The Student Room Group

Medics: Imperial or UCL?

Ive been fortunate to be given the choice but it now feels like more of a curse than a blessing because of how difficult it is to choose between them. Their courses are pretty similar right?
I just wanted to know about the student environment as i go to a college which is very multicultural so i prefer a university that reflects that.
I wanted UCL from the start but imperial is much closer to me and imperial seems to be higher in league tables. how do i pick? Plzzzzz help
(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by greenscience
Ive been fortunate to be given the choice but it now feels like more of a curse than a blessing because of how difficult it is to choose between them. Their courses are pretty similar right?
I just wanted to know about the student environment as i go to a college which is very multicultural so i prefer a university that reflects that.
I wanted UCL from the start but imperial is much closer to me and imperial seems to be higher in league tables. how do i pick? Pls help


They are both extremely multicultural (like all London universities). League tables do not mean a thing when it comes to medical school. They are about 20 minutes apart by Tube, so the distance isn't massive (are you moving out or living at home?).

Have you visited at all? Tbh there's no bad outcome here, either way you get six years in London and the surrounding areas, an MB BS and an iBSc. If your gut is telling you to go for UCL then I'd say that's probably your answer.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by greenscience
Ive been fortunate to be given the choice but it now feels like more of a curse than a blessing because of how difficult it is to choose between them. Their courses are pretty similar right?
I just wanted to know about the student environment as i go to a college which is very multicultural so i prefer a university that reflects that.
I wanted UCL from the start but imperial is much closer to me and imperial seems to be higher in league tables. how do i pick? Pls help


Gotta pick UCL for the social

(And for me, I'm an offer holder too ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) )
Had to make this decision as well, I eventually chose imperial for a number of reasons:
1) UCL says they try and incorporate clinical practice from the outset however after speaking to some students there's hardly any clinical experience from the first two years which is a real shame imo. On the other hand imperial gives clinical experience from the very first term.
2) The course structure: UCl has their integrated BSc in the third year whereas imperial has it in the fourth. I felt like after studying the human body after two years I want to start placements in the third year instead of being tied down by a BSc.
3) Also all the little things for example the location, South Kensington is such a nice area of London, despite both being in London I would still take location into mind when making your decision. Also in my mind Imperial is a lot more prestigious although that doesn't really matter I suppose.

Either way they are both really good medical schools and the reasons above are really small differences between the two
Good luck :smile:
Reply 4
Hey there, congratulations on getting offers from two top unis! Speaking as UCL medic with several friends at Imperial, I think if diversity in the student body is more important to you then I would choose UCL. Bear in mind that practically everyone at Imperial is a science student whereas there are loads arts and social science students at UCL. In addition, if you plan to live in halls in first year, UCL is part of the University of London (Imperial isn't) and has lots of intercollegiate halls, e.g. I lived with people from SOAS, Birkbeck, Queen Mary, King's College London etc. in my first year. However you have indicated that you may be living at home (because the proximity of Imperial is a pull factor??) in which case the halls point doesn't apply.

Another difference, as somebody else has pointed out is the fact that at UCL we do our BSc in the 3rd year whereas it's in the 4th year at Imperial. Many students I've spoken to at Imperial have said that they would've have preferred the UCL structure.

Best of luck wherever you end up :-)

Alex, 4th year UCL medic
6med
Reply 5
Original post by Democracy
They are both extremely multicultural (like all London universities). League tables do not mean a thing when it comes to medical school. They are about 20 minutes apart by Tube, so the distance isn't massive (are you moving out or living at home?).

Have you visited at all? Tbh there's no bad outcome here, either way you get six years in London and the surrounding areas, an MB BS and an iBSc. If your gut is telling you to go for UCL then I'd say that's probably your answer.


they're so similar in all the important aspects :frown: yhh i staying at home so accommodation cant even play a rol in my choice.
ive visited both and loved ucl (mainly to look at :colondollar:) but imperial had more of a cooler campus vibe.
ucl also requested an EPQ which i am not close to completing which is why im leaning to imperial. i know many in this same position too which sucks
Reply 6
Original post by 6med
Hey there, congratulations on getting offers from two top unis! Speaking as UCL medic with several friends at Imperial, I think if diversity in the student body is more important to you then I would choose UCL. Bear in mind that practically everyone at Imperial is a science student whereas there are loads arts and social science students at UCL. In addition, if you plan to live in halls in first year, UCL is part of the University of London (Imperial isn't) and has lots of intercollegiate halls, e.g. I lived with people from SOAS, Birkbeck, Queen Mary, King's College London etc. in my first year. However you have indicated that you may be living at home (because the proximity of Imperial is a pull factor??) in which case the halls point doesn't apply.

Another difference, as somebody else has pointed out is the fact that at UCL we do our BSc in the 3rd year whereas it's in the 4th year at Imperial. Many students I've spoken to at Imperial have said that they would've have preferred the UCL structure.

Best of luck wherever you end up :-)

Alex, 4th year UCL medic
6med


thanks a lot :h::h:
Would you say the lecturers are helpful at ucl? ive heard they're quite unhelpful when assistance is needed :/ i really didnt think that was the the case tho
Original post by greenscience
thanks a lot :h::h:
Would you say the lecturers are helpful at ucl? ive heard they're quite unhelpful when assistance is needed :/ i really didnt think that was the the case tho


I would have expected such things to show up in student satisfaction - neither Imperial or UCL do particularly well, actually being very similar - so there probably isn't much difference. They both have extremely similar postgrad exam results too, so even if you went down that road it wouldn't yield anything. http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/25496.asp

I would just go through the course structure with a microscope and go with the one you like best. Look at when the elective is - if its just before exams try to avoid that, for instance (post-finals electives are pretty much the highlight of med schools).
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by nexttime
I would have expected such things to show up in student satisfaction - neither Imperial or UCL do particularly well, actually being very similar - so there probably isn't much difference. They both have extremely similar postgrad exam results too, so even if you went down that road it wouldn't yield anything. http://www.gmc-uk.org/education/25496.asp

I would just go through the course structure with a microscope and go with the one you like best. Look at when the elective is - if its just before exams try to avoid that, for instance (post-finals electives are pretty much the highlight of med schools).



Pretty interesting stats actually, thanks for posting the link!

Noticed something weird when I was trying to make sense of the specialty ones. (Easier said than done because of differences between schools in when data collection started. :colonhash:) There are surprisingly big differences in the proportion of grads in specialist/GP registers for example, out of the people who started med school in 1999, 66.6% of Manchester grads and 47.2% of Edinburgh grads are registered somewhere. The trend seems to continue through years for 1998 the numbers are 75% and 57%, for 2000 they’re 57.3% and 44.4%. E.g. the big London schools also seem to have a noticeably low proportion of people registered somewhere. Do you have any idea why this is? Manchester seems to produce a slightly higher proportion of GPs so maybe that could account for at least part of the difference but still… Weird.
Original post by StationToStation
Pretty interesting stats actually, thanks for posting the link!

Noticed something weird when I was trying to make sense of the specialty ones. (Easier said than done because of differences between schools in when data collection started. :colonhash:) There are surprisingly big differences in the proportion of grads in specialist/GP registers for example, out of the people who started med school in 1999, 66.6% of Manchester grads and 47.2% of Edinburgh grads are registered somewhere. The trend seems to continue through years for 1998 the numbers are 75% and 57%, for 2000 they’re 57.3% and 44.4%. E.g. the big London schools also seem to have a noticeably low proportion of people registered somewhere. Do you have any idea why this is? Manchester seems to produce a slightly higher proportion of GPs so maybe that could account for at least part of the difference but still… Weird.


Which table are you referring to specifically? Is it this one

https://reports.gmc-uk.org/views/UKMedicalSchoolGraduatespecialtydestinations2015-Public/DASH_Specgroupsperpmq?%3Atabs=no&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Aembed=y#1

Because those number add up to more than 66 - more like 85 which seems realistic. Edinburgh looks like it might be lower but again not that low.

Edit: I'm not 100% sure what "year of first registration" means but if its first year of med school, bear in mind that to be on the speciality register (meaning you're a consultant) takes so long that anyone 2003 or later is probably still training, for all bar the GP register (and even for GPs - lots of people switch to it later).
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by nexttime
Which table are you referring to specifically? Is it this one

https://reports.gmc-uk.org/views/UKMedicalSchoolGraduatespecialtydestinations2015-Public/DASH_Specgroupsperpmq?%3Atabs=no&%3Atoolbar=no&%3Aembed=y#1

Because those number add up to more than 66 - more like 85 which seems realistic. Edinburgh looks like it might be lower but again not that low.

Edit: I'm not 100% sure what "year of first registration" means but if its first year of med school, bear in mind that to be on the speciality register (meaning you're a consultant) takes so long that anyone 2003 or later is probably still training, for all bar the GP register (and even for GPs - lots of people switch to it later).


Yep that's the one! Ah I assumed that the "year commenced medical school" meant the year you started med school in because that's what the web dictionary told me "commenced" means, and I got those numbers by changing the values for that. Now I tried changing the values for the "year of first registration" and they do sound way more plausible - for Edinburgh and 1998, for example, they add up to 78.4% instead of the 57% I got when I used the "year commenced medical school". So, my mistake apparently - not sure what the "year commenced medical school" is supposed to mean then but at least the numbers make sense now!


Edit: was supposed to use that image before I realized why we got different numbers - I deleted it but for some reason it still shows on the message?? Oh well, just ignore it.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by StationToStation
Yep that's the one! Ah I assumed that the "year commenced medical school" meant the year you started med school in because that's what the web dictionary told me "commenced" means, and I got those numbers by changing the values for that. Now I tried changing the values for the "year of first registration" and they do sound way more plausible - for Edinburgh and 1998, for example, they add up to 78.4% instead of the 57% I got when I used the "year commenced medical school". So, my mistake apparently - not sure what the "year commenced medical school" is supposed to mean then but at least the numbers make sense now!


Edit: was supposed to use that image before I realized why we got different numbers - I deleted it but for some reason it still shows on the message?? Oh well, just ignore it.


I actually hadn't read that column - date of first registration is clearly when they started FY1 (or maybe fy2) then.

Looking at the numbers for Aberdeen, you get a lot of weird changes as you go back years. For example - out of nowhere 20% of the year is doing emergency medicine? link? Very unlikely. I think its clear their data is not complete and that the use of the tables should be limited to the larger data sets, and for comparison only.
Original post by nexttime
I actually hadn't read that column - date of first registration is clearly when they started FY1 (or maybe fy2) then.

Looking at the numbers for Aberdeen, you get a lot of weird changes as you go back years. For example - out of nowhere 20% of the year is doing emergency medicine? link? Very unlikely. I think its clear their data is not complete and that the use of the tables should be limited to the larger data sets, and for comparison only.


Ah I see. Yeah you get the sample sizes when you put your mouse on top of the percentage bars - for some of the early years they only show data for like two people so that's hardly representative! In the years I mentioned earlier they apparently had data for all, or almost all, people though.
Original post by StationToStation
Ah I see. Yeah you get the sample sizes when you put your mouse on top of the percentage bars - for some of the early years they only show data for like two people so that's hardly representative! In the years I mentioned earlier they apparently had data for all, or almost all, people though.


Re-thinking, perhaps those numbers are right. There will be some people who had delayed training due to going part time, or due to years out inc' maternity leave, doing a PhD, or switching speciality. There will be a small number who fail postgrad exams or are not allowed to progress for another reason. There will be much larger numbers though who leave medicine entirely or go abroad. Speaking to a couple others just now, we reckon that that number could be significant. It is, however, possible there is another explanation I am unaware of.

However, if you're worried that its actually very difficult to progress to being a consultant in the UK, I can reassure you that in my experience it isn't. Hard work and very long obv, but the vast majority, especially of those who trained in the UK, overcome all the training and assessment barriers. My impression is that the numbers totally unable to progress despite wanting to are small.
Original post by nexttime
Re-thinking, perhaps those numbers are right. There will be some people who had delayed training due to going part time, or due to years out inc' maternity leave, doing a PhD, or switching speciality. There will be a small number who fail postgrad exams or are not allowed to progress for another reason. There will be much larger numbers though who leave medicine entirely or go abroad. Speaking to a couple others just now, we reckon that that number could be significant. It is, however, possible there is another explanation I am unaware of.

However, if you're worried that its actually very difficult to progress to being a consultant in the UK, I can reassure you that in my experience it isn't. Hard work and very long obv, but the vast majority, especially of those who trained in the UK, overcome all the training and assessment barriers. My impression is that the numbers totally unable to progress despite wanting to are small.


Oh, ok. Maybe looking at the earliest data for the "year of first registration" could indicate the number of people leaving medicine/going abroad because presumably anyone who became a junior doc like 25 years ago wouldn't be in training in the NHS anymore, even if they took years out and worked part-time.

That's reassuring to know :smile:
(edited 6 years ago)
@nexttime seems like there's def something odd about the data - tested just now and it says there are 40 Oxford grads who started med school in 2000 and whose year of first registration was 2003. Which doesn't exactly add up. Also encountered a Birmingham GP who started med school in 2000 and was first registered in 1991! Don't know what's going on with the data but it's probably not very trustworthy :tongue:
Original post by 6med
Hey there, congratulations on getting offers from two top unis! Speaking as UCL medic with several friends at Imperial, I think if diversity in the student body is more important to you then I would choose UCL. Bear in mind that practically everyone at Imperial is a science student whereas there are loads arts and social science students at UCL. In addition, if you plan to live in halls in first year, UCL is part of the University of London (Imperial isn't) and has lots of intercollegiate halls, e.g. I lived with people from SOAS, Birkbeck, Queen Mary, King's College London etc. in my first year. However you have indicated that you may be living at home (because the proximity of Imperial is a pull factor??) in which case the halls point doesn't apply.

Another difference, as somebody else has pointed out is the fact that at UCL we do our BSc in the 3rd year whereas it's in the 4th year at Imperial. Many students I've spoken to at Imperial have said that they would've have preferred the UCL structure.

Best of luck wherever you end up :-)

Alex, 4th year UCL medic
6med


Hi Alex

I'm also trying to decide between UCL & Imperial. Atm I'm thinking more UCL due to the diversity of university and teaching hospitals. Can I ask you a few questions?

1.As a med student how much do you benefit from being attached to UCLH/Royal Free/Great Ormond st etc? Are your clinical placements in these hospitals or much further afield?
2. What is the academic support like in the early years? Are you pretty much left to your own devices? How helpful are the personal tutors/lecturers?
3. Is there much material provided to help study for exams e.g. Last exam papers or is it just down to your own notes?
4. On open day they mentioned RUMS, I can't find any information online, is there a website?

My head is saying UCL but it just feels like Imperial are much more open in the information they provide and were so much friendlier and open at interview etc so I'm worried I'm making the wrong decision. I'm on a gap year so whichever I choose will be where I end up...

Thanks for your help!
Reply 17
Original post by Happyals
Hi Alex

I'm also trying to decide between UCL & Imperial. Atm I'm thinking more UCL due to the diversity of university and teaching hospitals. Can I ask you a few questions?

1.As a med student how much do you benefit from being attached to UCLH/Royal Free/Great Ormond st etc? Are your clinical placements in these hospitals or much further afield?
2. What is the academic support like in the early years? Are you pretty much left to your own devices? How helpful are the personal tutors/lecturers?
3. Is there much material provided to help study for exams e.g. Last exam papers or is it just down to your own notes?
4. On open day they mentioned RUMS, I can't find any information online, is there a website?

My head is saying UCL but it just feels like Imperial are much more open in the information they provide and were so much friendlier and open at interview etc so I'm worried I'm making the wrong decision. I'm on a gap year so whichever I choose will be where I end up...

Thanks for your help!


Hey :-) great that you're coming to UCL!

1. I think the hospitals are great, there are three main ones: Royal Free, UCLH and the Whittington (Great Ormond Street is really only for those who do the paeds BSc). You do not spend any significant amount of time in these hospitals in the pre-clinical years. In 4th year, the three terms are split between the three main hospitals (which are all close to UCL). In 5th year you may have some placements at the main three but may also be flung a little further afield to Edgware, Basildon, Luton etc. And I'm honestly not really sure what happens in 6th year haha, think it's like fifth year but with a long GP placement that you can do anywhere in the country.

2. It's definitely a lot more self-directed that most schools but support from lecturers and personal tutors is there if you want it. In addition, there is academic support through the MedSoc and older years running tutorials etc.

3. There aren't really any official past papers provided (through there are plenty of unofficial ones floating around) but, for the first two years at least, everything you need to know is the in lecturers and you have one or two mock exams throughout the year to see how you're doing.

4. Hmm good question... well RUMS is technically still part of the main student union so I would suggest having a peruse around here http://uclu.org/ but honestly don't worry, they tell you everything you need to know when you arrive :-)

Hope that helps!

Alex, 4th year UCL medic
6med
Original post by 6med
Hey :-) great that you're coming to UCL!

1. I think the hospitals are great, there are three main ones: Royal Free, UCLH and the Whittington (Great Ormond Street is really only for those who do the paeds BSc). You do not spend any significant amount of time in these hospitals in the pre-clinical years. In 4th year, the three terms are split between the three main hospitals (which are all close to UCL). In 5th year you may have some placements at the main three but may also be flung a little further afield to Edgware, Basildon, Luton etc. And I'm honestly not really sure what happens in 6th year haha, think it's like fifth year but with a long GP placement that you can do anywhere in the country.

2. It's definitely a lot more self-directed that most schools but support from lecturers and personal tutors is there if you want it. In addition, there is academic support through the MedSoc and older years running tutorials etc.

3. There aren't really any official past papers provided (through there are plenty of unofficial ones floating around) but, for the first two years at least, everything you need to know is the in lecturers and you have one or two mock exams throughout the year to see how you're doing.

4. Hmm good question... well RUMS is technically still part of the main student union so I would suggest having a peruse around here http://uclu.org/ but honestly don't worry, they tell you everything you need to know when you arrive :-)

Hope that helps!

Alex, 4th year UCL medic
6med


Thanks for this. Sorry another question - How long would you be at the placements further afield such as Basildon etc and does this mean you need to commute every day? If so would it be shifts or just daytime hours? Thanks
Original post by Happyals
1.As a med student how much do you benefit from being attached to UCLH/Royal Free/Great Ormond st etc? Are your clinical placements in these hospitals or much further afield?


This is one of the things my friend who went to UCL specifically commented on. There are lots of very prestigious, world-leading specialist hospitals in the area - Great Ormond Street, London Eye Hospital, an orthopaedic hospital I think - but apparently you get literally no placements there at all despite them being advertised as UCL partner institutions. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing in terms of comprehensiveness of education, but given that some students apply to UCL specifically because of these hospitals it can be quite a shock for some people!

Quick Reply

Latest