Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    Yeah, we all thought that once. :moon:

    I'm not saying you won't cope, but that it's not something to be dismissed.
    hope not and never dismiss anything tbh. my previous career was long hours on-call etc and I absolutely despised it and I'm sure if I find it too much, I'll do less than full-time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DimaTae)
    so if you already have a an undergrad degree, you cannot apply for normal medicine? surely there are 5 year courses for graduates or are there only 4 year ones
    I'm mistaken, there are a couple of graduates on my 5 yr course, in fact one person even has a masters. Not sure about how they're considered in comparison to undergraduates though. I know that for graduate medicine you definitely need a degree though
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomtom415)
    I'm mistaken, there are a couple of graduates on my 5 yr course, in fact one person even has a masters. Not sure about how they're considered in comparison to undergraduates though. I know that for graduate medicine you definitely need a degree though
    Well no **** Sherlock.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    Well no **** Sherlock.
    Was there any need for that? :P I just wanted to be clear because I got negged earlier
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomtom415)
    Was there any need for that? :P I just wanted to be clear because I got negged earlier
    Well it just seemed like you were desperately trying to somehow qualify what you said earlier (which, as mentioned, was wrong) to save face, when you could have just stuck with accepting you were wrong, rather than adding on a Captain Obvious moment. But apologies if it came across as harsh.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    Well it just seemed like you were desperately trying to somehow qualify what you said earlier (which, as mentioned, was wrong) to save face, when you could have just stuck with accepting you were wrong, rather than adding on a Captain Obvious moment. But apologies if it came across as harsh.
    I'm sorry that me trying to help people offends you, but that's your problem.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maik13)
    the drop out rate is a good point, but there are fewer older med students than there are school leavers
    Yes, but the drop out 'rate' is what I'm referring to... i.e. a much smaller percentage of older/grad students drop out, so absolute number is not relevant.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    You've missed my point.

    If you're working 20-25 years full time, the NHS is getting a good 60% of the time they'd get out of a 18 year old. That can be justified. I specifically quoted people who said they knew med students who were 49 and 51. Those guys are going to have barely 10 years to work before they retire, almost all of which will still be 'training', even if they continue to 65. In order for them to be worth the money, they need to be many times better than your standard 18 year old. They need to be truly, truly exceptional for that to be economically justified. But maybe that is the case, i dunno.

    Do you have a link to that article btw?
    Ok, few points I'd like to put forward for consideration here:
    1) Older students have paid significant amounts into the tax system during their working lives. My already paid tax is helping to train the younger students as well as the older ones.
    2) How do you measure someone's professional 'worth'?
    3) Just because someone is 'training' doesn't mean they are contributing nothing to patients during that time. Certainly, once in F1/F2 doctors are making a significant contribution. None of us ever stops learning/training.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by HawkFlight)
    Ok, few points I'd like to put forward for consideration here:
    1) Older students have paid significant amounts into the tax system during their working lives. My already paid tax is helping to train the younger students as well as the older ones.
    2) How do you measure someone's professional 'worth'?
    3) Just because someone is 'training' doesn't mean they are contributing nothing to patients during that time. Certainly, once in F1/F2 doctors are making a significant contribution. None of us ever stops learning/training.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1) So you're suggesting admitting medical students based on how much tax they have paid in the past? As a kind of reward for paying tax? Because that is certainly not what happens now. There is no guarantee whatsoever that any given 50 year old has paid more tax than they've benefited from already.
    2) Its difficult. One objective measure would be time though, which is exactly why i'm surprised that med schools are happy to take on someone with less than 10 years worth of career prospects.
    3) Sure, but they are not worth as much as a trained consultant doing the same job. You will get some value out of a 10 year career, but much less than a 40 year career clearly, which is the point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    1) So you're suggesting admitting medical students based on how much tax they have paid in the past? As a kind of reward for paying tax? Because that is certainly not what happens now. There is no guarantee whatsoever that any given 50 year old has paid more tax than they've benefited from already.
    2) Its difficult. One objective measure would be time though, which is exactly why i'm surprised that med schools are happy to take on someone with less than 10 years worth of career prospects.
    3) Sure, but they are not worth as much as a trained consultant doing the same job. You will get some value out of a 10 year career, but much less than a 40 year career clearly, which is the point.
    No, I haven't suggested anything about admitting medical students based on tax paid in the past. My point there was that we all pay for others' training, through direct or indirect taxation and the costs of goods/services. This applies in healthcare and other industries, whether you're the doctor delivering the healthcare, the management consultant designing the delivery, or the engineer planning the next generation scanning technology. When someone changes career, the skills and experience they have gained through their first career are not lost, they are carried through and are of value in their new role. Personally, I believe it's of great value to have a diverse range of people, skills and experience in any profession. There's no one size fits all measure of someone's value or their ability to contribute or the fulfilment they feel, and this is a very fine line to tread and I think you'd be getting yourself into sticky territory on this one. I don't agree that you can assert that a 10 year career is of less value than a 40 year career. There are too many factors, internal and external, to patients, to the industry, to the doctor, to other students... Age is but one factor in a myriad of others.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by HawkFlight)
    No, I haven't suggested anything about admitting medical students based on tax paid in the past.
    I really don't see how else point 1) can be interpreted.

    My point there was that we all pay for others' training, through direct or indirect taxation and the costs of goods/services. This applies in healthcare and other industries, whether you're the doctor delivering the healthcare, the management consultant designing the delivery, or the engineer planning the next generation scanning technology. When someone changes career, the skills and experience they have gained through their first career are not lost, they are carried through and are of value in their new role. Personally, I believe it's of great value to have a diverse range of people, skills and experience in any profession. There's no one size fits all measure of someone's value or their ability to contribute or the fulfilment they feel
    All of which no one disputes.

    and this is a very fine line to tread and I think you'd be getting yourself into sticky territory on this one. I don't agree that you can assert that a 10 year career is of less value than a 40 year career.
    I... really don't see how you can say that. Medical training has a particular cost. That cost is either divided over 10 years or over 40. You can argue that the additional cost is worth it, but not that it doesn't exist, because it clearly does.

    There are too many factors, internal and external, to patients, to the industry, to the doctor, to other students... Age is but one factor in a myriad of others.
    Precisely. By training people who have shorter career spans you are asserting that you are going to gain more out of one person than another. This is difficult to judge. Therefore, how can you justify that as you hit very short career spans?

    I take it, for example, that you would not advocate spending more than £100,000 training a 59 year old who will work for 1 year? This is just where you draw the line. You are arguing that you can take a given 50 year old and say that his 10 years as a doctor will be worth the same as 40 years of an 18y/o. I'm saying there is a lot of uncertainty and many factors to consider and i'd like to see how they justify that because the difference required would be pretty huge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OP, yes you can get in if you are 40+.

    People obviously have different opinions on it. Some doctors think its great, other doctors told me on my work experience that they felt it was a ridiculous waste of resources to spend £100,000 on training them. Just depends, really. :dontknow:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    I really don't see how else point 1) can be interpreted.



    All of which no one disputes.



    I... really don't see how you can say that. Medical training has a particular cost. That cost is either divided over 10 years or over 40. You can argue that the additional cost is worth it, but not that it doesn't exist, because it clearly does.



    Precisely. By training people who have shorter career spans you are asserting that you are going to gain more out of one person than another. This is difficult to judge. Therefore, how can you justify that as you hit very short career spans?

    I take it, for example, that you would not advocate spending more than £100,000 training a 59 year old who will work for 1 year? This is just where you draw the line. You are arguing that you can take a given 50 year old and say that his 10 years as a doctor will be worth the same as 40 years of an 18y/o. I'm saying there is a lot of uncertainty and many factors to consider and i'd like to see how they justify that because the difference required would be pretty huge.
    We clearly disagree. We've both had our say. I'm happy to leave it at that.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by nexttime)
    What on earth is the point in training these guys? By the time the med school and NHS has spent £100,000+ training them they'll literally be retiring! Those guys will need to be absolutely phenomenal foundation doctors or they'll just be a massive drain on the system.

    I think in my year the oldest undergrad was about 25 and oldest grad about 35.

    EDIT: it would be great if any one of the neggers made any attempt to explain how they can justify training a 51 year old...
    Older students do being something unique to medicine, that's is both useful and sought after. However, I agree that there should be an upper limit, as to which point it would no longer be feasible to train them.

    Or perhaps that restriction should be placed at the post graduate level, which would allow anyone to gain medical training, but not become doctors?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by carcinoma)
    Or perhaps that restriction should be placed at the post graduate level, which would allow anyone to gain medical training, but not become doctors?
    Maybe if they were paying for it themselves. The point though is that med school costs way more than the fees paid by students, so costs country money. Junior doctors, whilst technically still in training, at least do a job and are probably worth their wage (maybe?). Targeting them with your restriction would be kind of odd.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    thats so wrong. i am a older applicant and 37 this year. i have worked years in the nhs . i can tell you 18 year old med students are hard work and f1's. they need constant guidance. i do agree that their should be a sensible age. but i beg to differ on the right to train. one can argue i am to old.... but my life experiance leads to good patient understanding. so its down to who is applying and what they bring. quality doctors are a need irrelevant of age. but i certainly think medical schools are wanting down to earth appicants who show common sense
    my friend got in at 40! and shes inspired me to apply. and i have certainly contributed as a deputy ward sister.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am 35 and applying to med school now. I have 6 years of experience as doctor attendant abroad and 8 years of experience as a nurse in the UK, including 3 years of work as a Nurse-Prescriber. I also have degree in Biology.
    If I am successful, I do not think NHS would waist money on me, considering my contribution to service up to date, knowledge and experience.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thats is the beauty of being mature...u have enough if a determined nature through life to get you through anything and apart from that , mature students have usually brought children up and coped with life pressures that people still in their twenties know nothing about so coping with long hours etc. Is a walk in the park to most of us...we had full time jobs whilst not sleeping for more than 2 hours a night with our babies being awake, we had full time jobs whilst managing our childrens lives, studies, hobbies and after sc hool activities not to mention monitoring them through every illness and serious illness they ever had and had the responsibility of human beings being completely dependent on us too so what seems like things that are hard to cope with to younger people are actually easier and a pleasure to cope with to more mature students....mature doesnt just mean older you know...it means what it says...MATURE
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.