Oxford is harder to get into than Cambridge - Medicine

Original post by xxvvvxxc

Thank you for the reassurance, is quite nice getting that :smile:

Agh I was hoping Oxford maybe accept BMAT September this year..Is it 100% confirmed they won't? I mean not like it really makes a difference but should be nice to get it out of the way early on.

I'm not fully au fait with Oxford's view of it, you should ask them. :smile:

Reply 83

Nah not really.

You can get into Oxford via a foundation year with ABB at A Level smh

Reply 84

Original post by Kyber Ninja

Nah not really.

You can get into Oxford via a foundation year with ABB at A Level smh

Not for Medicine.

Reply 85

Original post by Doonesbury

Not for Medicine.

It's only a matter of time.

Also worth considering graduate entry too, since that's part of the medical school.

Cambridge practically requires AAA, Oxford will do with a 2:1 and middle fives in the BMAT

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 86

Chief Wiggum

20

Yes, I would agree that Oxford is harder to get into than Cambridge for medicine.

Reply 87

Chief Wiggum

20

Original post by Doonesbury

You are replying to an Oxbridge medic...

Posted from TSR Mobile

"Smart at school but incredibly lazy" isn't a great recipe for Oxbridge success.

Reply 88

username3675786

14

Original post by TCA2b

I mean you made a vague statement about what most people do (where?), then shifted to what most of the world does. Not that I mean to be insensitive, but why is it even relevant? Just another person with a chip on their shoulder and an axe to grind. Psychological treatment is in order.

You're probs right

Reply 89

nexttime

Original post by Sanjith Hegde123

Oxbridge are after students that work hard.. Naturally talented students crumble after gcse because they actually need to put in work.

That's funny because you literally just posted how a supposedly lazy hungover person got an offer, and is now presumably on track to meet said offer?

Oxbridge don't want people who just regurgitate the textbook. The whole tutorial system is there to encourage discussion and independent thought, and it's people capable of said independent thought that they want. Most people who fit that criteria worked at least moderately hard at school, but not all, and it very much is possible to get A*s at a-level with not much extra work outside of school.

Original post by Kyber Ninja

It's only a matter of time.

?

Entry requirements have only got higher in the last 50 years.

Also not sure what you're trying to say about grad entry medicine. Holding 'AAA' up as an example of how difficult Cambridge is is pretty odd given that it's far harder to get into than undergrad, where the requirements are A*A*A! Obviously there are other factors at play!

Reply 90

Original post by nexttime

That's funny because you literally just posted how a supposedly lazy hungover person got an offer, and is now presumably on track to meet said offer?

Oxbridge don't want people who just regurgitate the textbook. The whole tutorial system is there to encourage discussion and independent thought, and it's people capable of said independent thought that they want. Most people who fit that criteria worked at least moderately hard at school, but not all, and it very much is possible to get A*s at a-level with not much extra work outside of school.

?

Entry requirements have only got higher in the last 50 years.

Also not sure what you're trying to say about grad entry medicine. Holding 'AAA' up as an example of how difficult Cambridge is is pretty odd given that it's far harder to get into than undergrad, where the requirements are A*A*A! Obviously there are other factors at play!

That route is a foundation year - I meant that I would imagine it's only a matter of time that Oxford start introducing foundation courses in medicine for the disadvantaged.

Oxford and Cambridge GEM are competitive, sure.

But you can make it into Oxford with a 2:1, so long as your BMAT is strong (not undergrad strong, but low fives in S1 and S2, 3-4 in S3).

It depends whether you have good academics or good BMAT. I think for most graduates, a good BMAT would be more convenient. Opinion of course.

Reply 91

RichE

15

Original post by Kyber Ninja

That route is a foundation year - I meant that I would imagine it's only a matter of time that Oxford start introducing foundation courses in medicine for the disadvantaged.

That is very much not on the cards. The one college foundation year that does exist is quite controversial within the university, limited in the subjects/numbers it takes, and very expensive (possible only because of a benefactor).

Reply 92

nexttime

Original post by Kyber Ninja

That route is a foundation year - I meant that I would imagine it's only a matter of time that Oxford start introducing foundation courses in medicine for the disadvantaged.

Honestly I can't imagine an oxford course that has professors teach high school level science for an entire year. But maybe I'll be proven wrong.

Oxford and Cambridge GEM are competitive, sure.

But you can make it into Oxford with a 2:1, so long as your BMAT is strong (not undergrad strong, but low fives in S1 and S2, 3-4 in S3).

It depends whether you have good academics or good BMAT. I think for most graduates, a good BMAT would be more convenient. Opinion of course.

Still don't get what you are saying.

You almost seem to be saying graduate entry is the easy route. It really isnt. Yes you can get into Oxford with 'only' a good aptitude test score and a 2.1*. But due to the diversity of backgrounds being assessed on the A101 program, personal statements and interviews are rather more important. You will need to be extremely competitive there, including demonstrating a good familiarity with the primary literature, to get through the increased competition ratios. They are also entering into a more intense course than the undergrads, that is by all accounts brutal to get through. Undergrad is much easier.

*(although the mean number of A* grades at a-level is in fact just over 2).

Reply 93

Original post by RichE

That is very much not on the cards. The one college foundation year that does exist is quite controversial within the university, limited in the subjects/numbers it takes, and very expensive (possible only because of a benefactor).

Controversial? How do the first year entry students react and think of them?

Considering how much richer Oxford is than other med schools that use the practice, I'm sure they have the finances to do it, just the case of whether they want to.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 94

RichE

15

Original post by Kyber Ninja

Controversial? How do the first year entry students react and think of them?

I didn't mean controversial with the undergraduates - and after just one complete year of the foundation year there is only 6 months data of around 10 students being on course.

Reply 95

Original post by nexttime

Honestly I can't imagine an oxford course that has professors teach high school level science for an entire year. But maybe I'll be proven wrong.

Still don't get what you are saying.

You almost seem to be saying graduate entry is the easy route. It really isnt. Yes you can get into Oxford with 'only' a good aptitude test score and a 2.1*. But due to the diversity of backgrounds being assessed on the A101 program, personal statements and interviews are rather more important. You will need to be extremely competitive there, including demonstrating a good familiarity with the primary literature, to get through the increased competition ratios. They are also entering into a more intense course than the undergrads, that is by all accounts brutal to get through. Undergrad is much easier.

*(although the mean number of A* grades at a-level is in fact just over 2).

What I am saying in summary is that if we're comparing the medicine course at both, include GEM because it fits the parameters and the difficulty of entry between the two GEM courses is arguably closer compared to undergrad.

Oxford Undergrad: All/nearly all A* grades at GCSE, high BMAT, Interview, high predictions
Cambridge Undergrad: Passable GCSEs, high BMAT, interview, high predictions

Oxford GEM: 2:1, mediocre A Levels, good BMAT, good interview, good medical ECs
Cambridge GEM: 2:1, AAA+, no BMAT, good interview (which is MMI in this case), good medical ECs. Grade A in A Level Chemistry required, along with another science or maths subject

NB - I don't doubt the competitiveness of GEM.

Reply 96

Original post by RichE

That is very much not on the cards. The one college foundation year that does exist is quite controversial within the university, limited in the subjects/numbers it takes, and very expensive (possible only because of a benefactor).

Presumably it could be funded via a standard tuition fee, as per foundation years at other universities.

Original post by RichE

I didn't mean controversial with the undergraduates - and after just one complete year of the foundation year there is only 6 months data of around 10 students being on course.

Am I correct that once they complete the foundation they still have to apply as normal to progress to Year 1 at Oxford? So in theory, if accepted to Y1, they should perform at least as well as "standard" Oxford freshers from then on. I imagine there will be close interest to see if this is indeed the case.

Reply 97

RichE

15

Original post by Doonesbury

Am I correct that once they complete the foundation they still have to apply as normal to progress to Year 1 at Oxford? So in theory, if accepted to Y1, they should perform at least as well as "standard" Oxford freshers from then on. I imagine there will be close interest to see if this is indeed the case.

The students apply to Oxford through UCAS during their foundation year.

Reply 98