The Student Room Group

Which medical schools actually accept a 2.1 from graduates?

Hi,

From my understanding, generally all medical schools say that graduates applying need to have a 2.1 degree. But I have also heard that some schools like Barts only accept a 1st.

Is there a list of medical schools which have been known to accept 2.1's?

I appreciate any help, thank you!
They all accept 2:is. Remember that medicine is a competitive course that attracts people who are very able academically, so it's logical that there will be a high proportion of GEM students with Firsts. It doesn't mean that having a First is actually an absolute requirement.
They all accept 2:1, even Barts & The London. It's just that most students that end up being accepted have a 1st. But you have a chance with a 2:1 all the same, they do accept students with 2:1
Reply 3
Original post by Scotland Yard
They all accept 2:1, even Barts & The London. It's just that most students that end up being accepted have a 1st. But you have a chance with a 2:1 all the same, they do accept students with 2:1


I have a friend who has started studying GEM at Barts and they mentioned that not one person with a 2.1 received an interview offer from them :frown:. That's why I am a bit worried
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by pineapple201
I have a friend who has started studying GEM at Barts and they mentioned that not one person with a 2.1 received an interview offer from them :frown:. That's why I am a bit worried

Well, you have to understand that GEM is competitive, and at Barts & The London the competition is super cutthroat - it has some 36 applicants per place, which makes it the single most competitive university programme that I'm aware of (it may very well be the single most competitive university programme in the UK), so I'm not totally surprised to learn that they didn't call people with 2:1. But that doesn't mean that they won't consider you, and you'll certainly be able to fare better in other less competitive places. Make no mistake, GEM is ultra competitive and it's in your best interests to go above and beyond the entry requirements... but as long as you meet them, you have a chance. And there are always things you can do to put yourself ahead of everyone else. I suggest you go check out the GEM applicants threads on this forum, lots of helpful content there. And I wish you the absolute best of luck :smile:
They all technically have to, none actually does.
A few GEM programmes helpfully publish their application and admissions statistics each year, which make it quite clear that they mean what they say when they ask for a 2:i or better. The idea that there is some unspoken requirement to get a First would certainly come as a surprise to Oxford's admissions tutors - only 38% of 2023's successful GEM applicants had a First. This isn't an anomaly. This study into factors influencing students' performance across all UK medical schools found that on average 18% of GEM entrants had a First. (The data used was gathered between 2007 and 2009, which partially explains the gap between that figure and Oxford's current stats - the percentage of students getting Firsts has increased nationally since then, across all subjects.)

Don't get sucked into internet rumours and start panicking about how to meet supposed secret entry requirements that don't actually exist. GEM is competitive, yes, but the best way to maximise your chances is to look at the specific entry requirements for each course and apply to your strengths. Every year people sabotage themselves by setting their hearts on a particular place and deciding to apply there even if they don't quite meet the criteria, hoping that a strong performance in one selection domain will cancel out a weaker performance in another domain. It doesn't work like that. But be strategic in your applications and there's no reason why you shouldn't stand just as high a chance as the next applicant.
Original post by TheMedicOwl
A few GEM programmes helpfully publish their application and admissions statistics each year, which make it quite clear that they mean what they say when they ask for a 2:i or better. The idea that there is some unspoken requirement to get a First would certainly come as a surprise to Oxford's admissions tutors - only 38% of 2023's successful GEM applicants had a First. This isn't an anomaly. This study into factors influencing students' performance across all UK medical schools found that on average 18% of GEM entrants had a First. (The data used was gathered between 2007 and 2009, which partially explains the gap between that figure and Oxford's current stats - the percentage of students getting Firsts has increased nationally since then, across all subjects.)

Don't get sucked into internet rumours and start panicking about how to meet supposed secret entry requirements that don't actually exist. GEM is competitive, yes, but the best way to maximise your chances is to look at the specific entry requirements for each course and apply to your strengths. Every year people sabotage themselves by setting their hearts on a particular place and deciding to apply there even if they don't quite meet the criteria, hoping that a strong performance in one selection domain will cancel out a weaker performance in another domain. It doesn't work like that. But be strategic in your applications and there's no reason why you shouldn't stand just as high a chance as the next applicant.


You misunderstood the Oxford data. The 38% of people with a 1st refers to applicants, not offers. Later on the website states that the success rate for those with a 1st was 30% while those with a 2:1 was 7%...
Original post by Scotland Yard
You misunderstood the Oxford data. The 38% of people with a 1st refers to applicants, not offers. Later on the website states that the success rate for those with a 1st was 30% while those with a 2:1 was 7%...


I misread. Thanks. The basic point still stands though. If the 38% figure is based on the 183 complete applications they received, 69 of those applicants will have had Firsts while the remaining 114 will have had 2:is. This suggests a small cohort of about 28 students, 8 of whom will have a 2:i. Those 8 students got onto a heavily oversubscribed course ahead of 49 rejected candidates with Firsts, which should be a pretty clear indication that degree classification is one factor of several. There will also be an element of correlation too. This is reminding me of all the anxious posts going, "Should I do a fourth A-level? Lots of med students I know did four!" when that fourth A-level is just an indication of the general ability level of people who apply for med, not a secret ingredient that got them the place. Academically able people are more likely to score highly on aptitude tests, for a start - they will do well across many selection domains. This is why there will always be a disproportionate number of Firsts among GEM students, but it really isn't an absolute requirement. Roughly half the people in my cohort wouldn't be here if it were.
(edited 5 months ago)
Original post by TheMedicOwl
I misread. Thanks. The basic point still stands though. If the 38% figure is based on the 183 complete applications they received, 69 of those applicants will have had Firsts while the remaining 114 will have had 2:is. This suggests a small cohort of about 28 students, 8 of whom will have a 2:i. Those 8 students got onto a heavily oversubscribed course ahead of 49 rejected candidates with Firsts, which should be a pretty clear indication that degree classification is one factor of several. There will also be an element of correlation too. This is reminding me of all the anxious posts going, "Should I do a fourth A-level? Lots of med students I know did four!" when that fourth A-level is just an indication of the general ability level of people who apply for med, not a secret ingredient that got them the place. Academically able people are more likely to score highly on aptitude tests, for a start - they will do well across many selection domains. This is why there will always be a disproportionate number of Firsts among GEM students, but it really isn't an absolute requirement. Roughly half the people in my cohort wouldn't be here if it were.


PRSOM
Original post by TheMedicOwl
I misread. Thanks. The basic point still stands though. If the 38% figure is based on the 183 complete applications they received, 69 of those applicants will have had Firsts while the remaining 114 will have had 2:is. This suggests a small cohort of about 28 students, 8 of whom will have a 2:i. Those 8 students got onto a heavily oversubscribed course ahead of 49 rejected candidates with Firsts, which should be a pretty clear indication that degree classification is one factor of several. There will also be an element of correlation too. This is reminding me of all the anxious posts going, "Should I do a fourth A-level? Lots of med students I know did four!" when that fourth A-level is just an indication of the general ability level of people who apply for med, not a secret ingredient that got them the place. Academically able people are more likely to score highly on aptitude tests, for a start - they will do well across many selection domains. This is why there will always be a disproportionate number of Firsts among GEM students, but it really isn't an absolute requirement. Roughly half the people in my cohort wouldn't be here if it were.


Fully agree!
Original post by Admit-One
PRSOM

What does this mean sorry :colondollar:
Original post by pineapple201
What does this mean sorry :colondollar:


It’s short for “please rep some other member”. The student room with only let you give a certain amount of thumbs up each day, and not to the same poster repeatedly. ‘PRSOM’ is a way of letting the poster know that you appreciated their post, but couldn’t rep them again so soon.
Thank you to everyone who replied to this thread, I really really appreciate the help and advice! I wanted to read through the GMC's medical guidelines and was hoping to double check that I have the right copy.

Can someone please confirm if this is correct?
https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/good-medical-practice---english-20200128_pdf-51527435.pdf

Quick Reply

Latest