Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by firestar101)
    I will not waste my time with what you have just said.
    No seriously go ahead and waste your time, tell me if you have a good personal statement, a good ukcat, good gcse's and a levels, some work experience, some volunteering, and come across as competent in interview that you wont get into any damn medical school in this country.

    Also doing well at these things really isn't as challenging as you think it is, I just think that medical students whine more and do less, (thats coming from an ex medical student.)

    You can even get away with a poor performance in one or even two of those criteria as long as you apply to the correct places. Seriously its really not that hard, stop whinging.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shaz111)
    No seriously go ahead and waste your time, tell me if you have a good personal statement, a good ukcat, good gcse's and a levels, some work experience, some volunteering, and come across as competent in interview that you wont get into any damn medical school in this country.

    Also doing well at these things really isn't as challenging as you think it is, I just think that medical students whine more and do less, (thats coming from an ex medical student.)

    You can even get away with a poor performance in one or even two of those criteria as long as you apply to the correct places. Seriously its really not that hard, stop whinging.
    What was your degree in? Did you study medicine?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    The % rejected is like 50-60% so it'd make sense for the those accepted to be 40-50%!
    Wow thats much more than I thought, because it seems like most people on TSR seem to have offers for medicine!
    Although actually I can think of several reasons for that haha
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    Is the bar for a 'good admissions test' ridiculously low or something?
    Pretty low, yes.

    I've looked a bit at UKCAT and I struggle to think of a better way to design up an admissions exam. Whilst I think it's pretty meaningless and the 'cut offs' are pretty arbitrary that's more of a problem with the way the schools use it than the exam itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Legit)
    What it all comes down to is - do the Medical schools really care? No, they know that by introducing the UKCAT or so they'll potentially be loosing better doctors than those they accept. But what it does is makes it easier to chuck away about 1000 applicants as an excuse.

    The system is highly complex for admissions atm, imagine having 2.5k+ kids with all the minimum grades. You think they want to interview all? They have to chuck away some so that the system can work.
    The UKCAT isn't blind discrimination. They are potentially losing better candidates, but in most cases are losing the worst.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shaz111)
    No seriously go ahead and waste your time, tell me if you have a good personal statement, a good ukcat, good gcse's and a levels, some work experience, some volunteering, and come across as competent in interview that you wont get into any damn medical school in this country.

    Also doing well at these things really isn't as challenging as you think it is, I just think that medical students whine more and do less, (thats coming from an ex medical student.)

    You can even get away with a poor performance in one or even two of those criteria as long as you apply to the correct places. Seriously its really not that hard, stop whinging.
    I'd tend to agree with this.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by shaz111)
    Seriously its really not that hard, stop whinging.
    Although I don't really want to enable the OP's post-rejection "**** the establishment" ideals; I do think that there is some luck involved in medicine admissions. I've said this all before, but basically in summary: the UKCAT questions that get pulled from the cloud and given to you might be significantly harder than those given to other people (blah blah UKCAT is a reliable test blah blah - bull****), the UKCAT questions you receive might be something you're good at/bad at (just down to luck), you might just clash/not click with your interviewers (it happens), etc. etc.

    Although there is a lot of stages when applying I think each stage has - as with all things - an element of luck which may work against you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    They could give all applicants a fitness test?

    I dont want to be a ****, but have you seen that bloke on junior doctors when he is running to a crash call? somebody is going to die because of his food habbit.And they could make it possible to study the academic stuff without the vocational.
    :rofl:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    the ukcat is a truly awful test. I understand why it is used (limited resources to select applicants), but I think it devalues the entire process even further when such a stupid exam is used.

    (Original post by Renal)
    If you're going to have admissions tests, the UKCAT is not far off as good as can be done.
    well...it's really expensive to sit (my mums wages for a day!) and the scores people get are seemingly fairly random. I don't think it's very good at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why is it an awful test? What is so devaluing about an IQ test?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    This is 10% luck,
    20% skill,
    15% concentrated power of will,
    5% pleasure,
    50% pain,
    And 100% reason to remember the name!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SteveCrain)
    Why is it an awful test? What is so devaluing about an IQ test?
    it's not really that though is it? why do reapplicants on average increase by 40 marks (people on here have gone from 605 - 710 etc) - its hardly an aptitude test if people's scores vary so wildly. As far as I see it, it's just one step above med schools allocating applicants random numbers and using that as part of the application process.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greg.)
    This is 10% luck,
    20% skill,
    15% concentrated power of will,
    5% pleasure,
    50% pain,
    And 100% reason to remember the name!
    I went through 4 pages hoping not to see this so I could post it, as it happened it was the penultimate post. Damnit!
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Renal)
    Pretty low, yes.

    I've looked a bit at UKCAT and I struggle to think of a better way to design up an admissions exam. Whilst I think it's pretty meaningless and the 'cut offs' are pretty arbitrary that's more of a problem with the way the schools use it than the exam itself.
    I am slightly hypocritical because although I do criticise the UKCAT test a lot, I am a loss in trying to think of a better way to select candidates.

    A few points that really irk me:

    • The UKCAT consortium universities claim that it's a valid, scientific test and justify their use of it by claiming that it's a good selection tool. Implictly, this means that there's a correlation between a high UKCAT and a good medical student / good doctor - but studies have shown that there's absolutely no correlation at all. Although it's hard to define 'a good doctor', it's pretty easy to define objectively a 'good medical student' - good exam scores and the like. The UKCAT doesn't predict exam scores, so imo it doesn't really predict if somebody is going to be 'a good medical student' - the fact that the UKCAT consortium are claiming it does really irritates me. You have the medicine profession as a whole endebted to evidence-based medicine, yet for some reason this same philosophy isn't used in the selection of future doctors.
    • The importance in a test like the UKCAT is reliability - it's a test of 'innate suitability for medicine' or some ****, so in that case, scores of similar candidates should stay the same year-on-year, but it doesn't. I mean, using an example, I've sat the UKCAT twice and achieved scores of 659 and 705 - the former being a pretty 'average score', the former being an 'excellent' score, taking the test equally seriously each time. I don't know - what should I be classed as? An 'average' medical applicant or an 'excellent' one? Which result is right? The difference between 659 and 705 isn't particularly small either, I'd say it's the same as a A-Level D candidate sitting a paper and coming out with an A. It's obviously not reliable.
    • The fact that in light of all the evidence suggesting it's a terrible selection tool, the UKCAT consortium's reply is: "yes, we know it's bad and we know it's not useful, but we're going to use it anyway." I think it's irresponsible, to say the least.


    e:

    • It is claimed to have been introduced (and the fact it is still around is because of this fact) to 'widen access to medicine' - i.e. a larger variety of doctors from different backgrounds. However studies show that it favours white, upper-middle class boys who went to private schools. Brilliant for widening access - there definitely aren't enough of that socioeconomic group studying medicine!


    Basically my overriding point is that it fails as an admission test on every single level - it doesn't select good medical students, and it doesn't widen access to medicine. It's there merely to arbitrarily cut-down the number of applicants, and so for that reason I think it's unfair and an embarrassment.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    And they could make it possible to study the academic stuff without the vocational.
    It is. It's called Biomedical Sciences.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    I am slightly hypocritical because although I do criticise the UKCAT test a lot, I am a loss in trying to think of a better way to select candidates.
    Ten minutes with me, alone.

    • It is claimed to have been introduced (and the fact it is still around is because of this fact) to 'widen access to medicine' - i.e. a larger variety of doctors from different backgrounds. However studies show that it favours white, upper-middle class boys who went to private schools. Brilliant for widening access - there definitely aren't enough of that socioeconomic group studying medicine!
    I think you may have to be careful there, white males are definitely underrepresented in medical school now comprising (?)30% (and significantly lower in some schools) of the cohort. I suspect that many of those are upper-middle class but the demographics have changed quite dramatically from 15, or even 10, years-ago.

    e:
    (Original post by Beska)
    Basically my overriding point is that it fails as an admission test on every single level - it doesn't select good medical students, and it doesn't widen access to medicine. It's there merely to arbitrarily cut-down the number of applicants, and so for that reason I think it's unfair and an embarrassment.
    You're not wrong, but if you have to have a way to cut down swathes of applicants the UKCAT isn't the worst thing they could do.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Renal)
    Ten minutes with me, alone.
    Haha. :p:

    I think you may have to be careful there, white males are definitely underrepresented in medical school now comprising (?)30% (and significantly lower in some schools) of the cohort. I suspect that many of those are upper-middle class but the demographics have changed quite dramatically from 15, or even 10, years-ago.
    I wasn't trying to be callous - the study iirc was 2005-2006 so it must have changed since then, but I just assumed that in general the % of different socioeconomic groups stayed the same. Obviously not! Do you have any idea about where to get any of the recent demographic info from?

    e:

    (Original post by Renal)
    e:
    You're not wrong, but if you have to have a way to cut down swathes of applicants the UKCAT isn't the worst thing they could do.
    Well, I don't know. I think I'd rather them rank all suitable applicants and then give offers via a ballot than to continue the charade pseudo-science that is the UKCAT - or switch to the BMAT. There is a slight correlation - incidentally - between UKCAT score and A-Level UCAS points, which suggest that it is testing for something, but not something really relevant for medicine admissions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the generation we live in - everything is down to luck...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beska)
    I wasn't trying to be callous - the study iirc was 2005-2006 so it must have changed since then, but I just assumed that in general the % of different socioeconomic groups stayed the same. Obviously not! Do you have any idea about where to get any of the recent demographic info from?
    GKT (or Kings) did something that I read a few years ago that showed that ethnic minorities made up (somewhere) between 20 and 40% of medical students at various schools. Can't find it on pubmed though.

    (Although I did find some stuff ftom UCL on pubmed that some people are really not going to appreciate!)
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Renal)
    (Although I did find some stuff ftom UCL on pubmed that some people are really not going to appreciate!)
    Oooh. :teeth:
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,020

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year

University open days

  1. University of Buckingham
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Thu, 23 Aug '18
  2. University of Glasgow
    All Subjects Undergraduate
    Tue, 28 Aug '18
  3. University of Aberdeen
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Tue, 28 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.