The Student Room Group

What made your medicine application stand out?

post removed

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Grades/test scores are the main thing I guess, followed by a strong personal statement.
Reply 2
Hi Jatyization!

You just need to be yourself and truly reflect on what you have learnt during your work experience. It isn't the quantity of work exp that you have taken, but the quality and what skills you have demonstrated/learnt, which will be applicable to the role of a doctor.
Reply 3
Definitely a good start would a be a strong, interesting personal statement. Following that, let's hope you get an interview, having some very well prepared ideas (maybe not learn them off as a script so you're robotic) and maybe some unique ones could make you stand out.
Nothing. I just made sure I ticked the right boxes for the universities I applied to.

It would be almost impossible to stand out, realistically. No matter how good your grades are, no matter how much stuff you cram into your PS, someone else will have done it all before.
Reply 5
Original post by Jatyization
Thanks! I was wondering if in addition to work experience and voluntary work there is anything else i can do?


Hmm I'll have a think about that. What I would recommend you doing is after each day of work experience/volunteering session, write a review of what you saw today. For volunteering it might be the occasional exciting event, but for work experience, write down literally all you can remember!

One of my reasons for why I wanted to do medicine was when I talked about a specific patient and that led on to many further questions about this patient (which I had prepared for, so it kind of let me steer the interview in a way).
Reply 6
Original post by Jatyization
Wow! Thats very clever if i am honest and that is a very good idea about writing all you can remember since my work experience is only a week. Can i just ask what medical school you attend or are going to?


Yeah I have firmed Cambridge and Manchester is my insurance. Gotta get those grades :tongue:
You need to score yourself as follows
- GCSE results
- AS results
- UKCAT
- Completed A levels
- Personal Statement (in theory, you could lie here)

Also, if you wish to survive rejection, you should be above the following threshold IN ALL FOUR CATEGORIES (applies more for a year 13 pupil).
1) Your first 6 GCSE results are at least 3 x A* and 3 x A (Maths and English MUST be here)
2) Your AS results are at least aaab
3) Your UKCAT is at least 700
4) Your P.S. shows the required "tickbox" content

OK....if you survive the above, you need to look at which 2 categories have the best potential for you and apply to the appropriate med school that measures them accordingly.

e.g. If you got got the above profile, you would have been guaranteed an interview at Leicester for 2014 applicants (58 out of 60) but over half of med schools would have rejected you because of your GCSE results.

Also, don't be fooled by the "minimum requirements to apply". It means nothing - you need to look at how they measure your categories - you then need to make sure you get the max in that category
Original post by Parent_help
You need to score yourself as follows
- GCSE results
- AS results
- UKCAT
- Completed A levels
- Personal Statement (in theory, you could lie here)

Also, if you wish to survive rejection, you should be above the following threshold IN ALL FOUR CATEGORIES (applies more for a year 13 pupil).
1) Your first 6 GCSE results are at least 3 x A* and 3 x A (Maths and English MUST be here)
2) Your AS results are at least aaab
3) Your UKCAT is at least 700
4) Your P.S. shows the required "tickbox" content

OK....if you survive the above, you need to look at which 2 categories have the best potential for you and apply to the appropriate med school that measures them accordingly.

e.g. If you got got the above profile, you would have been guaranteed an interview at Leicester for 2014 applicants (58 out of 60) but over half of med schools would have rejected you because of your GCSE results.

Also, don't be fooled by the "minimum requirements to apply". It means nothing - you need to look at how they measure your categories - you then need to make sure you get the max in that category


Are you suggesting that people with a UKCAT under 700 don't apply for medicine?
Original post by Jatyization
Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it, i have actually copied this to word as a summarized guide. Thanks


Don't pay any attention to it, it is full of misinformation.

There is no need for A* or A in Maths and English - the minima are far below this for a vast majority of universities, if the rest of your GCSEs are good, you'll be fine.
Your predicted grades do matter and you are judged on them - it's not just your completed A-levels
Students do get in with less than AAAB on their AS levels
You don't need a UKCAT of above 700 - hundreds of students get in every year with much worse scores

Minimum requirements are minimum requirements because they do accept people with those grades. If you meet only minimum requirements in all categories, are you going to get in? Probably not. But not being "top" for every category, and even being on the minimum for some, doesn't automatically lead to rejection. Hundreds of Scottish students get into medicine every year with the minimum of AAAAB as opposed to AAAAA - and it's the same story with other criteria. While having "less than optimum" disadvantages you, it doesn't lead to an automatic rejection.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Jatyization
Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it, i have actually copied this to word as a summarized guide. Thanks


You're welcome - You can check the stats on the "stalking page" where you can see how people did for yourself.

What I've posted is to try and give a general guide as a starting point - Please be aware as others have said though, that there are always the exceptions which prove the rule....but they will be a minority.

Good luck with your application - Just make sure you measure your categories correctly and apply where they are important.
e.g. A high UKCAT score was not needed at Cardiff, Liverpool this year.
You can see this on another page on the wiki - regarding "applying to your strengths"
Original post by Hype en Ecosse
Don't pay any attention to it, it is full of misinformation.


Perhaps you misunderstood the phrase "should be above the following threshold" :unimpressed:
Original post by Parent_help
Perhaps you misunderstood the phrase "should be above the following threshold" :unimpressed:


Your post above makes the point of the post more clear, but I'm afraid "should be above the following to avoid rejection ... " doesn't sound like "you don't need these to get in" at all, and sounds more like "you need this to get in." :tongue:
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 13
For me, it was a high UCKAT score (775) and then interviewing well, as I did badly (for Medicine anyway) at AS
Original post by Hype en Ecosse
Your post above makes the point of the post more clear, but I'm afraid "should be above the following to avoid rejection ... " doesn't sound like "you don't need these to get in" at all, and sounds more like "you need this to get in." :tongue:


At the risk of straying of topic, you need to read this
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-modal-should.htm

After that, how about the rest of what I've posted?
Do you still think the OP should disregard it?
Original post by Parent_help
At the risk of straying of topic, you need to read this
http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-modal-should.htm


Yes, I understand the meaning of the word "should", and I'm afraid "You should meet all of the following criteria to avoid rejection" does not communicate "You do not need to meet all of the following criteria to avoid rejection". You make it sound like it's unlikely for an applicant to get into medicine if they don't meet all of your criteria, but that isn't the case at all. But I'm not here to drag this thread off-topic by arguing semantics!

After that, how about the rest of what I've posted?
Do you still think the OP should disregard it?


Sorry buddy, but I just don't think it's a particularly good guide. Like I mentioned before, there's no mention of predicted grades; the GCSE minimum is quite arbitrary; the UKCAT guideline is pretty arbitrary; and you overstate the need to exceed minimum entry requirements. It's great that you're encouraging OP to apply to their strengths, and that advice is fantastic, but I'm not a fan of the criteria that you've chosen here as your guide and think the high standards that you place unnecessarily discourage people and promote the misconception that you need to be a superstar applicant to get into medicine.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Hype en Ecosse
I'm afraid "You should meet all of the following criteria to avoid rejection" does not communicate "You do not need to meet all of the following criteria to avoid rejection".

?????

Original post by Hype en Ecosse
You make it sound like it's unlikely for an applicant to get into medicine if they don't meet all of your criteria

Correct

Original post by Hype en Ecosse
but that isn't the case at all

In your opinion

Original post by Hype en Ecosse
. But I'm not here to drag this thread off-topic by arguing semantics!

You did by misunderstanding what was posted

Original post by Hype en Ecosse

Sorry buddy, but I just don't think it's a particularly good guide.
Fair enough

Original post by Hype en Ecosse

Like I mentioned before, there's no mention of predicted grades; the GCSE minimum is quite arbitrary; the UKCAT guideline is pretty arbitrary;
Yes - I was trying to be arbitrary - that was the point with "should"

Original post by Hype en Ecosse

and you overstate the need to exceed minimum entry requirements.

Please read the post again. I said
"Also, don't be fooled by the "minimum requirements to apply". It means nothing - you need to look at how they measure your categories - you then need to make sure you get the max in that category"
Some med schools specify ranking by a category, some specify it as a hurdle (get over 6 and you're through to the next stage) - As long as youi get the "max", you are OK. So....if it is a hurdle, then getting over the hurdle is a "max" (if you see what I mean). If however, you are ranked, then you need to make sure you are competative with everyone else

Original post by Hype en Ecosse

I'm not a fan of the criteria that you've chosen here as your guide and think the high standards that you place unnecessarily discourage people and promote the misconception that you need to be a superstar applicant to get into medicine.

Do you seriously think the "4 category" profile I posted is that of a superstar applicant?
if so, you are a tad out of touch IMO e.g. 30% of 2013 UKCAT applicants got 700+ That equates to about 7500 people.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Parent_help


Correct


I disagree.
Reply 18
Original post by Parent_help

In your opinion


How is this opinion? Fact is many students achieve the minimum grades and get accepted on to Medicine courses.


Yes - I was trying to be arbitrary - that was the point with "should"


I disagree less with the use of should and more with the fact that you suggest those are the minimum profiles, when really it differs greatly between medical schools.

Please read the post again. I said
"Also, don't be fooled by the "minimum requirements to apply". It means nothing - you need to look at how they measure your categories - you then need to make sure you get the max in that category"
Some med schools specify ranking by a category, some specify it as a hurdle (get over 6 and you're through to the next stage) - As long as youi get the "max", you are OK. So....if it is a hurdle, then getting over the hurdle is a "max" (if you see what I mean). If however, you are ranked, then you need to make sure you are competitive with everyone else


Agreed, to an extent. Your post highlights the need to be competitive and play to your strengths well. But the main concern is that it discourages those who may not excel in all areas. Those who may have weaker academics but far stronger personal achievements and work/life experience could make a competitive application at some universities, whereas your agenda would suggest they have little chance.

In essence, it is not a one size fits all policy which is why applicants are encouraged to research the medical schools and apply to their strengths.
Original post by Parent_help
?????

Correct


Except it doesn't. Each of these things are a small part of a bigger whole - absolutely no need for applicants to meet each. Every year we see many, many applicants get in with <700 on the UKCAT (at Edinburgh, typically 1/3 of offers go to those outside the top quartile of UKCAT scores - and some universities just don't place very much emphasis on a high UKCAT at all, like Aberdeen); without As in GCSE Maths or English; and with distinctly average personal statements (depending on where they've applied.). The <AAAB at AS one is fair enough imo. :tongue:

In your opinion


And the opinion of many others. :wink:

You did by misunderstanding what was posted


Lol, fair enough, but I know I'm not the only one who'll have misunderstood your meaning at first reading. :tongue:

Yes - I was trying to be arbitrary - that was the point with "should"


It's not much use if it's arbitrary. :s-smilie:

Please read the post again. I said
"Also, don't be fooled by the "minimum requirements to apply". It means nothing - you need to look at how they measure your categories - you then need to make sure you get the max in that category"
Some med schools specify ranking by a category, some specify it as a hurdle (get over 6 and you're through to the next stage) - As long as youi get the "max", you are OK. So....if it is a hurdle, then getting over the hurdle is a "max" (if you see what I mean). If however, you are ranked, then you need to make sure you are competative with everyone else


And that's fair enough advice for those that use a hurdle (like Glasgow for the UKCAT) - but for those that don't, a great majority of universities, your advice would imply applicants are up the creek if they only meet a minimum. I pick up on this one specifically because, without a doubt, the most common question I get asked about medical admissions is from applicants who've just sat their exams, or are yet to, who ask "can you get into medicine with [the minimum Scottish entry requirement] ... " - and the answer is always yes. Just have to make sure you shine elsewhere in your application: one part of a larger whole and all that!

You may think the "4 category" profile I posted is a superstar applicant but I can't possibly comment on how you see where you fit :colone:


I was a medical applicant who only met 1 of your criteria and am now sitting quite happily in medical school. I wouldn't be surprised if only a very small number of current medical students here meet all of your criteria. The fact that you say those are at least what you need to not get 4 rejections (never mind being competitive) definitely makes me think your expectations are far too high.

e.g. 30% of UKCAT applicants got 700+ in 2013. That equates to about 7500 people.


And 2013 was a year of artificially high UKCATs (something dodgy with Decision Analysis going on there :tongue:), jumping leaps and bounds ahead of previous years. They've been rising year on year for a long time now, but I wouldn't be surprised that this year is the first that it dips again.

Quick Reply

Latest