The Student Room Group

You don't need top grades to become a doctor

Doctors do not need top marks at A level to succeed, a project based at King's College London has shown.

It aimed to attract bright students from state schools in inner London who had A-level results that were far too poor to gain entry to medical school and show that, with the right help, they could succeed.

Students would normally require two As and a B at A level, but the scheme, called the Extended Medical Degree Programme, accepted those who had managed no better than three Cs.

The idea was to train doctors who better represented diverse social and economic backgrounds and to prevent medicine from becoming the exclusive preserve of the middle classes.

The programme began in 2001 and now has more than 200 students who are doing well, the academics behind it say in this week's British Medical Journal. The students get an extra year of studying, with the first two years' studies being spread over three. This enables them to catch up and be given more support, but it is expensive.

Nine out of ten come from ethnic-minority communities and just under a third from middle-class families. To qualify they must have come from one of 100 state schools in the 15 most educationally deprived boroughs in inner London.

A mental agility test is used, with a 30-minute interview, to select the applicants. Most are the first in their family to go to university. Despite their lower entry grades, those on the scheme gain degree results that are evenly spread throughout the entire year group of 360-400 students. Although they make a slower start, in the clinical years (years 4-6) pass rates are identical for both conventional and EMDP students (93 per cent).

Of those who opted to do the longer BSc degree, 12 per cent got a first, 76per cent an upper second and 12 per cent a lower second, compared with 28 per cent, 65 per cent and 7 per cent among the conventional students. The authors, Pamela Garlick, from King's, and Gavin Brown, from the University of Leicester, conclude: “A new type of doctor is being created that, among other things, better reflects the social diversity of London's population.”

An editorial in the same issue of the British Medical Journal says that the scheme is politically correct, but costly. The extra cost is £190,000 a year. Professor Chris McManus, of University College London, and Hugh Ip, of the journal, question whether this is justified. The scheme involves sacrificing equality of opportunity for the quest for social justice, they say. “Is it worth our while to widen participation, particularly if this risks reducing standards?” they ask. “Political ideology says yes, but the evidence is pending and the costs are rising fast.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3941471.ece

Any views?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Medicine doesn't require particularly high intelligence, just a lot of hard work.
Ha it still does here..you need 570/600 points, which is 6 A's basically.
Reply 3
It aimed to attract bright students from state schools in inner London who had A-level results that were far too poor to gain entry to medical school and show that, with the right help, they could succeed.

...


A mental agility test is used, with a 30-minute interview, to select the applicants. Most are the first in their family to go to university. Despite their lower entry grades, those on the scheme gain degree results that are evenly spread throughout the entire year group of 360-400 students. Although they make a slower start, in the clinical years (years 4-6) pass rates are identical for both conventional and EMDP students (93 per cent).


Good :smile:

To qualify they must have come from one of 100 state schools in the 15 most educationally deprived boroughs in inner London.


Bad :frown:
Reply 4
That's fair enough. If you took Music, ICT and Geography at A Level, that doesn't tell them anything about you in terms of becoming a doctor. So UCAS points, unless in the right subjects are just numbers..

An A grade student just has to know how to pull off the exams to get the grade, whereas someone who knows more about the subject, who doesn't know exactly what to include in a portfolio, or whatever will get a lower mark. Yet the latter person would be better suited for the degree/profession.
This is so politically correct. They should concentrate on improving state education instead of letting people on the course, which the articles admits, needed additional help to succeed. Social-diversity is just an excuse, there can be social diversity among grade A achievers. It's patronising to say the bar should be lowered to allow a greater mix of students! :mad:
Reply 6
It reminds me of the criticisms of the backgrounds of trainee barristers (pupils). There was a lot of focus on the amount of women and ethnic minorities who are pupils but there was little detail paid attention to how many white, working class people who have made the top end of the hierarchy.
grades distinguish a doctor from a GOOD doctor...
Reply 8
NDGAARONDI
It reminds me of the criticisms of the backgrounds of trainee barristers (pupils). There was a lot of focus on the amount of women and ethnic minorities who are pupils but there was little detail paid attention to how many white, working class people who have made the top end of the hierarchy.


I made a thread on that a while back http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10618761#post10618761

I agree with the scheme on targetting those from very poor schools but when its a skin colour issue its pathetic.
Reply 9
I know people who didn't get to a medicine course and they got 4 As. Perhaps we could let people in who are good enough before we start lowering the boundaries. It should be the best person for the course, my highschool barely sent anybody to uni but because they're not in this magic circle they don't get these specific courses set up for them. I mean fair enough if they let people in with ABB or even BBB, but CCC come on, anybody can get that.
It tells me something I knew already - universities can teach people well regardless of their previous academic history. I'm not sure I agree with it though. If it provides extra medical school places then I might not be so bothered.
I don't actually believe super-human intelligence is requiered to do well in a Medicine course, just a lot of memorisation and capacity for learning and understanding a lot of very complex concepts. Although I think motivated C grade students could PASS a Medicine course, and thus become a doctor. I think that with the high risk nature of medicine, only the best should be picked. A Level results do show a persons capacity to learn and understand. Also, even though they may come from deprived areas of London, there is a lot of self-study in A Levels, and the rough students who don't care and hold the class back in compulsory education are very unlikely to be in an A Level class. So, in my opinion, I doubt they'd be able to achieve As in any Sixth Form.

Political correctness is a very dangerous thing, and 9/10 are from ethnic minorities, it's quite clearly picking racial groups too. A patients priority is good health care and potentially saving their life. Seeing a hospital with an equal balence of races and backgrounds is not their priority.
I don't get it....we need more doctors? Isn't there already a shortage of jobs for them?
burninginme
there is a lot of self-study in A Levels,


Unless they have changed drastically since my day I'd have to disagree that this is the case for science A-levels.

The article states that there is no difference come clinical training between these students and other traditional entry students. I think your concerns are unjustified.
funkypish
I know people who didn't get to a medicine course and they got 4 As. Perhaps we could let people in who are good enough before we start lowering the boundaries. It should be the best person for the course, my highschool barely sent anybody to uni but because they're not in this magic circle they don't get these specific courses set up for them. I mean fair enough if they let people in with ABB or even BBB, but CCC come on, anybody can get that.


Those people with 4 A's were probably rejected on grounds other than results (such as personal statement, whether they have the qualities to become a doctor). Being academically able doesnt neccasarily mean you will be a good doctor. While im not one for people getting free lunches, i think this would be fair as if you are born into a poor family you are immediantly at a disadvantage and (however stereotypical it may be) less emphasis is usually placed on education by family.
Awww King's are so lovely :biggrin:
Reply 16
Rizzletastic
Those people with 4 A's were probably rejected on grounds other than results (such as personal statement, whether they have the qualities to become a doctor). Being academically able doesnt neccasarily mean you will be a good doctor. While im not one for people getting free lunches, i think this would be fair as if you are born into a poor family you are immediantly at a disadvantage and (however stereotypical it may be) less emphasis is usually placed on education by family.


These things happened in my area as well, probably as bad as some of the schools mentioned in the article, but would they dream of letting somebody in from that area that had ABB? I don't think so, it's just a shameless attempt to look good. There are of course plenty of people that can be a dr but where do you draw the line? O this person hasn't even done a-levels but if we tack 3 years onto the course they could be one too...who will pay for that? O just the tax payer.
Reply 17
Rizzletastic
Those people with 4 A's were probably rejected on grounds other than results (such as personal statement, whether they have the qualities to become a doctor). Being academically able doesnt neccasarily mean you will be a good doctor. While im not one for people getting free lunches, i think this would be fair as if you are born into a poor family you are immediantly at a disadvantage and (however stereotypical it may be) less emphasis is usually placed on education by family.


These things happened in my area as well, probably as bad as some of the schools mentioned in the article, but would they dream of letting somebody in from that area that had ABB? I don't think so, it's just a shameless attempt to look good. There are of course plenty of people that can be a dr but where do you draw the line? O this person hasn't even done a-levels but if we tack 3 years onto the course they could be one too...who will pay for that? O just the tax payer.
Reply 18
There is a big misconception that good grades at A Level = good doctor. It is not true at all and the fact that the students on these programs eventually do almost as well as the standard entry students shows that. It is not a case of lowering the bar, it is about finding a better methodology of determining someone's ability than A Level results

burninginme
Political correctness is a very dangerous thing, and 9/10 are from ethnic minorities, it's quite clearly picking racial groups too. A patients priority is good health care and potentially saving their life. Seeing a hospital with an equal balence of races and backgrounds is not their priority.


Actually, in my experience, when it comes to poor people from inner London wanting to study medicine, 90% ethnic minorities is not far from the correct figure. Inner London already has many people from ethnic minorities and many of these people especially from Asian backgrounds are pushed into medicine.
Reply 19
ChemistBoy
I'm not sure I agree with it though.


Why? Is quality really beaing sacfriced, as alleged, given that we have been through discussions over students who achieve AAAA at 'A' level do not necessarily achieve a first?

Latest

Trending

Trending