Ask a Medicine interviewer

so i was wondering what the average score of all applicants and those who are successful are, and what each score/points mean? particularly for the interview score.
thanks

Just thought of another question(s) for Peterhouse - it's such a great opportunity to talk to an admissions tutor etc. so I might as well use it!

Are all offers (for 2015 entry and possibly onwards if known) A*A*A with the A*s in Biology and Chemistry and the A in Maths (If the applicant is doing bio/chem/maths) or are other offers given, and what may the reasons be if other offers are given to people studying these three subjects?

Also, how 'lenient' are Peterhouse on narrowly missed offers, and do you think that would be similar for all colleges?

Thank you!

Do you think students who usually average 95%+ in their top 3 subjects are in a lot better position than a student who averages around 85%? How much of a difference does it really make - is it rare you don't interview someone with 95%+ average?

Hi, I was wondering how you would view applicants who had previously been unsuccessful at Cambridge and other universities in the previous application for medicine and chose to apply again to Cambridge in their gap year? Would you expect them to undertake further academic work in their gap year?

Would you hope for them to have a high ums overall (above 95%) or would just having 3A*s with low 90s in bio/chem/maths be sufficient to stand a realistic chance of an offer?

Also, how would their interview be different, compared to if they were a year 13 student?

Thank you for your help in advance

Posted from TSR Mobile

What is the strangest question you have ever asked an interviewee?

by the way, since medicine doesn't have a centralized system where if you get 93+ ums you will get automatically get pooled, so what sort of applicants do you decide to put through the winter pool?

thanks

x

x

I'd be interested to hear whether or not you consider Maths, either at AS or A level, to be preferable (or even essential) for Medicine?

Hi,

Maths is one of the four major sciences (Chemsitry, Biology, Physics, Maths) of which we generally want three. Chemistry is deemed essential, but all of the other three have benefits in medicine. So Maths is a very good science, and important but not essential.

Thank you. Is there any preference or advantage for applicants with Bio/ Chem/ Maths rather than Bio/ Chem/ Physics (where the 4th subject is non-science) and would you look for evidence of mathematical ability beyond an A* at GCSE if Physics rather than Maths is offered?
I realise that the info on the website gives no preference but it also states that, theoretically, only one science pass need be at A2 level so I am wary of taking it at face value.

First of all some important background information: Although there is no centralised "established formula" to rank candidates in medicine (or another subject for that matter) there are extremely good reasons for this. Such a centralised formula would, in fact, be most unfair. The reasons for this is that individuals and individual circumstances count and what Cambridge and the colleges do is to assess each application considering all the information that we have access to. Even for UK candidates who are studying for A levels, we do not simply have ranking criteria based on GCSE grades, UMS scores, BMAT exams. We take into account many other things, including school (not just school type but the GCSE school and sixth form college or equivalent) records in terms of average performance of students in GCSE and A level.

We also have information on other possible factors, such as looked-after children, low participation neighbourhood, schools with few Oxbridge offers in the past, socio-economic area group etc. We also have additional information from school references and, in some cases, the extenuating circumstances form, that contribute to our overall assessment of an application and whether the candidate should be called for interview and what can expect from them at interview. In addition, we get an increasingly large number of candidates applying from all over the EU (counted as Home students) and the rest of the world. Even from the UK, many of our candidates are not taking A levels, and from outside the UK, the majority of candidates are not taking A levels. Together this means that about 40% of our applicants don't have Merit Scores. Any ranking on the basis of examination results alone (including the BMAT) would be impossible and unfair. What the BMAT does is provide additional information (on how all candidates applying have done relative to each other) and therefore allows us to make decision on the candidates we invite for interview. I hope this provides a clear picture on why a centralised scoring system is not appropriate (even if it would lighten the load for all the academics involved in the admissions selection process).

The enormous differences in academic profile between candidates is the biggest reason why we can't simply plug numbers into a regression formula and pick the best - candidates aren't interchangeable and similar information about different candidates can paint a dramatically different picture. For example, to return to UMS data, 90% UMS at a school where that is barely above average gives a different impression to where that is the highest score anyone has ever achieved at that school. A regression model approach would strip out this extra contextual information in favour of easily quantifiable metrics.

With regards to the differences between colleges with regards to the degree to which BMAT is considered a good indicator of academic ability, there are perhaps slight differences in view (and I am sure if you went to other Medical Schools you would find academics involved in admissions that do not all have exactly the same view). However, there are no major differences in how different colleges view the BMAT, and you will find that ALL colleges look at each application carefully and holistically before making any decision. Decisions are never based on BMAT alone.

Thank you very much for answering my previous question. I would just like to know would you look more favourably on a candidate who had a 95% UMS average consistently in all modules or one who had the same overall average but lower marks in practical examinations with higher marks in written papers?
Thanks very much

hello,
i was just vaguely made aware of the 'cashing-in' system of AS grades today. And apparently in our school, we can choose if we want to cash in our grades or not.
so i was wondering if it will affect my application if i decide to not cash in the grades, or vice versa. and what do you recommend i do?

to be honest i still don't really get what cashing in means, so apologies if this makes no sense at all.

thanks.

Thanks for the reply. Interesting to read. Whilst I obviously don't dispute anything in your reply, I was especially interested in your answers to my points about the evidence basis of interviews, which your reply didn't really address.

See this section of my post:

"But surely there needs to be an evidence base to know if the interview actually does assess intellect and ability to think and manage the course? Obviously I have no experience of conducting admissions, but to me, a correlation of 0.078 doesn't really sound especially convincing. That's why I asked if there had been any other research done into them at Cambridge, but you didn't mention any in your reply...

I mean, if a clinican said, "Oh, I think we should prescribe the patient Drug X. I think it's really good at treating hypertension. The only study done shows that it's no better than placebo, but we've been using it for a while, so I feel that it's the right choice, in my expert opinion", he would quite rightly be criticised! We are always taught about the importance of evidence/research in medicine, so placing a high weighting on an admissions metric that doesn't seem to have much/any evidence seems odd from my point-of-view.

If the DOSes think that interviews are good at assessing intellect and ability, but the research shows negligible correlation with measurable outcomes, I'd be questioning what they were basing their opinions on."

Do you have any thoughts on that? Essentially I'm asking if there's evidence that Cambridge interviews are a good way of selecting students.

Hi again!

How much do you look into the context of a school as one of your selection factors? I go to a private school and I've heard 'rumours and whisperings' that a private educated student has to 'do better' at interview compared to an academically very similar state educated pupil and I just want to know if this is looked as a factor and if so, how much does it impact your decisions?

Thank you

Posted from TSR Mobile