Join TSR now and get answers to all your questions about uniSign up now
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DelphiDeWitt)
    Why on earth does the GMC want to remove GEM? I've heard people say postgrad doctors make some of the best doctors.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Something to do with making all doctors fully GMC registered at the point of graduation (which would take 5 years) and probably costs.

    Lets not panic though, we simply do not know what will happen.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ProspectiveGEM)
    Something to do with making all doctors fully GMC registered at the point of graduation (which would take 5 years) and probably costs.

    Lets not panic though, we simply do not know what will happen.
    Marginally more accurately, the GMC wants to move the point of full registration to graduation instead of end of FY1. This comes with a requirement of a certain number of hours of teaching and clinical experiences which can't be achieved with the 4 year GEM course.

    This may be the reason behind Imperial's course becoming 5 years long and is almost certainly the reason for Leicester shutting theirs down entirely and SGUL cutting theirs in half this year


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JenniB22)
    Marginally more accurately, the GMC wants to move the point of full registration to graduation instead of end of FY1. This comes with a requirement of a certain number of hours of teaching and clinical experiences which can't be achieved with the 4 year GEM course.

    This may be the reason behind Imperial's course becoming 5 years long and is almost certainly the reason for Leicester shutting theirs down entirely and SGUL cutting theirs in half this year


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's not the reason for Leicester, at least not directly. Leicester is changing their curriculum, to have more of a focus on clinical apprenticeship (earlier placements with a focus on learning general skills). Because of the way it's designed they simply cannot condense this new curriculum into four years.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForestCat)
    It's not the reason for Leicester, at least not directly. Leicester is changing their curriculum, to have more of a focus on clinical apprenticeship (earlier placements with a focus on learning general skills). Because of the way it's designed they simply cannot condense this new curriculum into four years.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ah ok thanks, I didn't know that


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JenniB22)
    Ah ok thanks, I didn't know that


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They've not really talked about their reasons why and only recently begun advertising the curriculum change. Its a shame though. Hopefully if point of graduation changes they will change the funding to make five year courses more accessible to grads.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForestCat)
    They've not really talked about their reasons why and only recently begun advertising the curriculum change. Its a shame though. Hopefully if point of graduation changes they will change the funding to make five year courses more accessible to grads.
    I think they'll have to. It's not really a massive amount more money, when you think about it, and the alternative is restricting gem to those with rich parents, and that would be a massive blow to social mobility and access. I don't think any government would be keen to give themselves that label so I'm hopeful that, whatever happens, there will be funding available!!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JenniB22)
    I think they'll have to. It's not really a massive amount more money, when you think about it, and the alternative is restricting gem to those with rich parents, and that would be a massive blow to social mobility and access. I don't think any government would be keen to give themselves that label so I'm hopeful that, whatever happens, there will be funding available!!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't understand why SFE don't give them loans. They'll still make the money back. But I suppose it opens up a whole can of worms about second degrees.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForestCat)
    I don't understand why SFE don't give them loans. They'll still make the money back. But I suppose it opens up a whole can of worms about second degrees.
    I think it's more because the delay in return of investment and also if you make the 5 years too accessible fewer would apply to the 4 year courses.

    The 4 year course and 5 year course funding made sense before the increase in fees. Since then it's been a shambles and they've been between rock and a hard place trying to figure out how to support one without losing interest in the other. Solution, completely remove one of them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think it'd be an incredibly regressive move for the UK to remove the option and funding structure for graduates to enter medical school and thus I'm hopeful a solution will be worked out for the point that we're applying.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForestCat)
    They've not really talked about their reasons why and only recently begun advertising the curriculum change. Its a shame though. Hopefully if point of graduation changes they will change the funding to make five year courses more accessible to grads.
    If the 4 year course is scrapped completely, hopefully the 5 year course entry requirements for graduates will be looked into because as it stands, even if I had 36K to pay my tuition, as an Arts grad with humanities A-Levels there is barely anywhere I could apply to for the 5 year. In fact, off the top of my head, I think Exeter is the only one.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    If the 4 year course is scrapped completely, hopefully the 5 year course entry requirements for graduates will be looked into because as it stands, even if I had 36K to pay my tuition, as an Arts grad with humanities A-Levels there is barely anywhere I could apply to for the 5 year. In fact, off the top of my head, I think Exeter is the only one.
    Also Plymouth, Newcastle, Durham (which is kinda part of Newcastle), Leicester, and Keele (I think).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by liam__)
    Also Plymouth, Newcastle, Durham (which is kinda part of Newcastle), Leicester, and Keele (I think).
    Thanks

    This might help other people in the same situation as myself who are worrying about the 4 year courses dissapearing and hoping that funding is sorted out for 5 year courses in future.

    From what I can see, there is nothing on Plymouth's A100 page that states anything about grads but they may have communicated something about it to prospective candidates via email etc.

    As for the others, if you're a non-science graduate with non-science A-Levels....

    Newcastle:

    Graduate applicants to A100

    Applicants must have achieved, or expect to achieve, an honours degree in any discipline to at least an upper second class or first class Honours or Integrated Master's degree.
    Durham, I think, take the same stance as Newcastle:

    Admission is managed jointly by Newcastle University and Durham University, and UCAS applications in the first instance are made through Newcastle. On your UCAS form you should specify the Newcastle institution code and code name (N21 NEWC)
    Leicester:

    Graduate Academic Entry Requirements

    We will consider graduate applicants with degrees in any discipline who have either graduated or are in the final year of their degree. Applicants must have achieved or be predicted a minimum of an upper second class honours degree. In addition, applicants who have not studied a science A Level or degree, must have at least a B grade in two GCSE science subjects (chemistry, biology or physics or double science).
    Keele is ruled out for Arts grads without science A-Levels unless you take their A104 course:

    Graduates with upper second-class Honours degrees in other disciplines may be considered on the basis of their science A-levels, or for the Health Foundation Year (A104) if they have not taken the sciences to A-level standard or higher. Those applicants requesting consideration of qualifications equivalent to the sciences at A-level should note that they must provide this information to the Admissions Office at the same time they submit their UCAS application.

    I know it hasn't happened yet and may not happen at all but I need to plan ahead and look at all options. So if the 4 year courses vanish then the only 5 year courses I could apply to (and all other non-science grads with non-science A-Levels), as it stands, would be:

    Exeter
    Newcastle/Durham (I consider this as one option)
    Leicester

    Obviously, only if funding was provided for the 5 year by then.

    Best case scenario if the 4 year is stopped: graduate funding for 5 year courses and GAMSAT for all graduate applicants with a non-science background.

    I actually think that would be a better system than the 4/5 year set up as it currently stands.

    Hopefully I won't be still worrying about this past 2016/17 but it's worth looking ahead.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)

    x
    I believe Plymouth have accepted non-science grads before (though their entry requirements page is pretty ambiguous about it). It says this in my notes anyway, could well have changed since I wrote them.

    Keele seems to accept non-science grads onto A100.

    (Original post by Keele)

    Applicants with a 1st/2i honours degree in a non-science subject may be considered for the A100 course if they have taken the Graduate Australian Medical School Admissions Test and achieved a good score in section III (usually 58 or higher); these applicants must also take the UKCAT. Allowances will be made for graduates whose A-level grades do not meet the usual criteria, as long as sufficient evidence of academic ability in the sciences is demonstrated.

    http://www.keele.ac.uk/medicine/unde...teshowtoapply/.
    Hope this helps
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by liam__)
    I believe Plymouth have accepted non-science grads before (though their entry requirements page is pretty ambiguous about it). It says this in my notes anyway, could well have changed since I wrote them.

    Keele seems to accept non-science grads onto A100.



    Hope this helps
    Thanks very much, that's really helpful.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DelphiDeWitt)
    Why on earth does the GMC want to remove GEM? I've heard people say postgrad doctors make some of the best doctors.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't think they specifically want to remove it but it's possible that the law will change to mean that students qualify after their last year of medical school rather than after their F1 year which will mean that it will clash with the already existing law saying that medical education needs to be five years before qualification (currently F1 year counts as the fifth year for GEM applicants). So if that law does get passed then 4 year graduate medicine won't be able to be a thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -inspired-)
    I don't think they specifically want to remove it but it's possible that the law will change to mean that students qualify after their last year of medical school rather than after their F1 year which will mean that it will clash with the already existing law saying that medical education needs to be five years before qualification (currently F1 year counts as the fifth year for GEM applicants). So if that law does get passed then 4 year graduate medicine won't be able to be a thing.
    It is a really pointless law being proposed. I believe it is the EU behind it so hopefully the UK can try and negotiate some kind of opt out from this system. Afaik there is no problem with the 4years + F1 so I don't understand why there is a need to tinker with it.

    It does add additional stress - I was already worried about funding, now there is the potential of the EU making GEM essentially illegal in it's current form.

    As for it ending, I can't imagine they'd block off access to medicine from the graduate end entirely - so I really hope we see a decent resolution.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -inspired-)
    I don't think they specifically want to remove it but it's possible that the law will change to mean that students qualify after their last year of medical school rather than after their F1 year which will mean that it will clash with the already existing law saying that medical education needs to be five years before qualification (currently F1 year counts as the fifth year for GEM applicants). So if that law does get passed then 4 year graduate medicine won't be able to be a thing.

    (Original post by ProspectiveGEM)
    It is a really pointless law being proposed. I believe it is the EU behind it so hopefully the UK can try and negotiate some kind of opt out from this system. Afaik there is no problem with the 4years + F1 so I don't understand why there is a need to tinker with it.

    It does add additional stress - I was already worried about funding, now there is the potential of the EU making GEM essentially illegal in it's current form.

    As for it ending, I can't imagine they'd block off access to medicine from the graduate end entirely - so I really hope we see a decent resolution.
    Law and regulation are different things.

    The move is largely proposed as a solution to the increasing competition for foundation year places.
    There is also separate pressure to do away with the foundation program altogether.

    The change would result in GEM courses not being compliant with the 5 year medical training requirement.
    Grads will likely have to enter the 5 year course and financial support transitions to that.

    The EU is not involved in this at all.

    Look up the Shape of Training review and the BMA, MSC articles on the subject of changing point of registration.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zorg)
    Law and regulation are different things.

    The move is largely proposed as a solution to the increasing competition for foundation year places.
    There is also separate pressure to do away with the foundation program altogether.

    The change would result in GEM courses not being compliant with the 5 year medical training requirement.
    Grads will likely have to enter the 5 year course and financial support transitions to that.

    The EU is not involved in this at all.

    Look up the Shape of Training review and the BMA, MSC articles on the subject of changing point of registration.
    Ah I see thanks a lot for clarifying that.

    I'm seriously hoping this is a long and drawn out process and isn't implemented by the time we get to 2017 entry. The UK is even running graduate only medical schools in Warwick and Swansea so I can only hope that it exists by then. Either that or we have financial support for undergrad entry, I don't fancy the sound of selling my kidneys to fund medical school tuition fees. Or if F1 is scrapped then 5th year becomes some kind of hybrid F1/final year. I'd also hope the GMC & BMA would put up a bit of a fight to give us some tuition relief if we are forced to do the 5yr route, although I'm approaching this with a degree of pessimism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zorg)
    The EU is not involved in this at all.
    afaik the EU comes into play because it'd be illegal to run the 4 year programmes AND grant full registration at the point of graduation.

    http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...ml?id=20017623

    it appears the move is strongly opposed, so I'm hopeful a more reasonable solution is sought rather than shutting down 4 year courses
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ProspectiveGEM)
    afaik the EU comes into play because it'd be illegal to run the 4 year programmes AND grant full registration at the point of graduation.

    http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...ml?id=20017623

    it appears the move is strongly opposed, so I'm hopeful a more reasonable solution is sought rather than shutting down 4 year courses
    (Original post by Zorg)
    Law and regulation are different things.

    The move is largely proposed as a solution to the increasing competition for foundation year places.
    There is also separate pressure to do away with the foundation program altogether.

    The change would result in GEM courses not being compliant with the 5 year medical training requirement.
    Grads will likely have to enter the 5 year course and financial support transitions to that.

    The EU is not involved in this at all.

    Look up the Shape of Training review and the BMA, MSC articles on the subject of changing point of registration.
    I think the EU comes into it because it governs the amount of hours a doctor must have in education before they can be fully registered. GEM gets away with it atm because of FY1 but if they move the point of registration, then 4 years just isn't enough time to get the required hours.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

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

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