Are all medical schools truly equal?

Of course, there are going to be differences in the opportunities given to you in each medical school which stems from the way they are structured. But there are so many other factors that might determine these opportunities that the medical school you're at is probably insignificant. One factor that remains constant however is yourself. If you work hard to find and make the most of opportunities (which will present themselves regardless of where you are) then you stand a much better chance of getting those CV points.

Reply 3

OP

Original post by Democracy

But the SJT counts for 50% of your FPAS application...whereas having publications, presentations etc under your belt will only get you a couple of points...it's not really an important differentiating factor imho.

Yeah but the standard deviation for SJT is only 3.9 points...2 points increase there could potentially make a big difference to the overall outcome.

Original post by WackyJun

Of course, there are going to be differences in the opportunities given to you in each medical school which stems from the way they are structured. But there are so many other factors that might determine these opportunities that the medical school you're at is probably insignificant. One factor that remains constant however is yourself. If you work hard to find and make the most of opportunities (which will present themselves regardless of where you are) then you stand a much better chance of getting those CV points.

I agree with that...sometimes there are too many opportunities and too little time :tongue:

Reply 4

ukmed108

No all medical schools are not truly equal, but they are relatively close (when compared to other subjects) to being equal.

The difference between medical schools is much less than the difference between law schools, business schools. First of all, for your first job, your medical school doesn't matter which is huge. Second of all, the quality of medical schools is more or less guaranteed and there are fewer medical schools than law or business schools which results in a much less range in potential quality.

Going to a top Law or Business school can make a big difference compared to going to a poor one. It means huge differences in starting salary, different careers etc.

Going to a top medical school vs a poor one doesn't make any difference.

The tiny things you can tussle over are the way the school teaches the course, the location of the school, bragging rights (some medical schools are more difficult because they are attached to universities with more prestige or have a long history themselves) international reputation (if you want to practice abroad e.g. the US does take prestige into account) and research opportunities/miscellaneous opportunities (e.g. exchange).

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 5

OP

Original post by ukmed108

No all medical schools are not truly equal, but they are relatively close (when compared to other subjects) to being equal.

Going to a top medical school vs a poor one doesn't make any difference.

The tiny things you can tussle over are the way the school teaches the course, the location of the school, bragging rights (some medical schools are more difficult because they are attached to universities with more prestige or have a long history themselves) international reputation (if you want to practice abroad e.g. the US does take prestige into account and research opportunities/miscellaneous opportunities (e.g. exchange).

I cannot argue with your points regarding medicine vs. other courses. I did not imply that some medical schools were poor but that they offered less opportunity. As you say if all medical schools are equal, what differentiates the good and the really good graduates? Here. I feel that the research/miscellaneous opportunities do make a difference to your application for FP/CT/ST applications although as other posters have commented a lot depends on your own attitude. When it comes to applying for even moderately competitive specialities, having good-quality research/teaching can be vital in helping you get the speciality you want or even the hospital you want. It is worth noting that some schools even have strict requirements to let their medical students intercalate.

Ultimately, I think that we should encourage prospective students to bear this factor in mind when choosing medical schools as, like it or not, the medical schools we go to do make a difference to the opportunities on offer and some opportunities are better than others. It's just that I see "the medical school you go to doesn't make a difference" line being bandied across TSR and I have even thrown it around myself in the past. However, I do feel in hindsight that, while overtly it is unimportant, in subtle ways (depending on your career ambitions) it can be something to bear in mind.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 6

ukmed108

Original post by Hydromancer

I cannot argue with your points regarding medicine vs. other courses. I did not imply that some medical schools were poor but that they offered less opportunity. As you say if all medical schools are equal, what differentiates the good and the really good graduates? Here. I feel that the research/miscellaneous opportunities do make a difference to your application for FP/CT/ST applications although as other posters have commented a lot depends on your own attitude. When it comes to applying for even moderately competitive specialities, having good-quality research/teaching can be vital in helping you get the speciality you want or even the hospital you want. It is worth noting that some schools even have strict requirements to let their medical students intercalate.

Ultimately, I think that we should encourage prospective students to bear this factor in mind when choosing medical schools as, like it or not, the medical schools we go to do make a difference to the opportunities on offer and some opportunities are better than others. It's just that I see "the medical school you go to doesn't make a difference" line being bandied across TSR and I have even thrown it around myself in the past. However, I do feel in hindsight that, while overtly it is unimportant, in subtle ways (depending on your career ambitions) it can be something to bear in mind.

Yes, I agree, it is a factor, but again there is no medical school in the UK that will actually stop you from doing what you want to do but some schools are better for some things than others.

Reply 7

nexttime

22

Original post by Hydromancer

Just a question I've been thinking over. One could argue that some medical schools provide more exposure opportunities to get research and teaching experiences and some even give bursaries to present audits at conferences, Surely in the competitive world of FPAS (where the standard deviation of the SJT isn't that broad) and in CT/ST applications, this could prove an important differentiating factor in terms of points/interviews.

Would be interested to hear what others think.

Do you think you can definitely state which unis provide better research opportunities?

I put the average FPAS points per med school last year up on here a while back EDIT: on this page. The range was narrow, with most difference explained by considering those that make everyone do a iBSc. It would be interesting to see how this year's figures compare.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8

OP

Original post by nexttime

Do you think you can definitely state which unis provide better research opportunities?

I put the average FPAS points per med school last year up on here a while back EDIT: on this page. The range was narrow, with most difference explained by considering those that make everyone do a iBSc. It would be interesting to see how this year's figures compare.

Not definitely...that is hard.

Many thanks for the FPAS thing...provides some interesting insight.

Reply 9

If you're desperate to pick out the schools which might offer more research opportunities perhaps you can look at the ones that traditionally have a reputation/stereotype for producing research-minded doctors (Oxbridge and UCL spring to mind). But it may be more fruitful to pick out the ones that let you intercalate as it can be an easy way of getting into research.

On a related note I remember a lecturer that's involved in medical education quoting research that shows no difference between graduates from the various medical schools after a few years of training. Not sure which outcomes they were measuring though.

Reply 10

Beska

21

Original post by WackyJun

If you're desperate to pick out the schools which might offer more research opportunities perhaps you can look at the ones that traditionally have a reputation/stereotype for producing research-minded doctors (Oxbridge and UCL spring to mind). But it may be more fruitful to pick out the ones that let you intercalate as it can be an easy way of getting into research.

On a related note I remember a lecturer that's involved in medical education quoting research that shows no difference between graduates from the various medical schools after a few years of training. Not sure which outcomes they were measuring though.

Other research shows that there is still a difference, though, the ones classically quoted state that on average graduate from some schools perform better at postgraduate exams (MRCP, MRCGP) than others. I think it's an interesting point though. There surely must be some kind of difference - I'm not talking what two different graduates got taught during semester 2 of first year, but rather the general layout, exit outcomes and the way the medical school expects you to achieve them, etc. must play a role in the way you develop as a doctor. Not necessarily saying that it makes somebody from x a better doctor than y, because I think that's a misleading and unhelpful phrase, it's just that graduating from x will turn you into a different doctor than graduating from y.

Any cohort studies on what graduates from a medical schools end up specialising in? That'd be interesting.

Reply 11

Angury

18

Original post by Beska

Other research shows that there is still a difference, though, the ones classically quoted state that on average graduate from some schools perform better at postgraduate exams (MRCP, MRCGP) than others. I think it's an interesting point though. There surely must be some kind of difference - I'm not talking what two different graduates got taught during semester 2 of first year, but rather the general layout, exit outcomes and the way the medical school expects you to achieve them,

etc. must play a role in the way you develop as a doctor. Not necessarily saying that it makes somebody from x a better doctor than y, because I think that's a misleading and unhelpful phrase, it's just that graduating from x will turn you into a different doctor than graduating from y.

Any cohort studies on what graduates from a medical schools end up specialising in? That'd be interesting.

I agree with the bit in bold as it's something I've noticed. My first two years of medicine involved us mainly being sat in front of lecture slides and being spoonfed everything - there was very little we had to do by ourselves. The med school have changed the curriculum now, and the first years have to put in a lot more thought and effort into their studies - they aren't given everything on a page to learn. I do think it's made them more independent, and willing to go the extra mile and build upon their knowledge by themselves.
They also receive clinical skills training and have greater exposure to the clinical environment, which seems to have led to a big boost in their confidence with patients. I, on the other hand, had very little clinical exposure and still feel a bit apprehensive going to my first placement after Easter.
Obviously that's just me being unconfident, but I do wonder how I would have viewed my studies if I'd done this new curriculum in my med school - would I be more involved and look for opportunities?
Bit of a babble, but I've been thinking about this for a while now. Obviously if you are determined, then you will find the opportunities regardless of where you are, but I do think your medical school can have an influence on your work ethic etc.

Also, not all med schools allow everyone to intercalate - mine doesn't, which has motivated me to work harder for my exams so they'll let me be one of the lucky few. :tongue:

Reply 12

Original post by Beska

Other research shows that there is still a difference, though, the ones classically quoted state that on average graduate from some schools perform better at postgraduate exams (MRCP, MRCGP) than others.

That is both new and quite surprising to me. Is there any research on graduates a little further into training? Also, do you know if graduates from certain schools perform better in certain exams?

Reply 13

Beska

21

Original post by WackyJun

That is both new and quite surprising to me. Is there any research on graduates a little further into training? Also, do you know if graduates from certain schools perform better in certain exams?

Membership exams are really the last common outcome that can be assessed, because there's no other exams, assessments, etc. after that point that can be easily compared graduate-by-graduate.

Not sure what you mean by the second question - as in, which medical schools perform better at which exams? I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I've had a quick google and:

The most recent info from the MRCGP exams (I was originally talking about a study, but this is the raw data) - see page 18: http://www.rcgp.org.uk/gp-training-and-exams/mrcgp-exam-overview/mrcgp-annual-reports/~/media/Files/GP-training-and-exams/Annual%20reports/MRCGP%20Statistics%202012-13%20rev%20for%20Web%20130214.ashx

This is the MRCP paper I was talking about: http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7640/347.1

Reply 14

Original post by Beska

...

Nice to see my medical school coming in last on that chart...

Maybe an example would help me explain what I mean. For example, do some schools consistently produce graduates that perform better at MRCGP and less so with MRCS exams?

Reply 15

OP