If you could change ONE about the application process - what would it be and why?

Really? If someone is rejected by four medical schools, do you think, statistically speaking, their chances of acceptance by a fifth are high or low?

well you've got a better chance of getting in to medical school if you get 5 options than if you've got 4 options..

That last medical school maybe the one that sees the potential in you, and then gives you an offer.

well you've got a better chance of getting in to medical school if you get 5 options than if you've got 4 options..

Controversial but I think your chance of getting an offer would be much higher if we could only apply to one medical school.

High or maybe?

Think about it this way; are the people who currently get zero offers most likely to the one extra than the people who currently get four?

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.

I know someone who is very capable but he had a horrible UKCAT score, sucks for her.

well you've got a better chance of getting in to medical school if you get 5 options than if you've got 4 options..

I agree broadly with the UKCAT sentiment. I like the idea, but they need to acknowledge that they got it wrong this time and start work on something more suitable.

As things currently stand, those applicants whom have parents who earn over 65k per annum, will receive very little in terms of funding from the government; thus making the option of going to Uni not an option unless of course a) the parents are willing to aid funding or b) the prospective student is able to find him or herself a high paying job prior to beginning their studies.
If neither of the above happen, then they will simply not be able to go to Uni because they will not have enough to live on after paying for rent/bills.

Not all parents are willing to pay for their child's education and if you are 18 or over, you are classified as an adult anyway. It is the student who is gaining the education, not the parent. So why should the parents income matter?

Also, a student whose parents are lazy benefit scroungers who have never worked in their life and have no intention of doing so, will definately be able to go to uni(providing obviously he or she has the academic potential) due to being issued the full amount of funding from the government.

Clearly this is not quite right, it means the offspring of lazy parents are guaranteed to be able to go to uni if they are capable, but those who have wealthier parents it is not so clear cut.

Reform is needed in this area of the application process.

What would you suggest, out of curiousity?

I don't think this is the thread for this kind of discussion. We're interested in applications to medicine in particular, whilst your post affects all applications.

Go here instead.

Good question. It's not an easy one though.

I think the 'neo-UKCAT' needs to:


I think things like ethical scenarios, general world awareness, application of knowledge (i.e., a BMAT-esque section), etc. would be good things to throw in.

More importantly: if it becomes apparent that the test isn't working, that needs to be recognised and acknowledged, and the test needs changing. If this test was made correctly, it could precipitate a really positive change in admissions. Unfortunately we're stuck with a ridiculous, over-priced nonsense test that makes admissions at certain universities cheap and easy.

The unis that do use UKCAT have decided to avoid testing strict scientific knowledge that would have been covered in A-level studies. There are reasons for this, but suffice it to say they could use BMAT but chose not to and instead opted for the UKCAT method.

In a way I agree with you that if there is going to be an entrance exam it should be a "full on" test, and should require a fair degree of subject specific knowledge. However, the bods that research this stuff say this isn't as indicitive as a more psychometric assessment such as UKCAT.

Horse for courses I suppose.....

I would like to test A-level standard knowledge but in a more medically applied manner.


Search "UKCAT" on pubmed. You get 11 hits. Research on this has been limited. This is partly because it hasn't been in use for that long (though I'd expect the first cohort to sit it will be graduating soon), I suspect.

In this study, it was suggested that UKCAT score was not predictive of interview performance. Interestingly, Newcastle think it predicts years 1 and 2 test scores; Dundee disagree.

The research is all over the place.

Purely on an anecdotal level, I've sat the test twice and had a change in score of +130 points over a year. A test should be reliable in that a person shouldn't be able to turn up a year later and beat their original score by >100 points.


I don't think so. Not when it's being used to select applicants and costs upwards of £70.