Difference which medical school studied at when going for a job?

I would say, VazzyB, that you're going far too far on too little idea and information for the things you're saying. I've never come across much good data on this in any direction to be honest. What I would say though is, do a bit of digging and look at the debates that surrounded medical education in the late-eighties/early-nineties, when Tomorrow's Doctors was a glint in a committee's eye.

The curriculum, which was pretty uniform nationally, was overloaded with detail which individual specialists all insisted was terribly important and was never used by most students ever again. Communication skills was basically non-existent. Continuous assessment did not exist and it was possible (And not uncommon) to skip entire firms and still pass finals. Doctors qualified unable to take blood and learnt the job through an insane and brutalistic on-call system. Anyone pretending modern medical education is perfect is an idiot, but equally so don't try harking back or around the country to some magical land of infinite knowledge, relaxed communication, high-skill dissection and surgery and college funding plenty. Medical education is never perfect and people will always shout about how the kids know nothing, get used to it.

the level of ignorance shown in this response is simply staggering.

I know. Funny how I stressed twice that it was my opinion with total lack of citation.
I

blah blah


Never mind, I will of course just observe from now on.

Well given that you don't know what you are talking about, then that would perhaps be wise.

(Look, I know I could be heavily biased about this matter, but im trying to agrue it from an objective standpoint...my own personal career don't really come into the picture)

Im not saying they shouldn't make central decision ... im saying they should make the central decision to allow hospitals to know where the people they're employing went to univeristy. Its fundamental information for any other career and for medicine in so many (probably every other) country...how can you censor something like that?

So are you essentially arguing that a Junior Medic from Oxbridge is necessarily a better doctor than, say, one from Peninsula/Soton/St George's etc.?

Thats what im essentially not arguing...you actually picked the worst post you could have to quote lol.

You also made it so easy for me to say 'no' to with the words 'necessarily' and 'a better doctor'.

Try something like...'are you arguing that a doctor's professional skills are influenced by their medical training background?' - then the answer is yes, maybe - for better or for worse for Oxbridge. I think, like in any other profession, employers should have this information.

You have to be one of the very, very best prospective medical students at 18 to have such an opportunity.

the level of ignorance shown in this response is simply staggering.

that aside......

It is obviously insane that the place of study is not apparent on applications made in the medical fields. there are many reasons as why to why this is the case; as Vazzy has already correctly pointed out.

they include

(i) Different medical schools offer very different styles of program. An employer may well have a preference for a particular style. When I studied the program offered at the particular institution was very much of an intercalatus approach, I firmly believe that whilst this equipped subsequent graduates very well for certain positions, there were others that were more suited to a more traditional route..

(ii) Given that Cambridge has been mentioned I will expand on my own experience/belief . to earn a place to study medicine at Cambridge is no mean feat. You have to be one of the very, very best prospective medical students at 18 to have such an opportunity. Although subsequent success is not guaranteed, below par performance is uncommon...I would not hesitate in stating that some of the highest calibre medics that I have come across have of course being educated at Cambridge and Oxford...

(iii) It either matters where you graduated from or it doesn't. If it doesn't then the details should be available; if it does then it is hardly fair on the graduates from said institutions.

Finally, a previous post droned on about the NHS. That has nothing to do with this discussion. Private practise or NHS is down to the individual choice of the graduate.

Your ignorance is also quite staggering.

Intercalation, often with a research year will develope some skills - that much is undisputable. However, those skills do not necessarily make people better doctors.

At the end of the day, medical degrees are designed to teach what is core and vital to being a doctor. It is what they do, and taking a good look at the NHS, they tend to do it very very well. Who the hell are you to possibly determine what is and isn't good for a medical education?

Again, a blissful ignorance of medical admissions.

Almost every medical school bar one (that I know of) has compulsary interviewing before admission onto the course. Therefore to get on the course, you must first get an interview. Cambridge interviews basiclly everyone who is predicted 3As and has a reasonable chance of admission. Therefore objectively speaking, you're closer to admission at Cambridge then most other universities. Many will have about 2000+ applicants and possibly 800 interviews. You do the math.

To gain admission to any medical school is no mean feat. You would do well to remember that Cambridge applicants also applied elsewhere. If an applicant only gets one offer - should they not become a medical student because three other sets of admissions tutors thought them innappropriate? The point is that admissions tutors look for slightly different things. Not everyone who can be and will be an excellent doctor is geared up to studying 3 years of science with practiclly no patient contact. Just as not everyone is suited to a PBL course. .

Is it to guard agsinst elements of or insinuations about 'old boy' networks. Since the nature of medical admissions is self regulating - Laura Spence anyone? .

As a fresh medical graduate the only reason you wouldn't be working on the NHS is because you couldn't get a job there. That says more about you then your medical school - which will have a long and distinguished history. Private practice does not have medical schools - ergo they rely on NHS trained and bred doctors. So take your ignorance somewhere else and get a grip. Or preferably, learn to attempt ******** only when you know about something.

I do think it should be easier for employees to differentiate medical graduates, for example by having more varied degrees other than merit and pass,

The same could be argued in any profession; your argument does not stand up. I am very aware of the Laura Spence situation; but if you think that a media frenzy whipped up by the gutter tabloids is the way to shape things then, well , says it all really

Laura Spence. That was much to do about nothing. Guttet tabloids and regional news with an axe to grind. Especially in this part of the country. It ignored the numbers that do get into Oxbridge from non-traditional backgrounds every single year. Maybe they just, you know, didn't think she was up to the task? Or was just unlucky?

The cries of discrimination were even more absurd as the admissions tutor was both school educated and (I think) from the region.

Sadly, you have both missed the point - that being medical admissions are fully self regulating from initial medical student selection to consultant appointments.

Please keep your own warped perceptions to yourself.