Imperial or UCL?

[gimperial99]

Originally Posted by agneishd

mainly 'cause other factors such as research, publications, references etc. are taken into consideration as opposed whether you went to imperial or leeds or soton or wherever

Evidence for this? Having started in the old system I have been 8 job interviews and have got all 8 jobs.

For one references are NOT taken into account at all in selection. The selectors do NOT see you references. The references are only checked following your appointment to make sure you are not a killer, thief etc. This is different for medical school, but we are talking about medical jobs, so clearly this is an error on your behalf.

[gimperial99]

True, thats the reality we live in. My point is though, the extent the name/image of your university can bring you has its limits. After that, it all depends on personal ability, which only comes if you put the work in.

Of course it does, as I said its one of many factors. BUT as medical jobs become more and more competitive you need every point you can.

hmm...but if you suck at anatomy, Imperial wouldnt have legal permission from GMC to teach Medicine would it? I mean, not knowing anatomy is like not knowing how the human body looks and works on the surface. Well each to their own on that, but although you may have, from your experience, seen that Guy's graduates performed better on anatomy, you cannot really generalize that onto the entire college. You are, after all, not supposed to be spoon-fed in college as you were in highschol, but rely a lot on independent studying.

True, but wait until you go to Imperial. As I said many of my friends have actually taught anatomy at these unis. The other thing of course is you cannot take a body home with you!

Well, there are enough countries in the world, whose universities dont even rank in the top 100 in the world, but still have very advanced technology/medical care quality etc etc which certainly does not fall behind others.

I was thinking of one locum who I worked with who could not speak English. There are many top doctors who came from abroad, like Ara Darzi for instance.

Right, different universities may have different qualities of teaching, but most of your future career depends on you yourself, and if you lets say are in a uni where the teaching quality sucks, you have to work that much harder to compensate for it. I had a messed up Biology teacher at highschool, because of whom most of my classmates failed the course, so I worked that much harder at home during self-study so I could understand the stuff without being too much dependent on my teacher.

Shame more people do not have the same attitude as you. Thats probably why you are going to Imperial and they are not!!!!

Sure, not everyone is good, and it depends on your personal ability to learn and cope with studying medicine, it should not be dependent too much on your uni. You could get the best teaching professor in the world for learning Biochemistry at a "low rank" university as well as get the worst teacher ever for it at a "high rank" university. The point Im trying to make is that you have to have the flexibility to cope with both "good" and "bad" teaching, which you can get at any uni and compensate. Teaching after all, depends on the person teaching it, not the university.

In medicine another factor is the quality of patients you get exposed to. At Imperial you will get to go to places like the Hammersmith, the national heart and lung institute, the Brompton (if the Government doesn't close it down because it is too good). You will see pathologies that simply do not exist at other hospitals, you will see state of the art treatments not used at other hospitals, and have the opportunity to learn from some of the leading people in their respective fields. To be fair UCL has some great places as well like Moorfields (again the Government would like to close this down as it is too good), the Heart etc.

[agneishd]

Originally Posted by gimperial99

Evidence for this? Having started in the old system I have been 8 job interviews and have got all 8 jobs.

For one references are NOT taken into account at all in selection. The selectors do NOT see you references. The references are only checked following your appointment to make sure you are not a killer, thief etc. This is different for medical school, but we are talking about medical jobs, so clearly this is an error on your behalf.

alright, calm down! maybe not references so much, but the other stuff, and interview performance - uni is not usually an issue (according to my dad, who is a consultant...)

[Gizmo says -]

Originally Posted by gimperial99

Evidence for this? Having started in the old system I have been 8 job interviews and have got all 8 jobs.

thats not evidence, you idiot.
you've not compared it wif anyone to mek it evidence.

i'm not suprised you cant see that though, since you dont know thats lots of peeple get their first choice jobs from lots of different universities.
not that i believe for one minute anyfing you write about 8 out of 8 jobs.

[Gizmo says -]

Originally Posted by gimperial99

In medicine another factor is the quality of patients you get exposed to. At Imperial you will get to go to places like the Hammersmith, the national heart and lung institute, the Brompton (if the Government doesn't close it down because it is too good). You will see pathologies that simply do not exist at other hospitals, you will see state of the art treatments not used at other hospitals, and have the opportunity to learn from some of the leading people in their respective fields.

exactly why avent other ospitals got what imperial has?
exactly, please tell.

peeple are the same talents all over the country, and resources are actually spread finner in central london than elsewhere.

[Dr Noodle]

I was told I should study medicine in the major cities as the hospitals there would have a more interesting patient dynamic.

Their resources may be spread thinner but the big cities tend to have a wider range of resources compared to district hospitals.

[alex MD]

Actually some of the best teaching medical students receive is at DGH's as it's more 'hands-on'. Think about it, being a med student in a 'prestigious' hospital e.g. Stanmore, National Institute for Neurology and Neurosurgery, sounds good but your not gonna get as much hands on learning as you will at DGH"S as when there's an army of junior docs to teach as well as the odd PhD student, medical students aren't gonna be the ones asked to perform or observe a procedure when there are many others 'higher up the ladder'.

[Spencer Wells]

Originally Posted by alex MD

Think about it, being a med student in a 'prestigious' hospital e.g. Stanmore, National Institute for Neurology and Neurosurgery, sounds good but your not gonna get as much hands on learning as you will at DGH"S

That's really not true.
Medical students are there for different reasons to junior doctors and it would be incredibly rare that you step on a doc's toes.

As a med student you're not going to be performing any procedures during a neurology rotation, be it at the Nash or St Elsewhere.
As for observing things - the only competition is with your fellow med students.
And in my experience, teaching is consistently better at teaching hospitals, which have more money for teaching facilities, and a more interesting case load.

[gimperial99]

Agneshid, I happen to know a few people who interviewed for MTAS, and whilst the university you went to should not play a part, it does. As I have said before it is one of many factors, to pretend it has no bearing at all is not based on reality.

If we did a monkey "degree" like nursing say, where you spend all your lifes cleaning up faeces and making beds then may be it would be fair to say that it doesn't really matter where you go, as most people could be reasonably good at it. However, in something more academic (although they have lowered standards and let some less able people in) like medicine it is only natural there will be a variation in talent. Anyone who says otherwise is not living in the real world.

[Singh.Simran]

There's a difference between a variation in talent and some people being "rubbish", for the variation is still at a very high level.

I do agree with you that some schools are better than others. I wouldn't agree with the typical ranking which seems based more on reputation and prestige than evidence, but there you have it.

I'd also caution that the relationship between school and quality must be so confounded by the personal ability of the doctor concerned, the year (for things change, and fairly rapidly), luck, etc etc - that it is almost meaningless.