Medics on the 5 year course are better than medics on the 4 year course

Personally, I do not believe that medics are better whether they took 5 years or 7. However this misconception is widely believed by friends who were rejected from medicine. They think of Graduate entry medicine as a "Shortcut" into medicine, and they also believe that doctors that have graduated from the 4 year course lack skills that would have been developed if they were on the 5 year course.

As more and more medical schools are getting rid of the 4 year program, I can't get rid of this nagging feeling that actually, they COULD be right. Also is it correct to say that many graduates from the 4 year course tend to just become GP's?

For my final question I want to ask is: are some gep medical schools better than others, I'm not referring to oxbridge here but rather medical schools that differ in teaching. Example being teaching anatomy using models as opposed to cadavers (I'm talking specifically about WMS), would students learning anatomy have a more limited understanding than if they were taught using cadavers?

Although I know some of these questions are trivial, I would still appreciate any response. Cheeeeers matees

Why would anyone listen to failed Medicine applicants on the topic of who makes a better doctor out of 5/6-year course students and GEM students?

ME! lol! But seriously do you think any of what I wrote is valid or not?

None of what you wrote is valid.

Personally, I do not believe that medics are better whether they took 5 years or 7. However this misconception is widely believed by friends who were rejected from medicine. They think of Graduate entry medicine as a "Shortcut" into medicine, and they also believe that doctors that have graduated from the 4 year course lack skills that would have been developed if they were on the 5 year course.

As more and more medical schools are getting rid of the 4 year program, I can't get rid of this nagging feeling that actually, they COULD be right. Also is it correct to say that many graduates from the 4 year course tend to just become GP's?

For my final question I want to ask is: are some gep medical schools better than others, I'm not referring to oxbridge here but rather medical schools that differ in teaching. Example being teaching anatomy using models as opposed to cadavers (I'm talking specifically about WMS), would students learning anatomy have a more limited understanding than if they were taught using cadavers?

Cheeeeers matees

I was told by a 5th year medic that medicine is actually 4 years but 5th year you're just basically in hospitals all the time doing F1 jobs but not being paid...

Personally, I do not believe that medics are better whether they took 5 years or 7. However this misconception is widely believed by friends who were rejected from medicine. They think of Graduate entry medicine as a "Shortcut" into medicine, and they also believe that doctors that have graduated from the 4 year course lack skills that would have been developed if they were on the 5 year course.

As more and more medical schools are getting rid of the 4 year program, I can't get rid of this nagging feeling that actually, they COULD be right. Also is it correct to say that many graduates from the 4 year course tend to just become GP's?

For my final question I want to ask is: are some gep medical schools better than others, I'm not referring to oxbridge here but rather medical schools that differ in teaching. Example being teaching anatomy using models as opposed to cadavers (I'm talking specifically about WMS), would students learning anatomy have a more limited understanding than if they were taught using cadavers?

Although I know some of these questions are trivial, I would still appreciate any response. Cheeeeers matees

I think ultimately if you tally up the number of contact hours and the term dates, there isn't much difference between the 4yr and 5yr courses

Secondly, I honestly feel that medical school could be condensed further if the curriculum was pruned of all the useless **** and mind-numbing repetition. I shudder to think about all of the wasted hours I've been required to dedicate to useless social theory which are ultimately dressed up common sense ideas. Not to mention the weeks I've been forced to spend 'shadowing' physiotherapists, occupational therapists, aromatherapists, cat therapists and spiritual mediums. And the fact that you sit through the same lecture 3, 4 or possibly 5 times at various points during the degree.

Yes, different medical schools produce different species of doctor. That's no secret. You use the example of anatomy. Unless you want to become a surgeon, 90% of the anatomy you learn is useless in the real world. Cadaveric dissection is incredibly time consuming and you end up mutilating whatever structure you were trying to get to anyway. Cadavers are obsolete. We aren't living in the 1500s anymore.

You also say that many of the graduates from GEP courses go on to be GPs. Yeah - the same applies to 5 year courses. Why? Because GPs constitute the large majority of all doctors. That's where the need is. Do MORE gep students go on to become GPs than 5yrs? Maybe. I can't say that's the case in my experience. Is that a bad thing, anyway? Not really.

The reason why 4yr GEP courses have a cloudy future is to do with the change in point of registration and EU requirements for the duration of medical training. It has nothing to do with the quality of doctors they produce. It's also very expensive to subsidise two undergraduate degrees and that money has to come from somewhere.

Finally, if it's only 'medical rejects' saying this, as you mention, who gives a **** what someone who can't tell their ******** from their elbow thinks?

I think ultimately if you tally up the number of contact hours and the term dates, there isn't much difference between the 4yr and 5yr courses

Secondly, I honestly feel that medical school could be condensed further if the curriculum was pruned of all the useless **** and mind-numbing repetition. I shudder to think about all of the wasted hours I've been required to dedicate to useless social theory which are ultimately dressed up common sense ideas. Not to mention the weeks I've been forced to spend 'shadowing' physiotherapists, occupational therapists, aromatherapists, cat therapists and spiritual mediums. And the fact that you sit through the same lecture 3, 4 or possibly 5 times at various points during the degree.

Yes, different medical schools produce different species of doctor. That's no secret. You use the example of anatomy. Unless you want to become a surgeon, 90% of the anatomy you learn is useless in the real world. Cadaveric dissection is incredibly time consuming and you end up mutilating whatever structure you were trying to get to anyway. Cadavers are obsolete. We aren't living in the 1500s anymore.

You also say that many of the graduates from GEP courses go on to be GPs. Yeah - the same applies to 5 year courses. Why? Because GPs constitute the large majority of all doctors. That's where the need is. Do MORE gep students go on to become GPs than 5yrs? Maybe. I can't say that's the case in my experience. Is that a bad thing, anyway? Not really.

The reason why 4yr GEP courses have a cloudy future is to do with the change in point of registration and EU requirements for the duration of medical training. It has nothing to do with the quality of doctors they produce. It's also very expensive to subsidise two undergraduate degrees and that money has to come from somewhere.

Finally, if it's only 'medical rejects' saying this, as you mention, who gives a **** what someone who can't tell their ******** from their elbow thinks?

When we were merged with the GEM course at the start of the clinical phase (2 1/2 years in for us, 18 months in for them) it was terrifying. They were, on the whole, much better than us. More confident, smarter and they contributed far more easily in small group teaching. Part of this is probably due to the legacy of their PBL teaching, while we had all learned to become anonymous in huge lecture halls. A lot of the GEMs were also far more mature in their approach to learning; again, not surprising considering that beforehand a lot of them were successful in their own fields (it is reasonable to assume that anyone who has been a Major in the army and then decides that they want to be a doctor is a highly driven individual).

Compared to the GEMs, we initially looked like the absolute children that we essentially were. Fortunately, though, this didn't last for long and by the end of the first attachment the gap had absolutely narrowed, disappearing completely at some point in 4th year as we adjusted and caught up academically, as well as displaying some of the good soft skills that were are so heavily selected for. Now it's hard to tell GEMs from undergrads unless it's an easy one, like a 23 year old girl vs a late 30's bloke with no hair.

People who don't study medicine can talk some absolute **** sometimes. Although, admittedly, so can medics.



That's certainly not my experience of it. During a busy on call shift, yes, I will do a lot of F1 type things (clerking, bloods, cannulas, even the odd TTO) but my "day job" is to look out for my own learning. Some of this is "helpful" e.g. organising and writing in notes on the ward round, but most of it is really only for my own benefit. A lot of practicing examinations and focussed histories to get feedback and a lot of teaching.

I shudder to think about all of the wasted hours I've been required to dedicate to useless social theory which are ultimately dressed up common sense ideas.