[navarre]

I'm fairly sure that medical schools take in a certain number of undergrads and a certain number of grads, so the two don't compete. Does anyone know for sure?

[Democracy]

(Original post by navarre)
I'm fairly sure that medical schools take in a certain number of undergrads and a certain number of grads, so the two don't compete. Does anyone know for sure?

What do you mean?

A100 and A101 (GEP) courses are separate, but that's because the GEPs usually cover the first two years of the A100 degree in one year, then join the rest of the undergrad cohort at year 3.

[navarre]

(Original post by Democracy)
What do you mean?

A100 and A101 (GEP) courses are separate, but that's because the GEPs usually cover the first two years of the A100 degree in one year, then join the rest of the undergrad cohort at year 3.

Exactly what I wanted to know, so undergraduates and graduates don't compete for any places?

[Democracy]

(Original post by navarre)
Exactly what I wanted to know, so undergraduates and graduates don't compete for any places?

If you're talking about GEPs then definitely not! As a school leaver, you won't be able to apply to a graduate course as you'll need an undergrad degree. They're two separate courses and count as individual choices on UCAS. So for example, a graduate applying to Southampton's GEP won't be in competition with a school leaver applying to Southampton's A100 course. They will only be in competition with other GEP applicants.

However, graduates can apply to standard A100 courses too, so in that sense, yes there is competition with school leavers, however, being a graduate or being a school leaver shouldn't make a difference: what matters is satisfying the requirements, whether that means having the right A level grades or right degree classification. Once you've done that, it no longer matters what the nature of your qualifications are.

[thegodofgod]

(Original post by Democracy)
If you're talking about GEPs then definitely not! As a school leaver, you won't be able to apply to a graduate course as you'll need an undergrad degree. They're two separate courses and count as individual choices on UCAS. So for example, a graduate applying to Southampton's GEP won't be in competition with a school leaver applying to Southampton's A100 course. They will only be in competition with other GEP applicants.

However, graduates can apply to standard A100 courses too, so in that sense, yes there is competition with school leavers, however, being a graduate or being a school leaver shouldn't make a difference: what matters is satisfying the requirements, whether that means having the right A level grades or right degree classification. Once you've done that, it no longer matters what the nature of your qualifications are.

But say you had a scenario where two applicants for the A100 course - 1 school-leaver and 1 graduate - both achieved AAA at A level, but the graduate also achieved a 1st class degree in, say, biochemistry from a highly-ranked institution.

At your average medical school (I know you can't generalise admissions processes, but for argument's sake) would the graduate be looked upon more favourably than the school leaver?

Cheers

[MJK91]

(Original post by thegodofgod)
But say you had a scenario where two applicants for the A100 course - 1 school-leaver and 1 graduate - both achieved AAA at A level, but the graduate also achieved a 1st class degree in, say, biochemistry from a highly-ranked institution.

At your average medical school (I know you can't generalise admissions processes, but for argument's sake) would the graduate be looked upon more favourably than the school leaver?

Cheers

I'd say neither, you both meet the entry requirements so other factors come into play: entrance exams, personal statement, voluntary/caring work and shadowing. It's not all down to academia!

[thegodofgod]

(Original post by MattKneale)
I'd say neither, you both meet the entry requirements so other factors come into play: entrance exams, personal statement, voluntary/caring work and shadowing. It's not all down to academia!

But say all of those are the same too (I know it's virtually impossible, but just play along )

[theatrical]

(Original post by thegodofgod)
But say all of those are the same too (I know it's virtually impossible, but just play along )

If both are good enough they'll get interviews - it's the interview performance that then matters not the grades.

[theatrical]

(Original post by navarre)
I'm fairly sure that medical schools take in a certain number of undergrads and a certain number of grads, so the two don't compete. Does anyone know for sure?

At the majority of medical schools grads and school leavers applying for the same 5 year courses are in competition with each other.

I don't know of any schools that consider the two groups seperately for 5 year courses - the 4 year courses are completely different as they're only open to grads anyway.

[Democracy]

(Original post by thegodofgod)
But say you had a scenario where two applicants for the A100 course - 1 school-leaver and 1 graduate - both achieved AAA at A level, but the graduate also achieved a 1st class degree in, say, biochemistry from a highly-ranked institution.

At your average medical school (I know you can't generalise admissions processes, but for argument's sake) would the graduate be looked upon more favourably than the school leaver?

Cheers

Then they would both get through to the interview stage. If having AAA at A levels in addition to a 2:1 is part of the requirements for a graduate applying to an A100 course (this does not happen anywhere btw) then it can hardly be seen as something "extra" given that it's a requirement, not surplus! And if A levels don't count for graduates, then it's irrelevant. But your argument does not take entrance examinations into account, which are very often the main discriminant used when sorting through graduate applicants.

(Original post by theatrical)
At the majority of medical schools grads and school leavers applying for the same 5 year courses are in competition with each other.

I don't know of any schools that consider the two groups seperately for 5 year courses - the 4 year courses are completely different as they're only open to grads anyway.

BL do it separately in that grads are selected based on UKCAT score and school leavers on UCAS tarrif. Though once they get to the interview stage, all applicants should be considered equally

[thegodofgod]

(Original post by theatrical)
If both are good enough they'll get interviews - it's the interview performance that then matters not the grades.

(Original post by Democracy)
Then they would both get through to the interview stage. If having AAA at A levels in addition to a 2:1 is part of the requirements for a graduate applying to an A100 course (this does not happen anywhere btw) then it can hardly be seen as something "extra" given that it's a requirement, not surplus! And if A levels don't count for graduates, then it's irrelevant. But your argument does not take entrance examinations into account, which are very often the main discriminant used when sorting through graduate applicants.



BL do it separately in that grads are selected based on UKCAT score and school leavers on UCAS tarrif. Though once they get to the interview stage, all applicants should be considered equally

Thanks both of you

[polldoll]

I'm a grad on a standard course in Scotland and I was under the impression that my course had a set number of grad places and we were up against other grads. It's a bit of an unfair advantage to put school leavers against grads, as the entry requirements were different. (well they were in my case.. I needed a 2:1 degree and higher chemistry at a b, compared to school leaver grades).


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[nexttime]

Not directly, no. I guess in the long-term though if grads outperform undergrads medicine will become more graduate entry

In terms of quartile rankings, they do compete with us. Pretty much all of them are top quartile. The heavily selected Cambridge guys get the other top spots. No fair.

[Sinatrafan]

I think graduates can often actually be at a disadvantage on 5 year courses (at least according to the universities I spoke with e.g. Oxford).

A lot of the time graduates don't have the A level requirements, hence why they went the graduate route. Some universities are very A levelcentric and wouldn't regard a degree as desirably as 3 A's at A level. If you're sitting on great A levels and a 1st class degree then you're unlikely to be heading the 5 year route. You only need to head the 5 year route if you've got a poor classification degree and poor A levels; especially under the new funding system for grads on 5 year courses.

I think that graduates have the potential to be hot competition after the initial screening for requirements. Due those old cliches like more life experience, they tend to put together better applications and tend to have richer experience to talk about and reflect upon, perhaps even a better work ethic in preparation for entrance exams etc.

[MJK91]

(Original post by Sinatrafan)
If you're sitting on great A levels and a 1st class degree then you're unlikely to be heading the 5 year route. You only need to head the 5 year route if you've got a poor classification degree and poor A levels; especially under the new funding system for grads on 5 year courses.

I'm not convinced that's true -- the reason graduates usually apply for 5-year courses is because there is less competition and they can afford to do so (less likely nowadays). They often still have the 2:1 requirement, but if you have the money and time it's easier to get onto A100 than it is A101 because of the increased number of places.

[medictobe]

I will be a graduate in 2013 and I'm applying for the A100 Medicine course (hopefully with a 1st or 2:1) and I got AAAa at A Level (prior to A* being introduced) plus years of work experience but my degree isn't Medically related - which will probably count against me. Bottom line, don't compare yourself to other applicants, there will always be someone better than you academically so focus on applying to the right Universities that fit your qualities.

[L.O.V.E.]

(Original post by Sinatrafan)
A lot of the time graduates don't have the A level requirements, hence why they went the graduate route. Some universities are very A levelcentric and wouldn't regard a degree as desirably as 3 A's at A level. If you're sitting on great A levels and a 1st class degree then you're unlikely to be heading the 5 year route. You only need to head the 5 year route if you've got a poor classification degree and poor A levels; especially under the new funding system for grads on 5 year courses.

Not necessarily. There is no GEM in Scotland so Scottish students have no choice but to go the 5 year route (although the 5 year in Scotland is cheaper) and GEM courses in England and Wales are not funded for Scottish students IIRC.

[Sherbet]

(Original post by L.O.V.E.)
Not necessarily. There is no GEM in Scotland so Scottish students have no choice but to go the 5 year route (although the 5 year in Scotland is cheaper) and GEM courses in England and Wales are not funded for Scottish students IIRC.

They can do a 4 year course if they want to pay, and even doing a 5 year course is far far cheaper in Scotland.

[neuro1]

I'm starting an A101 course in sept, but when it came to applying i went for 2 A100 and 2 A101 as i thought this gave me the best shot at getting a place somewhere. I interviewed for a A100 place and was in group activities etc with school leavers, but i was under the impression that a lot of uni's only use A levels/degrees/PS to screen for interview and then everyone has a 'clean slate' and is compared based on interview performance alone. I'm sure this isn't the case everywhere but if you dig around enough this sort of info can normally be found.