Charles University, Prague

Yeh, well I intend to apply to UK unis, Polish and German, depending on my level of German next year. I've read that the ones in Warsaw and Krakow are the best. Do you speak any Polish?

You said
"Newcastle and Oxbridge were equal at MRCP?"

Link 1 (2008) says..."Most (83%) Oxbridge graduates passed the first part at their initial attempt, as did 67% from Newcastle"

Far from equal.

According to my interviewer at Newcastle, I thought Newcastle and Oxbridge were equal at MRCP?

When I was interviewed/open daying at Newcastle, they seemed really proud of the fact that "after Oxford and Cambridge, we are the best medical school according to MRCP pass rates". They certainly weren't trying to associate themselves as equals, just distance themselves above the rest.

Just one of the reasons I ended up loathing Newcastle.

So ur doing ur AS levels? in that case u should study real hard for em and the ukcat get the work experience and be at least almost guaranteed the interview so that u dont even have to think about applying elsewhere...
Nah, none but the admissions lady was very positive that my application would succeed if I were to apply. When I told her about the work experience and IELTS she was like "wow, that is sooo not needed. easy there. Ur grades are good and u just need to pass the exam and pay the fees, then ur in!"

Good luck with ur application and if u have the possibility of getting A's in ur alevels then I suggest u go for it and the uk unis and if u dont get accepted the first time reapply..I think u'll have more fun in the uk, yet again everything is what one makes of it.

My interviewer definitely said "equal", I remember because it made me second guess in my mind. Maybe he minced his words or whatever.

My interviewer definitely said "equal", I remember because it made me second guess in my mind. Maybe he minced his words or whatever.

Why do you loathe Newcastle?

e: I just read that paper, it's pretty interesting but most of the methodology is waaay over the top of my head so I'm sorta just blindly believing the results. One could maybe argue that using MRCP performance as a benchmark, not all med schools are actually as equal as made out to be?

But a myriad of factors contribute to a medical school's strengths. MRCP scores (from graduates who entered the medical school years and years ago) isn't the best 'benchmark' for comparison.

It is pretty much the only benchmark comparing how well medical schools actually teach students. To be fair, apart from Oxbridge and to a lesser extent Newcastle most places are fairly overlapping so I'd agree with Phalanges that location etc. is more important than MRCP scores. Saying that (as the report does), I would guess the majority of this would be down to entry requirements. Oxbridge intrinsically take the brightest students, so it's obvious graduates from these schools would score higher.

It is pretty much the only benchmark comparing how well medical schools actually teach students. To be fair, apart from Oxbridge and to a lesser extent Newcastle most places are fairly overlapping so I'd agree with Phalanges that location etc. is more important than MRCP scores. Saying that (as the report does), I would guess the majority of this would be down to entry requirements. Oxbridge intrinsically take the brightest students, so it's obvious graduates from these schools would score higher.

I can't access the link for some reason, but I think they actually accounted for differences in entry requirements and adjusted the results accordingly, which interesting in itself. For example, some medical schools also had high entry requirements yet performed relative poorly r.e. MRCP pass rates

They adjusted them? As I said, I didn't understand the methodology of it at all (it's way above my level) but from my understanding they just acknowledged that the results are 60% down to the fact of differing entry requirements, without actually adjusting anything. High entry requirements and a relatively poor performance must suggest a genuinely lackluster course?

The scores are likely to be completely different by the point we take MRCP exams - most medical schools have fundamentally changed the way they teach - I know Liverpool and Aberdeen for example have both changed the curric.

Oxbridge are both six year courses - I would be interested to see how/if intercalation effects the scores.

"most medical schools have fundamentally changed the way they teach - I know Liverpool and Aberdeen for example have both changed the curric."

Its rather silly to think that a medical school has drastically changed the curicullum.

Who the hell do you think sets it?
It sure as hell isn't some bod at Keele who decides what Keele is going to teach.

Teaching 'style' perhaps. But a drastically new teaching style will always be worse than an old one for a year or two whilst it beds in.

Well sure, but it may change it's relative position on mrcp results - considering the students results on the report would have been taught under previous teaching styles, the mrcp results table can't be expected to stay static. Oxbridge's position I imagine (although I could be wrong) is a combination of the ability of the student body, the teaching style - things like the tutorial system a six year degree etcetera. Surely most of the differences are down to teaching style - say the differnce in student intake can't be massively different between Liverpool and Newcastle (and in terms of A-level scores Liverpool is slightly higher than Newcastle) so the differential factor must be teaching stye? So it isn't a crazy idea that changes in teaching style at Aberdeen and Liverpool (which have rewcently been implemented) could alter it's position on mrcp results surely?

I don't think the intercalated year contributes to Oxford\Cambridge's advantage in the slightest - it's very much a basic science year with no clinical context whatsoever for the vast majority. The infection and immunity option, for example, is very much about molecules rather than disease.