Increasing snobbery about medical schools?

i didn't say "no one".

where's your evidence that all medical schools are exactly equivalent in terms of quality?

i cant really justify what you think i believe. I cant get in your head, sorry, and i dont think i want to.




when you said 'hardly anyone' thats pretty close to meaning 'no one'. in fact the statement still applies even if you did mean 'hardly anyone'. find the cheese.


where is your evidence that i believe this?
i'm not defending some codswallop that you thought up, no offence mate.

so you'll just make blase statements arguing with people who think overall quality of teaching might be different between different schools and then dodge when pressed to justify it. can't say i'm surprised

overall quality of teaching might be different between different schools

so you'll just make blase statements arguing with people who think overall quality of teaching might be different between different schools and then dodge when pressed to justify it. can't say i'm surprised

Haha! That's one of the most sensible posts I've seen in this thread.

However, you have to remember that, essentially, all medical courses are difficult, they just have different emphasis: some will suit great scientists, some will suit great communicators and some will suit great piss artists.

Difficulty is in 'measuring' the quality and quantity of useful teaching at each place, and consistency within a school.

That is not just difficult, but probably impossible to measure.


As for the discussion, unless you propose the quality and quantity of useful teaching within medical school x directly correlates to the quality of every single graduate then even bothering to try and measure it would simply give you a surrogate endpoint.

Some self motivated and highly driven students will succeed and go on to become good doctors no matter how good, bad or indifferent teaching was. Similarly, poorly motivated students will not do well just because they are studying at a 'good' medical school.

Actually I disagree strongly with this view.
There is a lot of evidence to show that early interventions make a lot of difference.

You wouldn't happen to have any sources would you? I'm not being cheeky - I am genuinely interested. If aggressive identification of any problems or issues at undergraduate level improves student performance and future potential as a doctor then surely this would mean tutorial based learning is the way forward.

I only say that because I think academic problems typically go unreported until they become inhibitory to day to day life at university.

Actually I disagree strongly with this view.
There is a lot of evidence to show that early interventions make a lot of difference.
A university with a strong postural department who can spot struggling students and help them before they fall too far behind will do far better than one where students are largely left to their own devices excepting the annual exams.

Thats why dropout rates at some unis are much lower than others.
Certainly at places like oxbridge with their tutorial/supervision systems its VERY hard for a struggling student not to get identified and additional help given early on.

And I'm sure quality and quantity of teaching correlates with that of the students.
You don't have to prove it for each student, thats retarded.
Just have to show it statistically improves the quality of students whether in exams, likelyhood to get through foundation years or likelyhood to get into specialty training.
[Something that will be easier to measure once the london unis start awarding their own degrees]

exams are marked on a normal distribution so only the bottom 30 odd students fail.

and apparently the st andrews students who join us in clinicals wipe the floor with us