This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

20 yr old American wanting to go to Oxford

Reply 60

SMed

11

Elles

or

would be my preference...

Sorry, will stop this tangent now - the most recent of the aforementioned themed threads is: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=969301&highlight=best+medical+school

TBH, I really don't get caught up in all the med school rivalries; not to the extent that I'd actually debate about it. I'm happy with Imperial and I've got many friends at med schools across the country; they all seem like decent enough people to me. :smile:

Reply 61

pendragon

13

Elles

Possibly!
Many pre-freshers would love the fact that someone can give them a 'definite' answer to the seemingly eternal question - perhaps Pendragon or yourself would be kind enough to definitively rank the rest of the medical schools in the country too..?
& there are plenty of currents/recent grads need a good giggle from time to time. :giggle:

I am a historian, and have no expertise on the subject, other than to have spoken to some doctors and read a few things when my youngest sister was applying for medicine. However, I will make a relatively uninformed stab at it for the purpose of inspiring controversy amongst those who actually care:

1 Imperial
2 UCL
3 Cambridge

As an Oxford man (undergrad there, masters LSE) I have no bias except in favour of Oxford and LSE. But first of all where you study medicine is far less significant than where you study other subjects (i.e. there is less difference in quality or status amongst medical degrees from different universities than is the case for other subjects). Second, teaching hospitals in major cities are known to be better places for clinical training - i.e. better to do that at the best teaching hospitals in London than at John Radcliffe. And places that are not particularly rated for other subjects like Newcastle are by virtue of being in major cities with large training hospitals much more highly rated and competitive for medicine than for other subjects.

I am aware that some uni's have completely non-clinical starts and that people can switch at a certain point for the purpose of clinical training. If you did preclinical at Oxford and clinical at Imperial that would be really cool, because to laypeople Oxford always has the aura no matter what you are studying and how good Oxford is for your subject.

Reply 62

Phalanges

18

pendragon

1 Imperial
2 UCL
3 Cambridge

Oh crap.

Why oh why did I pick Oxford over Imperial?

Reply 63

SMed

11

jonnyofengland

Oh crap.

Why oh why did I pick Oxford over Imperial?

There, there... no need to beat yourself up over it. :console:

Reply 64

Renal

17

pendragon

I am a historian, and have no expertise on the subject, other than to have spoken to some doctors and read a few things when my youngest sister was applying for medicine. However, I will make a relatively uninformed stab at it for the purpose of inspiring controversy amongst those who actually care:

Good effort :rofl:

Reply 65

Elles

17

Apologies for this thread tangent.

pendragon

I am a historian, and have no expertise on the subject, other than to have spoken to some doctors and read a few things when my youngest sister was applying for medicine. However, I will make a relatively uninformed stab at it for the purpose of inspiring controversy amongst those who actually care:

1 Imperial
2 UCL
3 Cambridge

As an Oxford man (undergrad there, masters LSE) I have no bias except in favour of Oxford and LSE. But first of all where you study medicine is far less significant than where you study other subjects (i.e. there is less difference in quality or status amongst medical degrees from different universities than is the case for other subjects).

I am a recent medicine graduate.

It's not so much that I care about internet arguments & everyone thinking my medical school is 'best' (although of course, I did & do :wink:

) but the casual 'Imperial is definitely better than Oxford' in here bemused me.

I agree with what you say that for Medicine where you study is much much less significant from an employment point of view than pretty much every other subject. So I really wouldn't fall into a blanket statement of saying that anywhere is better than another, let alone definitely better. There are the league tables even for Medicine though (debatable as their validity is - they do at least try & use some objective criteria!) & neither of those (Guardian and Times were the 2 I found) seem to plump for Imperial either - so I wondered about the rationale behind your statement.

Better for an individual person though - yes (definitely so here) as medical schools do things quite differently.

Second, teaching hospitals in major cities are known to be better places for clinical training - i.e. better to do that at the best teaching hospitals in London than at John Radcliffe.

I wouldn't make that sweeping statement either.

Over my clinical years I've been in a mixture of hospitals including other parts of the UK and abroad & have found that the best learning environments as a medical student (core training - common things are common...) definitely aren't necessarily the teaching hospitals in major cities. I'm really looking forward to starting work at a DGH for similar reasons.
Not to say super-specialized fancy teaching hospitals etc. don't have their place & I did seek them out for certain things. London doesn't have the monopoly on them though!

I also don't quite follow the logic of Cambridge in your top 3 by that criteria - above places like Barts & the London, Guys Kings & Tommies or the Royal Free & University College if major city teaching hospitals are much better?

I linked your post in the Medic subforum thread I referred to earlier for some more medic opinions in case my sense of medical-school-pride is completely blinding me... :p: