[Insanity514]

5 choices for med. Some don't add a 5th choice/withdraw or take gap years.
Even if taking on the 5th choice applying for grad entry is even more competitive than undergrad generally. And it may not even be a course they enjoy.

[.eXe]

(Original post by Pride)
I dunno though, the ukcat is quite a good indicator of logic and problem solving skills, as well as interpreting and pressure/time keeping. It's not bad.

I think the bmat's scientific knowledge sections is more useless, because students do a-levels already, I don't see how knowing a student can do some a-lil-higher-than-gcse-level physics questions helps anyone.

The opposite is actually a better argument.

The BMAT is sort of like the MCAT that canadian and US schools use, although the MCAT is exponentially harder. The BMAT tests relevant knowledge of the specific subjects that are integral in medicine. It's much more important to know how acids and bases react for example, than do an easy math problem in 3 seconds.

This is what the ukcat is all about. anyone can ace the ukcat if given enough time. its just a test of reflexes (and where AR is concerned...luck plays a huge role). ukcat tests your ability to do simple math or english problems...just under a ridiculously low time limit. I dont think that skill is super essential to medicine. sure, doctors are supposed to make decisions quickly...but they arent supposed to half ass their way into those decisions. i remember my ukcat...half the questions were guessed...not because i didnt know how to do them but i simply ran out of time.

i think the bmat is a much more relevant test to medicine than the ukcat. also, proponents of the ukcat keep talking about it as a test of aptitute rather than knowledge. however, surprisingly, most people who retake the ukcat..do better. i didnt realize a person's aptitude changed over time so statistically speaking...the ukcat isn;t even a reliable test. additionally...i dont know how taking an IQ test (such as the abstract reasoning section) has ANY relevance at all to medicine. it's completely guesswork...and just useless waste of time.

[Pride]

(Original post by AtomicMan)
Personally, I think the opposite is true :P

Just got the 600Q UKCAT book, and the method of testing just seems completely random, and im not sure how me not being able to figure out that "in one set all the arrows dont point left, but in the other they do point left", would make me a bad doctor.

The BMAT, however, atleast tests relevant skills. Such as that you can apply scientific principles to alien scenarios, which is a skill that is valuable in medicine.

Sure, the knowledge is based on GCSE, but they are trying to see that you can use knowledge to solve problems, a much better indicator of potential in an applicant for a science-based degree. I dont think that A-Levels/GCSE's really test this skill to a good enough extent, the only science a-level that tests this to a large extent is physics, the other subjects you can learn to get an A via past papers.

Anyways, I really despise the UKCAT, and wish more emphasis was based on AS grades/UMS, as well as entrance exams with a scientific element, such as the BMAT

interesting way of putting it. I got the book too and I see what you mean. I find when I look at the answers to some of the picture questions, I think to myself 'I would never have got that! That can't be fair!'
Then again, as I find myself getting better at it, I'm swaying towards the UKCAT more. and I still think the science bit of the bmat is useless hehe!

[Selecao]

(Original post by AishaTara)
I guess it depends when you did your A-levels, my cousin who is 30 now, is a Doctor, and A-levels before were much harder than they are now. O-levels were always harder than GCSES, so a C then is equv, of an A/B now; plus medicine has become increasingly popular.
Plus to get AAA you generally have to put some work in, something you'll have to do at medical school.

A 'C' then was exactly that, A 'C'. Plus, A-Levels were easier back then and you must recognise that there aren't just teenagers/people in their early 20's on here.

A classic case of a 'conversation filler'.

[Davidragon]

(Original post by Pride)
I dunno though, the ukcat is quite a good indicator of logic and problem solving skills, as well as interpreting and pressure/time keeping. It's not bad.

I think the bmat's scientific knowledge sections is more useless, because students do a-levels already, I don't see how knowing a student can do some a-lil-higher-than-gcse-level physics questions helps anyone.

Not really the same. BMAT style questions are all about application. Essentially it is what A2 sciences are like but it only requires a GCSE knowledge base. It tests a different skill set that I think is important, especially since not everyone does 3 sciences and Maths at A level.

If you compare section 1 (the Aptitude section, like the UKCAT) with section 2 (Science Application), section 2 correlates much better with academic success on the medical course, at least at Cambridge.

By comparison, the justifications for things like abstract reasoning and quantitative reasoning seem weak at best. I reckon medicine is more about information recall and application than swift mathematical calculation and finding links between random shapes.

[happyhands]

(Original post by skylight17)
I completely disagree with you here - you can't tell me that Chemistry and Maths/further Maths and Biology (parts of it) are SO EASY!

I think most people would agree with me on that...

You're joking, right!

Why do you think they had to bring in the A* grade. A-levels are a disgrace nowadays. The med/vet schools can't even rely on them anymore, and that's why they have to use UKCAT, BMAT, GAMSAT and all the other daft entrance exams.

I LOL at anyone who thinks A-levels are hard these days.....

[usamakhanlodhi]

Scrap thr U.K.C.A.T- completely useless only used in my opinion to save time and effort for admission people
BMAT is good as time limit not too bad, really does test problem solving, scientific aptitude and section 3 really can be used to diffrentiate between people.
But GCSEs should not matter as they really in my opinion dont show any significant information
Predicted grades should be scrapped as with grade inflation theyve now become pointless
Instead UMS percentage should be used to give certain number of points to candidates based on average or subject UMS percentages.. would really differentiate between those who scrapped an A and those who got higher
Plus in my biased opinion this unbelievable focus on extra curriculur activities should stop.. As its a huge measure of diffrent lives different candidates have and the activities which they can undertake in those activities
I mean ofcourse you dont want a hermit but every activity should not have to be fabulous demonstrate huge interpersonal skills. As long as you can be a nice person(seen by reference), have basic social skills and have a hobby(even if its reading or discussing politics or going to the cinema.. yes thats me) if it helps you relax then that is whats important.. I know some very good doctors who are very single tracked in life just all about work and family and they are wonderful doctors.
Plus interviews should be a bit about work experience, extra curriculur
But mainly should test your ability to think on your feet, your enthusiasm and to reason..
Not just memorized answers to certain qs...
Yes the opionions of a bitter yr 13 medicine reject but still points are valid

[I'm drunk]

People should stop complaining and just do some work and take ownership of their own failure.

This generation thinks they're guaranteed a place at med school. You get what you're owed, and you're owed what you deserve.....

[quickdraw]

My head hurts with all the stupid statements on here.

The unis have to discriminate somehow. Just be grateful they don't have a karaoke run-off to figure out they'll accept. And don't laugh, they do this in Japan. HAHAHAHAHHAHA.

[skylight17]

(Original post by happyhands)
You're joking, right!

Why do you think they had to bring in the A* grade. A-levels are a disgrace nowadays. The med/vet schools can't even rely on them anymore, and that's why they have to use UKCAT, BMAT, GAMSAT and all the other daft entrance exams.

I LOL at anyone who thinks A-levels are hard these days.....

Well bearing in mind you have done your A-levels and done a degree, it's easy for you to say. It is all relative to one's age. For example, when I was doing GCSEs I didn't find them piss easy, but now I can see how straighforward they are/were.

Plus the A* was bought in to 'recognise and reward exceptional performance at A Level' (to distinguish between the academic ability of candidates, not merely because they're seen as being easy)

It's very easy to take that stance...

[skylight17]

(Original post by I'm drunk)
People should stop complaining and just do some work and take ownership of their own failure.

This generation thinks they're guaranteed a place at med school. You get what you're owed, and you're owed what you deserve.....

I didn't start the thread for that reason, definitely not what its about! (I already have an offer) - it is simply a light hearted thread to see how the whole application could be improved/made more effective...

[Julian_valensi]

Deffinetly a move towards mmi, extremely progressive and has been developed from solid research and practise starting in MacMaster and moving onwards. (incedently Mac also being the place PBL was pioneered in the 1960's)

This system allows a broader test of character, acedemic ability and sutiability to a specific university. Due to it being conducted by around 10 to 20 interviewers it also elliminates bias, and allows some strengths shown by candidates to shine through as well as not placing too much emphesis on weaknesses.

Simply put you can test for every useful faccet of a candidates personality.

[hslakaal]

(Original post by skylight17)
Well bearing in mind you have done your A-levels and done a degree, it's easy for you to say. It is all relative to one's age. For example, when I was doing GCSEs I didn't find them piss easy, but now I can see how straighforward they are/were.

Plus the A* was bought in to 'recognise and reward exceptional performance at A Level' (to distinguish between the academic ability of candidates, not merely because they're seen as being easy)

It's very easy to take that stance...

As someone who's just finished A-levels, I'd argue against the notion that A-Levels are "hard". I genuinely do not think achieving an A is too much of a struggle now compared to before, and rightly so. The A* I'd consider hard though.

On a slightly different note; considering how the majority of med schools are still giving out AAA offers after a year of the A* in existence, I'd say it isn't too hard to get into a med school in terms of pure academics atm (and hopefully that'll change next year - no matter how much people argue "extra-curricular" and whatnot, I'd still have someone who's smart rather than a doc who can't play sports any day to treat me)

[AishaTara]

(Original post by Selecao)
A 'C' then was exactly that, A 'C'. Plus, A-Levels were easier back then and you must recognise that there aren't just teenagers/people in their early 20's on here.

A classic case of a 'conversation filler'.

I'm aware, there are people like myself studying A-levels. I was looking at a past paper from 1990 and it was definitely harder than now. Although, when the specification changed whenever it did, the papers got easier, but as everyone is preparing better for them, they have had to make them harder.
There was a study on this.

[thegodofgod]

Not sure if people have already mentioned this on here, but transparency of admissions selection criteria.

For example, on Keele's website, it says nothing more than you must have a minimum of 4 A grades in a wide variety of GCSEs (OWTTE). Now, when I was rejected from them, the reasoning was something to do with how they look at the top 7 GCSEs. Now how is that fair?

The least they could do is put that up on their damned website.

And Southampton and Leeds' admissions process went over my head entirely!

[Selecao]

(Original post by AishaTara)
I'm aware, there are people like myself studying A-levels. I was looking at a past paper from 1990 and it was definitely harder than now. Although, when the specification changed whenever it did, the papers got easier, but as everyone is preparing better for them, they have had to make them harder.
There was a study on this.

The studies aren't taking into account differentiation in people's abilities though. It's a flawed study from the off unless you only use one person for multiple papers. If there was other factors included, then discount my point.

I could get the same paper as you and you might think it's dead easy and I might struggle, for example. A researcher may ask me how I thought it went and I might say "I fear the worst. I found that really hard", whereas you might say "Oh, it was easy. I'm definitely going to do well in that".

It's the same paper.

If you, yourself, took 20 papers. You could then distinguish the true level at which it's changed (harder/easier) or you might think it hasn't changed at all. It could be a case of different generations of students studied differently/harder/less and then mindset of teaching may have changed. That is an example, don't take it literally.


OT: I've been in the game for just over 12 years and I didn't do a UKCAT or anything, but out of the students we get to look after at work, a lot curse it to death because a large portion of them got declined a few times because of it, yet the ones I refer to are excellent students and there has been times where we've had poor/unsuitable students who did well in it. I just don't think it separates a good prospective undergraduate from a bad one.

[ViceVersa]

I wish OP had created a poll

[Davidragon]

(Original post by hslakaal)
As someone who's just finished A-levels, I'd argue against the notion that A-Levels are "hard". I genuinely do not think achieving an A is too much of a struggle now compared to before, and rightly so. The A* I'd consider hard though.

On a slightly different note; considering how the majority of med schools are still giving out AAA offers after a year of the A* in existence, I'd say it isn't too hard to get into a med school in terms of pure academics atm (and hopefully that'll change next year - no matter how much people argue "extra-curricular" and whatnot, I'd still have someone who's smart rather than a doc who can't play sports any day to treat me)

Tbh, I don't think that as Medical applicants we are the best judge of how hard A levels are. I agree, getting an A grade at this point doesn't seem like it would be too hard, but I think it's pretty arrogant to say A levels are easy. Knowing you need to get 3 As makes you a slightly different person than someone who only needs B grades and as can people will rise to the expectation.

Firstly, you can't generalise over all subjects. Subjects are difficult for different reasons. Also, I think it's a bit odd to say more people are getting A grades simply because the exams are easier. That disregards improvements in education, changes in public expectations , increased variety of subjects etc.

Plus, A levels fluctuate too much in difficulty from year to year and between between different boards for anyone to really say they are, as a whole, getting easier.

[hslakaal]

(Original post by Davidragon)
Tbh, I don't think that as Medical applicants we are the best judge of how hard A levels are. I agree, getting an A grade at this point doesn't seem like it would be too hard, but I think it's pretty arrogant to say A levels are easy. Knowing you need to get 3 As makes you a slightly different person than someone who only needs B grades and as can people will rise to the expectation.

Firstly, you can't generalise over all subjects. Subjects are difficult for different reasons. Also, I think it's a bit odd to say more people are getting A grades simply because the exams are easier. That disregards improvements in education, changes in public expectations , increased variety of subjects etc.

Plus, A levels fluctuate too much in difficulty from year to year and between between different boards for anyone to really say they are, as a whole, getting easier.

Ahh... I've never specifically mentioned why it's easy to get an A did I?

With that false accusation aside, I'd like to clarify: I'm saying it's easy to get an A for most medical applicants. No matter how easy an exam gets or how improved education becomes, there are always those who are going to get bad grades. And to those, it'd be just to say A-Levels are hard.

What I do mean, is that compared to the past, there are more and more medic applicants with triple As, but not necessarily triple A*s. Purely within the applicant pool of course. So to re-emphasize, I think the bar needs to be raised soon.

[StrawberryLaces]

I'd say making the system more transparent e.g whilst HYMS and Leicester list out their application criteria, most medical schools keep it hidden in regard to UKCAT cut-off points and how different aspects of the application are assessed.

I'd also recommend getting BMAT results before applying in the same manner of the UKCAT. It feels practically suicidal to apply to two BMAT universities when you could very easily flunk it. But then it would make it more difficult to gain a place at a BMAT university since the average BMAT score of applicants would be inflated.