Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, I'm new here,but been lurking for a while. I just wanted to share something I found interesting.

    I go to an old-fashioned and well respected medical school, but this is irrelevant. I know no student is limited by their medical school, and judging ability from someone's medical is not only unfair, but ignorant.

    Still, I am wondering if the disparity between medical courses is increasing, and I wonder if in 10 years the medical school that someone attended to is going to matter more than it does now (which is very very little).

    My university taught a very scientific preclinical, and whilst I enjoyed the work, I did not, and frankly still don't, accept that it was entirely worthwhile, the amount of depth we went into. HOWEVER, now I am in clinical school, I am seeing discrepencies which I do think are important.

    A few months ago I was on a paediatrics attachment in a DGH, which accepted students from my medical school and one other. I go to a med school with obligatory intercalation, and so whilst we were all the same age, the students from the other med school were about to do their finals. I expected them to wash the floor with us, possibly in their knownledge, but also their clinical skills and examination.

    I couldn't believe how different we were - my peers and I were revising for academic exams, pathology. The students from the other university didn't have to sit any pathology exams we were told - we went to haematology teaching together and they admitted their medical school didn't teach haematology. We went to cardiology teaching and they didn't know how to read an ECG. We went to a neuro meeting and they could not name one brain tumour. We found this a little surprising, but I suppose it's not that important, I guess, as long as you learn it for MCRP/FRCS, but boy I feel I've got an advantage going into that exam, now!

    Still, what shocked me the most was their clinical experience - I sometimes get annoyed with my course for being very academic, and wonder if students are other medical schools get a better 'feel' for things. These students, however, admitted to me that they'd only heard 1, maybe 2, heart murmurs, EACH. In their 3 years of clinical (probably more I guess, with some schools introducing early patient contact). How can they be about to become doctors if they've never heard the difference between mitral regurge and aortic stenosis? They also all knew they would pass finals, they said. Nobody really failed. They accepted they were all lazy, and missed half their attachments, but everyone did.

    The reason I'm making this post, however, is because the doctors knew. The doctors didn't want to kick up a ****-storm, the students didn't really deserve an arse kicking, it was their education. But the doctors knew their was a huge disparity in our abilities, and were, frankly, a little bit rude to the other students behind their backs. I know that if any of those doctors are future employers they WOULD pick people from my school over theirs.

    One can argue that one can learn these things on the job, but you can only extend that so far. You can't learn the entire of medicine on the job - what's the point in medical school?

    Now I'm not being ignorant there - that medical school will have some ****-hot students who will be better medics than 85% of my school, but I know at my med school, those 4 students I met would fail, and I think some doctors are realising there is an increasing ability gap, and in the future we will see increasing snobbery. I mean the differences in MRCP pass rates between universities are fairly large.

    I'm not sure this is right - I wouldn't want to be judged on my medical school had I not got an offer from the one I went to - but I, unfortunately, think we might be.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Flight)
    Hi, I'm new here,but been lurking for a while. I just wanted to share something I found interesting.

    I go to an old-fashioned and well respected medical school, but this is irrelevant. I know no student is limited by their medical school, and judging ability from someone's medical is not only unfair, but ignorant.

    Still, I am wondering if the disparity between medical courses is increasing, and I wonder if in 10 years the medical school that someone attended to is going to matter more than it does now (which is very very little).

    My university taught a very scientific preclinical, and whilst I enjoyed the work, I did not, and frankly still don't, accept that it was entirely worthwhile, the amount of depth we went into. HOWEVER, now I am in clinical school, I am seeing discrepencies which I do think are important.

    A few months ago I was on a paediatrics attachment in a DGH, which accepted students from my medical school and one other. I go to a med school with obligatory intercalation, and so whilst we were all the same age, the students from the other med school were about to do their finals. I expected them to wash the floor with us, possibly in their knownledge, but also their clinical skills and examination.

    I couldn't believe how different we were - my peers and I were revising for academic exams, pathology. The students from the other university didn't have to sit any pathology exams we were told - we went to haematology teaching together and they admitted their medical school didn't teach haematology. We went to cardiology teaching and they didn't know how to read an ECG. We went to a neuro meeting and they could not name one brain tumour. We found this a little surprising, but I suppose it's not that important, I guess, as long as you learn it for MCRP/FRCS, but boy I feel I've got an advantage going into that exam, now!

    Still, what shocked me the most was their clinical experience - I sometimes get annoyed with my course for being very academic, and wonder if students are other medical schools get a better 'feel' for things. These students, however, admitted to me that they'd only heard 1, maybe 2, heart murmurs, EACH. In their 3 years of clinical (probably more I guess, with some schools introducing early patient contact). How can they be about to become doctors if they've never heard the difference between mitral regurge and aortic stenosis? They also all knew they would pass finals, they said. Nobody really failed. They accepted they were all lazy, and missed half their attachments, but everyone did.

    The reason I'm making this post, however, is because the doctors knew. The doctors didn't want to kick up a ****-storm, the students didn't really deserve an arse kicking, it was their education. But the doctors knew their was a huge disparity in our abilities, and were, frankly, a little bit rude to the other students behind their backs. I know that if any of those doctors are future employers they WOULD pick people from my school over theirs.

    One can argue that one can learn these things on the job, but you can only extend that so far. You can't learn the entire of medicine on the job - what's the point in medical school?

    Now I'm not being ignorant there - that medical school will have some ****-hot students who will be better medics than 85% of my school, but I know at my med school, those 4 students I met would fail, and I think some doctors are realising there is an increasing ability gap, and in the future we will see increasing snobbery. I mean the differences in MRCP pass rates between universities are fairly large.

    I'm not sure this is right - I wouldn't want to be judged on my medical school had I not got an offer from the one I went to - but I, unfortunately, think we might be.
    If this is true then i find that very worrying. There definitely shouldn't be that much of a gulf between the teaching at two different medical schools.
    Chances are that you just happened to get 4 idiots from that school, and their excuse for being lazy and crap was the old standby of "We weren't taught that", when they actually were.

    A point you seem to have missed though, is that with MMC the employers can't actually see what school students come from, so there would be no chance of them discriminating against students from this schools you are speaking, Though if those students were representative of the school, perhaps they should be allowed to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that nowadays, a lot of people ARE judged for their choice of medical school.

    However the reality of it is, as you say - that we all, in the end, should end up with the knowledge to practice well.

    I suppose that no-one can know everything, but at the same time, not every medical school places as much emphasis on things like hematology and neurology.
    Perhaps as you say, there is an ability gap.

    I would like to say that i get the best teaching i can get.
    And for some, going to a medical school that teaches an entirely scientific preclinical isn't for them.
    Some people are more - hands on.

    It depends how you learn, and it shouldn't affect the doctors that the schools produce.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Four people don't make for a very good sample of an entire medical school.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Just at a guess
    You go to Cambridge, they go to HYMS

    Remember you only met 4. You may have met the 4 worst students they had. I've known doctors who have worked with both Cambridge and HYMS students and heard a different story.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, with the way teaching is covered at different medical schools it would not necessarily be a fair comparison between someone in your year with someone in the same year but at another school.

    When 5th year has come and gone,you should see how you stack up.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    It's interesting to see such disparity among medical schools, which makes me realise my choice is even more important.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody.)
    It's interesting to see such disparity among medical students, which makes me realise my effort is even more important.
    Fixed. ^^
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyraell)
    Fixed. ^^
    Actually it's evidently not just down to the student and his/her effort. The OP stated that all these 'poor' students would pass their finals with this low level of knowledge. Being able to do that is down to the medical school and not the student.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tyraell)
    Four people don't make for a very good sample of an entire medical school.
    I totally agree, and frankly I feel a little guilty for making the post in the first place, I don't want to scare applicants. But I did want to see people's opinions.

    You may well be right, it may be that I found the 4 worst students, but I'd have thought the four worst would have been a little more worried by their exams. Also, the doctor's opinions didn't seem entirely based around these four.

    Still, one might excuse it as the doctors just being rather two-faced! Maybe they said we were useless, too!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Flight)
    Hi, I'm new here,but been lurking for a while. I just wanted to share something I found interesting.

    I go to an old-fashioned and well respected medical school, but this is irrelevant. I know no student is limited by their medical school, and judging ability from someone's medical is not only unfair, but ignorant.

    Still, I am wondering if the disparity between medical courses is increasing, and I wonder if in 10 years the medical school that someone attended to is going to matter more than it does now (which is very very little).

    My university taught a very scientific preclinical, and whilst I enjoyed the work, I did not, and frankly still don't, accept that it was entirely worthwhile, the amount of depth we went into. HOWEVER, now I am in clinical school, I am seeing discrepencies which I do think are important.

    A few months ago I was on a paediatrics attachment in a DGH, which accepted students from my medical school and one other. I go to a med school with obligatory intercalation, and so whilst we were all the same age, the students from the other med school were about to do their finals. I expected them to wash the floor with us, possibly in their knownledge, but also their clinical skills and examination.

    I couldn't believe how different we were - my peers and I were revising for academic exams, pathology. The students from the other university didn't have to sit any pathology exams we were told - we went to haematology teaching together and they admitted their medical school didn't teach haematology. We went to cardiology teaching and they didn't know how to read an ECG. We went to a neuro meeting and they could not name one brain tumour. We found this a little surprising, but I suppose it's not that important, I guess, as long as you learn it for MCRP/FRCS, but boy I feel I've got an advantage going into that exam, now!

    Still, what shocked me the most was their clinical experience - I sometimes get annoyed with my course for being very academic, and wonder if students are other medical schools get a better 'feel' for things. These students, however, admitted to me that they'd only heard 1, maybe 2, heart murmurs, EACH. In their 3 years of clinical (probably more I guess, with some schools introducing early patient contact). How can they be about to become doctors if they've never heard the difference between mitral regurge and aortic stenosis? They also all knew they would pass finals, they said. Nobody really failed. They accepted they were all lazy, and missed half their attachments, but everyone did.

    The reason I'm making this post, however, is because the doctors knew. The doctors didn't want to kick up a ****-storm, the students didn't really deserve an arse kicking, it was their education. But the doctors knew their was a huge disparity in our abilities, and were, frankly, a little bit rude to the other students behind their backs. I know that if any of those doctors are future employers they WOULD pick people from my school over theirs.

    One can argue that one can learn these things on the job, but you can only extend that so far. You can't learn the entire of medicine on the job - what's the point in medical school?

    Now I'm not being ignorant there - that medical school will have some ****-hot students who will be better medics than 85% of my school, but I know at my med school, those 4 students I met would fail, and I think some doctors are realising there is an increasing ability gap, and in the future we will see increasing snobbery. I mean the differences in MRCP pass rates between universities are fairly large.

    I'm not sure this is right - I wouldn't want to be judged on my medical school had I not got an offer from the one I went to - but I, unfortunately, think we might be.
    What Uni are you at? The harder, more in-depth learning would suit me down to the ground, just curious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lekky)
    Just at a guess
    You go to Cambridge, they go to HYMS

    Remember you only met 4. You may have met the 4 worst students they had. I've known doctors who have worked with both Cambridge and HYMS students and heard a different story.
    Bloody hell, I feel sorry for any students who have to commute to a hospital between Hull/York and Cambridge, they aren't exactly close

    What school I go to is irrelevant, that wasn't my point, but if it's not Cambridge then it's one very similar, I admit.

    The other school was not HYMS - it's a fair bit older! I don't think it's that PBL based, but I'm not too sure. Anyway, it's not one of the very new ones.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Flight)
    Bloody hell, I feel sorry for any students who have to commute to a hospital between Hull/York and Cambridge, they aren't exactly close

    What school I go to is irrelevant, that wasn't my point, but if it's not Cambridge then it's one very similar, I admit.

    The other school was not HYMS - it's a fair bit older! I don't think it's that PBL based, but I'm not too sure. Anyway, it's not one of the very new ones.
    Haha apologises. As I said I know someone who works in a teaching hospital that takes both Cambridge & HYMS. Pre-clinical/clinical gives a lot away, and secrecy always creates intrigue :p:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Flight)
    I totally agree, and frankly I feel a little guilty for making the post in the first place, I don't want to scare applicants. But I did want to see people's opinions.

    You may well be right, it may be that I found the 4 worst students, but I'd have thought the four worst would have been a little more worried by their exams. Also, the doctor's opinions didn't seem entirely based around these four.

    Still, one might excuse it as the doctors just being rather two-faced! Maybe they said we were useless, too!
    Ha - I'm glad you said that; I wasn't a little worried by your lack of balance, if I'm honest. I agree that your experiences might be indicative of your point, but you can only push your evidence so far.

    Unfortunately, formal measurement of outcomes of different curricula isn't something which medicine lends itself particularly well to...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think OP went to UCL, hehe.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ignoramus)
    I think OP went to UCL, hehe.
    We don't have specific path papers - they're mixed in with the other exams.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sebastian Flight)
    Hi, I'm new here,but been lurking for a while. I just wanted to share something I found interesting.

    I go to an old-fashioned and well respected medical school, but this is irrelevant. I know no student is limited by their medical school, and judging ability from someone's medical is not only unfair, but ignorant.

    Still, I am wondering if the disparity between medical courses is increasing, and I wonder if in 10 years the medical school that someone attended to is going to matter more than it does now (which is very very little).

    My university taught a very scientific preclinical, and whilst I enjoyed the work, I did not, and frankly still don't, accept that it was entirely worthwhile, the amount of depth we went into. HOWEVER, now I am in clinical school, I am seeing discrepencies which I do think are important.

    A few months ago I was on a paediatrics attachment in a DGH, which accepted students from my medical school and one other. I go to a med school with obligatory intercalation, and so whilst we were all the same age, the students from the other med school were about to do their finals. I expected them to wash the floor with us, possibly in their knownledge, but also their clinical skills and examination.

    I couldn't believe how different we were - my peers and I were revising for academic exams, pathology. The students from the other university didn't have to sit any pathology exams we were told - we went to haematology teaching together and they admitted their medical school didn't teach haematology. We went to cardiology teaching and they didn't know how to read an ECG. We went to a neuro meeting and they could not name one brain tumour. We found this a little surprising, but I suppose it's not that important, I guess, as long as you learn it for MCRP/FRCS, but boy I feel I've got an advantage going into that exam, now!

    Still, what shocked me the most was their clinical experience - I sometimes get annoyed with my course for being very academic, and wonder if students are other medical schools get a better 'feel' for things. These students, however, admitted to me that they'd only heard 1, maybe 2, heart murmurs, EACH. In their 3 years of clinical (probably more I guess, with some schools introducing early patient contact). How can they be about to become doctors if they've never heard the difference between mitral regurge and aortic stenosis? They also all knew they would pass finals, they said. Nobody really failed. They accepted they were all lazy, and missed half their attachments, but everyone did.

    The reason I'm making this post, however, is because the doctors knew. The doctors didn't want to kick up a ****-storm, the students didn't really deserve an arse kicking, it was their education. But the doctors knew their was a huge disparity in our abilities, and were, frankly, a little bit rude to the other students behind their backs. I know that if any of those doctors are future employers they WOULD pick people from my school over theirs.

    One can argue that one can learn these things on the job, but you can only extend that so far. You can't learn the entire of medicine on the job - what's the point in medical school?

    Now I'm not being ignorant there - that medical school will have some ****-hot students who will be better medics than 85% of my school, but I know at my med school, those 4 students I met would fail, and I think some doctors are realising there is an increasing ability gap, and in the future we will see increasing snobbery. I mean the differences in MRCP pass rates between universities are fairly large.

    I'm not sure this is right - I wouldn't want to be judged on my medical school had I not got an offer from the one I went to - but I, unfortunately, think we might be.
    I entirely agree. But most of the time for politically correct reasons, people tend to argue that just because everybody has a medical degree, the degrees must be all the same. It's as silly an argument as saying just because everybody passed GCSE Maths, they're all up to the same standards, they are not.

    It's scary, I thought you are meant to be able to diagnose and differentiate between VT due to ARVD, WPWS, and the Brugada syndrome from ECGs before you start clinical school... :woo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Woody.)
    Actually it's evidently not just down to the student and his/her effort. The OP stated that all these 'poor' students would pass their finals with this low level of knowledge. Being able to do that is down to the medical school and not the student.
    Actually it's evident that some of those student's couldn't give a **** as they admitted they didn't turn up to half of their attachments. Personally, if I can't name several brain tumours by the time I'm a finalist I'll be ******** myself and headed straight for the books and the hospital's neurology/neurosurgery services.

    OP, I think you've raised this point in an interesting and mature manner that thankfully is very different from the usual thread of "where I go iz best, everywhere else sux". I agree with Tyraell though, although it's worrying that some medical students give that little of a toss, I think (and hope) that the majority are hard working and interested.

    Although the fact that they probably passed finals and could very possibly treat my friends and family pisses me right off :rant:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As a peninsula student I had a placement with a Bristol student at a GP surgery, and she didn't know nearly as much as me, but im not going to go on about how Bristol isn't as good.

    Also, i dont understand why the newer medical schools are always considered worse just because they are new, the way it was assumed above that it was HYMS even though its nowhere near cambridge. At the end of the day everyone favours their own medical school, but we only know about the schools we go to, I dont have a clue what the course is like at anywhere except peninsula, so I would never say anywhere else is better or worse.

    Snobbery probably will go on, but I feel that you will have to stand out as an individual wherever you go, and it is interviews and application forms that will get you jobs, not where you went to medical school - probably. Anyone choosing medical school should choose it on where they want to be for a long five years, the type of course that will help them learn, and where they think theyll be happiest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Could also have been Oxford\Leicester sharing at Northampton. Though the Leicester guys when I was there were mostly quite switched on (hopefully they'd say the same about us!).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.