why is oxbridge so special?

[Gizmo says -]

Well is that so? Perhaps in some sub-specialities, but hardly in everything.

And you know, all this "I want to work in the best hospital with the best people blah blah blah" all sounds like more of an ego trip to me than a desire to do better for your patients. Does a top London specailist do more for the world than a GP in rural Herefordshire? Perhaps, but not at all necessarily.

to put that point more pertinently, does a top london specialist do anything for a citizen living in rural 'ertfordshire?

its the patients that count, not the ego - lose sight of that and you will be the most useless doctor on the ward period.

[KT9]

I feel like I'm missing something really obvious and am about to make a fool of myself here, but how come we can only apply to either Cambridge or Oxford?

[dsn]

I feel like I'm missing something really obvious and am about to make a fool of myself here, but how come we can only apply to either Cambridge or Oxford?

Propaganda to reinforce how good they are? But also since everyone would apply to both otherwise (meaning your chances didn't improve) it means they have less work doing admissions without affecting your chances. Just another in built advantage Oxbridge have over everyone else.

[Hughman]

It depends really on what you want to do. If you want to be involved in research, academics and politics within medicine, going to Oxford or Cambridge is going to give you an advantage, even if that's just from the contacts you've made and the automatic respect (if only initial) you get from being an Oxbridge graduate. Just look at law - 85% of barristers are Oxbridge educated (and this isn't to do with money - some of the London law schools are just as dominated with rich public school students)

But an anecdote I've heard says that Oxbridge produces no GPs or surgeons (obviously untrue but the point is being made).

[yazoo]

It depends really on what you want to do. If you want to be involved in research, academics and politics within medicine, going to Oxford or Cambridge is going to give you an advantage, even if that's just from the contacts you've made and the automatic respect (if only initial) you get from being an Oxbridge graduate. Just look at law - 85% of barristers are Oxbridge educated (and this isn't to do with money - some of the London law schools are just as dominated with rich public school students)

But an anecdote I've heard says that Oxbridge produces no GPs or surgeons (obviously untrue but the point is being made).

You think a BL/Edinburgh/Notts grad is going to "respect" an Oxbridge degree automatically? And that's just talking about one FY1 talking to another... Do you think your SHO cares where your degree is from? Or your consultant?

I think you seem to have a slightly misguided view as to what is important in medical careers. There are other things that are just so much more important.

[Hughman]

Why did you think I said 'initial'? Bad way of phrasing, but say two people are applying for a job, and they are identically qualified, same personality etc etc ect, but one if from Oxbridge and the other is from another uni the employer is going to choose the person the person from Oxbridge in the majority of cases.

Oxbridge has already done part of the selection process for them - they only want the best so QED only the best should leave from their unis (of course not true, but it's a sensible logic path to take on the issue)

[yazoo]

I am arguing the initial as well as everything else. Doesn't change my reply at all! The fact that you bring law into it, too...

[Hughman]

Haha, yes, fair point - but it is true. They try to dispel this myth of Oxbridge not being high and mighty but most barristers, MPs, QCs and Presidents of any professional societies (including medicine though this is changing, like the Chief Medical Officer is a B'ham grad) are likely to be Oxbridge educated. Either these two unis are doing something to make their grads better than the rest, or there's 'old boy' nepotism going on. (I personally believe both are and will always happen)

If you want to be a GP or something like that, and want to make a proper difference, then Oxbridge is going to crush you like a worm because they don't believe in it (which is wrong to be fair).

Just my 2p on the matter.

[yazoo]

And in reply to your editied post, which has expanded greatly: Medical recruitment at junior level does not allow the scope for this type of influence (ie one of university). Indeed, some would suggest that using current foundation application ranking systems, Oxbridge grads may be disadvantaged.

By the time you get to consultant applications, the rest of your CV makes university insignificant.

[yazoo]

Haha, yes, fair point - but it is true. They try to dispel this myth of Oxbridge not being high and mighty but most barristers, MPs, QCs and Presidents of any professional societies (including medicine though this is changing, like the Chief Medical Officer is a B'ham grad) are likely to be Oxbridge educated. Either these two unis are doing something to make their grads better than the rest, or there's 'old boy' nepotism going on. (I personally believe both are and will always happen)

If you want to be a GP or something like that, and want to make a proper difference, then Oxbridge is going to crush you like a worm because they don't believe in it (which is wrong to be fair).

Just my 2p on the matter.

I would say your views are out of date. They do not take into account modern medical recruitment techniques, which have arisen to combat directly the old boy network approach.

Just my 2p worth too!