The Student Room Group
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Lack of socioeconomic diversity in medicine

Scroll to see replies

I'd guess you're a bit of an outlier then.
Most people in such positions end up working in Tesco's et al.
Adds something more to be proud of, though!
Original post by Tortious410
I can't see how that would solve the issue of socioeconomic diversity. I think further improving the interview system would be the way to go.


Well if you're smart enough you can teach yourself your A-levels and still get pretty spectacular results. Same at Uni.

But if you're substantially different from those already in the medical profession you're unlikely to get in via interviews. The people that are different are the only ones likely to have an impact on changing the profession.
Original post by hellodave5
I'd guess you're a bit of an outlier then.
Most people in such positions end up working in Tesco's et al.
Adds something more to be proud of, though!


My GCSE's weren't fantastic, I only got one A* so obviously I couldn't compete with all these grammar school kids, but I'm proud of what I did get :smile:
Original post by CharlieGEM
Well if you're smart enough you can teach yourself your A-levels and still get pretty spectacular results. Same at Uni.

But if you're substantially different from those already in the medical profession you're unlikely to get in via interviews. The people that are different are the only ones likely to have an impact on changing the profession.


Again I can't see how this would change the socioeconomic balance. Richer students at private schools for instance will also have the upper hand in this regard.

Getting a more diverse pool of interviewers, better training, standardised and transparent interview guidelines however could address it.
Original post by Tortious410
Again I can't see how this would change the socioeconomic balance. Richer students at private schools for instance will also have the upper hand in this regard.

Getting a more diverse pool of interviewers, better training, standardised and transparent interview guidelines however could address it.


I totally agree in the most part. I especially dislike the habit of running access to medicine courses for the state school students who have marks so low you can almost see it was set up to fail. However, I do think they should set results in context of background though.

As far as the smartest students go, most of those with the highest number of grade A A levels always used to come from state schools so I don't think the private school students have so much of an advantage at the top end.
So tell me, am I an over-privileged posh brat taking away a place from a more intelligent but disadvantaged applicant or was the school right to select me?

1998-2004 I went to an independent school.
2010-2016 benefits and hardship funds

Would you need my academic history and CV to decide? Would you need to know how/why my socio-economic status appears to have changed?

Would you need to meet me and see how I differ to the hundreds/thousands of other people that have met all the academic threshold?

I think people are too complicated for a single method of selection to be fair to all.

I have no doubts that I am less academically capable than some people that got rejections but if I am willing to work harder and sacrifice more of my time to be a safe doctor does that make it okay? What if I'm more kind, more respectful, less judgemental? What if I seem more approachable?
Original post by Quilverine
So tell me, am I an over-privileged posh brat taking away a place from a more intelligent but disadvantaged applicant or was the school right to select me?

1998-2004 I went to an independent school.
2010-2016 benefits and hardship funds

Would you need my academic history and CV to decide? Would you need to know how/why my socio-economic status appears to have changed?

Would you need to meet me and see how I differ to the hundreds/thousands of other people that have met all the academic threshold?

I think people are too complicated for a single method of selection to be fair to all.

I have no doubts that I am less academically capable than some people that got rejections but if I am willing to work harder and sacrifice more of my time to be a safe doctor does that make it okay? What if I'm more kind, more respectful, less judgemental? What if I seem more approachable?


Maybe you're a posh brat taking away a place from a more intelligent state school student who knows. I don't really like to judge anyone who doesn't have an obvious personality deficiency. But on balance do a lot of places go to private school brats instead of brighter state school students: absolutely.

As for the non-academic stuff you mentioned, it's really hard to judge all of that as it is so open to interpretation and context based. Hence I have a problem that judgement on this is handed down by a very small insular section of society (didn't see any working class people on the panel of the MMI at Warwick, sorry). And the sort of response when I raised this on the Warwick thread was both laughable and typical (yeah I have genuinely mentioned this to doctors in the flesh and it's always the more stuck up ones that assume I'm saying they're super rich and go down the butler jokes route just underlining how little of a clue they have about how the rest of the population sees them).

The reason that a single selection method is too crude was why I recommended a 20/80 split or thereabouts.
Original post by CharlieGEM
Maybe you're a posh brat taking away a place from a more intelligent state school student who knows. I don't really like to judge anyone who doesn't have an obvious personality deficiency. But on balance do a lot of places go to private school brats instead of brighter state school students: absolutely.

As for the non-academic stuff you mentioned, it's really hard to judge all of that as it is so open to interpretation and context based. Hence I have a problem that judgement on this is handed down by a very small insular section of society (didn't see any working class people on the panel of the MMI at Warwick, sorry). And the sort of response when I raised this on the Warwick thread was both laughable and typical (yeah I have genuinely mentioned this to doctors in the flesh and it's always the more stuck up ones that assume I'm saying they're super rich and go down the butler jokes route just underlining how little of a clue they have about how the rest of the population sees them).

The reason that a single selection method is too crude was why I recommended a 20/80 split or thereabouts.


That wouldn't be possible anyway.. Once you're firmly in a professional career, your mannerisms and ideals start to become more middle class. You can't really suss out what background someone grew up in if they're already fairly established in their careers.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
That wouldn't be possible anyway.. Once you're firmly in a professional career, your mannerisms and ideals start to become more middle class. You can't really suss out what background someone grew up in if they're already fairly established in their careers.

Posted from TSR Mobile


After about 20 years maybe, but that's not what we're talking about. Plus a lot of those that do climb the ladder, well they generally have the sort of characteristics that fit well into a middle class professional environment to start with.
Original post by Princepieman
That wouldn't be possible anyway.. Once you're firmly in a professional career, your mannerisms and ideals start to become more middle class. You can't really suss out what background someone grew up in if they're already fairly established in their careers.

Posted from TSR Mobile


By definition, 20 years as a doctor and you're not working class 😂 So if that's what you mean then it's almost obvious and not really relevant.
Original post by CharlieGEM

As for the non-academic stuff you mentioned, it's really hard to judge all of that as it is so open to interpretation and context based.


It is hard, that's why it takes so long to standardise results from interviews. You ask 100 people the same question and some will give a brilliant answer, some will be safe, and some will be worrying. They want the safe and brilliant ones, but surely socio-economics have nothing to do with the sort of risks they're looking to ameliorate. The standardisation process should be robust enough to stamp out the effect of any personal bias against a particular candidate.

Not even sure how medicine is seen as respectable now, they cut people up and finger rectums on the regular. Whoop.
Original post by Quilverine
It is hard, that's why it takes so long to standardise results from interviews. You ask 100 people the same question and some will give a brilliant answer, some will be safe, and some will be worrying. They want the safe and brilliant ones, but surely socio-economics have nothing to do with the sort of risks they're looking to ameliorate. The standardisation process should be robust enough to stamp out the effect of any personal bias against a particular candidate.

Not even sure how medicine is seen as respectable now, they cut people up and finger rectums on the regular. Whoop.


Absolutely socioeconomics has things to do with the risks they are trying to ameliorate. Think someone won't represent the profession well standing up and talking: there is a socioeconomic component to that, think someone won't ascend the professional ladder while having the intelligence to do so: again a socioeconomic component. In fact the risks I think you're alluding to, there's generally no test apart from time in the job (judging from how many doctors handle the pressure so badly).

The two reasons the role of doctor no longer appeals to me (apart from being excited about other things): the current crop of doctors and the NHS in no particular order. I'm still fed up of dealing with the posh arrogant products of the current selection system on a daily basis though.
Selecting some students based only on academic ability is a fairly ridiculous idea. Just because someone can achieve 4 A*s at A Level does not mean they will become a good Doctor. There are many other factors just as important, particularly relating to personality, hence why the schools interview. There is no point taking someone who can achieve the best grades, yet can't hold a conversation.

Also Charlie GEM, how many medical school interviews have you been to? One?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LittleDonkey
Selecting some students based only on academic ability is a fairly ridiculous idea. Just because someone can achieve 4 A*s at A Level does not mean they will become a good Doctor. There are many other factors just as important, particularly relating to personality, hence why the schools interview. There is no point taking someone who can achieve the best grades, yet can't hold a conversation.

Also Charlie GEM, how many medical school interviews have you been to? One?


Posted from TSR Mobile


When the current system does a pretty horrible job (consider the numbers that go part time, quit or just dip out of training for a few years), I'd say there is nothing to lose. Plus selecting a small proportion on "intelligence" (or an imperfect proxy thereof) alone keeps things honest and meritocratic, in addition to allowing people into the profession with the potential to shake things up for the better.

I've had two medical interviews (and tons of corporate ones). One at Southampton that was a complete joke and basically boiled down to a popularity contest with the judges being current med students and one other. All the questions were the obvious ones and it lasted only 20 minutes. The second one at Warwick was MMI. I know that I gave similar answers to people who got a place plus I had a huge advantage on UKCAT score and previous academics over a lot of those that got a place that allegedly formed part of the decision. I had little problem with the format of the interview, just the fact that it is judged entirely by existing members of the medical profession (logically who else would it be) who were a pretty narrow section of society.

As for "not being able to hold a conversation", this is one of my criticisms of current doctors: a lot of them are so posh and stuck up that the section of society who they can hold a conversation with is a small minority.

I pulled out of my other two interviews (financial reasons, growing disinterest).

I know I won't persuade many people that there is blatant discrimination even in the medical interviewing process, but I'm sure it will resonate with a few.
Charlie, you could do a FOI request to know the professions of those working on selection panels for the different unis you are interested in. I am fairly certain a few of mine were lay people.

I know Bristol uses a really diverse group of people to work AdComms. Imperial use a current student, a medic and a lay person or did back in 2014 but it may have changed.

I can't be bothered to compose and send out the emails myself but I would be mildly interested in the responses so feel free to post it up on whatdotheyknow.com :wink:
Original post by Quilverine
Charlie, you could do a FOI request to know the professions of those working on selection panels for the different unis you are interested in. I am fairly certain a few of mine were lay people.

I know Bristol uses a really diverse group of people to work AdComms. Imperial use a current student, a medic and a lay person or did back in 2014 but it may have changed.

I can't be bothered to compose and send out the emails myself but I would be mildly interested in the responses so feel free to post it up on whatdotheyknow.com :wink:


I could pretty much tell you if you want. At Southampton, the other person was a GP. At Warwick from 6 MMI stations, 6 medical professionals, one med student and a lay person. Diversity it ain't.
Reply 36
Avatar for Razeak
Razeak
5
Original post by CharlieGEM
The second one at Warwick was MMI. I know that I gave similar answers to people who got a place


How do you know this - were you watching them? Did you also react in exactly the same fashion as other candidates? Was your body language identical? Were you as quick and as confident in your responses - too confident perhaps?

I believe it's about approach as much as it is the words you say - and patients will agree. Judging by your post history I'd suggest attitude had something to do with why you failed to achieve a place - not class.
Original post by Razeak
How do you know this - were you watching them? Did you also react in exactly the same fashion as other candidates? Was your body language identical? Were you as quick and as confident in your responses - too confident perhaps?

I believe it's about approach as much as it is the words you say - and patients will agree. Judging by your post history I'd suggest attitude had something to do with why you failed to achieve a place - not class.


Believe whatever you like 😉 Of course the medical admissions process couldn't be biased? Just work at any hospital, the evidence that it is will be all around you 😂

Anyone that fails to get in: there must have been something wrong with them 😉
Original post by CharlieGEM
Believe whatever you like 😉 Of course the medical admissions process couldn't be biased? Just work at any hospital, the evidence that it is will be all around you 😂

Anyone that fails to get in: there must have been something wrong with them 😉


I don't think anyone is saying the process is perfect. But looking at your posts I think you are reluctant to admit that your individual performance had something to do with why you weren't offered a place.
Original post by Tortious410
I don't think anyone is saying the process is perfect. But looking at your posts I think you are reluctant to admit that your individual performance had something to do with why you weren't offered a place.


Was I the perfect candidate: no. Did I give the best interview they've ever seen: no. Do I genuinely believe in light of my strengths (academics, entrance exam scores) that i didn't receive an offer because what I said in the interview was interpreted in the context of a socioeconomic judgement about my background: yes. This is effectively a very subtle form of discrimination.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you