Does going to a "prestigious" university benefit you as a Doctor?

x

x

This makes me think that perhaps it is better to go to a less prestigious medical school and make your CV strong through papers and other items such a conference posters/audits... where you have more opportunities compared to eg. oxbridge where most of the students would be very interested in doing research and because of the demand there is less opportunity.

Could any medics at oxbridge/london.... confirm/deny this?

Hmm, no - your example doesn't make sense. Like you said, it would depend on the way Oxbridge scores are weighted, but even then, I don't believe a one decile increase is a given.

Whatever system you use though, if you are moving across with a group of people that are weaker than average, you are weakening the group you are moving into so you will be proportionally better ranked. It might not be one decile, but it will be something. Do you not see that?

That might be the case in other courses and perhaps to an extent in medicine, but with the vast majority of medical courses requiring such high grades, I think such differences in pre-university exam grades are likely to be so small that they're unlikely to have a really significant effect.
.

Well, the average Cambridge medic averages 96% in their AS Levels. I would suggest that's quite a lot higher than what the average medic at most other medical schools would have. The cohort ranking in Cambridge is 40:60 preclinical:clinical weighted. It is a fact that higher UMS correlates with higher preclinical marks (I haven't seen any research done for Clinical marks).

As an anecdotal observation, from my sixth form in London, there was a very large number of people getting into medical school. There was a huge difference in academic ability between those getting into Oxbridge (all of whom averaged >95%), and those getting into other medical schools. Obviously that's just anecdotal though.

I wouldn't say most students are interested in research at all. Some are, most aren't.

It is of course difficult for me to comment having no idea what your university is like. From my perspective though, the research opportunities are very good, at least from a lab research perspective. We all do research projects in 3rd year from which some get publications, some get posters. That also gives you contacts in a lab group. Of course you know your tutors personally too so that is often a way in for those that are keen.

So yeah, pretty good. I think if you were keen you could get at least a coupe of lab monkey roles over the summers. No guarantee on what that would yield though.



Again, if you could elaborate on how it doesn't make sense that would be great.

Whatever system you use though, if you are moving across with a group of people that are weaker than average, you are weakening the group you are moving into so you will be proportionally better ranked. It might not be one decile, but it will be something. Do you not see that?

Err, ok I'll spell it out - if you make two assumptions, that bottm 50 percent move and that they're equal, on paper, in performance - so if you import this identical oxbridge group into london, the bottom half shouldn't see any change in decile apart maybe from those in the extremes (up and down), but the top half in london is likely to increase their decile due to import of weaker students.

I understand your example, but surely they can't be re-ranked until after they sit some kind of assessment as a new cohort?

The bottom half won't see any change, but the top half will go up? Percentile 50 stays at 50, but percentile 51 moves up? That doesn't make any sense. Using your own scenario - the two bottom halves are now converging to form 66% of the year. So 16% of those people are going to move up out of the bottom half. Everyone below them will move up also. Except the very bottom person.

I suggest you revisit this scenario and think it over.



You suggest pre-clinical doesn't form any part of the ranking? Or that pre-clinical marks are adjusted based on some test that aims to calibrate the Oxbridge and London exams?

They could do. Maybe i'm mistaken and they do. I don't think so though.

Err, ok lol,here goes again - your initial assertion was that if the bottom half of oxbridge moved to london, they would statistically increase one decile which isn't a clever assertion. Yes, you're right that decile and indeed percentile of bottom will increase like i mentioned disregarding original university. We're talking about deciles - not individual places. The top half - consisting of london students - will increase by one decile barring the top decile ofc.

x

x

Err, ok lol,here goes again - your initial assertion was that if the bottom half of oxbridge moved to london, they would statistically increase one decile which isn't a clever assertion. Yes, you're right that decile and indeed percentile of bottom will increase like i mentioned disregarding original university. We're talking about deciles - not individual places. The top half - consisting of london students - will increase by one decile barring the top decile ofc.

good points made by many people. I'm guessing, the general consensus is that it isn't really that beneficial to go to oxbridge/london, or perhaps worse considering foundation post rankings.

I've also heard, (from a doctor who went to oxford) that she did not have as much clinical skills as other FY1 doctors from med schools, is this true for other oxbridge students. Can anyone confirm or debunk this?

At no point have i said exactly one decile. Sometimes it will be none, sometimes it might be two. Obviously.

It will go up though for almost everyone, and for someone like myself it could well have been by a decile - that is the point i have been making and you have been disputing.

good points made by many people. I'm guessing, the general consensus is that it isn't really that beneficial to go to oxbridge/london, or perhaps worse considering foundation post rankings.

I've also heard, (from a doctor who went to oxford) that she did not have as much clinical skills as other FY1 doctors from med schools, is this true for other oxbridge students. Can anyone confirm or debunk this?

I hate to labour the point and this discussion seems rather peripheral to the discussion considering the nature of fpas - but:



No, think of it this way, with the added influx of students, the top 50 students who previously occupied the top half will now occupy the top third so everyone bar the top decile will increase one decile at least. Now in the bottom two thirds, you now have a hundred students competing instead of 50 students competing for the bottom half,so that means only 25 students will break the 50th percentile threshold,which is equal to the number of people who will increase in percentile - so 25 percent will increase their percentile whilst the majority will stay the same decile.

Obviously this isn't great evidence but when doctors at work have asked me where I'm applying/going and I say "Southampton" a very common answer is "oh that's a good place to go" and when I say UEA they don't say anything. I actually think this is kind of ridiculous as there's no evidence to suggest Southampton is any better at producing doctors than any other university.

There's evidence of this sort of thing from all over the place and certainly isn't limited to medicine. If you're in a medical career at Mid-Staffs, despite it's quality now being very good, people will still notice it. They may even consciously think about how it shouldn't make a difference but these things can swing opinions.

Peoples' (job interviewer) perceptions (whether based on truth or not) can change the outcome of decisions and I suppose it means it could affect your prospects after you leave university. It shouldn't though.

I'm not sure if this is coincidence either but I've noticed the vast majority of surgeons I've met (traditionally one of the harder posts to get into) come from 'mum and dad list' universities like Oxbridge and the London universities. This may be more due to the fact I work in a London hospital however...

That's only because UEA is still a very new med school. In about 30 years time UEA, BSMS, etc will all probably be as well known as Soton, Notts, etc are now.