Unis that are good for medicine.

Scroll to see replies

T-o dore

http://browse.guardian.co.uk/education/2008?SearchBySubject=false&FirstRow=0&SortOrderDirection=&SortOrderColumn=GuardianTeachingScore&Subject=Medicine&Go=Go

these ratings are completely ridiculous....ridiculouss!!! :mad:

Reply 21

graemematt

^^If it helps, these are the more recent ones for 2009 by the Guardian!

http://browse.guardian.co.uk/education?SearchBySubject=false&FirstRow=0&SortOrderDirection=&SortOrderColumn=GuardianTeachingScore&Subject=Medicine&Go=Go

Go Dundee! Heh :smile:

Reply 22

Harribot

pooh_bear7

Okay my gcses: 4 A*s, 4 A's, B, C, and a C in critical thinking AS.
My predicted AS grades : AAAC (which i really don't think i'll be getting, but there you go)

I dont understand why these grades wouldn't be good enough, i thought the general requirement if GCSE's are included in the entry policy was 6 A's which you have, the only uni's that possibly ask for higher is oxbridge whihc is something like 6 A*'s.

Dont let this hold you back anyway, look at all the ones you like the sound of based on city, location even the slightest things.

Reply 23

7589200

graemematt

lol how can they be so inconsistent!!?
But yeah - go Dundee! :biggrin:

Reply 24

River85

Vazzyb

these ratings are completely ridiculous....ridiculouss!!! :mad:

They are from the Guardian, what do you expect?

graemematt

Yes, go Dundee. But why are we using rankings, they mean little here. If you must use them then use proper rankings. The Times, although not perfect, are generally seen as more definative.

Reply 25

graemematt

I agree, I've always known the Times rankings to be the most accurate, however they portray my prospective medical school as slightly lower in the grand scheme of UK medical schools, haha...

But for people watching who are unsure...THESE RANKINGS MEAN NOTHING IN TERMS OF EMPLOYABILITY! I can't emphasise that enough. All schools are accredited by the GMC and will get you a job as an FY doctor (well...the guarantee isn't completely there anymore, but I'm remaining optimistic :biggrin:

)

Reply 26

AEH

River85

They are from the Guardian, what do you expect?

Yes, go Dundee. But why are we using rankings, they mean little here. If you must use them then use proper rankings. The Times, although not perfect, are generally seen as more definative.

Since when were the Times league tables seen as more definitive? Where do you get this horse****? I mean, it just falls out of your imagination onto the keyboard with no filter in between to pick out the horrific nonsense. No one in the medical real world pays the slightest whiff of attention to these league tables because they only people they're designed for are sixth formers who can't be arsed to do their own thinking and insufferable gossiping parents going on about which "High-ranking medical school" they've part-child-abused their Little Johnny into.

Reply 27

m4n0ran

Harribot

Not even that, you probably only need an B/A in Maths and English as minimum and perhaps some other A+ grades, C+ in everything else and you still stand a chance.

Reply 28

River85

AEH

Of course not, which is why I already admitted that league rankings should be no concern whatsoever in medicine (you'd know that if you could be bothered reading my previous posts).

The Times being more definative is just personal opinion although it is shared by many, many others. Sometimes the Guardian can come up with quite strange results. Neither or perfect though and only of limited value.

Also don't be so rude.

Reply 29

pooh_bear7

Okay, thanks everyone. I'll check The Times rankings out, and use it as a sort of guideline. So, I guess I have a whole load of research to do concerning teaching methods at uni etc! Is it really important that I do this? At the moment, I feel like I've got way more than just selecting unis and writing personal statements to do...!

Reply 30

Eden01

River85

Can I just say, virtually all universities will be of the same rough standard. Sure there may be differences in the methods of teaching (some may be more PBL, for example) but all of the universities are "fine" otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to teach the subject (they are strictly monitored).

So don't think too much about how "good" or reputable a uni is look at the teaching methods, university structure and city. Those are what you should be concentrating on.

:dito:

Reply 31

River85

pooh_bear7

Okay, thanks everyone. I'll check The Times rankings out, and use it as a sort of guideline.

I wouldn't even use them as a guideline. They mean sod all in medicine. ALL medical schools are "good" as they are all professionally regulated.

pooh_bear7

So, I guess I have a whole load of research to do concerning teaching methods at uni etc! Is it really important that I do this?.

Of course, far more important than rankings. It's no good applying to a university that teaches using PBL only to find that you prefer traditional methods. Or applying to a university that uses dissection when that's not what you want. This, plus the location of the university, should probably be your deciding factors.

Reply 32

pooh_bear7

I know!...that's what I'm confused about. I think I'd like unis that are more city based, like London. And somewhere not too close to Birmingham (so not Nottingham :tongue:

).
People keep mentioning Cardiff and Newcastle, so I think I might order their prospectuses now.

Reply 33

pooh_bear7

River85

Aww no, I have my work cut out (lol). I'm not very good at googling these kinds of things...do you know of any sites that explain the differences between teaching methods?

Reply 34

River85

pooh_bear7

Aww no, I have my work cut out (lol). I'm not very good at googling these kinds of things...do you know of any sites that explain the differences between teaching methods?

http://www.wanttobeadoctor.co.uk/main.php?page=4#Typesofcourse

You could probably get better information from current med students/junior doctors here. I'd suggest you either wait for more to reply, create a new thread or PM knowledgabe fellows such as Renal.

Reply 35

ninety_nine

If you get a good UKCAT/BMAT performance then you should get a few interviews.

All medical schools are equal (the standard line on TSR). According to some people on here, panel's don't even know what medical school you attended when it comes to things like specialising. It's really one of those courses where you pick university mostly based on course structure, location etc. rather than reputation.

Reply 36

User188463

AEH

Whats wrong with you? The tables provide very useful information like average entry requirements, Expenditure per student/10, Student:staff ratio, Job prospects etc. Sites like ''unistats.com' are even more useful. These figures have been generated somehow, and I suggest it has not come from someone's imagination! I doubt people looking to do medicine would base their entire decision on a league table entry, however, it would point them to a group of institutions which might be more suited to their academic capabilities etc.

Reply 37

AEH

I'll try and be more polite this time and avoid another warning....

I'm going to ignore a great deal of this and focus in on the bit that talks about academic capabilities. Because I think that's the key here. Do you think there's some special medical schools for stupid people or something? Do you think there's a low-grade remedial medical school? Do you have any idea how medical careers are regulated and organised? Because I'm sure if you were to stop and think about that for a minute, you'll realise its patent balderdash.

Actually no, now I'm thinking again, this staff:student ratio number. I can't help but wonder how that's calculated. Because if you're being all traditional, then lectures have an absolutely awful ratio in comparison with this fancy "Teach-yourself-medicine-PBL" bit, as the league table and prestige crowd would like to portray things. Do they take a simple "Number of staff employed against number of students enrolled" number, because that doesn't take into account who actually does the teaching, the academic/clinical grade of the staff or the quality of the teaching (As any medical student will tell you, there are some doctors who give a more useful fifteen minute bedside session then others can do with two hours in a skills lab). It also doesn't take into account the teaching hospitals, their size and the variation between different hospitals attached to the same medical school. Pretty worthless number really, tbh, then.

Reply 38

Wangers

T-o dore

OK, lets be clear about this.

Most rankings are based on higher education funding stats.

These are based on rather arbitary things like expenditure per student, research excellence, and most notably of all - research output.

How many of these actually affect you as an undergraduate? research dosn't really affect you at all, nor does spending per student really. - The better your university is ranked (bar Oxford and Cambridge), where the tute system is sacred; all it means is that your lecturers have less and less time for you.

Another thing you fail to consider is what the university actually teaches, because you would agree with me that to compare a uni that only did medicine with a multi-faculty establishment would be grossly unfair? Imperial (science + tech and med) vs UCL, or Georges vs the rest would be prime examples. indeed, that dosn't account for those schools in which the medicine faculty is actually spread out further afield - Durham or Peninsula for instance. How can distribution of such resources be compared in a meaningful way?

All in all, you'll get a world class medical education whereever you go in the UK - Indeed Bart's claim The London as the best in the land :p: