The Student Room Group

Standard 5-year course as a graduate?

I am curious as to how much it would cost to self-fund the standard 5-year course as a graduate? Would a graduate on the 5-year course be eligible for NHS funding, etc.? I am not necessarily considering this as a viable option, but I am concerned that funding for Graduate Entry Medicine - for which I eventually hope to apply - will be reduced or removed by the time I apply (2016 entry). What would the total sum (not including maintenance!) for self-funding the standard 5-year course be?
Reply 1
Years 1-4: £9000 per year fees - no tuition fee loan available
Year 5: NHS bursary to cover fees.

So you'll need £36K available to pay fees.

Even if the funding for graduate entry medicine is removed (which I don't think will happen), it's still a shorter course than the 5 year degree so it will still be the less expensive option.
Reply 2
Original post by Democracy
Years 1-4: £9000 per year fees - no tuition fee loan available
Year 5: NHS bursary to cover fees.

So you'll need £36K available to pay fees.

Even if the funding for graduate entry medicine is removed (which I don't think will happen), it's still a shorter course than the 5 year degree so it will still be the less expensive option.


Ouch. :P That would be a definite drain on the already sparse resources...:P Out of curiosity, what makes you believe the GEM funding will remain?
Reply 3
Original post by la95
Ouch. :P That would be a definite drain on the already sparse resources...:P Out of curiosity, what makes you believe the GEM funding will remain?


Several reasons:

1) I have no faith in the Labour Party, but I trust them slightly more than the Coalition when it comes to student funding: if they return to power it is highly unlikely that they will remove GEM funding.

2) If the Coalition Tories stay in power, the existing set up they have for GEM is actually working (assuming SFE actually does its damned job and doesn't lose people's applications). There's no reason to pull the funding: GEM students represent a source of income, not a drain.

3) Graduate entry medical students represent 10% of all medical students (this figure may be old and the current number higher). You cannot simply pull the plug on several thousand students in an in-demand profession like medicine.

4) There are rumours that the future of medical education in the UK is heading more and more in the American direction i.e. medical school might become entirely graduate entry in the future. There is no sense therefore in making life for graduate entry students unnecessarily difficult when the current graduate entry programmes may be acting as guinea pigs for future government policy.

5) Previous campaigns by students in 2010/11 successfully lobbied the Health Secretary for adequate GEM student funding, there's no reason why this shouldn't happen again after 2015. Graduate entry will still remain a popular choice amongst BA/BSc students: there is no loss of demand on the part of the "consumer".

The above are all my personal opinions and speculations, but that's how I see it anyway.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 4
Original post by Democracy
Several reasons:

1) I have no faith in the Labour Party, but I trust them slightly more than the Coalition when it comes to student funding: if they return to power it is highly unlikely that they will remove GEM funding.

2) If the Coalition Tories stay in power, the existing set up they have for GEM is actually working (assuming SFE actually does its damned job and doesn't lose people's applications). There's no reason to pull the funding: GEM students represent a source of income, not a drain.

3) Graduate entry medical students represent 10% of all medical students (this figure may be old and the current number higher). You cannot simply pull the plug on several thousand students in an in-demand profession like medicine.

4) There are rumours that the future of medical education in the UK is heading more and more in the American direction i.e. medical school might become entirely graduate entry in the future. There is no sense therefore in making life for graduate entry students unnecessarily difficult when the current graduate entry programmes may be acting as guinea pigs for future government policy.

5) Previous campaigns by students in 2010/11 successfully lobbied the Health Secretary for adequate GEM student funding, there's no reason why this shouldn't happen again after 2015. Graduate entry will still remain a popular choice amongst BA/BSc students: there is no loss of demand on the part of the "consumer".

The above are all my personal opinions and speculations, but that's how I see it anyway.


Thank you very much, I appreciate the time you took to share your views! Very interesting, and they certainly do make sense. :smile: Hopefully you are correct!
Reply 5
I was going to create a new thread regarding this, but I thought it would be more apt to just ask here. Does anyone have any idea as to when announcements regarding funding for 2016 entry and beyond will be made (for GEM)?
Original post by la95
I was going to create a new thread regarding this, but I thought it would be more apt to just ask here. Does anyone have any idea as to when announcements regarding funding for 2016 entry and beyond will be made (for GEM)?


When hell freezes over. I've found awaiting funding news from this Government futile; I wouldn't expect it ever -- it'll come when they decide it suits them!

Not to be pessimistic... :wink:
Reply 7
Original post by MattKneale
When hell freezes over. I've found awaiting funding news from this Government futile; I wouldn't expect it ever -- it'll come when they decide it suits them!

Not to be pessimistic... :wink:


Haha! Yes, after the great fee-tripling fiasco I suppose it's only logical to expect them to spring these potentially life-changing announcements on poor unsuspecting prospective students belatedly. :rolleyes:

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending