Should the UKCAT be abolished?

In medicine prestige is a moot point.

Completely. Many prestigious universities run more old-school courses with huge amounts of science which I find odd. Surely they would want to innovate with more modern teaching strategies and place more of a focus on clinical skills to make you a better doctor rather than a scientist...

Perhaps they're trying to produce doctors with a solid grounding in basic science and clinical skills. What if the 'innovative', 'modern' schools have sacrificed basic science without significantly improving the clinical skills side?

Doctors need to be good communicators, need to be comfortable around people, need to have good clinical skills, etc., but I also think they need to understand what it means to be involved in science.

"Practising" for the UKCAT is different from typical revision. With revision you memorise facts whereas practising for the UKCAT is about figuring out how to the answer the questions which is slightly different.

I really have no idea for an alternative, just saying that as someone who has done it and only got the score I got through luck in the abstract reasoning that it is flawed.

I understand where you are coming from but I think doing three straight years of study with minimal/no patient contact is ridiculous.

Yeah, I know that, your first post just wasn't very clear, I thought you were suggesting that someone could actually study for the UKCAT by the way you phrased it. BMAT is definitely more about knowing stuff and applying it.


600 isn't a particularly good score though, it wouldn't be within most universities' cut off points, would it? I would understand your point if you got 720 or something just by guessing the answers but I don't think 600 would make you stand out in any way.

There is a balance to be made and I'm not sure the modern, supposedly innovative, schools have got it quite right.

I don't want to big up the school I'm going to, but I do feel Dundee have got it the right idea. I don't think you can ever have a perfect balance though. Right now, Glasgow's course is a shambles due to their PBL fetish. I suppose I picked Dundee because they have patient contact from week one, which is something I'm keen on!

I don't plan on doing much scientific research in the future though, so I guess it does suit me. Perhaps the more science-based unis lend themselves to those who want to do research, but why didn't they just study biomedical sciences instead?

To bring you down to earth a bit: that's fairly pointless and most people in your year will grow to resent it after a short while and a few dull placements acting as little more than human clutter

If you're completely averse to research, getting to consultancy in our generation probably won't be very easy.

One guy I did work experience went there and said it helped him a lot. He said often when on night shift he'd be the only junior with a good idea of what to do when someone collapsed or their condition suddenly worsened because of the amount of clinical training he'd done.

As a first year medical student?

Right now, I'm not too bothered by that. I'd like to work in A&E doing everything hands-on. Perhaps my mind will change when the ridiculously high top bands of NHS pay are under my nostrils.

As an FY1/2.

Ah, yes. I'm sure standing in the corner as a first year student was a critical part of him being so adept

Still lots of possibilities for research:

http://emj.bmj.com/
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/525473/description#description

Look, I don't know why you're so intent on trying to convince me he was lying. Why would he? Also, after watching that BBC junior doctors it seems like even in FY1 and 2 you have some big responsibilities on wards.

Completely. Many prestigious universities run more old-school courses with huge amounts of science which I find odd. Surely they would want to innovate with more modern teaching strategies and place more of a focus on clinical skills to make you a better doctor rather than a scientist...

I understand where you are coming from but I think doing three straight years of study with minimal/no patient contact is ridiculous.

I think it's too simplistic to infer that because certain schools don't use modern teaching techniques that they are sacrificing making you a better doctor in order to make you a scientist. The counter argument would be that you gain much more from clinical exposure once you know the science behind it. But regardless, neither approach is perfect, it's more about how you as an individual learns, and that's why it's great that we have the choice between teaching styles. I think you'd be surprised at the amount of time that some traditional schools place on clinical skills. The only one I've actually visited is St Andrew's, where there's a whole replica ward with cameras, to practice and see what you do wrong etc., and regular trips to GP's offices, before the whole 3 years of clinicals. Obviously the focus is still on the science, but the clinical skills is far from forgotten. Dundee is very cool with the med school actually being in a hospital, but it's wrong to categorically say that one is better than the other.