DECILES Watch

Hippokrates
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report 5 years ago
#21
Anybody know what the first years counts for at Nottingham?
0
reply
seaholme
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 5 years ago
#22
(Original post by Medicine Man)
Yeaaahhh....but...

I do agree that you do learn A LOT more in the clinical years (I certainly have), but if deciles are used to calculate the Educational Performance Measure score, which by definition measures your educational performance in the medical course, then it should do just that and measure how well you have done in all aspects of the course and not just the aspects believed to be more important. Both preclinical and clinical medicine are important parts of our medical education as I know you know, fellow Med Ed enthusiast! :p: In essence, this EPM score should give a snapshot of someone's performance in academia, more specifically, medical academia, and not just clinical medicine just because you arguably learn a lot more in those years. This is why iBSc, past degrees, publications, academic posters etc. are all included in the EPM - they are all academic in nature. It's almost like saying, yes, basic science is great and will gain credit (...if you have done a BSc or been published or presented it at a national conference, but otherwise, this whole preclinical malarkey isn't that great and is only part of the medical course for jokes and should gain no/smaller credit). Not quite like that, but you get my drift. :p:

I do think you have a valid point about the weighting of the different years though, but if they really wanted schools to focus on the clinical years, they should call it a Clinical Performance Measure (or words to that effect). At least, every medical school will compare students along the same measure and that would iron out any inconsistencies across schools.

But hey, this is just my humble opinion which I've decided to sit here and type for the last few minutes as opposed to revising. Schools have every right to do things they way they deem best - I guess the BL way just so happens to suit me, not because I have done fantastically well in the preclinical years, but because I sort of know roughly where I stand and how hard I should be working for each year.
In some (maybe all, but I can't say I've researched it or anything) places where they give no credit to the first years in terms of deciding your final decile, it's taken into account in other ways. For instance contributing to the classification you receive for your intercalated BSc.

So I guess if you don't do a BSc then you do need to have some sort of recognition of the first few years. Although I also agree with carcinoma that actually the relevance of the first few years is more an an overly-detailed foundation that allows you to get through the clinical years and that actually it's clinical performance which means the most. Unless you want to go into academic medicine and then you're also likely to have done a BSc one way or another.
0
reply
Kinkerz
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 5 years ago
#23
(Original post by Medicine Man)
Yeaaahhh....but...

I do agree that you do learn A LOT more in the clinical years (I certainly have), but if deciles are used to calculate the Educational Performance Measure score, which by definition measures your educational performance in the medical course, then it should do just that and measure how well you have done in all aspects of the course and not just the aspects believed to be more important. Both preclinical and clinical medicine are important parts of our medical education as I know you know, fellow Med Ed enthusiast! :p: In essence, this EPM score should give a snapshot of someone's performance in academia, more specifically, medical academia, and not just clinical medicine just because you arguably learn a lot more in those years. This is why iBSc, past degrees, publications, academic posters etc. are all included in the EPM - they are all academic in nature. It's almost like saying, yes, basic science is great and will gain credit (...if you have done a BSc or been published or presented it at a national conference, but otherwise, this whole preclinical malarkey isn't that great and is only part of the medical course for jokes and should gain no/smaller credit). Not quite like that, but you get my drift. :p:

I do think you have a valid point about the weighting of the different years though, but if they really wanted schools to focus on the clinical years, they should call it a Clinical Performance Measure (or words to that effect). At least, every medical school will compare students along the same measure and that would iron out any inconsistencies across schools.

But hey, this is just my humble opinion which I've decided to sit here and type for the last few minutes as opposed to revising. Schools have every right to do things they way they deem best - I guess the BL way just so happens to suit me, not because I have done fantastically well in the preclinical years, but because I sort of know roughly where I stand and how hard I should be working for each year.
But the content and length of the clinical years are greater and longer, respectively. A fair representation of how someone has performed at medical school would to normalise for that, surely. A 30-odd week year in first year is hardly the same as a 45-week finals year where your knowledge has to be at its broadest. Therefore giving them the same representation on an EPM would be unfair and largely illogical. No?
0
reply
Medicine Man
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#24
Report 5 years ago
#24
(Original post by seaholme)
In some (maybe all, but I can't say I've researched it or anything) places where they give no credit to the first years in terms of deciding your final decile, it's taken into account in other ways. For instance contributing to the classification you receive for your intercalated BSc.

So I guess if you don't do a BSc then you do need to have some sort of recognition of the first few years. Although I also agree with carcinoma that actually the relevance of the first few years is more an an overly-detailed foundation that allows you to get through the clinical years and that actually it's clinical performance which means the most. Unless you want to go into academic medicine and then you're also likely to have done a BSc one way or another.
I agree with the bolded bit! And yeah, I do agree with the importance of clinical medicine and it being more important than the preclinical years in the grand scheme of things (that is why I thought Carcinoma's point about weighting the different years was a very valid point). Not all places who don't give credit to preclinical years allow credit to be gained elsewhere (at least two medical schools spring to mind right now). What if you intercalate externally - would your new university still appreciate your preclinical marks? (I honestly don't know the answer to this! :p:) And even if the preclinical years do count towards your classification for your degree in some medical schools, it doesn't contribute to that much of the overall classification.

I just think its a lot of pressure to put on just 2 years (out of the the 4 eligible years) to calculate the EPM - what if you have a bad year - if you're only averaging 2 years, that can make a huge difference to someones score! Third year is also considered the transition year in medicine - switching between learning styles whilst also knowing it would affect your decile a fair bit, seems difficult. I suppose there is also an argument that the first year is also a transition year in a sense. But it seems there are arguments for and against having things one way or another way - making all years equal just seems like the simplest thing to do if you want to measure someone's educational performance. Unless of course they are intending to measure clinical performance (which is also fair enough), in which case, it should be called that and all medical school should standardise how they calculate this score.

But like I said, this is just my opinion, and I guess most students at every medical school will be wise enough to adapt their learning style/efforts to suit the way their school chooses to calculate deciles.
0
reply
Medicine Man
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 5 years ago
#25
(Original post by Kinkerz)
But the content and length of the clinical years are greater and longer, respectively. A fair representation of how someone has performed at medical school would to normalise for that, surely. A 30-odd week year in first year is hardly the same as a 45-week finals year where your knowledge has to be at its broadest. Therefore giving them the same representation on an EPM would be unfair and largely illogical. No?
I do agree with weighting years if we taking all this into account (i.e which years are more useful, longer, require more effort etc.). I don't think it's logical to completely discredit some years and give credit to others though (even if they are more important). Just because preclincal years are arguably less important =/= they should be discredited.

I think the main question is to figure out is if the EPM is aiming to:
1. Give credit for performance over the entire course
2. Give a weighted credit of perfomance over the course (which I think we all agree on), or to
3. Give credit solely for clinical performance (which some places do by discrediting preclinical years and not crediting it elsewhere).

Either way, who gives a crap. Noting is suddenly going to change as a result of this. :p: Schools decide what they want to do. Like I said, students are wise enough to just adapt their effort in varying years to suit whichever method their school chooses to.
0
reply
carcinoma
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 5 years ago
#26
(Original post by Medicine Man)
I do agree with weighting years if we taking all this into account (i.e which years are more useful, longer, require more effort etc.). I don't think it's logical to completely discredit some years and give credit to others though (even if they are more important). Just because preclincal years are arguably less important =/= they should be discredited.

I think the main question is to figure out is if the EPM is aiming to:
1. Give credit for performance over the entire course
2. Give a weighted credit of perfomance over the course (which I think we all agree on), or to
3. Give credit solely for clinical performance (which some places do by discrediting preclinical years and not crediting it elsewhere).

Either way, who gives a crap. Noting is suddenly going to change as a result of this. :p: Schools decide what they want to do. Like I said, students are wise enough to just adapt their effort in varying years to suit whichever method their school chooses to.
I was not suggesting they deserved less credit. They just tend to have less content, fewer exams and are shorter in length than year 3 &4, therefore, not to account for that difference in weighting means that they are inadvertently placing more weight on the first few years.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
carcinoma
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#27
Report 5 years ago
#27
(Original post by carcinoma)
I was not suggesting they deserved less credit. They just tend to have less content, fewer exams and are shorter in length than year 3 &4, therefore, not to account for that difference in weighting means that they are inadvertently placing more weight on the first few years.

But largely I agree that they should be weighted in some way in the EPM.
Posted from TSR Mobile



Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Becca-Sarah
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#28
Report 5 years ago
#28
Can't find out how ours works at Aberdeen as they've made the document accessible from uni computers only :facepalm:

Think it's module weighted rather than year weighted though, so finals (4th yr - think it was 80 credits) were worth a lot but so was the first module we ever did in basic science (40 credits), whereas everything else was a 20-30 credit module. My decile was unchanged from end of third year to FPAS though, even though finals dragged my average down.

I think it's rather unfair that medical schools are allowed such leeway in deciding what counts and what doesn't towards EPM, it doesn't lead to a fair process.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
But the content and length of the clinical years are greater and longer, respectively. A fair representation of how someone has performed at medical school would to normalise for that, surely. A 30-odd week year in first year is hardly the same as a 45-week finals year where your knowledge has to be at its broadest. Therefore giving them the same representation on an EPM would be unfair and largely illogical. No?
How does that work with an integrated curriculum though? In terms of cumulative knowledge I'd say I learned more in early years than later on where it's more about consolidation and bringing different concepts together. Also, part of later years is about learning how to be a doctor rather than about pure knowledge, which is where the SJT comes in, so it's fair to have more leaning towards early years where it's more about factual knowledge in the EPM.
0
reply
Kinkerz
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#29
Report 5 years ago
#29
(Original post by Becca-Sarah)
How does that work with an integrated curriculum though?
Well with a fully integrated curriculum it'd be more logical to weight every year equally or take the year length into account. There aren't many of those courses though; they'd be the exception rather than the rule.

In terms of cumulative knowledge I'd say I learned more in early years than later on where it's more about consolidation and bringing different concepts together. Also, part of later years is about learning how to be a doctor rather than about pure knowledge, which is where the SJT comes in, so it's fair to have more leaning towards early years where it's more about factual knowledge in the EPM.
But learning how to be a doctor includes learning pure knowledge. Arguably more than most preclinical curricula. I'm not convinced preclinical years require more factual knowledge. The number of disparate facts required for clinical medicine is irritatingly high.
0
reply
Medicine Man
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 5 years ago
#30
(Original post by carcinoma)
I was not suggesting they deserved less credit. They just tend to have less content, fewer exams and are shorter in length than year 3 &4, therefore, not to account for that difference in weighting means that they are inadvertently placing more weight on the first few years.
Wait, I honestly don't think I follow. So are you saying the individual years should/shouldn't be weighted .according to the perceived volume of the content/number of exams/length of year etc?
0
reply
Medicine Man
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#31
Report 5 years ago
#31
Hmmm, on second thoughts, I can see why some medical schools don't weigh preclincal years as much as the clinical years. Oxbridge graduates who transfer to London would have done completely separate exams for the three years prior to them transferring to London. I guess it makes sense to compare everyone for the 2 clinical years where everyone is subject to the same educational experience. I guess the same works for GEPs etc. who combine Years 1 and 2 into one year - it wouldn't be fair to equate that one difficult year to 2 years of preclinical.

Hmmm, not as black and white as I imagined I guess...
0
reply
carcinoma
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 5 years ago
#32
(Original post by Medicine Man)
Wait, I honestly don't think I follow. So are you saying the individual years should/shouldn't be weighted .according to the perceived volume of the content/number of exams/length of year etc?
They should be weighted according to those factors. Which would therefore, mean that year 1 and 2 would have slightly less weight than year 3&4.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
hopes
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#33
Report 5 years ago
#33
(Original post by carcinoma)
Ours are

Year 1&2 - 33%
Year 3 - 33%
Year 4 - 33%


Posted from TSR Mobile
Are year 2 and 4 ISCE's equally weighted? We had some woman tell us how they rank us and she said something along the lines of SSU, AMK and ISCEs being three separate components and they take the average for each one over the years and allocate you a set amount of points for each. The amount of points you have at the end of 4th year determines your decile?
0
reply
arangatang
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 5 years ago
#34
(Original post by hoonosewot)
Depends how your medical school calculates it. E-mail them and ask how they weight the different years. The first 2 years usually don't count for a lot though.
At KCL, it's worth nothing except getting you a better shot at an iBSc of your choice.
0
reply
Nimbus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 5 years ago
#35
(Original post by DoctorInTraining)

Extra 7 points for additional academic achievements - degrees (up to 5) and publications/presentations (up to 2)

Publications must have a PubMed ID
Hey, I'd just like to ask quickly, by any chance do you know if publications prior to med school count at all, or do they have to be ones completed during your time at med school? It's just that the official guide doesn't really specify. =/
0
reply
Kinkerz
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 5 years ago
#36
(Original post by Nimbus)
Hey, I'd just like to ask quickly, by any chance do you know if publications prior to med school count at all, or do they have to be ones completed during your time at med school? It's just that the official guide doesn't really specify. =/
It doesn't specify because they can be from either.
0
reply
DoctorInTraining
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#37
Report 5 years ago
#37
(Original post by Nimbus)
Hey, I'd just like to ask quickly, by any chance do you know if publications prior to med school count at all, or do they have to be ones completed during your time at med school? It's just that the official guide doesn't really specify. =/
Doesn't matter when but they must have a PubMed ID! Publications without one do not count!
0
reply
carcinoma
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 5 years ago
#38
(Original post by hopes)
Are year 2 and 4 ISCE's equally weighted? We had some woman tell us how they rank us and she said something along the lines of SSU, AMK and ISCEs being three separate components and they take the average for each one over the years and allocate you a set amount of points for each. The amount of points you have at the end of 4th year determines your decile?
No.

They only use data from SSUs, AMK and ISCE. But the years are weighted differently.

So year 1 and 2 are added together to generate a Z score for those years. This is then added the Z score of year 3 and then year 4.

So in effect;
Year 1 - AMK and SSU = 16.666%
Year 2 - AMK, SSU and ISCE = 16.666%
Year 3 - AMK and SSU = 33.333%
Year 4 - AMK, SSU and ISCE = 33.33%
0
reply
My-My-My
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#39
Report 5 years ago
#39
God knows how they cam up with these figures but at B'ham it's
Year 1 = 15.8%
Year 2 = 19.2%
Year 3 = 31.6%
Year 4 = 33.3%

(Original post by groovyangel2008)
I dont really know how it works. Im at birmingham- so do these decile places affect where u go? So for example can a person in the tenth decile apply for a job in london?
For GEC it's
GEC 1 = 27.6%
GEC2 = 35.2%
GEC 3 = 37.1%
0
reply
Democracy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 5 years ago
#40
(Original post by shiggydiggy)
Good. That makes me less guilty about not bothering with this **** while at medschool.
Out of interest, do you know what the weightings are for us?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

University open days

  • SOAS University of London
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 29 May '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Thu, 30 May '19
  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Fri, 31 May '19

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (189)
22.74%
The paper was reasonable (383)
46.09%
Not feeling great about that exam... (154)
18.53%
It was TERRIBLE (105)
12.64%

Watched Threads

View All