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

No. I'm going to put it a slightly different way: there are alot of people with AAA in my year group; funny that the spread of results seemed to bear no correlation with A-level grades. Infact I think the person who came bottom got AAA.

Ultimately: you're idiotic enough to believe that A-level grades have such an enormous impact on the quality of ones' skills as a doctor.

Fundamental aspect of medicine is to speak to patients.

I know people on my course that got one E at A-levels. But they also have PhDs now and publications all over the place. Are they destined to enter less competitive specialties because they didnt know how to swot up for exams taken when you're 17??

That is actually the complete opposite of what he is saying, or am I missing something here?

No, but the fact that there's a very sporadic proportion of AAA students with regards to the 'league table' of results does counter what he was saying. At least to some extent.

He was basically claiming that without AAA, one will make an unsatisfactory doctor. I was attempting to express how ludicrous that argument is.

Are you going to ask every doctor that is treating you what they got at A-level?

I got AAA but didn't get into medicine....bear that in mind.

This equally applies to Medicine. If for example you decided to do Chemistry, Biology and Russian and messed up Russian, only getting a B in it, how on bloody Earth would that impact on your abilities to be a good doctor?

Oh sorry, I forgot you had those jokes A-Levels and that if you can't achieve As in 3 of them, you won't go far in your life, my bad.

Lol! If they've passed the degree, I won't care what they got at A Levels!

But if they can pass all the relevant exams and be qualified as a doctor that doesn't change your mind

it is expected that applicants will find a way to achieve the academic requirements.

idiot

That's an argument for harder A levels, which doesn't really back up your claims of AAB being sufficient, does it?

Just as a hypothetical: someone's removing a tumour from your brain. Would you want someone who's excelled at every single step of their education, or someone who's messed up a couple of times but managed to pass?



No, it doesn't. I refer you to my above point.


b.

That's an argument for harder A levels, which doesn't really back up your claims of AAB being sufficient, does it?

failing that, I'd hope they'd vet themselves...

Precisely my point. Assuming you have the extracurriculars, why should someone with a shaky AAB get a place ahead of you?

Just as a hypothetical: someone's removing a tumour from your brain. Would you want someone who's excelled at every single step of their education, or someone who's messed up a couple of times but managed to pass?

I know that Lancaster wants AAB

Aberdeen, Sheffield and Cardiff still have requirements below AAA.

OK then, double fail. The other two guys were serious.

Hey! Make it single fail!

I apologise



For my grade snobbery.

you must be a very kind macca

True. But I want the very, very brightest as well.

The inference is, these people are very good at one subject - which is fine, they go on to get a PhD in it. But Doctors, by nature, have to be polymaths - very good at several things, in combination with an ability to work hard. People like that don't get AAB at A level. Or are you saying you don't need to be good at lots of things?

Not really. You have no idea what A-level subjects were done. I was illustrating that there is a heavy difference between A-level learning and learning at medical school. A-level grades become obsolete.

I'd wager that a marginal (arguably non-marginal aswell) difference in A-level grades (i.e., AAA/AAB) wouldn't impact a doctor's ability whatsoever.

And you think A-level grades of AAA+ provides that? You think A-level grades are an indication of how bright you are?

Ah yes, because it made a rather extensive dent in the point I was putting forward, didn't it? You commented on my 'grammar error' because you couldn't rebut the argument and needed to say something.

Other errors? If I've made them: 1) it's an internet forum, I'm not exactly employing my optimum diligence, and 2) does it/do they detract from the point(s) I was making? Not so much.

I don't think you can just 'manage to pass' a medical degree. Again, if the GMC deems that a person is worthy of being registered as a doctor, then whether that person got 3 C's at A level or 3 A's is neither here nor there, and to think otherwise is silly. I know plenty of people doing medicine who did not even get AAB, I am sure that after their degree they will be just as competent as the autistic Asian guy who got 7 As. Also, your example is just stupid. If said person, after qualifying, has spent many many years specialising as a surgeon you actually think it matters if that person, when they were 17, messed around during his A levels?

unfortunately, its so piss poor that you didnt even bother spelling it out.

a large impact would be putting your faith in grades instead of doing your job on the ward. that arrogance kills more peeple than anything else.

medics arent bright. 'avent you realised that yet? i guess you avent met the two undred or so medics that i know. come back and reply when you do.

i see, your problem is that you think getting AAA equates to being good at lots of fings.
you fink that ability in a job is limited to classroom studies.
if you dont realise 'ow much of an error that is now, you will in about ten years.

the above might be good reasons.

clearly you know nothnig about admissions too

see abuv. no really, see abuv!

actually THEY DO. again, you dont know what you are talking about.

i'd want the most competent at the job of removing tumours.
or perhaps you'd like a 12 A* grade vet to do your anal operation?
BUT - ITS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENT TO FURTHER QUALIFICATIONS IN THE MEDICAL DEGREE AND SO ON. nice sidestep.

ironically, all your arguments 'ave failed. and the wierdest fing, these arguments were dusted and settled on forums like this ten years ago, in our favour. Your arguments arent simply fails, they are fails from the turn of the millenium.

make sure you are working wif peeple with A grades or else they may muck up your work, macca! lol

It's called the GMC - they set out specific requirements ("Tomorrow's Doctors 2009" ) which medical schools must train medical students to meet by the time of graduation/registration. If these fundamental requirements are not met, registration is not granted.

Because, as has been stated numerous times, that extra A grade (which is only one above the B in your example) does not AT ALL guarantee that the applicant will make a better doctor. This is the same reason the medicine courses don't ask for everything up to A*A*A* - the competition justifies it, but getting A*A*A*A*A*A*A* at A Level does not mean X person will make a good doctor.

If either of those people had got themselves into a position where they were able to do such a thing (ie, consultant neurosurgoen), then that is BY FAR enough for me.

You are branding someone as useless for the rest of their life because of your self-righteousness. I'm glad you're not involved in any process do to with selecting doctors/medical students - because your approach would certainly result in WORSE doctors than the current system.

I agree entirely However, the very very brightest arent always the ones who get straight As...some people reach their intellectual peak later in life. Others are very gifted but unfortunately not great at exams for whatever reason (format?). I mean you want a doctor who can not only talk to you but work out what could be wrong with you at the same time. That's perfectly understandable. However, I feel that plenty of people could be trained to become good clinicians, given enough training and enthusiasm.

Sorry, I didn't mean about specialist knowledge. However, in doing a PhD you have to attend conferences, be assessed by experts in the field on your research and be able to justify EVERY single step you've taken so far. It's analogous to the junior doctor's role...justifying their decisions to consultants, organising their time to work optimally, so on so forth.

I think the term they use in CV seminars is "transferable skills"?

On the contrary, I have a very good idea of what A level subjects were: Chemistry and Biology, at least, am I right? I'm not really sure what your point is here.

Again, I think we agree I accept totally that people develop at different paces. Having said that, offering plenty of resits and lowering grade boundaries does devalue A levels, whatever people say, and you have to differentiate somehow; and it's not like there aren't enough people with AAA to fill the places. My argument is more about raising the bar, pushing people harder, and ultimately bettering the human race; and some small (but critical) part of that is asking the best of our Doctors, right?

As I said above: there are lots of dumb people who get A at A level. But I can't ever recall a case of asking someone who I thought was very bright what they got at A level, and them saying anything other than an A in their chosen subject.




Ah yes, those transferables... Anyway, it seems like you agree with me? Doctors have to be great at many things? Including, presumably, academics?