Oxford/Cambridge GEM programmes...

It appears that's the case with GEM too, since the additional form doesn't contain any information relating to anything prior to tertiary education. I suppose they must still whittle down the applicants by grades before interview, though, so it doesn't affect my worries too much :\

Assume nothing, I can't imagine my A levels in french spanish maths and philosophy and very average bmat were what they would have been looking for if they are that hung up on it :tongue:

Research is king in Oxford from what I can see

Reply 21

Brachioradialis

OP

18

Original post by bectabex

Assume nothing, I can't imagine my A levels in french spanish maths and philosophy and very average bmat were what they would have been looking for if they are that hung up on it :tongue:

Research is king in Oxford from what I can see

To be fair it sounds like my sort of course, and this is not at all how I expected to feel about applying to somewhere like Oxford, but it does just seem like it suits my style of learning.

We'll see how all the entry exams and stuff go first, but it's definitely a firm possibility :smile:

Thanks for your help

Reply 22

nexttime

22

Original post by MattKneale

Ohh sorry, I misunderstood you. Yeah a simple number of applicants shouldn't be too hard to get; on the website it says 2011 had 381 applicants. Their range in the past ten years has been between 220 to 390.

Yes, but it would be nice to know how many oxbridge grads applied, how many RG uni grads applied, etc. I've only seen the accepted numbers posted on this thread, but they are uninterpretable if you don't know how many applied! Maybe this info exists elsewhere and i missed that, don't know.

Reply 23

customzulu

To be honest, I think Oxbridge graduates might be more likely to get in because they know the system and are very familiar with how to present themselves well to the tutors. As a Russell Group graduate, I had little experience with that sort of set up and the formality kind of threw me off. Those figures from the 2010 FoI report did make me feel a little better about my rejection though :wink:

Having said that, I know that at least one of the places at the college I applied for went to a Russell Group student (although it was one of the more "progressive" colleges).

In terms of academic grades vs research experience, I think they definitely go for the latter, although you need to be careful to convince them of why you don't want to just continue with straight-up lab-based research. Expressing an interest in getting involved in some lab work turned out to be a terrible idea, as I realised about ten seconds too late.

Reply 24

J1mmy

11

I'm applying for GEM for the 2014 cycle, and considered Camb as an option, however my on-going research seems to suggest that in fact it could be a wasted choice, not to mention the statistics based on the FoI which I'm sure is similar for Camb too.

I read somewhere here that most of the applicants (again, based on the FoI) are already either graduating from Oxbrdige, or come from a leading university in London. Bundle that will top grades and a scientific background right from A-level (some of them graduates of denistry!) and a non-Russ applicant chances diminish almost immediately. It's almost like a closed circle, a semi-permeable membrane if you will, whereby only a selected few students who went to the right universities might be able to pierce through this membrane and take their chance in applying. :colone:

As I live in Camb, some of my friends are undergrad medics and they've told me that you should consider going to a school that caters for GEM. For instance, Warwick doesn't touch undergraduates and their course is completely designed around the GEM training from start to finish. I've understood in some universities that do both undergrad and GEM, essentially cater for you for the first 2 years, then dump you with the 5th year lot in your last two years. I also don't know how recent Camb introduced their GEM scheme, so on that front some other universities might be more experienced with it than others and have thus laid a better foundation on to build their programme.

I'm not sure how forthcoming Camb will be in releasing details on its GEM, but I'd be very interested to see (if someone is already on this). Also, there is the Camb GEM society website you'll be able to Google and perhaps try and approach current students for more advice.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 25

nexttime

22

Original post by customzulu

As a Russell Group graduate, I had little experience with that sort of set up and the formality kind of threw me off.

Interesting you say that. Of my interviews for undergrad, Oxford were by far the most informal.

Expressing an interest in getting involved in some lab work turned out to be a terrible idea, as I realised about ten seconds too late.

Really? Again, that surprises me. Are you sure you interpreted them correctly? In my experience, they challenge interviewees more aggressively on good answers, not bad ones.

Certainly, being involved in lab work etc is something i feel i have been very encouraged to do in my time at Oxford.

Original post by J1mmy

. I've understood in some universities that do both undergrad and GEM, essentially cater for you for the first 2 years, then dump you with the 5th year lot in your last two years.

I strongly suspect they do yes. Oxford "dump" you with the undergrads after 1 year. But why is that a bad thing? Do graduates not need clinical experience in the same way undergrads do?

Reply 26

J1mmy

11

Original post by nexttime

I strongly suspect they do yes. Oxford "dump" you with the undergrads after 1 year. But why is that a bad thing? Do graduates not need clinical experience in the same way undergrads do?

I think it ultimately depends in which year of your graduate course the university decides to merge you with the undergrads. As traditional courses are 6 years in length, and as I understand that you're merged with 5th years (in some uni's), does that mean the uni somehow decides you don't need the 4th year of clinical? And if so, how is this lack of experience compensated?

I suppose this is part of the wider discussion as to whether GEM applicants receive the same content as undergrads do, and how much 'chop and change' the GEM courses are actually subjected too, which is indeed naturally dependent on university.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 27

nexttime

22

Original post by J1mmy

I think it ultimately depends in which year of your graduate course the university decides to merge you with the undergrads. As traditional courses are 6 years in length, and as I understand that you're merged with 5th years (in some uni's), does that mean the uni somehow decides you don't need the 4th year of clinical? And if so, how is this lack of experience compensated?

I suppose this is part of the wider discussion as to whether GEM applicants receive the same content as undergrads do, and how much 'chop and change' the GEM courses are actually subjected too, which is indeed naturally dependent on university.

I can partially answer some of your questions based on my experience (of 1 uni)... GEM tends to be more intense and more focussed than undergrad med. Whereas a lot of undergrad preclinical is aimed at teaching underlying scientific principles and methods of learning, these are assumed of grads. Whereas we learned biochemistry and principles of genetics, they learn haematology and clinical genetics in their pre-clinical.

Clinical experience tends to be the thing that isn't compromised on. At both Ox and Camb grads get 1 year intense science, then 3 years clinical (with the first year having some academic teaching continuing on the side - 'in addition' not 'instead of' continuing on the higher intensity theme). Maybe its different at other unis, but i don't know about them.

In terms of assessments, grads tend to consistently out-perform undergrads taking the same exam, be it clinical or academic, which i guess is the ultimate indicator of adequacy of course. ALthough you could point out higher results are necessary for graduate medicine to be economical given the increased government funding and decreased career-years grads involve, which makes the question more complicated.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 28

customzulu

Original post by nexttime

Interesting you say that. Of my interviews for undergrad, Oxford were by far the most informal.

Really? Again, that surprises me. Are you sure you interpreted them correctly? In my experience, they challenge interviewees more aggressively on good answers, not bad ones.

Certainly, being involved in lab work etc is something i feel i have been very encouraged to do in my time at Oxford.

I suppose I mean that the style of tutorials that I've heard you can expect during an undergrad degree at Oxford - ie one tutor to one or two students on a weekly basis - prepare students for the interview process in general in a way that just isn't covered other places. Obviously depending on the path you take you can gather interview experience in other ways but nothing I experienced during my BSc matches up. I guess my point doesn't necessarily only apply to Oxbridge candidates applying to Oxbridge, but I think could at least partially explain the figures.

In terms of the research stuff, perhaps it was just a misinterpretation of the guy's reaction to my answers, he certainly followed some very strange lines of questioning and also apparently said some bizarre things to other students interviewing at the college. He did say fairly bluntly, however, that GEM does not allow time for research, that he would actively discourage it and that he would doubt the commitment to medicine of any student who chose to try and participate in extra projects while studying (even, or in fact especially, if that was what they chose to do during holidays or electives). It was just that one man's opinion, it's highly likely that there are others who would say something different, but I thought I should add my experiences to the thread :P

Reply 29

customzulu

Oh also, J1mmy, as far as I'm aware the six year courses tend to either be those that include a foundation year or an intercalated BSc (in year 3 or 4). As GEM candidates tend to have a science BSc under their belts, neither of these extras is necessary.

Reply 30

J1mmy

11

Original post by nexttime

I can partially answer some of your questions based on my experience (of 1 uni)... GEM tends to be more intense and more focussed than undergrad med. Whereas a lot of undergrad preclinical is aimed at teaching underlying scientific principles and methods of learning, these are assumed of grads. Whereas we learned biochemistry and principles of genetics, they learn haematology and clinical genetics in their pre-clinical.

So what about those GEM students who are coming from a degree that didn't teach biochemistry (or a degree where nothing can be assumed), do you think these people would be at a disadvantage? And in relation, would you think that some universities, whilst on the face invite students of all degrees, but secretly in fact prefer those of bio-chemistry related disciplines due to already having a grounding?

Reply 31

nexttime

22

Original post by J1mmy

So what about those GEM students who are coming from a degree that didn't teach biochemistry (or a degree where nothing can be assumed), do you think these people would be at a disadvantage? And in relation, would you think that some universities, whilst on the face invite students of all degrees, but secretly in fact prefer those of bio-chemistry related disciplines due to already having a grounding?

When i say 'grounding' i very much meant in the scientific method and critical analysis of evidence, not a specific 'pre-med' background. There are grads here that studied genetics and biochem etc, but also physics, PPE and a former barrister. They teach you everything you need on the course - nothing is assumed.

I can't say for sure, but i don't think a non-biology background can be much of a disadvantage, if it is one at all. If they say it sin't one i believe them.

Reply 32

Brachioradialis

OP

18

To be honest, from what I've heard, GEM for people with science degrees is aimed at people with good biology to degree level and basic chemistry at a good A-level standard. If everyone meets that requirement they can build on it in the early stages of the course.

Oxford/Cambridge GEM programmes...

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you