Biomedical Science - Strathclyde vs Caledonian vs Edinburgh

What do you want to do with the degree when you've finished? Start there and works backwards. If you want to be a biomedical scientist then Edinburgh is not a sensible choice. If you don't then look at which one supports the career you're interested in the best.

How is Edinburgh not a good choice? I’m just curious I’ve not heard how before

Edinburgh university is not accredited by the IBMS so a degree from them can't be used to become a biomedical scientist. (Without additional modules anyway).

What do you want to do with the degree when you've finished? Start there and works backwards. If you want to be a biomedical scientist then Edinburgh is not a sensible choice. If you don't then look at which one supports the career you're interested in the best.

I second this. I've learned this year if you decide you want to a biomedical scientist after doing a degree that doesn't have IBMS accreditation first it's not guaranteed the NHS will take you plus you have to take additional modules to get accredited which can set you back £3000 (sometimes the NHS will pay, mostly they won't)

I've seen people who have had £10k worth of modules to complete, and considering the current state of NHS finances - I would assume that work won't pay.

Goodness me, that's a lot 😵 you can become a healthcare science assistant or medical laboratory assistant with a non accredited degree but the max you'll earn is £25000 a year on current pay bands so it's definitely important to choose your degree wisely if you want to be a biomedical scientist.
You can always enter research if you have an IBMS degree, but you can't go straight into a biomedical scientist role without IBMS degree. But if you're inclined to pursue a research career as a priority, a non accredited degree will give better preparation for research from my experience so far (although I study at Glasgow so can't speak for Edinburgh)
There is also the NHS scientist training programme which you don't need an IBMS degree for however only a few positions are released a year and may not be in the specialty you want.

When it comes to the STP remember that Biomedical Scientists and Clinical Scientists are not the same profession. So don't apply for the STP just because the degree isn't accredited. It's a huge amount of work!
As an associate practitioner (without registration) you can go up to £29k (£35k in London) but yes, it's a huge amount of money.
I wouldn't say that graduates I've worked with from non-accredited universities were much better at research, but I agree the degrees are less clinical and have more flexibility to build towards industry etc than accredited ones.

That's interesting, thank you for your perspective! Is an associate practitioner the same as a clinical scientist? (Clinical scientist is the role you get after doing the STP in Scotland)

What is the actual difference in an accredited and non accredited degree? I have been to open days of both universities who do these degrees but the coursework seems to be very similar? Also if you do an accredited degree and then after all decide to go into a more research job would you be missing anything like knowledge or any type of qualification?