Are there any universities where you can do medicine without AAA grades? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Dnator
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#101
Report 8 years ago
#101
(Original post by Organ)
I would be very surprised if a clearly autistic chap would be accepted to study medicine.
I am surprised you felt the need to comment on very obvious use of hyperbole
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#102
Report 8 years ago
#102
(Original post by Sex Panther)
This is stupidly long, sorry.
you are 'alf right there, macca.
pity thats where being right ends for you.....

First of all, I think A levels are, at least to some extent, a predictor of how well people will do at medical school, because they test at least some of the skills you're going to need as a medic - namely, an ability to remember large amounts of information and apply it while under pressure; but assuming your point is correct, and they're no predictor of how well people do at medical school, you'd have no objections to putting everyone with EEE who wants to be a medic into a hat, and drawing them out until all the places are full?
why would any admissions tutor do, since all it does is make their job infinitely 'arder? idiot to pretend anyone would do it. IN FACT, all the admissions crews in the country would object to that.
Also, why are you suggesting an extreme benchmark EEE benchmark? no one is saying you should.



Maybe you would, but you're speculating. There's another medical student in this thread that's arguing it would. Why should I believe you over him?
inconsequnt argument - in the same way, why would you not believe the reverse?



To an extent, yes - otherwise, why would they ask for grades at all? I know lots of not-very-bright people with As at A level, but I don't think I know any very bright people (at least, in their chosen subject) without them.
but you 'ardly know any people without A levels. Its explicit in your views. goldfish in a bowl dont know any other fish.

I'm saying, let's make things better. Which ideology is better?
only if it maks it better. yours doesnt! null argument.


Every time I refresh the thread, I get more replies. This is getting depressing.
mm, you'd ave thought you'd 'ave cottoned on by now.



No, I don't - but I think it's a very good starting point, indeed, the best we have. I'm backed up by UCAS and every admissions board in the country. Who's backing you up?
no, they bring grade requirements up to make their job easier,, plain as.
you avent worked in admissions, i ave, so please stop pretending that you know 'ow admissions staff think. goodness knows... you'll be pretending to know what qualifies as a good surgeon next!


Show me the point at which I stated I wanted someone with AAA and no medical degree let loose with a scalpel. Once again, with feeling, it's got to be the starting point
why? why not an AAB candidate? why not the candidate who thought 'well i cant be bothered to learn the ecology cycles, they are for an insane person to learn since they ave no bearnig on any subject or career in 'ealthcare., so i'll settle for AAB?
its so funny that you cant see that.

On a personal note, my gf's sister started medical school last September. She has AAA at A level, worked cleaning up **** in a nursing home from the age of 16 and did a summer with profoundly disabled kids, is exceptionally bright, charismatic, caring and hard working. She also has a thick Scouse accent. She tells me that she was never really accepted at med school - because of the way she dresses, her background, and her accent - and dropped out this summer due to this lack of acceptance: she couldn't see herself getting through another 4 years with the arrogance and sneers of the people on her course. I was skeptical, and it does show something of her resilience: but nevertheless, if the people were anything like you, Gizmo!, I can see exactly where she was coming from.
sorry to piss on your parade again, but it sounds like we'd got on great, via my thick northern accent, and working full time in nursing for years, not just the summer.
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#103
Report 8 years ago
#103
ah, yes. sorry to add one more point in which you are wrong about admissions requirements. you quoted the wiki page for admissions requirements, which is incomplete, not that you'd know -

(Original post by Panth)
Wow. Just, wow. This is the point at which I knew you were trolling. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki...l_Requirements ahh, [b]
- and this is the point where you found out I worked out in admissions - grad entry, 6 year arts entry, even foundation year entry, all take arts a levels.

but please, dont take it to 'eart, macca.
0
Sex Panther
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 8 years ago
#104
(Original post by gildartz)
In medical school you don't get to resit modules 4 times and in some cases, there are only end of year exams. They do predict how well you may do to a certain extent, but they are not a brilliant indicator by any means.
So they are a predictor? And should be used in tandem with other indices? This is exactly what I've been arguing from the start.


(Original post by gildartz)
Why should you believe them over gizmo?
I don't, I was merely stating that speculation isn't really useful because there are others, just as qualified, whose speculation leads them in another direction. It was Kinkerz who used anecdotal evidence, not me.

(Original post by gildartz)
Anecdotal evidence means little. They ask for those grades as a quick way to weed out the applicants. If they had more time they could use more comprehensive methods such as other tests like the BMAT. A levels in reality cannot determine whether someone is fit enough to 'fiddle with your insides' as you put it since there are just so many factors to consider, for example not all students have modules and some may get lower than expected grades due to their circumstances. Furthermore, going by your previous posts I assume someone who got 80% in their 3rd AS is fit to be your doctor whilst someone who got 79% is not? Where is the logic in this?
Some schools do use the BMAT so an absence of it is clearly not down to time, but anyway. According to your logic, someone with poor A levels might be bad at exams; someone who struggles on the BMAT/UKCAT might also be bad at exams; someone who struggles at interview might find one-to-one/two/three, under pressure, difficult; someone with poor references from tutors might have had personal issues, or not do well with classroom based learning. You can make apologies for any of these indices, but the fact remains that you're making apologies - and why should you have to for people who are claiming to be the best and the brightest?

On your second point, the legal age for drinking is 18, not 17 and 364 days. Does that mean the 17 year old is less capable of knowing his limits? Of course not, but you have to draw the line somewhere - and again, A levels provide a starting point. So yes, the student with 79 isn't fit.

There are going to be times in all our lives when we miss out on something by a tiny margin. It sucks, but it has to happen, right?


(Original post by gildartz)
you made a mistake above mate.
I made a typo, and like I said, typos are only associated with a typed medium. There's a significant difference between 'distribution' and 'proportion', something which Kinkerz had missed and speaks of an imprecision that can't be attributed to dodgy typing skills. You'll also note that I'd corrected it before you replied.

There is a wider point about how I want to feel when I'm talking to my Doctor. I don't want to feel like I'm better than him/her at anything - including semantics. I'm getting that from several of the med students in here - graemematt, Markh, and Sarky, the latter of whom has posted once and scared the **** out of me - but not from others.

(Original post by gildartz)
You're confusing determination with stubborness. Someone who has excelled since the beginning may just be stubborn (i.e. they revise as much as they can but have no true goal which motivates them to do so) whilst someone who didn't do very well at first but then excelled later on due to having a goal may be determined. Wouldn't you say that it is better to have a doctor who got to where they are now through determination rather than stubborness?
I don't think it's helpful to start second-guessing motivation. My original point was, I want Doctors to have excelled at every step; whether this is due to stubbornness or determination doesn't make any difference really.

(Original post by gildartz)
it should be an indicator of how misguided your views are
Maybe. But maybe, just maybe, you're all wrong :p: This long ago ceased being about the original point for me, and more about giving my brain some exercise (and calling out some ****** attitudes). My last exam was May 11th....


(Original post by gildartz)
You don't need to be a genius to be a doctor. However, you do need to be able to empathise with others, work in a team, sometimes lead a team, be able to communicate effectively and be able to make logical judgements quickly, all of which don't require you to be a genius or get AAA at A level.
But you also need to be able to remember large amounts of information and process knowledge in a swift and decisive manner, right? Which is reflected in A levels, at least in some way. So, AAA at A level, plus everything else!


(Original post by gildartz)
There was more but I couldn't be bothered to reply to it all
I know the feeling. You have to give me points for perseverance, if nothing else, right?

(Original post by Dnator)
That is all assuming that ability to do well at school makes you a good doctor. Would I want a bookworm as a doctor, who knows. The medical course is supposed to be standardised, so you can assume that if you are able to pass it you are at least as good as every other person who has qualified. Again, the entry standards are high not just because it is a hard course (there are harder courses with lower entry requirements), it is because it is a very popular one.
I think we basically agree (phew).

As I said above, I want a true polymath as my Doctor. Of the two Doctors I know well, C is fairly bright, did just enough through school and med school, and has more than a touch of pomposity and arrogance about him. A is fluently trilingual, terrifyingly bright, unbelievably diligent, and did very, very well at every level of schooling. Several of C's friends have said to me, 'I love him, but I'm not sure I'd want him as my Doctor', but everyone I've ever spoken to about A would be more than happy to be treated by her, including me. Does that mean that A's a better Doctor? Not necessarily, but it's hard to get away from that feeling, right?

I want every Doctor to be like A. I know that's not totally realistic - for the foreseeable future, at least - but it's a goal to work towards, right?

(Original post by Markh1000)
Of course it's not infallible. However, if you want some stats - I read an article in the student BMJ recently which stated that there were 15-20ish problems raised with the conduct of newly qualified doctors, out of 5000ish doctors that qualified last year (figures recalled from memory, so not exact). Remembering that these doctors would have entered medical school at a time when academic requirements were lower than today, it is realistic to suggest that many of those 5000 were given offers lower than 3As. As with any profession (teaching, nursing etc...) there will be a small minority who are not up to scratch - and as you have observed, the GMC seems relatively good at identifying and dealing with such problems.
Without knowing how those 15-20 did at A level, it doesn't really help either side of the argument. I'd suspect it's the tip of the iceberg though - one of my Doctor friends (C) told me not to get ill the first week in August, and a quick google search shows he wasn't making it up. What this does show is, the NHS is the unfinished pyramid - we have to keep working at it, and that starts with better educated students, who become better educated Doctors. It's hard to argue that more and better education doesn't lead to greater competency...

(Original post by Markh1000)
I personally doubt that A*A*A* will ever become the norm for offers for medicine, assuming that A Levels do not suffer a significant drop in quality in the future. Medical schools recognise that many potentially good/great doctors would be missed, because A*A*A wouldn't be good enough - I'd be very surprised. But we shall see.
I'm not saying it'll be the norm, but I bet it happens. Side bet?

As I understand it, the BMAT and the A* grade were both introduced because universities couldn't distinguish between students any more; ditto, Cambridge asking for exam percentages. Recent history suggests there has been a significant drop in standards recently - I just read that 17% of students get AAA now, versus only 7% in the mid-nineties. If you drop those requirements further, you're opening med school up to the less able, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.

(Original post by Markh1000)
Well it doesn't really start with JUST the A Level performance of applicants. The decision to shortlist for interview is based on many factors such as, GCSEs, A Levels, personal statement, work experience/voluntary work, admissions tests (UKCAT/BMAT) - all of which simultaneously provide an overview of an applicant's suitabilty for medicine.
I think that's the right approach, and never said otherwise.

(Original post by Markh1000)
I simply meant that the difference is not HUGE [between an A and a B].
I'm sure it isn't, but if you want to constantly raise the bar, some people are going to fall below it.

(Original post by Markh1000)
Of course there are differences between doctors. However, if someone has reached the level where they can be employed as a consultant neurosurgeon, then they have gained the required expertise to safely carry out that role. Some will be better than others (through greater experience etc), however there is a standard skill level which must be reached (ie the Certificate of Completion of Training).
But that suggests that Doctors don't make mistakes. 'Excellence is not an act, but a habit', right? I'm not going to argue with Aristotle, and he's suggesting that the Doctors who've excelled at every step are the ones who are going to keep on excelling, and so on, down the scale.

Again, you have to keep raising the bar. I'm talking about getting Doctors fighting over who gets to make the innovations, not content to make do.

(Original post by Markh1000)
I fully accept that there are medical applicants that have the potential to be better doctors that me, despite them getting AAB at A Level - not to recognise that would be incredibly arrogant of me.
Don't do yourself a disservice. You (seem to have) jumped through every hoop they've asked of you; you deserve your place over those who didn't, or did but only just. Who knows, I might have made a great Doctor (I very much doubt it, I don't have the diligence) but I didn't take those steps so I don't deserve a place at med school. I suspect, also, that that humility you show won't hurt either - and for me, lack of that humility is kind of what this thread's become about for me.

Apologies for the personal nature of my comment.[/QUOTE]

No worries.

(Original post by Markh1000)
My statement was based on my personal observation that you seem to be viewing A Levels as an entirely independent factor which can be exclusively used to assess medical applicants. If not, apologies.
Again, no worries!

(Original post by Kinkerz)
No, because I don't think a mandatory requirement for practicing medicine should be obtaining AAA at A-level, which was your assertion.
Yes, it is my assertion. You seem to be flip-flopping between a straight answer on this: first you said A levels became obsolete, then you said they weren't. I'm going to go with UCAS and the admissions board, and say they are: in which case, if you want to be sure you're getting the best, you ask for AAA.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
Are you trying to be ironic? I'm being arrogant? Jesus...
I'd say a really good example of arrogance is the assumption of correctness (i.e. 'I'm more qualified to talk about this than you, but I know nothing about you') while dismissing a perfectly good argument ('A levels no predictor - so EEE is fine?') and simultaneously calling someone an elitist bigot.

Now, maybe I'm being arrogant too, but I've answered every single comment anyone has made, and after my initial posts - where I admit, I was being flippant and going for a cheap laugh, but I'd have thought that was obvious - I've tried to be friendly and civil, and indeed, have met several people somewhere in the middle. And yet, I've been called an idiot, a bigot, and ignorant, amongst other things.

As I said above, this long since stopped being about the argument itself, although I've been doing people the courtesy of replying to them if they bothered to address me. You, on the other hand, are displaying a horrible attitude for someone training to be a medic. You have a bad day on the wards and someone upsets you - so you label them a bigot? What happens to their treatment?

(Original post by Kinkerz)
If you don't know what being a medic entails, you aren't qualified to question admissions.
But my assertion is borne out by all the universities who do ask for AAA at A level, and they're certainly qualified.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
What? How could you possibly assert that I don't know what the word 'bigot' means. I used it to describe your attitude and it wasn't at all inaccurate.
To be a bigot, I'd need to be intolerant of your view, closed to reason, and outwardly displaying animosity towards you. Now, I've displayed animosity, but so have you; I've also patiently sat here and answered every point against me someone has made, and I've reasoned out my argument at every stage to the best of my ability. I'm ready to be convinced, but I haven't seen a good argument yet.

On the other hand, the prevailing argument I've faced is, 'I'm a medic and you're not, so shut up' (see 'unless you know what being a medic entails you can't possibly comment', and your initial 'Triple Fail' comment). Now, which displays more bigotry?

(Original post by Kinkerz)
How would you determine the 'very, very brightest' if you're using A-level grades (and you want to create a level playing field: 'regardless of background or contacts')? Quite frankly, it's ludicrous.
By starting with AAA, obviously. You don't like the idea of a meritocracy? By the way, stating it's ludicrous doesn't make it so.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
That's fine, I'm not all that keen on you being my patient. Though how you can question my attitude when you've been the aggressor in this 'argument' and don't really know the first thing about me is mildly alarming.
I apologise for my opening comments; I was tired and going for laughs. I should know better - comments like that are going to provoke people, and I can't let things go if I've been insulted (got me in trouble in the past), even if it's in response. However, you will note that you responded to me, and you certainly didn't try to rise above my comments, so I don't think it's fair to suggest the blame lies solely with me.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
I can't find anyone who agrees with your extreme take on the importance of A-level grades (you've actually changed your tune slightly as the thread has progressed).
It's not that extreme, and I haven't changed my tune - you've just heard the whole thing. All I'm stating is, in a system where 17% of students get AAA, admissions boards are struggling to find ways to separate people, and A levels form a large part of the indication of how well people will go on to perform, a comfortable AAA and not a shaky AAB should be a prerequisite for the most important (in my opinion) members of society.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
That adds nothing to the discussion, but thanks?
It does, it says that harder A levels = people with better comparative grades at med school. I was only responding to your point though.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
I don't advocate bad grammar and mediocrity. This is the kind of comment that lead me to describe you as elitist and somewhat bigoted.
Again, it was in response to your snidey 'congrats for spelling things right on an internet forum' comment. If by elitist you mean, I believe that only the best should get places at med school, then Hell Yes (and this is the only sense in which it can apply, as I've never mentioned class). And again, I might be a grammar nazi, or even a grammar bigot, but I'll make no apologies for wanting to get things right - just as you should take pride in knowing the difference between, say, milligrams and micrograms.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
Anyway, this is beginning to get tedious and I've been awake for over 30 hours, so I'm off to bed.
Night. Are you in training for your junior doctor years?

(Original post by Gizmo!)
you are 'alf right there, macca.
pity thats where being right ends for you.....
Now, Gizmo!. Kinkerz at least had a reason for being annoyed with me: I had said some things to him which I probably shouldn't have, and I've apologised for it. You, on the other hand, entered the thread by calling me an idiot, and your posts since to me have been characterized by smugness, condescension, and pomposity (although looking over your previous posts, this is something of a trend). Good work.

Why do you insist on that ridiculous affectation? It makes your points inpenetrable (or possibly, they're just plain bad and I'm looking for more insight than is actually there). I can only assume it's because you know your standard of written English is terrible, and it stops you getting called out for it. But ok, I'll try to decipher it.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
why would any admissions tutor do, since all it does is make their job infinitely 'arder? idiot to pretend anyone would do it. IN FACT, all the admissions crews in the country would object to that.
Also, why are you suggesting an extreme benchmark EEE benchmark? no one is saying you should.
This is one of those, 'more insight than is actually there' comments. I think all you're saying is, 'Putting all names with EEE in a hat is a stupid idea', so well done for using 50-odd words when three would have done. I was never suggesting it was a good idea, something which I'd have hoped would be obvious to anyone with a shred of intelligence; I was countering Kinkerz's argument that A levels are no predictor of future performance by asking why admissions boards ask for A levels at all. If they are a predictor, then you should ask for AAA from those who want to be the best. Care to tell me where I'm going wrong?

(Original post by Gizmo!)
inconsequnt argument - in the same way, why would you not believe the reverse?
Thanks for dismissing it - it was Kinkerz's argument in the first place.

As I said above: 'speculation isn't really useful because there are others, just as qualified, whose speculation leads them in another direction. It was Kinkerz who used anecdotal evidence, not me.'

I want to make this clear: you've refuted Kinkerz's argument, not mine.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
but you 'ardly know any people without A levels. Its explicit in your views. goldfish in a bowl dont know any other fish.
How do you know? That's that arrogance again. I've worked for the best part of ten years alongside people from widely varied walks of life, including many without A levels, and I stand by my point; I've met people who are great at their jobs and don't have A levels, and I've met people who are clever but don't have A levels, but I've never met anyone who was exceptional and didn't have them. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but like I said, I don't recall any.

But ok, you don't know any of these people, and I might not be telling the truth. I'll make up for this by asking a question: what did you get at A level?

(Original post by Gizmo!)
only if it maks it better. yours doesnt! null argument.
Congrats for missing the point. I'll ask again: which ideology is better (regardless of whether I'm correct on what form that ideology takes), one which advocates mediocrity and stagnation, or one which tries to improve society?

(Original post by Gizmo!)
mm, you'd ave thought you'd 'ave cottoned on by now.
Yawn. Yet another snidey comment with zero substance. I was making a playful comment, and you have to be unpleasant... says a lot about your character.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
no, they bring grade requirements up to make their job easier,, plain as.
you avent worked in admissions, i ave, so please stop pretending that you know 'ow admissions staff think. goodness knows... you'll be pretending to know what qualifies as a good surgeon next!
You've missed my point again; this is becoming a habit.

If admissions boards make offers based on A levels, and they do, then they must place some importance on them. Is that correct - and if not, why do they make those offers at all?

(Original post by Gizmo!)
why? why not an AAB candidate? why not the candidate who thought 'well i cant be bothered to learn the ecology cycles, they are for an insane person to learn since they ave no bearnig on any subject or career in 'ealthcare., so i'll settle for AAB?
its so funny that you cant see that.
Wow. I can't believe anyone put you in a position to make decisions over people's futures, you're clearly thoroughly incompetent and an awful individual to boot. You really think an attitude of 'scrape through', 'be mediocre', 'take them for what you can get and **** them if they ask for anything back' is funny? I don't want anyone in a position of power over me to have that attitude, and nor should anyone else.

If everyone had thought like that, we'd still be living in caves. I guess it's no coincidence that a prevalence of attitudes like yours corresponds to literacy and numeracy going backwards for the first time in our history.

My father is a lecturer in education. He spent 30 years teaching EBD kids, and 20 years as Head of the largest EBD school in the country, so when he tells me about teachers, I believe him. He told me a couple of weeks ago that not only are standards going backwards, but they're going backwards at a rate which is tangible from year group to year group. He's going to send out fully-qualified teachers who don't know what a pronoun is; but according to you, that's just peachy, because they 'did what was necessary.' I really hope you realise what's wrong with this before you further propagate your repellent views.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
sorry to piss on your parade again, but it sounds like we'd got on great, via my thick northern accent, and working full time in nursing for years, not just the summer.
I'm not sure which is more amusing: that you actually think you've pissed on my parade, or that you think she'd like you because of your accent and that you think you're better than her for working 'in nursing for years, not just the summer.'

(Original post by Gizmo!)
- and this is the point where you found out I worked out in admissions -
Well **** me, I'm ******** it now. You work in admissions!

Haven't you all been doing a bang up job over the past few years? I'd tell you to go back to nursing, but I don't know where you'd be doing more damage.

I have no doubt you know more than I do about the mechanics of admission, but this argument is about the philosophy behind it; and I'm just as qualified to talk about this as you are.
(Original post by Gizmo!)
grad entry, 6 year arts entry, even foundation year entry, all take arts a levels.
In other words, you still need another qualification, but ok, I'll concede your point. Manchester says you need 'rigorous' arts/humanities/science A levels for their arts entry - I wonder how many offers they give for people with media, business and performing arts? Maybe you can tell me?

(Original post by Gizmo!)
but please, dont take it to 'eart, macca.
Don't worry - as you've brought precisely nothing to the debate other than your awful attitude, I really, honestly, truly won't.
0
ily_em
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#105
Report 8 years ago
#105
(Original post by Sex Panther)
Originally Posted by Dnator
That is all assuming that ability to do well at school makes you a good doctor. Would I want a bookworm as a doctor, who knows. The medical course is supposed to be standardised, so you can assume that if you are able to pass it you are at least as good as every other person who has qualified. Again, the entry standards are high not just because it is a hard course (there are harder courses with lower entry requirements), it is because it is a very popular one.
I think we basically agree (phew)
How exactly do you agree? It seems to be the opposite to what you have been arguing in this thread.

(Original post by Sex Panther)
As I said above, I want a true polymath as my Doctor. Of the two Doctors I know well, C is fairly bright, did just enough through school and med school, and has more than a touch of pomposity and arrogance about him. A is fluently trilingual, terrifyingly bright, unbelievably diligent, and did very, very well at every level of schooling. Several of C's friends have said to me, 'I love him, but I'm not sure I'd want him as my Doctor', but everyone I've ever spoken to about A would be more than happy to be treated by her, including me. Does that mean that A's a better Doctor? Not necessarily, but it's hard to get away from that feeling, right?

I want every Doctor to be like A. I know that's not totally realistic - for the foreseeable future, at least - but it's a goal to work towards, right?
C's issues with being a doctor don't seem to be because of his grades, but his attitude. Someone with A's level of grades could also have C's kind of attitude. C's friends aren't saying they don't want him because they know what his grades are (why would they all know his grades anyway?), but because they don't like they way he acts.

.I'm going to go with UCAS and the admissions board, and say they are: in which case, if you want to be sure you're getting the best, you ask for AAA.
Have you not listened to anyone in this thread? The reason they are asking for AAA is because Medicine is so popular and they need to start somewhere, not because they think only AAA students can be good doctors. If the subject was not as popular they would be able to ask for lower grades.
0
Sliced Bread
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#106
Report 8 years ago
#106
(Original post by Organ)
:facepalm2: Your probably a misinformed fool.

What is it about medicine and medical degrees that requires everybody - even people who haven't the foggiest idea what they entail/require to come out of the woodwork and make sweeping comments with the authority of a Consultant Neurologist.
Don't be silly now; read the whole post, I clarified my view on the matter which is quite different. Also the use of the word "probably" suggests anyway that a person with the view I was talking about would have to concede that there are some students who may not be as academically good but can be excellent medics.

I am well aware that I'm not qualified to make broad statements regarding a field I haven't very much knowledge about (and I was hardly doing the aforementioned), I was just pointing out to all those flaming the poster I quoted in my first post that his view is not all that radical even if it is slightly elitist.

Plus, I just realised, you're an applicant for 2011. You have about as much 'authority' to comment on this as us ignorants.
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#107
Report 8 years ago
#107
On your second point, the legal age for drinking is 18, not 17 and 364 days. Does that mean the 17 year old is less capable of knowing his limits? Of course not, but you have to draw the line somewhere - and again, A levels provide a starting point. So yes, the student with 79 isn't fit.
but hes just as potentially capable to remove a tumour. i'm not sure why you persist in not seeing that.
why exactly does 'aving the luxury of being able to revise to AAA standard mean you are operationally good at the task of removing tumours?
exactly and precisely. be specific, or dont bother.

But you also need to be able to remember large amounts of information and process knowledge in a swift and decisive manner, right? Which is reflected in A levels, at least in some way. So, AAA at A level, plus everything else!
- because, quite frankly, you could repeat this till the cows come ome, macca. still doesnt make it a valid point.

oh, and steer clear of the anecdotal ***** that you are so happy to point out in others please -
Of the two Doctors I know well, C is fairly bright, did just enough through school and med school, and has more than a touch of pomposity and arrogance about him. A is fluently trilingual, terrifyingly bright, unbelievably diligent, and did very, very well at every level of schooling. Several of C's friends have said to me, 'I love him, but I'm not sure I'd want him as my Doctor', but everyone I've ever spoken to about A would be more than happy to be treated by her, including me. Does that mean that A's a better Doctor? Not necessarily, but it's hard to get away from that feeling, right?



aha one more thingy. if you are so right about AAA requirements picking the best student for being doctors, then why havent grade requirements been AAA since the year 2000?
haha.

Also please get your baseline straight in your arguments -in one post its 'no one superbright without A levels', the next post its 'the best have grades AAA'. more about turns than a M Night Shymalan movie...



I can't believe anyone put you in a position to make decisions over people's futures, you're clearly thoroughly incompetent and an awful individual to boot.
sinc all the admissions tutors share my view, then this is your take on all the admissions staff? or just me?

. He's going to send out fully-qualified teachers who don't know what a pronoun is; but according to you, that's just peachy, because they 'did what was necessary.' I really hope you realise what's wrong with this before you further propagate your repellent views.
ok thats enough, work on your mind reading skills before you comment on my views, becos these are clearly someone elses views you are answering. pronouns indeed.
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#108
Report 8 years ago
#108
I'm not sure which is more amusing: that you actually think you've pissed on my parade, or that you think she'd like you because of your accent and that you think you're better than her for working 'in nursing for years, not just the summer.'
i said that i'd get on with her for our similarites, not becos we'd compare willy sizes - you've invented that bit.

dont let that trouble you, theres a clear pattern in your posts where you invent a reply to suit yourself.
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#109
Report 8 years ago
#109
Well **** me, I'm ******** it now. You work in admissions!

Haven't you all been doing a bang up job over the past few years? I'd tell you to go back to nursing, but I don't know where you'd be doing more damage.
haha, this is good. not only are you taking on the medics here, but the admissions staff too.
and nurses lol.


In other words, you still need another qualification, but ok, I'll concede your point. Manchester says you need 'rigorous' arts/humanities/science A levels for their arts entry - I wonder how many offers they give for people with media, business and performing arts? Maybe you can tell me?
i can tell you that i know personally candidates that got into med skool with drama and business studies, and some with media, thank you.
0
Organ
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#110
Report 8 years ago
#110
(Original post by Sex Panther)
x
It's only the internet

:eek4: How long did it take you to type that?
0
Organ
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#111
Report 8 years ago
#111
(Original post by Gizmo!)
macca
Out of interest, why do you end posts with 'macca'?
0
Organ
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#112
Report 8 years ago
#112
(Original post by Sliced Bread)
Don't be silly now; read the whole post, I clarified my view on the matter which is quite different. Also the use of the word "probably" suggests anyway that a person with the view I was talking about would have to concede that there are some students who may not be as academically good but can be excellent medics.

I am well aware that I'm not qualified to make broad statements regarding a field I haven't very much knowledge about (and I was hardly doing the aforementioned), I was just pointing out to all those flaming the poster I quoted in my first post that his view is not all that radical even if it is slightly elitist.

Plus, I just realised, you're an applicant for 2011. You have about as much 'authority' to comment on this as us ignorants.
:yy:

Also, it doesn't require somebody to be a medical student to have a vague understanding of admissions :idea:
0
Organ
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#113
Report 8 years ago
#113
(Original post by _lynx_)
Having been to several open days, this has been repeated to me over and over again.

:top:
Yep
0
Kinkerz
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#114
Report 8 years ago
#114
(Original post by Sex Panther)
Yes, it is my assertion. You seem to be flip-flopping between a straight answer on this: first you said A levels became obsolete, then you said they weren't. I'm going to go with UCAS and the admissions board, and say they are: in which case, if you want to be sure you're getting the best, you ask for AAA.
Ah, there's me assuming you could make basic deductions. I said A-levels become obsolete once you hit medical school, but that doesn't mean I think someone with EEE would cut it (though if they proved themselves capable later on via a degree, fine). Obviously I mean those who are there or there abouts with regards to requirements. The difference between AAA and AAB is basically nothing.

I'd say a really good example of arrogance is the assumption of correctness (i.e. 'I'm more qualified to talk about this than you, but I know nothing about you') while dismissing a perfectly good argument ('A levels no predictor - so EEE is fine?') and simultaneously calling someone an elitist bigot.
Alright then, tell us about you. What are you, an economics student? History? Or are you on a science-based degree having not got into medicine, looking towards GEM?

No, it wasn't a perfectly good argument. You took my argument of 'AAA shouldn't be a minimum' and pushed 'EEE then?'. Nobody here is suggesting such a low set of criteria.

As I said above, this long since stopped being about the argument itself, although I've been doing people the courtesy of replying to them if they bothered to address me. You, on the other hand, are displaying a horrible attitude for someone training to be a medic. You have a bad day on the wards and someone upsets you - so you label them a bigot? What happens to their treatment?
Hardly horrible! I've not really said anything outrageous. A few descriptive comments with regards to you, but you've surely got thick enough skin to deal with those!

Oh, well in that case the quality of care I'd give would clearly take a nose-dive. Those patients would be lucky to survive the day :rolleyes:
No, wait, I consider myself mature enough to rise above that when it actually matters (not on a forum on the internet).

But my assertion is borne out by all the universities who do ask for AAA at A level, and they're certainly qualified.
But your reasoning for their reasons for the AAA criteria is faulty. They have an AAA requirement simply because of the competition, not because they necessarily think they're getting the 'best' candidates.

They do it because setting a lower benchmark would increase the workload for admissions too much.

To be a bigot, I'd need to be intolerant of your view, closed to reason, and outwardly displaying animosity towards you. Now, I've displayed animosity, but so have you; I've also patiently sat here and answered every point against me someone has made, and I've reasoned out my argument at every stage to the best of my ability. I'm ready to be convinced, but I haven't seen a good argument yet.
You have been pretty intolerant of my view; you have been pretty closed to reason; you have displayed outward animosity towards me.

On the other hand, the prevailing argument I've faced is, 'I'm a medic and you're not, so shut up' (see 'unless you know what being a medic entails you can't possibly comment', and your initial 'Triple Fail' comment). Now, which displays more bigotry?
My initial 'Triple fail' comment was just as jest-worthy as your initial comment in this thread. Though with slightly more truth me-thinks.

And my bigot comment wasn't based on individual lines or posts, but your general attitude.

By starting with AAA, obviously. You don't like the idea of a meritocracy? By the way, stating it's ludicrous doesn't make it so.
A meritocracy based on A-levels is a flawed meritocracy... that's what I don't like.

It's not that extreme, and I haven't changed my tune - you've just heard the whole thing. All I'm stating is, in a system where 17% of students get AAA, admissions boards are struggling to find ways to separate people, and A levels form a large part of the indication of how well people will go on to perform, a comfortable AAA and not a shaky AAB should be a prerequisite for the most important (in my opinion) members of society.
What's the evidence that "A-levels form a large part of the indication of how well people will go on to perform"? Also, I wouldn't describe AAB as shaky.

You seem to have gone from: 'AAA as a minimum' to 'A-levels have some indication of quality' and back again.

Again, it was in response to your snidey 'congrats for spelling things right on an internet forum' comment. If by elitist you mean, I believe that only the best should get places at med school, then Hell Yes (and this is the only sense in which it can apply, as I've never mentioned class). And again, I might be a grammar nazi, or even a grammar bigot, but I'll make no apologies for wanting to get things right - just as you should take pride in knowing the difference between, say, milligrams and micrograms.
I responed like that because you 'insulted' my grammar/spelling and went on to claim how superior your grammar/spelling was. I thought a sarcastic comment might help.

I want the best at medical school too. I just don't believe that the best way to do that is to enforce a minimum benchmark of AAA. Also, if you want only the best, surely AAA is insufficient. Many get AAAA or AAAAA, I'd have thought these are the people you'd prefer?

Night. Are you in training for your junior doctor years?
Not directly. I'd become way too nocturnal and I was resetting my body clock.
0
Sex Panther
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 8 years ago
#115
(Original post by ily_em)
How exactly do you agree? It seems to be the opposite to what you have been arguing in this thread.
OK, I guess he doesn't wholly agree with me but he didn't offer any reasons as to why I was wrong, other than repeating things people had already said and which I'd answered above; and to be totally honest, I'd answered a huge amount of points from several people who thought insulting me was a fair and civil way to conduct a debate, and I didn't really want to make another enemy.

(Original post by ily_em)
C's issues with being a doctor don't seem to be because of his grades, but his attitude. Someone with A's level of grades could also have C's kind of attitude. C's friends aren't saying they don't want him because they know what his grades are (why would they all know his grades anyway?), but because they don't like they way he acts.
Actually, no; I quite like a touch of arrogance in my Doctor (note 'touch'). My issue is with the general feeling that C doesn't really know as much as A. I know that that's probably ridiculous but then I knew them both at least during their last year in med school (I saw C virtually every day for his last 3 years of med school) and the memories I have of C panicking and getting stuff wrong when I was helping him revise, versus A's seeming cool control, abide.

(Original post by ily_em)
Have you not listened to anyone in this thread? The reason they are asking for AAA is because Medicine is so popular and they need to start somewhere, not because they think only AAA students can be good doctors. If the subject was not as popular they would be able to ask for lower grades.
First of all, take a look at this article:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7368/786

'a seemingly fixed 5% of an age cohort gains good science qualifications.'

So you make the exams harder, you still have your students getting AAA - or at least, significantly better than others. That's how you base your offers.

My argument in all of this is the unpopular one that A levels are too easy, and that doesn't help us get better doctors. That's all. I'm just saying, 'If you can't come in the top 27% in three subjects (and that's not really a big ask) then maybe leave the most prestigious career we have to those who can.'

(Original post by Gizmo!)
but hes just as potentially capable to remove a tumour. i'm not sure why you persist in not seeing that.
why exactly does 'aving the luxury of being able to revise to AAA standard mean you are operationally good at the task of removing tumours?
exactly and precisely. be specific, or dont bother.
First of all, it's hardly a luxury - 1 in 6 A level students have AAA.

Weirdly, you agree with me on this. Obviously you're changing your tune because it suits you here, so I'll remind you of what you said:

(Original post by Gizmo!, 11pm yesterday)
why is 3 As a struggle over two years?
Why does AAA make better a better medic? Since you ask:

'Do medical students need to be so very highly qualified? Despite occasional casual claims that A levels do not predict performance at medical school, evidence shows the opposite. In a meta-analysis, school attainment in general predicts performance at medical school, and, more specifically, A levels predict performance in basic medical science examinations, finals, and longer term in postgraduate membership and fellowship exams.'

From the BMJ.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7368/786


(Original post by Gizmo!)
- because, quite frankly, you could repeat this till the cows come ome, macca. still doesnt make it a valid point.
See above.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
oh, and steer clear of the anecdotal ***** that you are so happy to point out in others please -
No problem.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
aha one more thingy. if you are so right about AAA requirements picking the best student for being doctors, then why havent grade requirements been AAA since the year 2000?
haha.
'haha!' Wow, pompous.

They didn't have 17% of students getting AAA in 2000, did they? However, as stated in the above article, if you have a small group who achieve AAA, or more specifically A in Chemistry, you have to select from that small group, and you can afford to be more relaxed with the other grades. If you have a large group - it's that 17%/27% figure again - then you tighten the grade boundaries, because you want the best (and I sincerely hope not as you suggested, because admissions boards are lazy).

(Original post by Gizmo!)
Also please get your baseline straight in your arguments -in one post its 'no one superbright without A levels', the next post its 'the best have grades AAA'. more about turns than a M Night Shymalan movie...
I was getting bored with typing AAA, AAA, AAA over and over; it's hardly an M Night Shyamalan twisty turn, the two aren't mutually exclusive. But to deny you having the opportunity to make more snidey comments, I'll avoid rhetoric as much as possible in future.


(Original post by Gizmo!)
sinc all the admissions tutors share my view, then this is your take on all the admissions staff? or just me?
Where exactly did I say that? Seriously, quote me.

I said that it is evident that admissions boards place importance on A levels, because they make offers in that format. Is this wrong?

But yeah, for the record, I don't know many other admissions tutors; but I honestly don't think I've ever met anyone else in academia with your view.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
ok thats enough, work on your mind reading skills before you comment on my views, becos these are clearly someone elses views you are answering. pronouns indeed.
I don't need to mindread, you've stated similar before:

(Original post by Gizmo! 9th July, 10am)
i wouldnt revise if i am guanranted a place. who gives a monkeys what grade you get if you dont get in, if you dont get the goal? i'm no tool.

wouldnt even turn up for the exam if its a pointless non-skill lending A level. if it was something that tuaght me something useful, i'd turn up.
(Original post by Gizmo!)
i said that i'd get on with her for our similarites, not becos we'd compare willy sizes - you've invented that bit.

dont let that trouble you, theres a clear pattern there.
Read what you said - 'not just the summer.'? If your intention wasn't to make out that you were better than her, then maybe this is why being precise linguistically is useful - it saves you looking like an arse.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
haha, this is good. not only are you taking on the medics here, but the admissions staff too.
Not so much. I'm taking on the people with bad attitudes. Are you saying that I should accept your views just because you work in admissions? If so, see my earlier definition of bigotry.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
i can tell you that i know personally candidates that got into med skool with drama and business studies, and some with media, thank you.
I didn't suggest they might not have one of, I said I found it hard to believe they'd have all three (or similar). Is that not the case?

By the way, Gizmo!, you've carried on your usual trick of selecting points you think you can answer and ignoring the rest, mixed in with a heady dose of insults and pomposity (although less of the former this time). I note you don't comment on the fact that you entered the thread with petty insults addressed to someone who you've never met, and continued until you got a rise out of me. I'd like an answer as to why you think this is appropriate - especially from someone who's in a position of authority?

(Original post by Organ)
It's only the internet

:eek4: How long did it take you to type that?
Oh mate, don't. I have interviews this week and next, so I don't have a great deal to do, but I still shudder to think how much time I'm pissing away.

I can't back down from an insult though, even though I know I really, really should...

(Original post by Kinkerz)
Ah, there's me assuming you could make basic deductions. I said A-levels become obsolete once you hit medical school, but that doesn't mean I think someone with EEE would cut it (though if they proved themselves capable later on via a degree, fine). Obviously I mean those who are there or there abouts with regards to requirements. The difference between AAA and AAB is basically nothing.
Hi again Kinkerz. I'd have hoped that having had a little sleep, seen me apologise what?, two, three times (I even made a (admittedly weak) joke), and perhaps picked up on the hints that I'd dropped that I really didn't care that much about the central point and that this argument had become about some bad attitudes, you'd have moderated your attitude towards me somewhat. Apparently not. You really are kind of a bad person dude, I'm sorry to have to tell you this.

Anyway.

I was fine with the deduction, thanks. What you're saying is, 'there or there abouts [sic] is fine,' but what I'm saying is there's no room for those who are 'thereabouts'. Why is that so hard to understand, and why is it so controversial? We're talking about the people who safeguard your granny's health here.

If there's basically no difference between AAA and AAB, then there's basically no difference between AAB and ABB. Or ABB and BBB, and so on.

And I'll repeat again, 17% get AAA, and 27% on average in any given subject. You can't come in the top 6? Or the top 4 for a subject? Then you don't get to be a Doctor.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
Alright then, tell us about you. What are you, an economics student? History? Or are you on a science-based degree having not got into medicine, looking towards GEM?
I'm an English graduate; however, what's perhaps most relevant to this argument is that I got AAAA at A level, and I did them a few years ago when standards were a bit higher. I'm fundamentally very lazy, but I'm also fairly bright, which has seen me through. I've never applied for medicine, nor would I - I don't have the dedication. Anything else you'd like to know?

(Original post by Kinkerz)
No, it wasn't a perfectly good argument. You took my argument of 'AAA shouldn't be a minimum' and pushed 'EEE then?'. Nobody here is suggesting such a low set of criteria.
But it's the logical progression.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
Hardly horrible! I've not really said anything outrageous. A few descriptive comments with regards to you, but you've surely got thick enough skin to deal with those!
A few descriptive comments of a personal nature, when you knew nothing about me. And thanks for making the assumption I can take it - as it happens, you (not so much though) and Gizmo! have really upset me. Calling someone a bigot, other than a racial slur, is about the worst insult I can think of - especially when it was as undeserved as it was in my case.

Also, I've apologised several times, and made an attempt to elevate the debate away from where it was, but you seem content to keep it there. Again, very mature, and just the trait I want in my Doctor.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
Oh, well in that case the quality of care I'd give would clearly take a nose-dive. Those patients would be lucky to survive the day :rolleyes:
No, wait, I consider myself mature enough to rise above that when it actually matters (not on a forum on the internet).
Your pattern of behaviour here suggests otherwise; the thing is, I don't think you can see this, through arrogance. I'd have a period of serious self-examination if I were you.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
But your reasoning for their reasons for the AAA criteria is faulty. They have an AAA requirement simply because of the competition, not because they necessarily think they're getting the 'best' candidates.

They do it because setting a lower benchmark would increase the workload for admissions too much.
In that case, tell me something. Why do the highest ranked medical schools all typically ask for AAA? Every one of the top 10 typically asks for AAA.

( http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...guide-medicine cross referenced to: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki...l_Requirements)

(Original post by Kinkerz)
You have been pretty intolerant of my view; you have been pretty closed to reason; you have displayed outward animosity towards me.
Despite the fact that logic and evidence point in my favour, I've listened to and answered every point you've made. That shows a great deal of tolerance.

I've shown you at every step why reason dictates your approach is wrong.

There's no bigotry in this argument. You used the word because you knew it would get a rise out of me - which it did - which shows an immaturity I'd have hoped you'd have thought you'd be above. However, your adherence to your statement, even after I've apologised several times, shows a pettiness that an MD really should be better than.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
My initial 'Triple fail' comment was just as jest-worthy as your initial comment in this thread. Though with slightly more truth me-thinks.
Did you really just say, 'my comment was as funny as yours'? After all this? You're not helping your case here. And the truth of it has yet to be determined.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
And my bigot comment wasn't based on individual lines or posts, but your general attitude.
No it wasn't, it was based on the fact that I'd annoyed you and you wanted to get a rise of me. I admitted the same motivation earlier, and apologised; every time you repeat this, you're looking pettier and pettier (and I daresay, not just in my eyes either).

(Original post by Kinkerz)
A meritocracy based on A-levels is a flawed meritocracy... that's what I don't like.
So how would you do it?

(Original post by Kinkerz)
What's the evidence that "A-levels form a large part of the indication of how well people will go on to perform"? Also, I wouldn't describe AAB as shaky.
From the BMJ:

'Do medical students need to be so very highly qualified? Despite occasional casual claims that A levels do not predict performance at medical school, evidence shows the opposite. In a meta-analysis, school attainment in general predicts performance at medical school, and, more specifically, A levels predict performance in basic medical science examinations, finals, and longer term in postgraduate membership and fellowship exams.'

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7368/786

You can follow the sources from the article, if you like. By the way, this was very easy to find: it was literally the first article I came across that talks about this.

And I didn't suggest AAB is shaky; I said a shaky AAB (i.e., a predicted AAB which you're really unsure about getting) isn't the kind of grade expectation I would hope for from a future Doctor. Although, I have better grades than this, and I worked 35 hours a week during my second year of A levels. A levels are easy; if you can't get all As (and don't forget, 1 in 6 does!!!!) then you shouldn't get into medical school.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
You seem to have gone from: 'AAA as a minimum' to 'A-levels have some indication of quality' and back again.
They do have [I]some[I] indication of quality; see above article. And if they have any at all, then to get the best, you ask for the best. This is all getting very repetitive.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
I responed like that because you 'insulted' my grammar/spelling and went on to claim how superior your grammar/spelling was. I thought a sarcastic comment might help.
And I apologised, and you just carried right on.

(Original post by Kinkerz)
I want the best at medical school too. I just don't believe that the best way to do that is to enforce a minimum benchmark of AAA. Also, if you want only the best, surely AAA is insufficient. Many get AAAA or AAAAA, I'd have thought these are the people you'd prefer?
On your first point: the evidence suggests otherwise. On your second, yes, absolutely, if the cohort supports it. I did it with a ****** set of personal circumstances when it was harder to do, and I'd be a terrible Doctor; what's wrong with asking for better than me?

(Original post by Kinkerz)
Not directly. I'd become way too nocturnal and I was resetting my body clock.
OK. Happens to me too.
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#116
Report 8 years ago
#116
First of all, it's hardly a luxury - 1 in 6 A level students have AAA.

Weirdly, you agree with me on this.
Obviously you're changing your tune because it suits you here, so I'll remind you of what you said:
what i said was a different point entirely.
so, yep, it is indeed wierd that you would interpret that as an agreement with you.
wierd of you.

'Do medical students need to be so very highly qualified? Despite occasional casual claims that A levels do not predict performance at medical school, evidence shows the opposite. In a meta-analysis, school attainment in general predicts performance at medical school, and, more specifically, A levels predict performance in basic medical science examinations, finals, and longer term in postgraduate membership and fellowship exams.'
you've forgotten that some of us saw this years ago.
So if you really must plug this, i'll remind you that the study you quote shows no correlation with work abilkity as a doctor in any way.
sorri to take the wind out of your sails yet again.









(and I sincerely hope not as you suggested, because admissions boards are lazy).
Sigh.
LISTEN. YOU are talking to someone who has worked IN ADMISSIONS. It doesnt matter if you hope that admissions dont do something... i am telling you that they DO. ok? but it doesnt mean staff are lazy, as YOU suggest, not me.
goodness, the way you repeatedly ignore the facts, esp from the 'orses mouth is enough to make one scream.


I was getting bored with typing AAA, AAA, AAA over and over; it's hardly an M Night Shyamalan twisty turn, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
aaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... ......
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#117
Report 8 years ago
#117
(Original post by Organ)
Out of interest, why do you end posts with 'macca'?
macca is a very friendly person (macca).
0
Sex Panther
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#118
Report 8 years ago
#118
(Original post by Gizmo!)
what i said was a different point entirely.
so, yep, it is indeed wierd that you would interpret that as an agreement with you.
wierd of you.
Yes, it was a different point, but you made your position crystal. YOU said, AAA is easy, which is what I'm saying. You're losing this argument quite badly now.

(Original post by Gizmo!)
you've forgotten that some of us saw this years ago.
So if you really must plug this, i'll remind you that the study you quote shows no correlation with work abilkity as a doctor in any way.
sorri to take the wind out of your sails yet again.
It shows exactly that. You just carry on with your head in the sand...

'Previous academic performance is a good, but not perfect, predictor of achievement in medical training. It accounts for 23% of the variance in performance in undergraduate medical training and 6% of that in postgraduate competency.'

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...e2=tf_ipsecsha


'we observe a significant negative relationship between a students’ dropout probability and A-level score, once we have controlled for other observable personal and university characteristics, suggests that any compensating factors do not truly compensate for poor A-level performance.'

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7368/786#26593

I can keep going if you like. These are really easy to find; indeed, I haven't seen anything yet that I'd rather you didn't find.


(Original post by Gizmo!)
Sigh.
LISTEN. YOU are talking to someone who has worked IN ADMISSIONS. It doesnt matter if you hope that admissions dont do something... i am telling you that they DO. ok? but it doesnt mean staff are lazy, as YOU suggest, not me.
goodness, the way you repeatedly ignore the facts, esp from the 'orses mouth is enough to make one scream.
'it doesn't mean staff are lazy'

(Original post by Gizmo!)
they bring grade requirements up to make their job easier
And again, you've ignored my wider points about your attitude, presumably because it would make you look bad to bring them up again.
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#119
Report 8 years ago
#119
(Original post by Sex Panther)
Yes, it was a different point, but you made your position crystal. YOU said, AAA is easy..
sorri to take the wind out of.... well you know the phrase well by now...i didnt say it was easy, i said its NOT a struggle to get. i think you know about your misquote. Or perhaps you mean that its certainly easy relative to a fulltime job, for instance, which is quite true.


'Previous academic performance is a good, but not perfect, predictor of achievement in medical training. It accounts for 23% of the variance in performance in undergraduate medical training and 6% of that in postgraduate competency.'
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...e2=tf_ipsecsha
i see that you are quoting a study by David James to me. me being someone who has personally discussed the article with the good professor. not a good choice of article for you to pick there, eh?

that probably explains why you've failed to notice that this article is about undergrad training and postgrad exams. NOT medical competence, as it clearly point sout in the paragraph following your quote.

As it happens, Professor James (whom you are quoting) is the university advocate for widenig participation and the use of reduced offers less than AAA. i dont think he would take kindly to you misquoting him and using his material to support the opposite of his intention, matey.




And again, you've ignored my wider points about your attitude, presumably because it would make you look bad to bring them up again.
thats becos there was no valid point there for this discussion, but if you wish to start a new thread to discuss our personalities then please feel free.
0
Gizmo!
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#120
Report 8 years ago
#120
by the way, this link is of a letter.
its a point of view, not a scientific study.

when you consider that someone like you or any tom/**** probably submitted it (maybe ven some dude with no A lvls lol ! joke btw), then you realise it carries no weight at all.
0
X
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

  • University of East Anglia
    All Departments Open 13:00-17:00. Find out more about our diverse range of subject areas and career progression in the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Sciences. Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Solent University
    Careers in maritime Undergraduate
    Sat, 2 Feb '19
  • Sheffield Hallam University
    City and Collegiate Campus Undergraduate
    Sun, 3 Feb '19

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (698)
80.51%
Leave (169)
19.49%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed