The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Phalanges
The following quotes have all been directly taken from the thread "One New Immigrant Patient Every Minute: How Immigration is destroying the NHS" in the politics subforum of this website. I have moved them here to see what more informed people (generally) make of their opinions. It would be particularly interesting to hear the views of reapplicants.


Point taken. Apologies for making a statement without full possession of the facts. I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone who doesn't get into medical school first time round will forever be a second-rate doctor - I should have phrased what I was trying to say differently or even better not made the comment at all without the facts to back it up. Lesson learnt.
In2deep
You've always wondered how I know:rolleyes: seems like your stalking me.

To answer your question, person X applies to four medical schools, gets four interviews, gets 3 offers with letters clearly stating that the interview performance was what got him the amazing offer and yes one rejection. And before you start an argument, the rejection was from the lowest ranked university out of the four and he didn't suddenly change for that particular interview.

btw 'person X' happens to be a good friend of mine.

Person X could have performed badly on the interview which resulted in a rejection. They may not usually have the social skills of a turnip but on the day they did. Perhaps the interviewers gave him a real grilling and found him unsuitable for their course. You can't tell a medical school that you deserve an offer because another med school has given you one. The ranking by the way (however you managed to decide on a ranking in the first place) is irrelevant.
WackyJun
Person X could have performed badly on the interview which resulted in a rejection. They may not usually have the social skills of a turnip but on the day they did. Perhaps the interviewers gave him a real grilling and found him unsuitable for their course. You can't tell a medical school that you deserve an offer because another med school has given you one. The ranking by the way (however you managed to decide on a ranking in the first place) is irrelevant.


.. or maybe person X just wasn't what the university was looking for. Not all of them are looking for the same kind of person - but fortunately for us, most of the criteria overlaps.

And you honestly think a SINGLE interview determines whether someone would be a good doctor or not? You said it yourself, maybe it was just a one-off on that day itself and because of that, they got rejected.
Reply 23
unknownpleasures
Point taken. Apologies for making a statement without full possession of the facts. I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone who doesn't get into medical school first time round will forever be a second-rate doctor - I should have phrased what I was trying to say differently or even better not made the comment at all without the facts to back it up. Lesson learnt.

Holy crap, humility on TSR? :eek: That's very rare. Congrats on being mature enough to learn from it though rather than arguing for the sake of it. :h:
unknownpleasures
Point taken. Apologies for making a statement without full possession of the facts. I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone who doesn't get into medical school first time round will forever be a second-rate doctor - I should have phrased what I was trying to say differently or even better not made the comment at all without the facts to back it up. Lesson learnt.


Wow, this is the first bit of humility I have seen.....

You Sir, are getting Repped
Reply 25
Phalanges
The one I find most shocking is the first one, that basically implies that all people rejected from medical schools would make incompetent doctors, as they wouldn't want to receive treatment from them. I wonder how much treatment they have actually received from reapplicants, and will receive, over the course of their life?


What a daft point to make, all doctors have been accepted by a medical school somewhere along the way and have passed all the necessary exams proving that they have an acceptable level of clinical skill. Do these people really think that the GCSE or UKCAT scores which influenced their application the first time are more important than the exams in medical school? Or the MRCP?
Reply 26
Well a lot of medical schools put a lot of emphasis on work experience/shadowing a GP/volunteering... does a person who has a lot of work experience necessarily make a better doctor than someone who hasn't had as much work experience? I don't think that people rejected from medical school the first time around would make less competent doctors.
Reply 27
moreover, does five years at medical school and years of postgraduate study and experience (more importantly) add up to inepitude?

'ardly.
Reply 28
In2deep
You've always wondered how I know:rolleyes: seems like your stalking me.

To answer your question, person X applies to four medical schools, gets four interviews, gets 3 offers with letters clearly stating that the interview performance was what got him the amazing offer and yes one rejection. And before you start an argument, the rejection was from the lowest ranked university out of the four and he didn't suddenly change for that particular interview.

btw 'person X' happens to be a good friend of mine.


The selection system as a whole is designed to select candidates who have the highest potentiatlity to be good doctors, most likely to make it through medical school. As a whole, I don't think we can deny that it has some success. Most of the people going into medicine are very hardworking, deserving people who have the potential to make good doctors.

Of course there are going to be some applicants for whom the system does not place them in the correct offer/rejection box. The system works on averages, so that on average the people going through are better than the people getting rejected. But there will always be some overlap, which of course is very unfortunate if you are in that overlap!
Reply 29
I think whatever the case, the general public always wants their percieved "best" doctor treating them, so even if in any of these cases, no one is willing to risk that there might even be a small chance that the doctor treating them is in some way not as well trained as another doctor.
I can see why people so want an british doctor, and I think it's mostly due to communication, I can honestly say that when I visit my doctor I can barely understand a word he says due to the accent. Now this is someone young, think how hard it must be for the elderly.
Reply 31
Well then the discussion comes to a 'battle' between patient to Doctor communication Vs. Treatment, because if the Doctor who can't communicate very well can diagnose and recommend the correct treatment(s), then maybe it's something that can allowed on that basis?

But there's also the argument that a doctor's diagnosis skills are directly proportional to their communication to the patient, asking the right questions so they can make the right diagnosis.

Reply 32
jbottle1
The selection system as a whole is designed to select candidates who have the highest potentiatlity to be good doctors, most likely to make it through medical school. As a whole, I don't think we can deny that it has some success.

this bit, definitely.




Most of the people going into medicine are very hardworking, deserving people who have the potential to make good doctors.
why are they deserving, macca?
do you fink that some work experience and A lvl study is an indication of 'very ardworking'? i am not convinced.
Reply 33
adamrules247
I can see why people so want an british doctor, and I think it's mostly due to communication, I can honestly say that when I visit my doctor I can barely understand a word he says due to the accent. Now this is someone young, think how hard it must be for the elderly.

whats difficult about his accent, Lincolnshire-macca?
Reply 34
jbottle1
The selection system as a whole is designed to select candidates who have the highest potentiatlity to be good doctors, most likely to make it through medical school. As a whole, I don't think we can deny that it has some success. Most of the people going into medicine are very hardworking, deserving people who have the potential to make good doctors.

Of course there are going to be some applicants for whom the system does not place them in the correct offer/rejection box. The system works on averages, so that on average the people going through are better than the people getting rejected. But there will always be some overlap, which of course is very unfortunate if you are in that overlap!


Very true. I know a guy (not Mr. X:biggrin: ) who get rejected from Kings, Barts and St George's but got into Imperial. Now imagine he didn't apply to Imperial, he would've have applied the year after and therefore not good enough for some people but now he's at ICL he's going to be amazing doctor:rolleyes:

People are being very presumptuous and even though as you say, the system works as a whole it's still not good to generalize.
Reply 35
Medical school applications are based on soo many different factors, and quite abit of luck. Just because an applicant was a wee bit worse at one of these factors than the other applicants, doesn’t mean that they’ll be a worse doctor. There are simply too many people applying that would probably make excellent doctors, the medical schools have got to pick people somehow. Yes you can increase your chances. But even so... The fact that they bothered reapplying shows that they probably have enough motivation for the course, and possibly more work experience.

Personally I would be abit irrate if I was in a reapplicants position to be told that I am a worse doctor, just because my hobbies weren't up to scratch 7 years ago.. :P

The medical school application has nothing to do with how good a doctor you’ll be. Its the next 5/7 years of training, and how you adapt to it that decides that.

On a side note.. Its kinda hilarious seeing Gizmo somewhere thats not the new media medicine forum.. =D
Reply 36
for one thing those who get rejected aren't necessarily incapable of becoming good doctors (in most cases anyway) it's just that there are others who appeal to the universities more (but doesn't mean that 100% of the first timers will become good doctors) . Imo, determining whether someone will be a good doctor after 5/6 years in uni is fairly subjective when looking at undergraduate applicants since you can't tell accurately at that stage. Also, if someone is rejected from uni and applies again, and maybe even goes down the graduate route, surely that shows determination and perseverance, both of which are qualities which a good doctor needs. So imo, the views expressed in that thread are pretty ignorant but then they don't represent the public in general.
Gizmo!
whats difficult about his accent, Lincolnshire-macca?


It's is heavily accented (Indian) and very difficult to understand.
Reply 38
Gizmo!
this bit, definitely.




why are they deserving, macca?
do you fink that some work experience and A lvl study is an indication of 'very ardworking'? i am not convinced.


Yes XD
Reply 39
I disagree with the points made by people quoted in the first post, as some people might have applied to very competitive medical schools(Oxbridge, London medical schools) and got rejected the first time round who would've been able to get in the first time if they hadn't applied to those medical schools.
So generally I think it doesn't matter as all medical school are competitive, have a certain standard and reapplicants only get in if they reach that standard.

Latest