medicine admission is 87% LUCK IMO
Scroll to see replies
Original post by firestar101
What was your degree in? Did you study medicine?
Yes I was studying medicine at Durham University.
It is partially down to luck.
A friend of mine with straight As got 5 rejections (not sure if they were all medicine, at least 4 were)
Apparently he was judged not to have "the right personality for medicine" how they can judge that from a few interviews idk. Just bad luck perhaps.
A friend of mine with straight As got 5 rejections (not sure if they were all medicine, at least 4 were)
Apparently he was judged not to have "the right personality for medicine" how they can judge that from a few interviews idk. Just bad luck perhaps.
One day when you're older and less angry with the world you'll look back at the comments you made and realise how stupid you are.
Original post by Renal
GKT (or Kings) did something that I read a few years ago that showed that ethnic minorities made up (somewhere) between 20 and 40% of medical students at various schools. Can't find it on pubmed though.
(Although I did find some stuff ftom UCL on pubmed that some people are really not going to appreciate!)
(Although I did find some stuff ftom UCL on pubmed that some people are really not going to appreciate!)
Tell us!!
Lots of people are criticising the UKCAT, but research has found it to be a reliable proxy for A level RESULTS (as opposed to predicted grades). Also its results aren't skewed by which school you went to, whether or not you have a tutor, how many times you resat Chem3, how many A levels you sat (some people sit five academic A levels plus an extended project and STEP just for a lark, some people do just 3), etc etc.
In any case, some Med schools don't use UKCAT (Birmingham, Liverpool, Lancaster, Bristol, maybe others too): apply there. And you surely can't criticise the well-respected BMAT? There are four undergrad Med schools that use the BMAT, hows about you apply there? (BTW - among my friends, those who acheived a high UKCAT also scored a high BMAT and the same correlation held for low scores, but that may be a skewed sample).
In any case, some Med schools don't use UKCAT (Birmingham, Liverpool, Lancaster, Bristol, maybe others too): apply there. And you surely can't criticise the well-respected BMAT? There are four undergrad Med schools that use the BMAT, hows about you apply there? (BTW - among my friends, those who acheived a high UKCAT also scored a high BMAT and the same correlation held for low scores, but that may be a skewed sample).
Original post by ritchie888
Mate, totally agree.
The new admission process should be a massive rock, paper, scissors competition between the candidates.
The new admission process should be a massive rock, paper, scissors competition between the candidates.
Original post by ImWithTheBand
Lots of people are criticising the UKCAT, but research has found it to be a reliable proxy for A level RESULTS (as opposed to predicted grades). Also its results aren't skewed by which school you went to, whether or not you have a tutor, how many times you resat Chem3, how many A levels you sat (some people sit five academic A levels plus an extended project and STEP just for a lark, some people do just 3), etc etc.
I stated that in my criticism of the UKCAT. It's also important to note that it's a pretty weak correlation.
But it's an absolutely worthless correlation. Why do medical schools need something to tell them what candidate's A-Level results are going to be? That are what predicted grades/etc. is for - it's an absolutely redundant measure if that's actually the only thing it measures for. If we take your point to be correct - that the UKCAT is valid because it predicts A-Level results - then the only people it's realistically helping are those people who faffed around at AS/have no work ethic and because of that, their teachers gave them low predicted grades. If that were the case, medical schools wouldn't go "oh, this person is predicted BCC, but I mean their UKCAT is 750 so they're obviously gonna get A*AA" - no, they'd reject them.
Also, the results are skewed by what school you went to (private schools getting statistically significant improvements in score) and skewed by if you had a tutor (people who went on the Kaplan course, on average, achieved 700+).
The UKCAT is not a valid selection tool. It's a valid way to cut down applicants, yes, but that is not necessarily the same thing.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Beska
But it's an absolutely worthless correlation. Why do medical schools need something to tell them what candidate's A-Level results are going to be? That are what predicted grades/etc. is for - it's an absolutely redundant measure if that's actually the only thing it measures for. If we take your point to be correct - that the UKCAT is valid because it predicts A-Level results - then the only people it's realistically helping are those people who faffed around at AS/have no work ethic and because of that, their teachers gave them low predicted grades. If that were the case, medical schools wouldn't go "oh, this person is predicted BCC, but I mean their UKCAT is 750 so they're obviously gonna get A*AA" - no, they'd reject them.
But it's an absolutely worthless correlation. Why do medical schools need something to tell them what candidate's A-Level results are going to be? That are what predicted grades/etc. is for - it's an absolutely redundant measure if that's actually the only thing it measures for. If we take your point to be correct - that the UKCAT is valid because it predicts A-Level results - then the only people it's realistically helping are those people who faffed around at AS/have no work ethic and because of that, their teachers gave them low predicted grades. If that were the case, medical schools wouldn't go "oh, this person is predicted BCC, but I mean their UKCAT is 750 so they're obviously gonna get A*AA" - no, they'd reject them.
Because predicted grades are not a perfect way of predicting A level results. The people who it's helping will include people predicted poor grades because their teachers don't like them, and it will also help to reject people predicted good grades because their teachers do like them/because they go to a school that games the system. Or people who just got inaccurate predicted grades by chance.
Having two predictions of the same thing will make the overall prediction better, even if both are imperfect. It would only be completely redundant if predictions were perfect. They're not.
Also, the results are skewed by what school you went to (private schools getting statistically significant improvements in score) and skewed by if you had a tutor (people who went on the Kaplan course, on average, achieved 700+).
private schools often select pupils by similar tests, and if you think people going on the kaplan course necessarily do better because of the course then you must think buying a gym membership makes you strong.
there's also the fact that it's prima facie pretty plausible that people who do well on tests of "general intelligence" like the UKCAT would be better clinicians even if those benefits don't show up in medical school exam performance, where quick thinking under pressure isn't so much an advantage as cramming is.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Beska
I stated that in my criticism of the UKCAT. It's also important to note that it's a pretty weak correlation.
But it's an absolutely worthless correlation. Why do medical schools need something to tell them what candidate's A-Level results are going to be? That are what predicted grades/etc. is for - it's an absolutely redundant measure if that's actually the only thing it measures for. If we take your point to be correct - that the UKCAT is valid because it predicts A-Level results - then the only people it's realistically helping are those people who faffed around at AS/have no work ethic and because of that, their teachers gave them low predicted grades. If that were the case, medical schools wouldn't go "oh, this person is predicted BCC, but I mean their UKCAT is 750 so they're obviously gonna get A*AA" - no, they'd reject them.
Also, the results are skewed by what school you went to (private schools getting statistically significant improvements in score) and skewed by if you had a tutor (people who went on the Kaplan course, on average, achieved 700+).
The UKCAT is not a valid selection tool. It's a valid way to cut down applicants, yes, but that is not necessarily the same thing.
But it's an absolutely worthless correlation. Why do medical schools need something to tell them what candidate's A-Level results are going to be? That are what predicted grades/etc. is for - it's an absolutely redundant measure if that's actually the only thing it measures for. If we take your point to be correct - that the UKCAT is valid because it predicts A-Level results - then the only people it's realistically helping are those people who faffed around at AS/have no work ethic and because of that, their teachers gave them low predicted grades. If that were the case, medical schools wouldn't go "oh, this person is predicted BCC, but I mean their UKCAT is 750 so they're obviously gonna get A*AA" - no, they'd reject them.
Also, the results are skewed by what school you went to (private schools getting statistically significant improvements in score) and skewed by if you had a tutor (people who went on the Kaplan course, on average, achieved 700+).
The UKCAT is not a valid selection tool. It's a valid way to cut down applicants, yes, but that is not necessarily the same thing.
Perhaps eventualy, it'll be used to identify those whose A level predictions are an underperformance which might be as a result of their family circumstances/educational establishment, eventually helping to widen access.
How many people from poor backgrounds get 10 A* at GCSE to jump the Birmingham admissions hurdle?
Is it really true that private school pupils do better in the UKCAT? I suspect UKCAT scores are a reasonable proxy for MidYis scores ..... and you likely find higher than average MidYis scores in private, state selective and the better comprehensive state schools (which are selective by house price very often). Having a motivated parent (motivated to move house for your education, to pay for your fees, enter you for the 11+ etc) is quite an indicator on its own. Same thing goes for the parents who pay for the Kaplan course.
I really hope they are looking into widening access because at the moment it's a profession closed to lots of very bright people who've had a less than ideal start in life.
My private school form tutor told me the UKCAT was a sort of enhanced CRB check for medicine applicants.
And the few teachers who did know about it later said it was something you could not revise for and not that important anyway.Original post by Beska
I stated that in my criticism of the UKCAT. It's also important to note that it's a pretty weak correlation.
But it's an absolutely worthless correlation. Why do medical schools need something to tell them what candidate's A-Level results are going to be? That are what predicted grades/etc. is for - it's an absolutely redundant measure if that's actually the only thing it measures for. If we take your point to be correct - that the UKCAT is valid because it predicts A-Level results - then the only people it's realistically helping are those people who faffed around at AS/have no work ethic and because of that, their teachers gave them low predicted grades. If that were the case, medical schools wouldn't go "oh, this person is predicted BCC, but I mean their UKCAT is 750 so they're obviously gonna get A*AA" - no, they'd reject them.
Also, the results are skewed by what school you went to (private schools getting statistically significant improvements in score) and skewed by if you had a tutor (people who went on the Kaplan course, on average, achieved 700+).
The UKCAT is not a valid selection tool. It's a valid way to cut down applicants, yes, but that is not necessarily the same thing.
But it's an absolutely worthless correlation. Why do medical schools need something to tell them what candidate's A-Level results are going to be? That are what predicted grades/etc. is for - it's an absolutely redundant measure if that's actually the only thing it measures for. If we take your point to be correct - that the UKCAT is valid because it predicts A-Level results - then the only people it's realistically helping are those people who faffed around at AS/have no work ethic and because of that, their teachers gave them low predicted grades. If that were the case, medical schools wouldn't go "oh, this person is predicted BCC, but I mean their UKCAT is 750 so they're obviously gonna get A*AA" - no, they'd reject them.
Also, the results are skewed by what school you went to (private schools getting statistically significant improvements in score) and skewed by if you had a tutor (people who went on the Kaplan course, on average, achieved 700+).
The UKCAT is not a valid selection tool. It's a valid way to cut down applicants, yes, but that is not necessarily the same thing.
In all honesty it's impossible to predict how anyone will do at medical school based on any form of academic achievement (UKCAT, GAMSAT, A levels, GCSEs or degree). This is because firstly, GCSEs and A levels are a waste of time, I tutor A level biology and it is so dumbed down in parts it's embarrassing. Seocndly. degrees are all subjective, there's no national comparison because each institution has its own set of marking criteria. Thirdly the UKCAT is, well, just an IQ test with some mental and verbal challenges. And finally, the GAMSAT is a tougher version of A levels but is incomparable to the others because it's more of a side-route into medicine rather than a primary route.
There are huge problems with the medical application system, but most of the problems lie in accessibility rather than academics. I'm more worried about the bias towards public schools than the validity of the UKCAT or GAMSAT. To clarify, the bias towards public schools is not direct, but merely becuase public schools give their students far better and more comprehensive advice and have much better networking options for gaining clinical experience.
(edited 13 years ago)
Some elements of med admissions probably are, but 87% is just a bull**** number tbh.
I'm 86% awesome btw.
I'm 86% awesome btw.
Original post by Hantheman
In all honesty it's impossible to predict how anyone will do at medical school based on any form of academic achievement (UKCAT, GAMSAT, A levels, GCSEs or degree). This is because firstly, GCSEs and A levels are a waste of time, I tutor A level biology and it is so dumbed down in parts it's embarrassing. Seocndly. degrees are all subjective, there's no national comparison because each institution has its own set of marking criteria. Thirdly the UKCAT is, well, just an IQ test with some mental and verbal challenges. And finally, the GAMSAT is a tougher version of A levels but is incomparable to the others because it's more of a side-route into medicine rather than a primary route.
There are huge problems with the medical application system, but most of the problems lie in accessibility rather than academics. I'm more worried about the bias towards public schools than the validity of the UKCAT or GAMSAT. To clarify, the bias towards public schools is not direct, but merely becuase public schools give their students far better and more comprehensive advice and have much better networking options for gaining clinical experience.
There are huge problems with the medical application system, but most of the problems lie in accessibility rather than academics. I'm more worried about the bias towards public schools than the validity of the UKCAT or GAMSAT. To clarify, the bias towards public schools is not direct, but merely becuase public schools give their students far better and more comprehensive advice and have much better networking options for gaining clinical experience.
Indeed it is. That's why it's ridiculous that the UKCAT consortium (and how the universities within it operate) are implying that it does.
I, personally, have absolutely no problems with private schools giving their pupils better tutoring/advice/etc. and as a result, them getting higher grades and by extension their university places. I went to a comprehensive which gave me absolutely no advice (well, apart from "do maths A-Level, medical schools prefer that") and no mock interviews. A private school local to me does mock interviews for pupils on request, as well as giving their own UKCAT tutoring. At the end of the day, they pay 15k (in the case of my local school) per year for the privilege, and you get what you pay for. It's a case that comprehensives need to be bought up to a better standard, rather than any 'positive discrimination' in reducing the intake of private school pupils. (N.B. I went to a comprehensive, not a private school.) The bias is because those from private schools obviously perform better, end of.
(edited 13 years ago)
Wouldn't it help greatly if England had one exam board to deal with to standardise exams across the country?
They should just have a huge game of Operation. Winners get the places.
Well someone isn't a happy bunny...
Original post by Circadian_Rhythm
87%.
I have a feeling this statistic is made up
I have a feeling this statistic is made up
Apparently 120% of statistics are made up.
I do find it slightly amusing that it's all the people that have offers for/are at medical school that are telling him to get over it...
Original post by jimcatinnes
I do find it slightly amusing that it's all the people that have offers for/are at medical school that are telling him to get over it...
Likewise. I bet that they would not be saying that if they did not have an offer or were already in medical school.
Original post by firestar101
Likewise. I bet that they would not be saying that if they did not have an offer or were already in medical school.
I think he needs to get over it.
I was rejected by all four unis. I am not stomping my feet like my three year old.
You either give up, or go back and fix whatever was wrong with your application and apply again.
They should put all medicine applicants on takeshi's castle, and give unconditional offers to those who get through to the final showdown. If anyone actualy win the final showdown, they get a consultant salary as soon as they graduate.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Imperial Medicine Admissions – Ask Me Anything!
- Do queens have grade requirement if already attending a course? Medicine
- Likeliness for interviews?
- ucat score
- Kings Maths School
- Suggested A levels for Cambridge cs?
- University of Oxford A101 2023 Entry Applicant and Offer Holders thread
- is there any website to tell me each med schools selection process
- Plymouth MMI tips
- Gap year and my exam result
- MMI INTERVIEW (Uclan) medicine
- Is there any way I could get onto medicine with BTEC Applied Science Dual Award?
- What Unis In The UK DON'T Care About Your IGCSE/GCSE Results
- Imperial Medical Biosciences 2024 entry
- Do I need to have done volunteering at a care home if I want to apply for medicine?
- UCL LLB Law- no response yet
- Nottingham A101 Graduate Entry Medicine 2024
- CBSE India and GCSE (2)
- EPQ question ideas
- where do i apply for medicine?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OFFICIAL A101 Liverpool University Graduate Entry Medicine Thread 2024 EntryMedicine
77
