Independent school pupils dominate medicine courses

Scroll to see replies

Why are the F1s shocking for?

They are always shocking! Every single generation of FY1s will 100% be shocking to various cynical groups of people

take no notice!

Reply 41

hawflo

Original post by Vazzyb

They are always shocking! Every single generation of FY1s will 100% be shocking to various cynical groups of people

take no notice!

I won't

Reply 42

thisismycatch22

Original post by Vazzyb

Well yeah but your reason was completely ridiculous! Its Good Bloke's dustman treating a dustman argument - as medical students you're supposed to be adaptable to everyone and its one of the entry requirements! Being able to identify with your patients in terms of their ill health without being ill yourself is much harder than doing it on socio-economics! And then you started implying that all rich people were ignorant ****ers and all they would say is 'go on a diet ha ha ha'; that isn't exactly a fantastic bit of reasoning!!!!

Also I bet if you tried, you'd find evidence to say that state school students tend to leave medicine less that private school students...

You're supposed to be adaptable to everyone, yes. But obviously some people will be more "naturally" able to do it than others. And that's a desirable trait. We shouldn't ignore it just because it benefits the rich to do so.

I didn't imply all rich people were like that. But if you haven't met any rich people with those less sympathetic tendencies at medical school... well, you're either lying, or it's you. People from privileged backgrounds are blinded to some extent by their privilege. This is not a debatable point. Now, we can either spend lots and lots of time on medical sociology classes for them which they will ignore or sleep through, or we can promote a more diverse medical population and get the benefits of empathy that way. I don't want to promote the less efficient way as the only way because of some idea that it's "natural" for only rich people with connections to get into medicine.

Not sure what your last point is meant to be about. Not keen on spending a vast amount of time pubmedding for this anyway as am supposed to be marking!

Reply 43

Good bloke

Original post by thisismycatch22

People from privileged backgrounds are blinded to some extent by their privilege. This is not a debatable point.

Some of them, yes, and some people from poorer backgrounds are handicapped by the chip on their shoulder. I bet you know a few of those, don't you? Or if you don't some of your friends might.

Reply 44

thisismycatch22

Original post by Good bloke

Now you are getting really confusing. What does treating diabetes have to do with abolishing inherited advantages? Are you now suggesting that only people with inherited illnesses should become doctors?

Just because a perfect solution to a problem is not available, doesn't mean we should avoid a good one. Did you seriously expect me to accept "intelligence is partly inherited" as a reason to not promote social equality? The logic is just non-existent. To say nothing of the fact that we DO try to counteract the inherited part of intelligence... it's called school!

Reply 45

thisismycatch22

Original post by Good bloke

Some of them, yes, and some people from poorer backgrounds are handicapped by the chip on their shoulder. I bet you know a few of those, don't you? Or if you don't some of your friends might.

Hmm, so you think we should promote a system that allows people to become doctors whatever their circumstances, so we get a balance of people able to deal well naturally with people from all backgrounds? How original! I must say I agree with this novel idea.

Reply 46

7589200

Original post by thisismycatch22

Well what i meant was that rather than coming up with these accusations about rich people - like i said, they wudnt have got in if they were ignorant like that! - u cud have just linked to a paper, its much harder to argue against that lol

and for the record

i spent the money for my blazer and my lucky parker exam pen and for seven fantastic years my wonderful grammar school took care of the rest :wink:

Reply 47

Good bloke

Original post by thisismycatch22

I still don't understand what you are trying to say.

Education (derived from the Latin educere, to lead out, remember) is concerned with making the most of everyone's intelligence, not putting down the intelligent, and includes capitalising on intelligent pupils' intelligence and making the most of it.

I come back to the fact that I'd rather have the best possible candidate for medical training, no matter what his origins, than a good enough one that has been socially engineered into the position.

so you think we should promote a system that allows people to become doctors whatever their circumstances

No, I would prefer a system that actively seeks the best candidates to become doctors, regardless of their origins.

Reply 48

thisismycatch22

Original post by Good bloke

I still don't understand what you are trying to say.

I suggested a system that removed inherited advantages in getting work experience by helping the poorer to get those advantages.

You then said that this meant I must also support removing the advantage of intelligence, because intelligence is partially inherited. Since obviously, if someone is against one inherited thing... then they must be against ALL inherited things, or none of them at all! No.

No, I would prefer a system that actively seeks the best candidates to become doctors, regardless of their origins.

That's what I said. That is not the current system. The current system rewards people for going to schools which push people towards medicine and which have contacts in the medical profession. Those aren't the best candidates, those are the richest. Not the same thing. It passively waits for those who are able to get good work experience through their situation to apply, it doesn't actively seek out those who have the ability but not the connections (EMDP aside). You're arguing against widening participation, not positive discrimination in entry requirements. I haven't said anything about lowering standards anywhere and don't advocate it.

edit:
"I come back to the fact that I'd rather have the best possible candidate for medical training, no matter what his origins, than a good enough one that has been socially engineered into the position."
Funny, isn't it, that you don't seem to have any problem with rich people being socially engineered into it by parental connections and private school. Just poor people socially engineered into it by government programs to widen participation. Odd how it works. You and Vazzy should write a dictionary :wink:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 49

Caspa

Original post by hawflo

Why are the F1s shocking for?

not knowing what the lab can test for
asking for every test on a blood sample, while giving the lab next to nothing
thinking that somehow they are better than you, because they have spent 5 years at med school, to your 3, plus your training years
the list really could go on

for us we are pretty much told from day one listen to the MLA they have been there alot longer than most, they know how everything works, they don't do the major work but they know alot more

MLA are a lab thing

Original post by Vazzyb

They are always shocking! Every single generation of FY1s will 100% be shocking to various cynical groups of people

take no notice!

its not cynical, more you need to know your place, and how everything works

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 50

Good bloke

Original post by thisismycatch22

I suggested a system that removed inherited advantages in getting work experience by helping the poorer to get those advantages.

No, you introduced diabetes into the discussion. Why?

In any event, you don't need money to get work experience.

Reply 51

7589200

Original post by Caspa

how do consultants treat you? [3+10 vs 5+10 yrs in training 13 vs 15, even less discrepancy than 3 vs 5]

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 52

Genocidal

Original post by Teveth

Of course it will help. I know a number of potential medics who, despite achieving A* grades, were unable to pursue a career in medicine because they were unable to secure sufficient work experience. I also know somebody whose father is a GP, and guess what, he's now studying medicine. The system is an ass.

We could always take the preference for candidates with large amounts of work experience out of the selection procedure. Everybody knows it's unfair, and it's costing the system thousands if perfectly capable doctors who weren't as advantaged as to get a pointless stint sitting around at daddy's surgery.

It's not just about private schools, it's also about family ties.

How do we differentiate between candidates with the same grades then? The person with more work experience will have more to write about in personal statement too so assuming we remove work experience and personal statement preference then what do we do?

The only option I can think of for medicine is perhaps an entrance exam but then it raises the question of what if a perfectly capable doctor just has a bad day and ends up screwing up? Whatever system schools can choose in theory they all have some sort of flaws that can make it unfair.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 53

thisismycatch22

Original post by Good bloke

No, you introduced diabetes into the discussion. Why?

In any event, you don't need money to get work experience.

That was an analogy after your reply. It was describing your "Perfect is the enemy of the good" argument. If we can't abolish inherited differences in intelligence, we shouldn't try to abolish unfair advantages in work experience. If we can't abolish genetic links to diabetes, we shouldn't try to treat or prevent diabetes at all. You didn't get it, it was a throwaway point, so I moved on.

You don't need money to get work experience, that's true. You don't need money to get good A levels either, or to join the Royal Family. But it damn sure helps, and we should remove any undue interference from unearned advantages in medical admissions.

Reply 54

clad in armour

It might have been said already but what do people think the UKCAT and BMAT are for then? It allows you to counterbalance the rest of your application in terms of academics, you can prepare for it yes but certainly nowhere to the extent of normal formal examinations, where you can have the very best teachers that will go out of their way to help students, having a massive load of resources etc, traits typical of an Independant school,
Medical school admissions staff realise obviously that admission onto a medical course is tantamount to becoming a doctor, and you want doctors who will represent their patients and come from similar walks of life as them, thats where empathy is.

Reply 55

7589200

what do you thisismycatch22...like, in life
just out of interest

Reply 56

Caspa

Original post by Vazzyb

how do consultants treat you? [3+10 vs 5+10 yrs in training 13 vs 15, even less discrepancy than 3 vs 5]

depends on the department you work in and how much interaction you get with them, normally ok, if stuff is going down the seniors takes over

a consultant in his given area will know tons more, a haematology consultant when they come out are normally ok
as they pretty much see the lab everyday anyway

but than everyone likes keeping haematology sweet, you work in haematology you have no choice but to part of the blood transfusion team

still moving on, this maybe a agreement to only allow those with degrees to apply for med, these meant to be a meeting soon looking into that

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 57

7589200

Original post by Caspa

Well i can tell you that the FY1s at my hospital are almost scared to talk to other departments lol, they're hardly rude to them!

Its the consultants that are the worst offenders