Medicine Rejections 2009 entry

I wanted to go to Birmingham i really liked it
It was going to be my 2nd choice after cambridge, which would have made it my first choice now

However I only have 6.5 A*s, so i had to apply elsewhere. So yes. Stupid and lazy system

lol good point
but theyre northernors, their lifestyle is generally lazy
i think the birmingham 7A*'s thing is extremely unfair to state schoolers, but i wouldnt want to go to that ******** in the first place!

But to be fair to Newcastle, they do sift out the applicants who don't meet entry requirements/aren't predicted the right grades/etc first. Apparently, they interview anyone with a UKCAT of 600 or above. I know someone who has an interview there with a UKCAT of 620 ish.

It's not as unfair as it can be. After all, medschools DO need a way of choosing who to interview.

ive heard the medical schools looks nice but isnt great

hmm yer possibly. I got a good impression from it at the open day in july, but yer it doesn't rank particularly highly in the tables i guess
but Birmingham uni campus is nice though,

i certainly would have applied there if it wasnt for my English lit, English lang, and History GCSEs being only A. Seems so silly that they mattered :/

Still a lazy way to do things. Regardless of how "unfair" it is, or how much "they need a way to distinguish between applicants".

I wouldn't call it lazy; lazy is looking at a name and deciding whether or not to interview that applicant just from looking at their name. They just don't have the time to look at every application in detail and that's just the way it is. Getting into medicine itself is a lottery and most of us would've known that before even applying.

Fair or not, it's a way that works for the uni, and we cannot argue with that. Whether or not we agree with the way they do it is another thing, but there is no other way that is fair yet not time consuming. So ranking is the way it is. After all, a medschool only wants candidates that are strong, and if they think a high UKCAT = strong candidate, so be it.

No. Irresponsible is just looking at a name and deciding. Lazy is sticking all applicants in a database and ranking 'em on UKCAT score, then interviewing the top 1000. They've chosen a method that saves as much time as possible for interview shortlisting.
I wouldn't say it's a lottery. There is a luck element to it. But to imply that it's lottery, is implying that getting in relies completely on chance, which is wrong.

Fair point on the can't argue part. We can't argue. Plus, people with a high UKCAT have a great chance, so are likely to apply. So they'll get their supply of applicants; quality city, quality course.

It does rely on chance though. Year in year out there will be a variation in the calibre of applicants, so therefore, who you're up against is purely up to chance, hence the lottery. I've been told maybe last year or in previous years I would have got an interview at Kings with my grades and UKCAT (when it was in existance) but yet this year, I didn't even get as far as an interview. All I was told was that the quality of applicants applying to Kings this year was higher than usual. Allegedly.

Are you actually trying to argue that getting into medical school relies solely on chance?

hmm yer possibly. I got a good impression from it at the open day in july, but yer it doesn't rank particularly highly in the tables i guess
but Birmingham uni campus is nice though,

i certainly would have applied there if it wasnt for my English lit, English lang, and History GCSEs being only A. Seems so silly that they mattered :/

Not solely, but chance is definitely a factor. I reread my argument, and I don't think at any point did I put across that getting into medicine is solely down to chance so I have no idea where you got that from

southampton and edinburgh are simply lazy *****!
although ill excuse edinburgh because theyre placed so high in the league tables and theyve got such a great reputation

but yer it doesn't rank particularly highly in the tables i guess

I said in my post that there was an element of luck involved. But you pursued the chance argument. I quote, "it does rely on chance though". I think it's pretty clear where I got that from...

Still a lazy way to do things. Regardless of how "unfair" it is, or how much "they need a way to distinguish between applicants".

Can you blame them? They have so many candidates.

Regardless, this selection process may exclude some good candidates, but I'm pretty sure they get their fair share of good candidates anyways(even more than places available!)

No not really. I just don't like it

I wanted to apply to Newcastle, but my guessing ability clearly isn't up to scratch