Scroll to see replies
Basically, if you go to Oxford or Cambridge, then you can skip your FY1 and FY2 years and immediately jump into specialist training, which for Oxbridge graduates only takes about 9-15 months. So you'll be a consultant by the age of 26/27.
Original post by Hippysnake
Basically, if you go to Oxford or Cambridge, then you can skip your FY1 and FY2 years and immediately jump into specialist training, which for Oxbridge graduates only takes about 9-15 months. So you'll be a consultant by the age of 26/27.
Thanks for the simple and straight to the point answer!
Original post by jd1997
Thanks for the simple and straight to the point answer!
Ignore that answer - he's intentionally misleading & lying there
F1 / F2 training is done no-matter what university you go to. The time it takes to specialise is the same no matter what medical school you go to.
The main difference is, some universities such as Oxford / Cambridge do "pre-clinical" learning for a couple of years at the start of medical school. It is lecture based / non-patient based for the entire 2 first years.
Other universities, such as Southampton, are much more "hands-on" and patient orientated from the 1st year. You do a mixture of lectures & have clinical experience at the same time.
Some universities also learn "system-based" i.e. you learn everything about the cardiovascular system at a time - whilst others you learn about anatomy, physiology as seperate entities etc
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Lionheartat20
Ignore that answer - he's intentionally misleading & lying there
F1 / F2 training is done no-matter what university you go to. The time it takes to specialise is the same no matter what medical school you go to.
The main difference is, some universities such as Oxford / Cambridge do "pre-clinical" learning for a couple of years at the start of medical school. It is lecture based / non-patient based for the entire 2 first years.
Other universities, such as Southampton, are much more "hands-on" and patient orientated from the 1st year. You do a mixture of lectures & have clinical experience at the same time.
Some universities also learn "system-based" i.e. you learn everything about the cardiovascular system at a time - whilst others you learn about anatomy, physiology as seperate entities etc
F1 / F2 training is done no-matter what university you go to. The time it takes to specialise is the same no matter what medical school you go to.
The main difference is, some universities such as Oxford / Cambridge do "pre-clinical" learning for a couple of years at the start of medical school. It is lecture based / non-patient based for the entire 2 first years.
Other universities, such as Southampton, are much more "hands-on" and patient orientated from the 1st year. You do a mixture of lectures & have clinical experience at the same time.
Some universities also learn "system-based" i.e. you learn everything about the cardiovascular system at a time - whilst others you learn about anatomy, physiology as seperate entities etc
So would it be correct to say there is no universal best? and it simply comes down to the preferences of the individual?
Original post by jd1997
So would it be correct to say there is no universal best? and it simply comes down to the preferences of the individual?
In effect that is correct.
Firstly, no medical school can be 'poor' in terms of academic teaching. Otherwise, you would have half-trained doctors in hospitals & this would have disastrous consequences. Hence, all of the universities are closely monitored to make sure their teaching is good enough. Oxbridge may be 'best' academically at other degrees, but medicine is a whole different ball park to other degrees
When you apply to foundation years, the selectors do not know what medical school you came from as well.
It ultimately should come down to visiting medical schools & speaking to the current medical students, what style (lecture based or more 'hands-on' from the beginning) of teaching, and of course your grades / UKCAT to maximise your chances of getting in
Original post by Lionheartat20
In effect that is correct.
Firstly, no medical school can be 'poor' in terms of academic teaching. Otherwise, you would have half-trained doctors in hospitals & this would have disastrous consequences. Hence, all of the universities are closely monitored to make sure their teaching is good enough. Oxbridge may be 'best' academically at other degrees, but medicine is a whole different ball park to other degrees
When you apply to foundation years, the selectors do not know what medical school you came from as well.
It ultimately should come down to visiting medical schools & speaking to the current medical students, what style (lecture based or more 'hands-on' from the beginning) of teaching, and of course your grades / UKCAT to maximise your chances of getting in
Firstly, no medical school can be 'poor' in terms of academic teaching. Otherwise, you would have half-trained doctors in hospitals & this would have disastrous consequences. Hence, all of the universities are closely monitored to make sure their teaching is good enough. Oxbridge may be 'best' academically at other degrees, but medicine is a whole different ball park to other degrees
When you apply to foundation years, the selectors do not know what medical school you came from as well.
It ultimately should come down to visiting medical schools & speaking to the current medical students, what style (lecture based or more 'hands-on' from the beginning) of teaching, and of course your grades / UKCAT to maximise your chances of getting in
^this
Also think about the area you would like to study in. Do you want to be in a major city or a town? My medic friends from my Uni always preferred placements in areas like Medway or Margate because they got more opportunity to do practical stuff. They found that more central hospitals (Guys, Kings, Tommys etc) you're not treated as favourably as a student, nor are you given the same amount of responsibility
Posted from TSR Mobile
As said above it doesn't really matter - all medical schools have to reach a satisfactory standard set by the GMC and degrees are hidden for the Foundation Years application.
Some, however, do have more prestige attached for one reason or another. Oxbridge clearly has a worldwide reputation for academic education and so it also goes with their medical schools as well (although this is probably deserved as they do learn more preclinical science than most other places), whilst the London universities are linked with some of the best hospitals in the country and get their prestige that way (I'm not sure whether the best hospitals in the country for tertiary care also teach well, presumably so?).
Having said this there has been research done that shows graduates of different medical schools performing differently as a class average in the MRCP exams (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/6/5/) and just last week there was an article in The Telegraph that talked about how the hours different universities expected students to work and for medicine [and dentistry] varies from almost 50 hours a week at Cambridge to 'just' 33 hours at Sheffield and Liverpool (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10216619/Top-universities-expect-students-to-work-twice-as-hard.html). Neither of these are saying that one medical school is better or worse than others though, but it might be worth thinking about.
I guess your best bet is to choose the place most suited to you (course style, location, etc) and just work hard to try and defy any trends that these studies might be trying to hint at, if they are.
Some, however, do have more prestige attached for one reason or another. Oxbridge clearly has a worldwide reputation for academic education and so it also goes with their medical schools as well (although this is probably deserved as they do learn more preclinical science than most other places), whilst the London universities are linked with some of the best hospitals in the country and get their prestige that way (I'm not sure whether the best hospitals in the country for tertiary care also teach well, presumably so?).
Having said this there has been research done that shows graduates of different medical schools performing differently as a class average in the MRCP exams (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/6/5/) and just last week there was an article in The Telegraph that talked about how the hours different universities expected students to work and for medicine [and dentistry] varies from almost 50 hours a week at Cambridge to 'just' 33 hours at Sheffield and Liverpool (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10216619/Top-universities-expect-students-to-work-twice-as-hard.html). Neither of these are saying that one medical school is better or worse than others though, but it might be worth thinking about.
I guess your best bet is to choose the place most suited to you (course style, location, etc) and just work hard to try and defy any trends that these studies might be trying to hint at, if they are.
(edited 10 years ago)
Another difference is the extent of usage of problem based learning (PBL) vs lecture based learning. Also, some universities have no dissections when studying anatomy. Note that I do not study in the UK but this seems to be general differences found in almost all universities in Western Europe
(edited 10 years ago)
There are huge differences - medicine is probably the most variable subject there is. The course structure and content vary hugely, as does experience of different speciality, amount of time on placement, examination style, etc.
What difference would that make though? Probably not much in the long run.
Pick the place where you want to study for 5/6 years.
What difference would that make though? Probably not much in the long run.
Pick the place where you want to study for 5/6 years.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Azzura
I would strongly recommend against Oxbridge! I am doing medicine and the other unis are much better as they teach you in a much more practical way, preparing you for actual clinical work, not just the science behind what you are doing.
I really like Oxford's course (i'm not sure how 3 years of 48 weeks per year in hospital is 'just science') but its definitely not for everyone no.
I wouldn't say that one medical school is particularly better than another; the university people prefer generally depends on which form of learning they prefer. There are three main types of universities.
Problem Based Learning (PBL): It is a very hands-on approach. You typically see patients right from the first year. Teaching is done in small groups where you are given a scenario by a tutor, you discuss the problem, brainstorm, do personal research on the topic, and discuss again. eg. University of Manchester,
Oxbridge, St Andrews more "traditional" course: In Oxbridge, you don't really see patients at all in the first year. It's very classroom based and theoretical. Mostly lectures and a few small group (1-3 people) teaching. I like this method of teaching, but some doctors I have talked to have told me that Oxbridge students tend to make better researchers than doctors (one was complaining about how she'd tended to patients since first year, but the Cambridge student couldn't properly insert a catheter in third year). The majority of Oxbridge students are also transferred halfway through the course to London universities.
Integrated: The majority of universities do a little of both. They learn in groups, lectures, by patient contact, and also a small amount of PBL, right from the first year. This is my personal preferred way of learning, and examples include Imperial College London, Cardiff and Sheffield.
Problem Based Learning (PBL): It is a very hands-on approach. You typically see patients right from the first year. Teaching is done in small groups where you are given a scenario by a tutor, you discuss the problem, brainstorm, do personal research on the topic, and discuss again. eg. University of Manchester,
Oxbridge, St Andrews more "traditional" course: In Oxbridge, you don't really see patients at all in the first year. It's very classroom based and theoretical. Mostly lectures and a few small group (1-3 people) teaching. I like this method of teaching, but some doctors I have talked to have told me that Oxbridge students tend to make better researchers than doctors (one was complaining about how she'd tended to patients since first year, but the Cambridge student couldn't properly insert a catheter in third year). The majority of Oxbridge students are also transferred halfway through the course to London universities.
Integrated: The majority of universities do a little of both. They learn in groups, lectures, by patient contact, and also a small amount of PBL, right from the first year. This is my personal preferred way of learning, and examples include Imperial College London, Cardiff and Sheffield.
Ignore the first response, he's talking out of his ****.
The main differences between medical schools are to do with the style of teaching (PBL vs lectures, integrated vs preclinical/clinical, dissection vs prosection vs no human tissue, possibility to / compulsory intercalation) and the university itself rather than the outcome. As someone said earlier, having discrepancies in the level of training of FY1 and 2 doctors would be disastrous. Pick somewhere where you'll enjoy studying, that offers the right course and style of teaching for you, and somewhere you'll be happy to live for the 5/6 years you'll be there!
The main differences between medical schools are to do with the style of teaching (PBL vs lectures, integrated vs preclinical/clinical, dissection vs prosection vs no human tissue, possibility to / compulsory intercalation) and the university itself rather than the outcome. As someone said earlier, having discrepancies in the level of training of FY1 and 2 doctors would be disastrous. Pick somewhere where you'll enjoy studying, that offers the right course and style of teaching for you, and somewhere you'll be happy to live for the 5/6 years you'll be there!
Original post by Monarose
,but some doctors I have talked to have told me that Oxbridge students tend to make better researchers than doctors (one was complaining about how she'd tended to patients since first year, but the Cambridge student couldn't properly insert a catheter in third year). The majority of Oxbridge students are also transferred halfway through the course to London universities.
I don't think it]'s particularly fair to judge standards of third year medical students between medical schools, because of the differences in teaching styles and the timings of when things get taught. It's only really appropriate to judge graduates i.e. the finished product, but even then it's down much more to personal ability and motivation for being good than the way medical school taught you.
I've worked with graduates from most medical schools in the UK. Some I think are excellent doctors. Some I think are not. The medical schools that they went to do not correlate with this.
Original post by Monarose
Oxbridge, St Andrews more "traditional" course: In Oxbridge, you don't really see patients at all in the first year. It's very classroom based and theoretical. Mostly lectures and a few small group (1-3 people) teaching. I like this method of teaching, but some doctors I have talked to have told me that Oxbridge students tend to make better researchers than doctors (one was complaining about how she'd tended to patients since first year, but the Cambridge student couldn't properly insert a catheter in third year). The majority of Oxbridge students are also transferred halfway through the course to London universities.
Oxbridge, St Andrews more "traditional" course: In Oxbridge, you don't really see patients at all in the first year. It's very classroom based and theoretical. Mostly lectures and a few small group (1-3 people) teaching. I like this method of teaching, but some doctors I have talked to have told me that Oxbridge students tend to make better researchers than doctors (one was complaining about how she'd tended to patients since first year, but the Cambridge student couldn't properly insert a catheter in third year). The majority of Oxbridge students are also transferred halfway through the course to London universities.
I wouldn't expect a Cambridge student to be able to do ANY practical skills in their third year because they haven't started the clinical part of their course yet. I would actually be surprised if many third years were really confident at inserting catheters tbh, but that's another story. However, by the time they graduate they should have roughly equivalent skills to a graduate from anywhere else, and from what I can tell, this is the case.
Also, it's not "a majority" who leave Oxbridge for London - only about 15-20% of Oxford students leave, and while ~50% of Cambridge students do leave, roughly 10% of those transfer to Oxford rather than London. Most of them choose to do this, rather than being passively transferred as your post implies.
Original post by Hippysnake
Basically, if you go to Oxford or Cambridge, then you can skip your FY1 and FY2 years and immediately jump into specialist training, which for Oxbridge graduates only takes about 9-15 months. So you'll be a consultant by the age of 26/27.
Lol! Why did I not think of this.
Original post by Azzura
I would strongly recommend against Oxbridge! I am doing medicine and the other unis are much better as they teach you in a much more practical way, preparing you for actual clinical work, not just the science behind what you are doing.
A study a few years ago showed that Oxford and Cambridge graduates have the highest pass rate in PACES (an exam testing clinical and communication skills).
Original post by Chief Wiggum
A study a few years ago showed that Oxford and Cambridge graduates have the highest pass rate in PACES (an exam testing clinical and communication skills).
Yeah thats passing exams, in other words, what they are taught to do.
Anyway it's just my opinion. Some people may be offended, but that's what I was told when I applied - and in my interview there. I also know some people on the course and they said they would prefer more practical work in the first few years.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Will I get into medical school at top universities with these gcse grade
- About applying to medicine
- oxbridge med??
- Studyding medicine abroad with a BTEC background?
- Queen Mary University Malta
- Oxford vs Cambridge
- Please help a fellow student out
- Failed one exam by one mark and needing to repeat the year in medical school
- Student wanting to go into medicine.
- Regarding the medical sciences Bsc and American medical school.
- Do I still have a shot at Cambridge (or Oxford?)
- What A levels should I pick for medicine
- UK vs. US dental degree
- Dying while taking A-levels (quite literally)
- University + UCAT
- Applying for med with achieved grades
- Need to defer due to illness - help!
- Oxford weight on GCSEs
- Achieved the highest grade in med school, AMA
- GCSE and university applications
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
