-man argument - all I am saying is that medical education in the EU is of a variable standard, while you have pretty much assumed that I am saying it is of an insufficient standard, which is definitely not the case. I was simply making the point that anyone who is considering studying medicine outside the UK, should be aware of that fact and that upon returning to the UK they will face very difficult competition in obtaining training posts. I sincerely believe that there are many exceptional EU-graduates working in the NHS. However, I do also believe that some EU institutions, particularly in lower-income EU members, prepare students less well for the eventual competition that they will face.
Original post by AnonymousPenguin
I think you misunderstood my point - the argument for expanding the UKFPO to meet demand is that UK medical graduates need it to achieve full registration, not EU graduates. If I have misconstrued your point, I do not understand the argument you are trying to make here.


Yes, I agree the UKFPO is set up primarily so the recent medical graduates, no-one is disputing that neither is anyone saying that the UKFPO expand on the number of places to accommodate non-UK students. However, it is clear that due to a myriad of factors (UK medical students leave to work in another profession or another country, some become pregnant and don't work for 1-2 years, EU trade agreements and employment policy) that there is demand for more doctors, year-on-year (2009 to present), because there is a shortage:


http://web.bma.org.uk/pressrel.nsf/wlu/SMCN-8LPLJD?OpenDocument&vw=wfmni
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14235900, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/laura-donnelly/7728303/Hospitals-face-staff-shortages-as-junior-doctors-become-pregnant.html

and this firstly needs to be acknowledged despite your hardened skepticism. How the UKFPO manages this, is not my remit but what I can say, is that for the past 6 years no-one who has applied through this centralised system has been denied a job, despite fears that there aren't enough jobs, or that they might not be up to scratch.


Original post by AnonymousPenguin

Whether the competition is high due to changes in the career pathway, due to decreased training opportunities, due to the increased number of graduates, or due to all three, which is probably the case, the fact remains that competition is high and that EU graduates are going to have to compete against UK graduates, which are numerous and plentiful. My point is that anyone considering studying medicine outside the UK should be well aware of the fact that medical careers are increasingly competitive.


Again, you make gross assumptions about the fact that everyone wants to work their way up to consultancy level, when actually becoming an out-of-training staff grade is becoming more and more popular, or that those who trained elsewhere are in some way naïve about what applying for a competitive job entails; getting a medical post has always been universally competitive, so it is not just confined to posts in the UK.


Original post by AnonymousPenguin

My numbers are from centralized training programmes. In fact, every centralized ST3 speciality in the CMT stem is oversubscribed. Saying that training posts are going unfilled is as far as I can find patently untrue. http://www.st3recruitment.org.uk/post-information/competition-rates.html - even rehabilitation medicine is 1.61 applicants per position available, meaning that this year that post in Aylesbury is very likely to be filled.


Whilst this all valid, these are purely mean values of competition ratios and they give no information on unfulfilled posts in undersubscribed areas, or the regional competition ratios or suggested reasons why some regions like....London for example are more competitive than others, and the likelihood of doctors accepting posts that aren't in their desired location due to family commitments, the cost of relocation, etc.

Original post by AnonymousPenguin

The criteria are broadly staying the same with the UKCAT and BMAT changing very little. If you lookup the Cambridge report about the BMAT the predictive power of the S2 section is remarkable. I haven't seen anything about the UKCAT though and I do agree that the methods are imperfect, although this is a minor point and it is also off-topic.


You know full well that written exams aren't the only tool used in the admissions criteria. There is also the UCAS personal statement, (the Oxbridge personal statement, if you apply to one of their colleges), your final year assessments (i.e. A-level, IB, European Bacc.,etc.) and of course for most medical schools, the INTERVIEW. Now beyond this, each medical school places different weight on the different components within the admissions processes and will carry out their selection processes in different orders. (e.g. Oxford and Cambridge both accept BMAT, but Cambridge interviews 85% of its candidates, before then looking at their BMAT and A-level results, whereas Oxford does a regression analysis by combining BMAT and your A-level results before considering you for interview. Southampton doesn't interview at all, but uses your personal statement in lieu of this. Beyond this, each medical school has different associated criteria. Aberdeen doesn't particularly like students taking gap year, but Bristol relishes this provided that it's spent well. Some unis require both Biology and Chemistry, whereas some just require Chemistry and some offer foundation courses where they offer to teach you the basic science before you embark on your actual medical degree.) Where in all of this, does there seem to be overall predictive power in determining who is a "good" candidate? At best, it might signify who is a suitable candidate, in terms of the receptivity to their teaching methods.

Original post by AnonymousPenguin

The GMC does indeed certify that the medical education delivered by those schools is of a sufficient standard, although as far as I know their ability to require EU graduates to sit the PLAB, if the institution is accredited in the respective EU country, is very limited.


If it is accredited they don't need to sit PLAB

Original post by AnonymousPenguin
However, I would not go as far as to say that it is necessarily of equal quality as the education in the UK. I do accept your point that my view is at least in part based on anecdotal evidence and I do agree with your point that one should be very careful about forming opinions based on anecdotal evidence. However, the available statistical evidence, although limited, does support my view - EU graduates are significantly more likely to be disciplined or struck off by the GMC.


If any of the latter is true, I expect that it is mostly due to a lack of understanding of NHS management protocol as opposed to say injecting a patient with bolus of potassium chloride, because they thought the patient needed fluid replacement.

Original post by AnonymousPenguin

I do apologize for making a "bigoted assumption about the high-quality of teaching at Oxford", although I can assure I do not believe that the Oxford medical school is of a higher calibre than other well-established British medical schools.


That is fine. I acknowledge you probably didn't explicitly mean that.

Medical school through the times has always been difficult to get into, partly because of the barrier to entry for some candidates of certain castes, partly due to the fact that it does have a rigorous admissions process, and in theory it should and would only permit the best medical candidates. However, there is great subjectivity that infiltrates this process and social views, cultural paradigms and misinterpretations at interview leading to a disconnect between interviewer and interviewee, coupled with the fact that now, there are more eligible candidates than ever due to improvements in education standards that would in theory make the threshold for being selected. I'm arguing that there is a minimal and universal threshold that a candidate should meet for being accepted, if you're saying that only the "very best" should be and are accepted, then firstly a reliable and non-arbitary set of criteria needs to be developed that is free from the subjectivity of social and cultural paradigms, so that this gold standard of the "very best" can be determined.

The fact of the matter is I'm sure anyone considering this will do their homework and know what to expect in terms of applying for medical school and later, when their time comes, applying for jobs. Not every medical school in the EU is GMC-accredited and not every medical school in the UK is GMC-accredited so if the GMC has given a graduate doctor's medical school accreditation then the default assumption must be that they are a competent, until proven otherwise before the GMC.
Original post by medic_armadillo7



If any of the latter is true, I expect that it is mostly due to a lack of understanding of NHS management protocol as opposed to say injecting a patient with bolus of potassium chloride, because they thought the patient needed fluid replacement.


The fact of the matter is I'm sure anyone considering this will do their homework and know what to expect in terms of applying for medical school and later, when their time comes, applying for jobs. Not every medical school in the EU is GMC-accredited and not every medical school in the UK is GMC-accredited so if the GMC has given a graduate doctor's medical school accreditation then the default assumption must be that they are a competent, until proven otherwise before the GMC.


I don't really have anything to add to my previous post. I am not making the GMC figures up: http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20002526 ("Those who trained elsewhere in the EU were then twice as likely as those trained in the UK to be referred for adjudication at the investigation stage, whereas those who trained outside the EU were 68% more likely to be referred.") This statistic suggests that they committed more relatively serious errors - I would think that understandings with management would ideally be thrown out at the investigation stage.

Also, I am not aware of any non-GMC accredited UK medical schools. Calling EU medical schools GMC accredited might be a bit of a misnomer, as they are accredited by the equivalent organisation in their respective country. The GMC has to recognize the degree automatically due to EU law - the GMC does not directly audit the foreign medical school. An organization which is not accredited by the appropriate regulator is not really a medical school - I would refer to it as a scam.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by AnonymousPenguin


Also, I am not aware of any non-GMC accredited UK medical schools. Calling EU medical schools GMC accredited might be a bit of a misnomer, as they are accredited by the equivalent organisation in their respective country. The GMC has to recognize the degree automatically due to EU law - the GMC does not directly audit the foreign medical school. An organization which is not accredited by the appropriate regulator is not really a medical school - I would refer to it as a scam.


http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/private_UK_based_medical_colleges.asp

http://avicenna.ku.dk/database/medicine/

The latter is a directory of medical schools and shows whether they are accredited in their own country and for some if they are in the EU, if they are GMC-accredited and when their next inspection is due.
Original post by medic_armadillo7
http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/private_UK_based_medical_colleges.asp

http://avicenna.ku.dk/database/medicine/

The latter is a directory of medical schools and shows whether they are accredited in their own country and for some if they are in the EU, if they are GMC-accredited and when their next inspection is due.


I can't find any reference to the general medical council on that Danish website.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/medical_school_reports_full_list.asp
This is a list of the medical schools that the GMC inspects every year along with the reports that they have issued. They are only UK institutions.

The GMC recognizes EU degrees because of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_professional_qualification_directives
Specifically: "If the host Member State requires pro forma registration with the competent professional association, this must be automatic. The competent authority must forward the applicant’s file to the professional organisation or body on receipt of the prior declaration. For professions that have public health or safety implications and do not benefit from automatic recognition, the host Member State may carry out a prior check of the service provider’s professional qualifications within the limits of the principle of proportionality."

In summary: The GMC UK does not inspect and accredit non-UK institutions.
Reply 135
Original post by AnonymousPenguin
I can't find any reference to the general medical council on that Danish website.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/medical_school_reports_full_list.asp
This is a list of the medical schools that the GMC inspects every year along with the reports that they have issued. They are only UK institutions.

The GMC recognizes EU degrees because of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_professional_qualification_directives
Specifically: "If the host Member State requires pro forma registration with the competent professional association, this must be automatic. The competent authority must forward the applicant’s file to the professional organisation or body on receipt of the prior declaration. For professions that have public health or safety implications and do not benefit from automatic recognition, the host Member State may carry out a prior check of the service provider’s professional qualifications within the limits of the principle of proportionality."

In summary: The GMC UK does not inspect and accredit non-UK institutions.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/acceptable_primary_medical_qualification.asp is where the GMC state that they use the Avicenna Directory, which was formerly known as the WHO Directory of Medical Schools. It's not just some random Danish website.
Original post by Ronove
http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/acceptable_primary_medical_qualification.asp is where the GMC state that they use the Avicenna Directory, which was formerly known as the WHO Directory of Medical Schools. It's not just some random Danish website.


OK, it's a register of legitimate medical schools around the world, accredited by the appropriate accreditation bodies in their respective countries. The GMC does not in any way inspect those schools - the website does imply that the list is maintained by each country's own Department of Health. ("If your medical school is not listed in the Avicenna Directory and does not currently appear on the list of additional primary medical qualifications accepted by the GMC you will need to contact your medical school in the first instance and ask them to contact the relevant Ministry of Health with a view to requesting Avicenna Directory listing for the school.") Anyway, this is turning into a somewhat overly pedantic discussion.

Do note that graduates from non-EU medical schools on that list have to sit the PLAB, the role of which is described by the GMC as: "The PLAB test is designed to test your ability to practise medicine safely in a UK hospital." The GMC is prevented from requesting EU medical school graduates to sit that test by EU law.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by AnonymousPenguin
I can't find any reference to the general medical council on that Danish website.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/medical_school_reports_full_list.asp
This is a list of the medical schools that the GMC inspects every year along with the reports that they have issued. They are only UK institutions.

The GMC recognizes EU degrees because of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_professional_qualification_directives
Specifically: "If the host Member State requires pro forma registration with the competent professional association, this must be automatic. The competent authority must forward the applicant’s file to the professional organisation or body on receipt of the prior declaration. For professions that have public health or safety implications and do not benefit from automatic recognition, the host Member State may carry out a prior check of the service provider’s professional qualifications within the limits of the principle of proportionality."

In summary: The GMC UK does not inspect and accredit non-UK institutions.


This is such a rubbish argument. You cannot find a list entitled "UK medical schools - full list of quality assurance reports" and expect to find a non-UK medical school there, and then conclude that GMC doesn't offer accreditation to non-UK medical schools. I don't possess a comprehensive list of medical schools, which undergo quality assurance checks by the GMC, but I can certainly find examples and documentation to support this.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/5___QA_of_UK_Medical_Education_Delivered_Overseas_.pdf_42598568.pdf

University of Newcastle, Malaysia - http://www.gmc-uk.org/8___Quality_Assurance_of_Newcastle_University_s_Campus_in_Malaysia.pdf_29618162.pdf

I'm pretty sure a few of the private European institutions like Charles University undergo/have undergone this as well.


It tends to accredit unis, of which it has vested interest; unis where a substantial number of their cohort end up transferring to the UK. And although it doesn't go to all medical schools in Europe to assess the quality of their curriculum, it does however choose to stringently and meticulously assess those who went to some private unis in the EU, particularly unis offering the US MD style qualification, though they may be accredited in their own country.

Many English-speaking European medical schools offer the choice UK-style degree or a US-style degree, and evidently those who do the MD style require greater checks on the compatilbility (not quality) of their degree.

Also, if the GMC awards licenture to a graduate from a non-UK uni that is subject to the quality assurance checks of another national board of medical practice in another EU country, I would say that although the GMC has set foot in that uni/medical school, they have given it a sort of by-proxy accreditation. In short, it won't make any difference to that doctor becoming registered in the UK.


Accreditation is a highly-complex subject, but fortunately the eligibility of a non-UK medical graduate to work here isn't solely ratified by yourself, but by people who (I'd like to think) know what they are doing.

I fail to understand the purpose of your argument other than dissuade eligible hopefuls from applying, when the prospective applicants reading this are and rightly should be aware of quackery from discredited institutions here and abroad, which has been said and reiterated by several people including myself, and it is quite evident that despite competition for training posts, there are medical jobs available (including staff grades, LAT/LAS, short-term locums and part-time contracts, associate specialists, clinical fellowships and other roles in medical education, etc, etc). Part of what I said in previous comments, was about how medicine is not a race or a competition, though some make it out to be, and that people should take their time in their aspiration to become a consultant as many of our experienced senior doctors have, therefore the notion of medicine being "competitive" is only true, when those vying for training posts at reputable hospitals in reputable specialties act competitively despite there being alternative career pathways.

P.S. Just to put things into perspective for you about the need for doctors from here and abroad, 37% of the entire working cohort of doctors obtained their degrees abroad (2009 - 3 years ago) - http://www.gmc-uk.org/Illing___The_experiences_of_UK_EU_and_non_EU_graduates.pdf_30868612.pdf, this is across board at F1/F2, SHO, registrar and consultancy level.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 138
Hey.

I'm looking to apply to the University of Pleven in Bulgaria. It's GMC accredited, so don't need to give the PLAB exam if you want to train in the UK. I have A*AB too ( confirmed ) and they said, that I am guaranteed an offer with those grades.

Basically, search "Outreach Education" on Google. The website is, "http://www.outreacheducation.co.uk/medicine". You can read through and then send a message through via the system. Or otherwise, his direct email is "[email protected] ".

He is going to be going to Bulgaria to visit the University next week. So, if you send him an email, say next week, then don't be surprised if he doesn't reply for a bit. However, if you send one now, then he should be able to respond pretty swiftly.

Basically, this company started last year, and hence doesn't really have the publicity at the moment. Last year, about 11 Brits went there. This year, already 12 have got offers. And more to get offers. You're pretty much guaranteed an offer with good grades, since the course is ( at this moment ) pretty under-subscribed. However, with more and more students finding out about Outreach, things might change.

Also, the company doesn't charge any fee, unlike other companies. It gets the commission directly from the University.

And lol, before you all start thinking that I'm trying to promote this company or what, I'm not. :tongue: I got the above information via a long phone call with "Ben" from Outreach. So that's why I know so much, since I asked a lot of questions. :tongue:

So yeah, other information I guaged from him was:

Tuition fee is around four and half grand a year ( converted from euros ).

Maintenance cost is very low, compared with the UK and especially London. He said, you could have your own very private accommodation ( one-bed room house, newly built ) with fibre-optic internet and all, for just 200 euros a month. He said, that was on the higher side. Otherwise, accommodation ranges from 120 to 175 euros a month. Which is about £100 to £120 a month, I should think. Very cheap compared with the UK, where it's about £100 a week.

That's all I remember. :smile:

Oh and, first semester/term starts in Feb 2013. The last one started in Feb 2012, which has gone past now, so you will start at around Feb 2013 if you decide to study at Pleven.

I am going to apply too maybe, provided I get rejected from King's ( my last option remaining ). :frown:

If there is anything else you require, just let me know. :smile:
Wooo Brits in eastern Europe!! Nice :banana:

Im trying for Czech Republic, Its much harder to get in there than Pleven anyday :yes:
(edited 12 years ago)

Latest