Top Ten Medical Universities

Roger Kirk

Does it just not appear in the top 20, or does it perhaps not appear at all? Maybe the Times' table has decided not to include it yet as there haven't been enough people through the course yet (no one has finished their course yet as far as I'm aware).

Or it could just be down to criteria which are used. I know in general league tables York always drops a few places due to things like library and computing facilities. Maybe the Guardian concentrates on different criteria to the Times and Hull and York score really badly on one or two the Times uses where as the Guardian don't use those measures/put less importance to them.

But it is surprising that one institution could be ranked so differently by two methods.....

It, quite simply, shows how much them tables are a load of crap... really. They aren't worth the paper they're written on. All medical schools produce top class doctors and all provide excellent teaching facilities. It depends more on the student than the school IMO.

Reply 61

$Avatar for sTe\/o$

sTe\/o

16

Solid_L

It, quite simply, shows how much them tables are a load of crap... really. They aren't worth the paper they're written on. All medical schools produce top class doctors and all provide excellent teaching facilities. It depends more on the student than the school IMO.

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly that it depends more on the student. And the tables are clearly *******s - you only have to look at how much the order changes from year to year even though none of the raw data has changed (i.e. teaching quality and research assessments). That doesn't mean you shouldn't use the tables at all - the individual scores can be useful, but the overall rankings are pointless and can be quite misleading. The main thing is to choose a course which you like the sound of, in a city you would like to live in, and which has students who are enjoying it (i.e. not complaining that they don't get enough contact hours, or that the faculty is disorganised).

jh007jh

stevo, i agree that oxbridge is at the top but still feel imperial wud be pushing them/on a par with them...
the tiimes 2007 good uni guide said that for all courses, the order is
oxford, cambridge, imperial, lse

for medicine, it says:-
cambridge, oxford, imperial, edinburgh, manchester

p.s. guardian said that imperial was 1, hull was 2, oxford was 3

but it does definitley show on the table that imperial has one of the lowest entry standards... is this based on ucas points? it says imperail is 477 whilst oxbridge is 530 i tink

The Guardian produce very misleading tables. They place too much emphasis on things like inclusiveness instead of focusing on the quality of the course being provided. But Imperial has indeed done very well to perform this highly on two tables with different methodologies. Maybe this confirms what you say about them having a good all-round course. Or it could just be luck - who knows?

The entry standards are based on the average UCAS tariff points of successful applicants. If you ask me, the reason why Imperial (or any of the London unis) doesn't perform so well is probably because a lot of people don't want to or simply can't afford to study in London. Imperial has the reputation and the faculty to attract the same quality of applicants as Oxbridge (or at the least very similar), so something else must be putting people off. Either that, or they deliberately take many people with lower grades because they are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (which would mean that this indicator isn't doing them justice).

jh007jh

btw stevo, do you go to oxbridge? if so, wots the course like in terms of workload evry1 says its the most demanding course in one way at oxbridge...do the lecturers/tutors actually help u prepare for the exam as such or is it more research this and discuss that at the tutorial?

I studied preclinical medicine at Cambridge for 3 years and am moving to Oxford in a week to start the clinical half of the course. Vested interests disclosed. :p:

Medics do have the highest workload in Cambridge, although there are others which are almost as bad (e.g. Law, Natural Sciences). That's not to say it's the most challenging - it's basically a hardcore version of Natural Sciences but with the advanced Maths removed. The first year is comparable to Natural Sciences in workload, but in the second year we have to learn pathology, pharmacology, neuroscience and human reproduction from scratch in 2 1/2 terms (20 weeks), not to mention the two special option topics - and the assessment of these subjects is extremely comprehensive, involving essay papers, negatively-marked multiple choice questions, practical (calculation) papers and actual practical exams. The third year is not part of the core course and you can either change to the last year of Natural Sciences or you can study something completely different like Law or Italian.

From my experience, your supervisors will give you some advice about how to prepare for the exams and usually will set you at least one mock paper. But most of the year is not focused on this. Normally what happens in supervisions/tutorials is that your supervisor/tutor sets you an essay title or a worksheet, which is normally closely related to what you have learnt in the week. You then learn what you need to learn, using other resources to help you understand the lecture notes better and to flesh out your knowledge (at the end of the second year you start reading research papers, but initially you tend to stick to textbooks and websites). Usually you need to sit and think for a bit as well, as the answer to the question isn't always obvious. You spend next week's supervision (which is an hour long) going over the work you've handed in and then if there is time you can ask whatever questions you like and even explore stuff that is outside the syllabus. You are only able to cover a very small amount of what you have done in the week, so there isn't usually time to progress onto stuff outside the syllabus (particularly if the other people in your supervision group are lazy and haven't kept up with the lectures).

jh007jh

out of interest, after oxbridge wot medical school would u put as the top?

thnx

I'm really not sure what my next choice after Oxbridge would be. When I originally applied, I knew I couldn't apply to London because I didn't have Bio AS and the London unis had made that a new requirement (bad timing, eh?). Back then my second choice was Newcastle. If I could go anywhere (and ignoring lifestyle issues or distance from where I live), I think my second choice after Oxbridge would be one of:

Imperial
UCL
Nottingham
Newcastle
St Andrews (Never considered it before now, but it's sounds so similar to Cambridge that I can't really dismiss it)

Nottingham is highly acclaimed but it sounds a bit suspicious to me that they claim to do what we do in only 5 years instead of 6. UCL has a brilliant clinical school but I doubt the preclinical course is as in-depth as Imperial's (but I could be wrong). Newcastle is a great all-rounder, I think. In the end I would probably go with Imperial, because it has that aura of academia and it would be cool to do clinical in London. It's so difficult to compare medical schools you haven't even visited, though.

Reply 62

jh007jh

stevo thnx for the reply!
btw ur living most ppls dream... going to both cambridge and oxford!! lolll so the rest of ur life u cud say that uve been to both

i agree with u league tables are only an indication but by no means are they definite. i think any medical school by definition has 2 be excellent and a great achievement if u got in to it. oxbridge for certain allows u to no that ure getting the best possible education about medicine and desereves the no.1/2 spot if we are to take league tables a bit more seriously. then i feel there are lots of unis close together, but probably imperial wud shade the no.3 spot over say ucl, st andrews, nott, bristol, susex, bham, soton, etc.

again it just shows how getting into any medical school is a gr8 achievement and hopefully were all gna be great doctors

Reply 63

randdom

20

sTe\/o

You're right that everyone will have a different opinion - there's no objective top 10. I still think it's good we have a place to discuss this, but for it to be useful we need people to explain their top 10 rather than just posting it. Oh, and it might be useful for people to post the med school they're at or applying to at the end of their post, just for the sake of full disclosure.

Ok well I already posted this list (in no order) so here are why I chose them

Southampton- Good university, good course (little PBL, Early clincal contact), well respected medical school

BSMS- Great City by the see. like the course (systems based, early clincal contact), Friendly atmospher, sussex is a well respected university, Disection rather than prosection

Those were the two which jumped out at me to put in my top 5 I have less info on the others.

Newcastle- Good university, course looked really good (I think I read they had some early clincal content)

UCL- I really like the teaching hospitals associated with them, In london so close to family again the course looked good, well respected university

Birmingham- Good university, well established course, have heard good things about the medical school, the course looked good and I liked the fact that they gave you the chance to take a first aid cirtificate in the first year

For full disclosure I am about to start my third year at BSMS

Reply 64

GDiamond

Nottingham do their medical course in 5 years not 6 because they don't have an intercallated BSc. Any medical course at any medical school is 5 years but a lot of unis offer the intercallated BSc making it an optional 6 years

Reply 65

Fluffy

15

GDiamond

Nottingham do their medical course in 5 years not 6 because they don't have an intercallated BSc. Any medical course at any medical school is 5 years but a lot of unis offer the intercallated BSc making it an optional 6 years