Oldies for 2010

[elise_h]

Sorry, Elise, we've completely hijacked your thread, haven't we... Hope your UKCAT went well.

Lol. No problem! Its been interesting to read your posts. I wanted this thread to be a place the oldies could hang-out so that's great.

My UKCAT went well thanks. I got 755. I couldn't believe it when I saw the scores! I took the test at an overseas centre where I'm currently working - it was really hot and the air conditioning hadn't been reinstalled after some building work, so it wasn't the best environment - but I'm relieved it went well anyway. Now I've got to make up my mind where to apply. Kings and Barts are on the list amongst others, but I'm trying to work out the best balance of 4-year vs. 5-year etc....

[psjorge]

469er, my last post was an attempt to provide a sort of 20th century educational psychology in a nutshell!
Looking back it was a bit overdone... I really didn't want to sound arrogant nor to lecture anybody (sorry if I did..). It's just that it is a topic that interests me a lot (as it was clearly shown...) and I got a bit carried away... ups!?

Obviously, you're right about the influence of personality and circumstances.

My UKCAT went well thanks. I got 755.

Congratulations elise_h! Great score!

Now I've got to make up my mind where to apply

That's the million-dollar-question isn't it? I personally debated myself with that very same dilemma...!
Barts and King's are two firm choices. The other two are open to suggestions.
I was considering Brighton but their Admission's Office said that based on the grade of my first degree they would not advise me on applying there. I like to think that it's their loss!

What schools are on your mind?

[469er]

469er, my last post was an attempt to provide a sort of 20th century educational psychology in a nutshell!
Looking back it was a bit overdone... I really didn't want to sound arrogant nor to lecture anybody (sorry if I did..). It's just that it is a topic that interests me a lot (as it was clearly shown...) and I got a bit carried away... ups!?

Crikey, don't apologise. We love a debate round here. Well, I do, anyway.

Congratulations elise_h! Great score!

Yes, really. Cracking score. Apply anywhere you like with that, I should think. Well done!

[clemette]

Congratulations Elise.
Just my input on PBL. I too am ancient and did a history degree first time around which involved only traditional lectures. I also taught for 12 years and, at A level especially, used a very traditional method. I didn't choose Nottingham because of PBL, I chose it because it is where I live with my family, but I have to say that I am amazed by how motivatory I am finding it. At Nottingham you have a PBL case weekly and then have lectures/workshops/clinical skills sessions that support the learning outcomes for that week. Thus the bases are covered but the exploration of the issues is done with your PBL group. As we all bring something different to the table (everyone in the group except me has a science background and most have worked in a clinical setting; I bring the touchy-feely bit) then we can make some topics more accessible for each other and consolidate our understanding. We also have time in the timetable for our collaborative working so it doesn't impact on evenings/family time.
I know it is early days for me but the university has a proven track record and I feel very confident with their integrated approach. I think I would struggle with some lectures if I had no immediate context in which to apply it.

[psjorge]

PBL as we know it was first implemented by McMaster University Medical School,in Canada in the '60s (yes, 50 years ago...) though it's philosophical origins can be traced way back in time to classical antiquity (what can't be traced to this period...).

Without going back to the Ancient Greeks, let me point out that at the beginning of the XX century, a few law schools in America began using a teaching tool that can be classified as PBL. They realized that the conventional theoretical-lecture-based methodologies of teaching law did not prepare the young lawyers-to-be for the argumentative and sometimes imaginative nature of standing at a court of law. With this in mind they divided the students into smaller groups and gave the group an imaginary legal case. Time was given to the students to develop a legal defence or accusation strategy. At the end, the students would then meet to present and discuss amongst themselves and with the teacher the merit and weaknesses of the strategies devised. By using this teaching method the students could relate to real-life situations what they learned at lectures and put that knowledge into a practical context. On the other hand, it trained them in searching for facts (the legal code, other law suits, etc) to support their claims as well as to develop argumentation skills.

If we transport this rational to medical teaching I'm sure we all agree that it makes sense! With this in mind even the most traditional of medical schools has re-structured its curriculum to allow for more knowledge integration and to stimulate the students to develop other skills than just the capacity to memorize encyclopaedic knowledge...

What does not make sense if to be fundamentalist about this issues (or any issue for that matter...) and develop a curriculum based ONLY on PBL. This would be the opposite equivalent of having a curriculum based ONLY on lectures!

PBL style curricula should have lectures, seminars, practical demonstrations, practical sessions, etc. On the other hand, an LBL should also have some teaching tool (I'm avoiding the word PBL on purpose!) to allow the students to develop some inquisitive and independent thinking skills.

PBL is by no means easier for the students and teachers, cheaper for the schools or requires less engaging or commitment from the students and teachers. It's hard work!

Unfortunately, quite often this is not taken into consideration and it is thought that the students learning for themselves equals to me-as-a-teacher-don't-have-to-do-anything approach!

This is most usually found on newer schools because, let's face it, is not easy to start a medical school from scratch! It requires a hospital of significant size so as to have a relevant instance of cases both in quantity and in diversity but most of all it requires a teaching staff that has beyond medical skills in the strict sense also pedagogical ones. In other words, one needs academics and true academics are scarce and hard to find!

Often, the newer schools are created in smaller universities, in smaller cities and, inevitably, rely upon smaller hospitals. Due to this facts, they do not have true academics in the field of Medicine. Also as a consequence, their attractiveness for top rank academics is not that great so they struggle to find and secure them and are many times unable to do so.
The end result of this situation is that they tend to rely (I'd say too much..) on the existing medical staff that is, usually not prepared (not only scientifically but most of all in academic and pedagogical terms) to teach at this level.

Often as well, these schools tend to think: "we don't need academics... we can use PBL!" and this leads to the aforementioned me-as-a-teacher-don't-have-to-do-anything attitude! On the other hand, how do they attract the clinician that has a calm and steady life in the countryside hospital and make him or her into a medical teacher? Well they often say: "don't worry, the students learn for themselves so you don't really have to do that much!".

The result is, usually not brilliant...

Having said all this, I think that when choosing a school we should do it carefully and evaluate it for what it is worth, with its strengths and weaknesses, independently of the amount of PBL or lectures that its prospectus says the curriculum contains.

We are all too old to make a bad choice...

Let me jus finish by stating that I do not intend to be offensive to anybody nor to be judgemental. I'm just sharing my own personal view on this, based on actual practical experience.



Keep in touch people!
Pedro

[clemette]

Often, the newer schools are created in smaller universities, in smaller cities and, inevitably, rely upon smaller hospitals. Due to this facts, they do not have true academics in the field of Medicine. Also as a consequence, their attractiveness for top rank academics is not that great so they struggle to find and secure them and are many times unable to do so.
The end result of this situation is that they tend to rely (I'd say too much..) on the existing medical staff that is, usually not prepared (not only scientifically but most of all in academic and pedagogical terms) to teach at this level.

The result is, usually not brilliant...

This is definitely not the case here in Nottingham. Because they operate the more traditional undergraduate course AND the PBL-based Graduate entry course (on a brand new site) we benefit from the excellent teaching of the university as a whole (which is not, of course, to say all lectures have been fabulous, but so far most have been delivered by professors in their field).

I think it is important to look at each school individually rather than making sweeping judgements about a teaching methodology.

[psjorge]

This is definitely not the case here in Nottingham. Because they operate the more traditional undergraduate course AND the PBL-based Graduate entry course (on a brand new site) we benefit from the excellent teaching of the university as a whole (which is not, of course, to say all lectures have been fabulous, but so far most have been delivered by professors in their field).

I think it is important to look at each school individually rather than making sweeping judgements about a teaching methodology.

My point exactly!

Besides I was not criticising the methodology. I was criticising its misuse and the fact that it can give a good thing a bad name.


I was unaware that Nottingham had a curriculum style for the "regular" course and another for the GEP. That's quite interesting.

The only similar example I know of is the medical school at the Carité University in Berlin which has both undergraduate curricular types running together! Students can choose to study under one style or the other yet the school is the same, the teaching staff is the same, the facilities are the same, etc.


Regards,
Pedro

[searabia]

Hey
Im 30, have a music degree and am a qualified nurse. Had a place for medicine 08 but couldnt afford to go. Reapplying to Glasgow for 2010 and hoping they like me better this time around!
Fingers crossed for all the oldies!
Px

Polldoll, we're the same age. I'm applying to Glasgow this year, too. I did a Literature degree for my first degree and am doing an MPH at Glasgow just now, too. I'm completely petrified about applying, but gotta try. Are you applying to any other Scottish Med Schools?

Good luck!

[Polldoll]

Polldoll, we're the same age. I'm applying to Glasgow this year, too. I did a Literature degree for my first degree and am doing an MPH at Glasgow just now, too. I'm completely petrified about applying, but gotta try. Are you applying to any other Scottish Med Schools?

Good luck!

Hi and nice to meet you! I am only applying to Glasgow, its the only place I can afford to go, so no point applying anywhere else!

Are you all sorted with UKCAT and ucas form? Im just trying to edit the PS and waiting for reference to arrive.. then thats it!

Good luck!
Px

[more_eggs_please]

Yes LBL was referring to lecture-based-learning i.e. more traditional teaching methods. I thought I'd heard it somewhere but maybe I just made it up! In which case I'm happy to have coined it.

I understand that each course is unique to each institution but (roughly speaking) looking at the 16 schools that offer a GEP course, which would you describe as LBL and which as PBL?

Barts - PBL
Birmingham -
Cambridge -
IC -
KCL - LBL
Keele -
Leicester -
Liverpool -
Newcastle -
Nottingham -
Oxford -
Southampton -
St Georges -
Swansea -
Warwick -

Anyone jump in here