Most Overrated Medical School 2013
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Richyp22
Okok Im leaving this arguement here, If these medics claim they work the hours they work Im happy to let them believe that.
Also the fact that half of you get kicked out and shafted off to london schools is laughable. So in the end you dont get the oxbridge degree you worked so streniously hard for. LOL. Overrated.
And no I didnt use a spell checker for my PS(Didnt need to), and I think it turned out fine since I now have an interview at a PS university. You arrogant P****.
Also the fact that half of you get kicked out and shafted off to london schools is laughable. So in the end you dont get the oxbridge degree you worked so streniously hard for. LOL. Overrated.
And no I didnt use a spell checker for my PS(Didnt need to), and I think it turned out fine since I now have an interview at a PS university. You arrogant P****.
As much as i personally havent applied to oxford or cambridge as the course doesnt particularly suit my style of learning it sounds a tad like your being bitter because you know you wouldnt have been accepted there. JS
Original post by Richyp22
Okok Im leaving this arguement here, If these medics claim they work the hours they work Im happy to let them believe that.
Also the fact that half of you get kicked out and shafted off to london schools is laughable. So in the end you dont get the oxbridge degree you worked so streniously hard for. LOL. Overrated.
And no I didnt use a spell checker for my PS(Didnt need to), and I think it turned out fine since I now have an interview at a PS university. You arrogant P****.
Also the fact that half of you get kicked out and shafted off to london schools is laughable. So in the end you dont get the oxbridge degree you worked so streniously hard for. LOL. Overrated.
And no I didnt use a spell checker for my PS(Didnt need to), and I think it turned out fine since I now have an interview at a PS university. You arrogant P****.
actually I do have a cambridge degree. all transferring students do.
And a london uni degree.
In fact my full title these days is Dr Jamie, BAcantab MBBSlons MCEM DRCOG YOURMUM.
All the best in your future career. You sound delightful.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Jamie
actually I do have a cambridge degree. all transferring students do.
And a london uni degree.
In fact my full title these days is Dr Jamie, BAcantab MBBSlons MCEM DRCOG YOURMUM.
All the best in your future career. You sound delightful.
And a london uni degree.
In fact my full title these days is Dr Jamie, BAcantab MBBSlons MCEM DRCOG YOURMUM.
All the best in your future career. You sound delightful.
does this mean any graduate from a London medical school will have MBBSlons?
The esteem that Oxbridge medical schools are held in is justifiable in my view, having worked for a couple of them, gone to school with a few more and looking at the evidence on professional examination scores (see http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/6/5/ - a bit old but I challenge you to find better evidence of knowledge competences) it seems to me that these two universities produce excellent doctors. Generally, these guys have to do more essays in their first year than other medics do in all five and seem to work a hell of a lot harder in the first three years than other students I know at different medical schools, and that is saying something.
The argument that there is little clinical exposure until after pre-clinicals is a bit of a dud for me, being at Newcastle I can say that the actual exposure to patients in a hospital setting was done perhaps 3 times a year during pre-clinicals, learning from the experience was limited and I did not need those hospital visits to be 'motivated to carry on with medicine', in fact learning and nailing down the core physiological mechanisms/ anatomy before starting clinicals is far more useful, but that is my opinion.
There are people who a bad communicators in all medical schools and communication skill can be taught and practiced relatively quickly with good tutoring.
The argument that there is little clinical exposure until after pre-clinicals is a bit of a dud for me, being at Newcastle I can say that the actual exposure to patients in a hospital setting was done perhaps 3 times a year during pre-clinicals, learning from the experience was limited and I did not need those hospital visits to be 'motivated to carry on with medicine', in fact learning and nailing down the core physiological mechanisms/ anatomy before starting clinicals is far more useful, but that is my opinion.
There are people who a bad communicators in all medical schools and communication skill can be taught and practiced relatively quickly with good tutoring.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by slobo95
does this mean any graduate from a London medical school will have MBBSlons?
Imperial now give out their own degrees and UCL apparently mark them in some way. In the past all London medical degrees were given out by the Uni of London, hence the MBBS Lons. Similarly an Oxford medical degree is BM BCh Oxon and a Cambridge one is MB BCh Cantab.
Original post by Jamie
actually I do have a cambridge degree. all transferring students do.
And a london uni degree.
In fact my full title these days is Dr Jamie, BAcantab MBBSlons MCEM DRCOG YOURMUM.
All the best in your future career. You sound delightful.
And a london uni degree.
In fact my full title these days is Dr Jamie, BAcantab MBBSlons MCEM DRCOG YOURMUM.
All the best in your future career. You sound delightful.
same to you, enjoy thinking you can walk into any speciality you want because you went to cambridge while you can. You social criple.
Original post by Richyp22
same to you, enjoy thinking you can walk into any speciality you want because you went to cambridge while you can. You social criple.
I'm already in my chosen speciality thats what the letters after my name mean, and if you paid ANY attention to the graduates on this forum you'll have noticed they pretty much all say it makes NO difference which uni you go to once you have qualified are a doctor. There are no marks on the speciality application forms for which uni you went to. I should know, I created the Guide to speciality applications thread!
The whole issue here has been you - as someone who has not even gotten a place, much less gone to university telling those who have what it is like, and how you know much better than us what hours we work.
Original post by AnonymousPenguin
Imperial now give out their own degrees and UCL apparently mark them in some way. In the past all London medical degrees were given out by the Uni of London, hence the MBBS Lons. Similarly an Oxford medical degree is BM BCh Oxon and a Cambridge one is MB BCh Cantab.
ooh thank you, so SGUL and KCL with have mbbs lons after them?
Original post by tig ol bitties
The esteem that Oxbridge medical schools are held in is justifiable in my view, having worked for a couple of them, gone to school with a few more and looking at the evidence on professional examination scores (see http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/6/5/ - a bit old but I challenge you to find better evidence of knowledge competences) it seems to me that these two universities produce excellent doctors. Generally, these guys have to do more essays in their first year than other medics do in all five and seem to work a hell of a lot harder in the first three years than other students I know at different medical schools, and that is saying something.
The argument that there is little clinical exposure until after pre-clinicals is a bit of a dud for me, being at Newcastle I can say that the actual exposure to patients in a hospital setting was done perhaps 3 times a year during pre-clinicals, learning from the experience was limited and I did not need those hospital visits to be 'motivated to carry on with medicine', in fact learning and nailing down the core physiological mechanisms/ anatomy before starting clinicals is far more useful, but that is my opinion.
There are people who a bad communicators in all medical schools and communication skill can be taught and practiced relatively quickly with good tutoring.
The argument that there is little clinical exposure until after pre-clinicals is a bit of a dud for me, being at Newcastle I can say that the actual exposure to patients in a hospital setting was done perhaps 3 times a year during pre-clinicals, learning from the experience was limited and I did not need those hospital visits to be 'motivated to carry on with medicine', in fact learning and nailing down the core physiological mechanisms/ anatomy before starting clinicals is far more useful, but that is my opinion.
There are people who a bad communicators in all medical schools and communication skill can be taught and practiced relatively quickly with good tutoring.
I think people just say Oxbridge students are poor at communication because the science emphasis is so strong, and they want to criticise them for something.
I can't see much/any evidence for poor clinical/communication skills from Oxbridge students - indeed, as the document you linked to illustrates, the PACES pass rate (that is a clinical exam) is highest for Oxbridge students.
To put my two pennies on this very subjective/silly question, it seems to me that many of the applicants worship Kings, I've never understood this seeing the medics at Kings I've spoken to (all two of them) endlessly moan about how rubbish the teaching and quality of the course is. This could be reflected in their student satisfaction(http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjects/Overview/10003645-UMBB5MSMD/ReturnTo/Search), that is pretty damn shabby. See students know that filling in their NSS favourably will only reflect well on their school and ultimately themselves (although how much that matters is medicine is debatable), so to only get 58%, things have to be going fundamentally wrong and the students must have some pretty serious views on the way the course is run.
Original post by tig ol bitties
To put my two pennies on this very subjective/silly question, it seems to me that many of the applicants worship Kings, I've never understood this seeing the medics at Kings I've spoken to (all two of them) endlessly moan about how rubbish the teaching and quality of the course is. This could be reflected in their student satisfaction(http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/Subjects/Overview/10003645-UMBB5MSMD/ReturnTo/Search), that is pretty damn shabby. See students know that filling in their NSS favourably will only reflect well on their school and ultimately themselves (although how much that matters is medicine is debatable), so to only get 58%, things have to be going fundamentally wrong and the students must have some pretty serious views on the way the course is run.
I've got to say, as an outsider having worked in several hospitals with lots of GKT students, I think there are some significant flaws in their clinical course. It might just be because they're different from how I was taught, but I don't think they help the students' experience.
That said, all the GKT graduates I've worked with have seemed no more or less competent than any others. The med students are a mixed bunch - some are really keen and very knowledgeable (though some of those spoil it by not knowing which way round to hold a cannula!) and others seem to just be there for the signatures and show little knowledge or interest.
The million dollar question is how do you rate a medical school? As some have pointed out all medical degrees get you GMC registration and the opportunity to go on to a career.
I have some insight into this having 20+ experience as a doctor and having trained medical students for much of that time. I did my medical degree at a time when some med schools still had you studying zoology and botany as part of your first two years. I considered myself lucky to have only had to study basic sciences that pertained to the human body so anatomy, physiology, biochem etc for the first two years with 3 years clinical experience thereafter.
Some few years after the courses changed again so that there was more vertical integration with students being exposed to clinical situations from the first year.
Any way you cut it there is some basic information you need to come to grips with. When you do that is academic, you need the basics. If you want to be a surgeon you need to know your anatomy. You can do that as an undergrad or you can do that as part of your post grad training. The fact remains you need to know it.
Having said all that if I had to do my undergrad degree all over again I'd go to a university which had a heavy emphasis on good grounding in the basic sciences. Better to do it right first time then to have to go and redo it yourself later. Just my tuppence.
I have some insight into this having 20+ experience as a doctor and having trained medical students for much of that time. I did my medical degree at a time when some med schools still had you studying zoology and botany as part of your first two years. I considered myself lucky to have only had to study basic sciences that pertained to the human body so anatomy, physiology, biochem etc for the first two years with 3 years clinical experience thereafter.
Some few years after the courses changed again so that there was more vertical integration with students being exposed to clinical situations from the first year.
Any way you cut it there is some basic information you need to come to grips with. When you do that is academic, you need the basics. If you want to be a surgeon you need to know your anatomy. You can do that as an undergrad or you can do that as part of your post grad training. The fact remains you need to know it.
Having said all that if I had to do my undergrad degree all over again I'd go to a university which had a heavy emphasis on good grounding in the basic sciences. Better to do it right first time then to have to go and redo it yourself later. Just my tuppence.
Original post by slobo95
ooh thank you, so SGUL and KCL with have mbbs lons after them?
could someone answer this question for me please?
Original post by Richyp22
Oxbridge, You get worked like a dog for six years and at the end of the day you get the same medicine degree that holds the same career prospects unlike any other degree. At oxbridge im hearing horror stories of having to work 6/7 hours a night on top of your university teaching to stay on top of the work.
Seriously, who wants a life like this just for "prestige" which is irrelevent in a medicine career?
Along with this they have no clinal contact for the first three years leading to the production a socially and clinically awkward students who lack empathy and communication skills. This was told to me my a radiologist who graduated from cambridge.
Seriously, who wants a life like this just for "prestige" which is irrelevent in a medicine career?
Along with this they have no clinal contact for the first three years leading to the production a socially and clinically awkward students who lack empathy and communication skills. This was told to me my a radiologist who graduated from cambridge.
You'll get workaholics at every med school, but I assure you that not everyone (myself included) works '6/7 hours a night on top of your university teaching to stay on top of the work'
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Oxbridge graduates have the highest pass rate in the PACES clinical skills examination out of all medical school graduates, though.
So I think that the criticism of Oxbridge as being academic at the expense of clinical experience is entirely unfounded.
So I think that the criticism of Oxbridge as being academic at the expense of clinical experience is entirely unfounded.
I think the second part of your post is very much true, but there is somewhat of a confounder for your first comment. Oxford/Cambridge tend to take students who are the best at thriving with exams; it's not altogether surprising that their students go on to be capable exam-takers.
Original post by Wangers
I would also strongly defend basic science teaching - not only is it the basis of why we do what we do - it teaches you to think, actually critically think, and not just accept and regurgitate. Also, alot of the science that is taught in science heavy courses does come up later in professional exams - like the MRCP, which is I suspect one reason they do better, another is that oxbridge reselect students for their clinical intake, and so they have a very specific population. Bear in mind though that the MRCP data is 20+ years old.
The studpidity and arrogance of pre-freshers slagging off courses though. **** you.
The studpidity and arrogance of pre-freshers slagging off courses though. **** you.
I defend basic science teaching, but not for the reasons you're giving.
(1) It teaches you to think critically and not just accept and regurgitate.
Don't know about you, but most of the basic science in a medical curriculum doesn't exactly scream critical thought. It's about slamming as much material into your brain so as to pass an exam as you can. I would say that most of the basic science across medical curricula distinctly is more about regurgitation.
(2) It's useful for future exams.
Assuming you have an insane capacity to remember the details thrown at you. I'd argue that a getting solid grounding in the fundamentals with little 'excess' and tangenting (unless the student wanted to do the delving themselves) would put someone in a better position for future exams. There's nothing requiring a huge amount of basic science in most post-graduate exams. You can kid yourself that learning about the regulation of pyruvate dehydrogenase or the precise landmarks of the talus will all pay dividends one day if you please, but I’m not convinced. I’m more convinced that going over the fundamentals of pathology, physiology and anatomy solidly without layering on too much detail would prove more useful. For those that want to become savvier with science and delve into details, they can do that in their own time, intercalate, etc.
Basic science is important for scientific literacy, fundamentally. If you're scientifically illiterate as a doctor you can't legitimately participate in translating important laboratory findings to the clinic. Let's face it, the amount of science you need to know to function as an everyday doctor is minimal, but the basic scientists need scientifically literate doctors to communicate their findings with and organise translation.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Kinkerz
(1) It teaches you to think critically and not just accept and regurgitate.
Don't know about you, but most of the basic science in a medical curriculum doesn't exactly scream critical thought. It's about slamming as much material into your brain so as to pass an exam as you can. I would say that most of the basic science across medical curricula distinctly is more about regurgitation.
(1) It teaches you to think critically and not just accept and regurgitate.
Don't know about you, but most of the basic science in a medical curriculum doesn't exactly scream critical thought. It's about slamming as much material into your brain so as to pass an exam as you can. I would say that most of the basic science across medical curricula distinctly is more about regurgitation.
I don't know about other courses, but the Oxford one is definitely focused on critical thinking. I will admit that the first 1 and 2/3 of the year are mainly regurgitation, but even then there are extra marks available for critical analysis. The third year is probably half about critical analysis of papers and the only way to get above 65-ish in your BA (intercalation is obligatory) is to be well aware of the weaknesses of various methods, stats and data presentation. An entire paper is dedicated to critical analysis of a paper. Moreover, essentially all my tutorial and seminar teaching this year has been about critical analysis of published papers.
Everyone in this thread seems to really love to criticize the Oxford course, but the criticisms really seem to be based on misconceptions. They really don't make you know a great deal about pyruvate dehydrogenase, although Gary Brown might be a bit annoyed about this comment.
Original post by AnonymousPenguin
I don't know about other courses, but the Oxford one is definitely focused on critical thinking. I will admit that the first 1 and 2/3 of the year are mainly regurgitation, but even then there are extra marks available for critical analysis. The third year is probably half about critical analysis of papers and the only way to get above 65-ish in your BA (intercalation is obligatory) is to be well aware of the weaknesses of various methods, stats and data presentation. An entire paper is dedicated to critical analysis of a paper. Moreover, essentially all my tutorial and seminar teaching this year has been about critical analysis of published papers.
Right, but the third year is your BA year? So it's not medicine? It's whatever discipline you elect to complete your bachelor's in?
So what you're saying is that the pre-clinical medicine curriculum is more focused on regurgitation than critical thought.
Everyone in this thread seems to really love to criticize the Oxford course, but the criticisms really seem to be based on misconceptions.
I'm not dissing Oxford at all. In fact, I think for the career I'd prefer to pursue, Oxford would've been more, let's say, fertile.
They really don't make you know a great deal about pyruvate dehydrogenase, although Gary Brown might be a bit annoyed about this comment.
I was using hyperbole to make a point...
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Kinkerz
Right, but the third year is your BA year? So it's not medicine? It's whatever discipline you elect to complete your bachelor's in?
So what you're saying is that the pre-clinical medicine curriculum is more focused on regurgitation than critical thought.
So what you're saying is that the pre-clinical medicine curriculum is more focused on regurgitation than critical thought.
Well the BA is in Medical Sciences and you can't do anything else. There's options within that, but they pretty much encompass what the 1st BM (pre-clin) is about in more detail. Essentially they've made pre-clin end with a BA, the intercalated year is very much a logical conclusion to what you've been doing before. They don't let you do whatever you want for the 3rd year - in the past some people went off to do law for 2 years, for example. That is definitely off the table now.
There's definitely more focus on critical analysis now, but the 1st BM definitely wasn't only regurgitation. I guess you could pass with only that, but the tutorials would be pretty dull and there's no way you would rank high in the year.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by AnonymousPenguin
Well the BA is in Medical Sciences and you can't do anything else. There's options within that, but they pretty much encompass what the 1st BM (pre-clin) is about in more detail. Essentially they've made pre-clin end with a BA, the intercalated year is very much a logical conclusion to what you've been doing before. They don't let you do whatever you want for the 3rd year - in the past some people went off to do law for 2 years, for example. That is definitely off the table now.
There's definitely more focus on critical analysis now, but the 1st BM definitely wasn't only regurgitation. I guess you could pass with only that, but the tutorials would be pretty dull and there's no way you would rank high in the year.
There's definitely more focus on critical analysis now, but the 1st BM definitely wasn't only regurgitation. I guess you could pass with only that, but the tutorials would be pretty dull and there's no way you would rank high in the year.
Either way, it's still the equivalent of an intercalated degree. It is a bachelor's science degree, which would naturally entail more critical thinking. Even going with the argument that it is somehow gelled with medicine, the first two years are more about factual science than critical science, which is the majority.
What I'm saying is that a course that is 'science-heavy' doesn't necessarily instill critical thought. It forces students to memorise a load of information and to do that forces the student to skimp on other things (like thinking critically about what they're learning).
Nuances aside, the general theme of basic science in medicine is not anchored in critical thought. It is: 'Here is a series of facts / a mechanism*, now go and learn it to pass your exam.'
*that you will have probably forgotten less than a month after you sit the exam
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- UCAT Medentry QR Question
- The Educating Series
- BTS are overrated !!!
- funding for second degree
- Is glasgow uni good?
- Birmingham Medical School Applicants 2013
- Most overrated Uni in general in the uk
- Is there is chance?
- Medicine
- Medicine entry
- UK best medical schools
- Newcastle or Queen Mary?
- is it hard to get into prestigious universities for med/dentistry?
- Thank you!!
- career change from medicine to vet
- Transfer Medical Schools
- Medical School???
- Diversity at St Andrews University
- About applying to medicine
- Do I still have a shot at Cambridge (or Oxford?)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 weeks ago
opinions on laptops/tablets which will be good for med school/uni in general?Last reply 1 month ago
Going abroad after studying at a UK medicine universityLast reply 1 month ago
Unsure on medicinary/dentistry or computing science fieldLast reply 2 months ago
Unintentional 'Gap Year' After Graduating Medical SchoolTrending
Last reply 4 weeks ago
opinions on laptops/tablets which will be good for med school/uni in general?Last reply 1 month ago
Going abroad after studying at a UK medicine universityLast reply 1 month ago
Unsure on medicinary/dentistry or computing science fieldLast reply 2 months ago
Unintentional 'Gap Year' After Graduating Medical School
