The Student Room Group

Why is getting into Medicine much harder now than 25 years ago?

So, I got some old books & prospectuses from a charity shop about getting into Medical school dating back to the mid 1990s and from what I’ve seen getting into Medicine was so easy then compared to now.

All you needed to do was complete your UCAS form and there was a book on applying to medical school to help with the personal statement. Healthcare related work experience then was advantageous but not really essential.

Some universities only required 3 Bs at A’level !
All you needed at GCSE was at least 5 GCSEs of grade C or above including maths & English.

There was no need for an additional entry test like UKCAT, BMAT etc.

Back then there were no tuition fees, so going to university was very attractive. Now people are deterred from university with having to pay over £9k a year. Surely the tuition fees would be a deterrent?

Why was it so easy to enter med school then but so much harder now?
(edited 5 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

A medicine offer at UCL used to be CCC...
i applied in the late nineties... Believe me, it wasn't a complete walk in the park, but yes, it was different. Yes, there were no entrance tests. No, in fact work experience and volunteering were very much needed. I definitely needed more than 5Cs at GCSE - I remember all my my universities stipulating a certain number of As. Yes, my offers were lower - I got 4 offers, and 2 were AAB and 2 were ABB. I think A-levels were different then too - I wouldn't go as far as saying they were harder per se, but getting an A was a big deal and not many people got As. I got AAA at A-level and that was pretty unusual babck then, even in the selective school that I was in. I'm thankful that. although I paid tuition fees, it was £1k/yr rather than the current rates.

Interviews were still tough - can still remember parts of mine, 20 years on!

Remember too that 20 years ago, we didn't have the wealth of internet and forum resources that you have now - that was MUCH harder. Trying to do research on universities, their requirements, the hidden-between-the-lines stuff, getting others' opinions - it was a very differen time when you couldn't just search the internet and get piles of immediate, relevant information...

Different times, probably easier in some ways but harder in others.
Reply 3
My dad got CCC offers for medicine back in the early 70s (and missed it :facepalm: ) My offers in 2001 for 2003 entry were AAA-AAB (no A* grades at the time), though I think a few places were still offering ABB.

Everything junior.doctor and ecolier have said is true though - getting AAA was rarer than it is now, and the range of resources not just for school work but also entrance tests, guidance for applicants, finding work experience/voluntary work is SO much greater now. I sat the MVAT (BMAT precursor) with one past paper (for the essay questions, no previous questions in the MCQ bit) and my GCSE/A-level revision books! Interviews were still hard and scary.

There's also a fair bit more social mobility now than there used to be - medicine has gradually become seen as a viable option for a wider range of students from backgrounds that might be considered less traditional, so I think the number of applicants has also gradually increased.
Reply 4
Original post by Ambitious1999
Some universities only required 3 Bs at A’level !
All you needed at GCSE was at least 5 GCSEs of grade C or above including maths & English.


Quite simply, grade inflation (and fewer pupils went to university). Also there was no A* anyway.

You might be interested in @nulli tertius post (from 2013) here:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=45293484&postcount=10
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by LeapingLucy
A medicine offer at UCL used to be CCC...

Pretty sure UCL used to be an unimpressive uni.
Reply 6
Original post by Drewski
Another thread where Ambitious is an idiot. Don't feed the troll


#BREXIT
Original post by LeapingLucy
A medicine offer at UCL used to be CCC...

When though? 25 years ago. I highly doubt it but feel free to provide the proof.
Reply 8
Original post by HoldThisL
Pretty sure UCL used to be an unimpressive uni.


Original post by Ambitious1999
So, I got some old books & prospectuses from a charity shop about getting into Medical school dating back to the mid 1990s and from what I’ve seen getting into Medicine was so easy then compared to now.

All you needed to do was complete your UCAS form and there was a book on applying to medical school to help with the personal statement. Healthcare related work experience then was advantageous but not really essential.

Some universities only required 3 Bs at A’level !
All you needed at GCSE was at least 5 GCSEs of grade C or above including maths & English.

There was no need for an additional entry test like UKCAT, GAMSAT etc.

Back then there were no tuition fees, so going to university was very attractive. Now people are deterred from university with having to pay over £9k a year. Surely the tuition fees would be a deterrent?

Why was it so easy to enter med school then but so much harder now?

I knew fantastic people who failed to get into medicine in the late 80;s when - as you say - BBB was a pretty typical offer. I was some stats which indicated that about the same proportion of people sitting the exams got an A or B then as get an A grade now - so grade inflation may be a big factor. Plus only around 15% of the population passed 2 or more A levels so few people were trying.

If university was so attractive why did far fewer people want to go?
Nit sure what you are saying is true?
I dont believe I was disputing that. I am asking for evidence it was CCC 25 years ago.
I'm wondering if I knew anyone who went there then to ask! Thinking about it a bit more I don't think any of the decent applicants from my high school (who had the grades and came across as half normal) didn't get offers so in reality I'd say it was far easier to get in than it is today if you had the luck to go to a school where the teaching was appropriate to getting the grades.
I would need to go to the library. An old copy of Heap university offers would have the grades in. CCC is way too low imo for 1994.
I would need to go to the library. An old copy of Heap university offers would have the grades in. CCC is way too low imo for 1994. Anyway its an ambitious thread, so I ahree with anything Doones and Nullius have posted. Its not worth the effort. Your point about grade distribution was never in question.
Original post by 999tigger
When though? 25 years ago. I highly doubt it but feel free to provide the proof.


I’m talking about around 40 years ago.

My aunt did medicine at UCL in the late 1970s/early 1980s, and her offer was CCC. As was the offer she got from the Royal Free, though I don’t think that exists anymore.

I don’t know how accurate this is, but as she recalls it, medical schools in London interviewed and gave CCC offers while medical schools outside of London (e.g. Manchester) didn’t interview and gave BBB offers.

For what it’s worth, she’s been a GP for almost 30 years, but doesn’t think she’d get into medical school nowadays.
(edited 5 years ago)
This paper might give some clues:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/resources/documents/TheAcademicBackboneV16withSupplementaryInformation.pdf

From 1990:
"the 3199 entrants with three or more A-levels,
entrants, the mean score for the best three A-levels was 24.8 points (SD 4.92, Median=26), with
21.3% of entrants gaining the maximum score of 30 points"


A fair number of people got in with BBB or a bit lower.

This paper supports my recollection that people with the grades generally got offers (based around 1996 entrants):

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/reprints/1998BMJ-StudentSelection.pdf
Original post by 999tigger
I would need to go to the library. An old copy of Heap university offers would have the grades in. CCC is way too low imo for 1994. Anyway its an ambitious thread, so I ahree with anything Doones and Nullius have posted. Its not worth the effort. Your point about grade distribution was never in question.

London was generally much less attractive in those days. London's population which had been falling since the war did not stabilise until the mid 1980s. There was no idea that London was an enormous people magnet.

The economics of being a student were radically different in the era of student grants. Remember that until the mid 1980s there was a minimum student grant of around £400 a year so even the very wealthy were getting grants supplemented by parental contributions. Most parents who were paying parental contributions, paid what they were supposed to pay and rarely paid much more. The level of the student grant therefore fixed the disposable income levels for the vast majority of students. Generally students who wanted greater incomes worked in term time or vacations. Student income was in practice much more egalitarian than today. One of the things that doesn't come over about the Bullingdon Club of Boris and Cameron's day, is that they were two of a small minority of students, being indulged by parents over their disposable income.

Students in London were paid a slightly higher grant than students elsewhere but that didn't offset the higher cost of living and students who lived in London received a much, much lower grant if studying in London because they were expected to live at home. Accordingly, London was a much less attractive place to study. I didn't have a London college on my UCCA form and no one I knew applied to a London college albeit they applied all over England and Wales.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius


The economics of being a student were radically different in the era of student grants. Remember that until the mid 1980s there was a minimum student grant of around £400 a year so even the very wealthy were getting grants supplemented by parental contributions. Most parents who were paying parental contributions, paid what they were supposed to pay and rarely paid much more. The level of the student grant therefore fixed the disposable income levels for the vast majority of students. Generally students who wanted greater incomes worked in term time or vacations. Student income was in practice much more egalitarian than today. One of the things that doesn't come over about the Bullingdon Club of Boris and Cameron's day, is that they were two of a small minority of students, being indulged by parents over their disposable income.

Students in London were paid a slightly higher grant than students elsewhere but that didn't offset the higher cost of living and students who lived in London received a much, much lower grant if studying in London because they were expected to live at home. Accordingly, London was a much less attractive place to study. I didn't have a London college on my UCCA form and no one I knew applied to a London college albeit they applied all over England and Wales.

My recollection is that London was somewhat affordable but students in London had to work part time (a job in a shop on a Saturday) for example but students elsewhere rarely had anything other than ad hoc work during term time,

Thinking about your London example, outside of medical choices Imperial was pretty easy to get into back then - I didnt think of friends who got offers as being anything special and most turned them down to go elsewhere.
Original post by ajj2000
This paper might give some clues:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/resources/documents/TheAcademicBackboneV16withSupplementaryInformation.pdf

From 1990:
"the 3199 entrants with three or more A-levels,
entrants, the mean score for the best three A-levels was 24.8 points (SD 4.92, Median=26), with
21.3% of entrants gaining the maximum score of 30 points"


A fair number of people got in with BBB or a bit lower.

This paper supports my recollection that people with the grades generally got offers (based around 1996 entrants):

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/reprints/1998BMJ-StudentSelection.pdf

These were interesting plus good source and relevant i.e actually useful.
So when it says entrants it means applicants?
I can think of a few reasons as to why someone might apply with less. Either they were poor applicants trying it on or with little research? Alternatively they accpeted some people with A levels far below that and an axplanation would be useful? i wonder whether this was old boys network or private schools?

The other paper was interesting for the ethnic differences in offers even then. It was interesting to see the range of offers, which I think oart of what nullius says, but also grade inflation.

Quick Reply