30-year-old mum wants to study medicine

a 50 year old entrant would give 10 years or o of work in medicine before retirement, best case scenario. a school leaver has over 40.

i'm coming into medicine later than most, but this claim seems to be more a part of your endless quest to slag off school leavers who want to do medicine rather than any sort of logical argument. don't make economic arguments unless you're not just pulling numbers out of where the sun doesn't shine

the substantial number who leave in their 30s or before have less, so your argument works both ways. A 40 year old, by contrast, is VERY unlikely to leave their last job unless forced to.

No, i mean the opposite, my point is aimed at ONLY the number of young medics who leave the profession or who come to realise late on that they want to do something other than medicine. If you wish to believe that I am meaning ALL school leavers than that is your perogative entirely of course.

I ran the numbers for 40 year olds in excel quickly, and 67% of school leavers would have to leave at the age of 35 in order for the numbers to be equal.

And that's assuming every single 40 year old stays in the NHS for 20 years, and ignoring that they'll spend less time as consultants, and ignoring the fact that we're only talking about this because you whined at someone criticising the training of 50 year olds not 40! Do you think that number's accurate? More to the point, did you have any evidence that it was, before you go and consult the university of google, or did you just want to take the snooty (possibly even privately educated!) school leavers down a peg by pointing out a lack of commitment?

Sure it was. I'll exercise that prerogative since you never seem to post anything other than sad attempts at trolling kids who want to do medicine.

x

lmao - I have just realised this is the same person as on New Media Medicine. For the record I have no problem with graduate entrants and value the experience they bring - but in my opinon training 50 year olds to be doctors at the expense of Joe taxpayer is a total and complete waste of money. These people can't expect to be consultants for anymore than 1, 2 - 3 at a push years...as much as you might hate southern, private educated students who study at Imperial Gizmo

- they can be working for 20ish years as a consultant - the time when really all the money spent on them at medical school, as a training grade doctor actually comes to fruition.

We can get away with one or two, but if our entire intake of doctors became 50+ the entire healthcare system would collapse.

agreed, that would be idiotic, and its good thing then that no one is arguing for a full intake of 50 year olds.I dont think you could find even 5 willing 50+ candiates for each med school, so its ridiculous for Itsmycatch to use that as an argument. I think he decided to say that to save face on the argument that he's lost.

You were saying they are good value as individuals compared to school leavers. They aren't, regardless of whether it's a full year of 40 year olds or just one or two. Unless the attrition rate ....Pretending that 40 year olds are a good investment economically because school leavers drop out from medicine more often is not one of them. It's just bull**** and would require an insultingly massive dropout rate for school leavers to be true.

Now what you should have done here is switch and argue "oh working years aren't everyfink macca what matters is life skills" etc, but apparently you're not too bright.

You were saying

you've not med medics in med school who admit they dont really want to practise? really? perhaps you should reserve judgement till you get there.

i would have, old man, but then i didnt want to draw attention to your lack of them.

once you've found that there are enough aged 50+ applicants to our med schools to constitute a significant imbalance in training costs, please return i may not be alive by then to reply, mind you.

currently theres only a few applicants for each med school, let alone students.

keep on misreading posts, its all good.


future catchie misreads, refer to this post.

hey old dude, never mind the argument that older applicants who have to stay in medicine for 15 years are better bargains than a school leaver who leaves within 3 years of graduating (mentioning no Shibby Robatis), i have a hypothetical question for you, if you dont mind me asking?

if you didnt get in this year, and say,got ill for several years, would you accept an offer you managed to get when you were better, when you were 49?

Probably not. I'd go back and work in research or pharma. If I did study medicine at that age, I wouldn't claim that I was better value for money, unless something like 90% of school leaver doctors were leaving the NHS within ten years at that point.

I might claim that I was better for other reasons

lo 70% that sounds impressive but the figures entirely creation, not anyone elses, sorry.

Shibby left after three years, so he puts in seven years less for the NHS than a fifty year old who is forced by the unemployability of their age to remain in the medical profession for 10 years.

hmm...i wont empahsise the 7 year difference again, cheers.

probably not, i see. but maybe.

ok but if you did go to med school at 49, and worked in a hospital for 15 years would you be better value for the NHS than Shibby Robati or not?


mm i bet u would.

You take a doctor who is primarily famous for being unusually lazy and negligent as a representative of school leavers, compare them to a fictional perfect 50 year old and you whine when people point out that this is insulting?