Prospective GEM student very confused

[barnflakes]

Hi all, sorry if this is the wrong forum but it seems like it might be the best place to get a good answer.

I want to be a Doctor, and I'm getting ready to make the commitment to studying Medicine for the next 4-5 years, but I'm still unsure, and that's because of all the things I've heard about getting speciality training posts.

I looked on the MMC website and it says the competition ratio for run through posts is overall 2:1. What happens to the other 50% of people?

I also can't find any information on how they score/decide who gets a run-through training post, so I have no idea whether or not I'm even capable of achieving the required standard.

Any guidance would be much appreciated.

[sajeev86]

I think what's crucial here is that you want to be a doctor. Competition is going to exist everywhere in any job.

But having said this, if you do get into GEM then I'd assume that you've got a very good chance of getting a place for speciality training as mature students are favourable. The greater the experience, the more likely you will be selected for the training post.

I assume the remainder either apply again and/or choose a different (less competitive) specialty.

Hope this helps and good luck in your application.

[Clarkey]

I think what's crucial here is that you want to be a doctor. Competition is going to exist everywhere in any job.

But having said this, if you do get into GEM then I'd assume that you've got a very good chance of getting a place for speciality training as mature students are favourable. The greater the experience, the more likely you will be selected for the training post.

I assume the remainder either apply again and/or choose a different (less competitive) specialty.

And I was able to find a score sheet for the O&G specialty training by going on the RCOG website, so it is available out there. All of the points were for things you would have done in your medical degree or during your foundation training from what I remember.

Hope this helps and good luck in your application.

Sorry but thats just not true. The experience that they ask for on the forms will be based on what you have done as a doctor and possibly some of your acheivements during medical school. Some mature students will have previous degrees which may place them at an advantage, but many students now intercalate making this less of a barrier. Can you explain how a mature student applying for specialist training will be favoured over a school leaver assuming they both went to the same med school?

Most people who apply for specialty training apply for more than one specialty so they may get an offer from something else. Those that don't can do a stand alone year of training in a specialty and then try and reapply for entry into a training programme.

[sajeev86]

Firstly, to get a place into medical school as a mature student would indicate a great deal of commitment. Places for GEM are far more competitive than undergrad places and although emphasis is placed on student with high scores in UKCAT and higher academic achievements, work experience and community services are usually determinants of whether you get a place in GEM or not. So prospective mature students have their commitment tested more because of the number of GEM places available.

Secondly, once in med school, matures are more likely to take part in medical education. Personally, I am less likely to hit the bars/clubs than 18/19 somethings, because well I've done it all - I'm numbed by that all. Compared to the majority of undergrads, good time management of GEM students is more important because the course is four years short, which also means having to deal with more stress.

Thirdly, ask most doctors and students and most often than not, older students have their head screwed on tighter. This makes them more favourable than people younger than them. Mature means better perspective, it doesn't just mean older, it means wisdom; it means being tactful, before you get taught in communication classes to be more tactful; it means you have more experiences in your life to realise better what clinical experiences mean. An advantage when filling out your MTAS.

I find it absolutely bizarre that you don't find mature students to be favourable, when most consultants I've spoken to prefer GEM students to most pure undergrads. If experiences matter in MTAS (I've seen the application form from my friends' own applications), then it matters that you have to be mature in your perception of what those experiences mean.

I know this doesn't speak for every graduate, or every undergrad, but that's the impression I get when I've met medics. I've friends in med as undergrads and grads. Grads are far more on the ball than undergrads. I am not saying that having an extra degree is the main reason why Grads are more favourable, but the years more that you have benefits your marks, your ability to deal with stress and your communication skills.

I've spoken to doctors/consultants who see the transition of medical schools accepting more graduates becoming more evident in the future. Some undergrads are good/very good in fact, one of my friends (an undergrad) got a top six mark (out of ~300) in the undergrad exam, but was the only undergrad in the top 15.

P.S. I'd prefer if you wouldn't quote me on things I've not even said. Thanks.

[Clarkey]

Firstly, to get a place into medical school as a mature student would indicate a great deal of commitment. Places for GEM are far more competitive than undergrad places and although emphasis is placed on student with high scores in UKCAT and higher academic achievements, work experience and community services are usually determinants of whether you get a place in GEM or not. So prospective mature students have their commitment tested more because of the number of GEM places available.

Secondly, once in med school, matures are more likely to take part in medical education. Personally, I am less likely to hit the bars/clubs than 18/19 somethings, because well I've done it all - I'm numbed by that all. Compared to the majority of undergrads, good time management of GEM students is more important because the course is four years short, which also means having to deal with more stress.

Thirdly, ask most doctors and students and most often than not, older students have their head screwed on tighter. This makes them more favourable than people younger than them. Mature means better perspective, it doesn't just mean older, it means wisdom; it means being tactful, before you get taught in communication classes to be more tactful; it means you have more experiences in your life to realise better what clinical experiences mean. An advantage when filling out your MTAS.

I find it absolutely bizarre that you don't find mature students to be favourable, when most consultants I've spoken to prefer GEM students to most pure undergrads. If experiences matter in MTAS (I've seen the application form from my friends' own applications), then it matters that you have to be mature in your perception of what those experiences mean.

I know this doesn't speak for every graduate, or every undergrad, but that's the impression I get when I've met medics. I've friends in med as undergrads and grads. Grads are far more on the ball than undergrads. I am not saying that having an extra degree is the main reason why Grads are more favourable, but the years more that you have benefits your marks, your ability to deal with stress and your communication skills.

I've spoken to doctors/consultants who see the transition of medical schools accepting more graduates becoming more evident in the future. Some undergrads are good/very good in fact, one of my friends (an undergrad) got a top six mark (out of ~300) in the undergrad exam, but was the only undergrad in the top 15.

P.S. I'd prefer if you wouldn't quote me on things I've not even said. Thanks.

But you still haven't addressed the point of the thread.

The OP was asking about applying for specialist training. That is nothing to do with MTAS which now is known as MMC or whatever other acronym they've come with for it.

No-one is disputing that applying for graduate entry is more competitive than standard entry. I don't see that I alluded to the fact that mature students don't work hard, or that they don't bring additional skills to their medical training.

I'm glad you have looked at the MTAS form. Did you see this years one? There was nothing in the questions part of the form which necessarily gives graduates an advantage. The questions were based on experiences during medical school.

Please don't patronise me by telling me what being mature means. I could flip that on its head by telling you to wait until you get into medical school before telling me what medical students think and feel. Are you aware of the fact that some students on graduate entry courses went straight from their first degree into medicine? I know many grad students because we have a grad course here, and the only difference between them and a school leaver is a degree. They do not necessarily have life experience.

Wisdom is something that people acquire at different ages. You neglect the fact that those school leavers decide to study medicine are often very dedicated to becoming doctors and display much more maturity than other peers of the same age.

I don't think you can provide any evidence that mature students are more likely to be successful in applying for specialist training, because by the time people come to apply school leavers will have been through at least 5 years of medical school on top of 2 foundation years.

Have you seen one of the application forms? Intercalation or other degree? Audit cycle? Additional courses e.g. ATLS? Commitment to specialty?

All of these aspects can be demonstrated equally by mature students and school leavers. If you had been arguing about performance at medical school then I would be more inclined to agree. There are some studies which show that graduate entry students do better in some of their exams (the paper I am referring to looked at students at Birmingham).

However gaining a place on a GEM course does not give you any advantage when applying for specialist training.

[sajeev86]

OP was asking about his chances. I was simply saying that if he got into GEM then his chances of getting a place in specialist are quite good/favourable. Reasoned because the competitive nature of acquiring a GEM place means that you'd be very skilled anyway of acquiring a place in a specialism of choice.

Higher grades of graduate students on med courses would suggest better, more focussed experiences in medical school. Better experiences which would be evident in any application form.

We are not comparing students who have no wish to study medicine. We're comparing those graduating as undergraduates and graduates. Many undergraduates I know had applied when they were 18 and regret it. Their experiences suggest graduates who have far lower dropout rates appreciate the arduous nature of medicine more. Many I know have worked as health care professionals, nurses, etc. have various perspectives. Still for you to think that in the three years that it takes to acquire a non-med degree that students 'just' acquire a degree is myopic. There may not be recognisable differences to you, but consultants I've spoken to have seen plenty and gauge them. In three years, friends of mine have acquired skills that though applying for medicine are good enough for places in top investment banks.

I am not suggesting that undergraduates do not have a hope if they are competing for places against a GEM graduate, but only that GEM grads are more likely to secure their chosen specialism because their mature attitude lends them to better practices which achieve higher marks, better understanding of clinical science and better communication skills. (btw, I'm referring to the highly competitive 4yr courses)

(I apologise if I've come off as patronising, I neither have the time, nor the intention to do so)

[barnflakes]

Guys, thanks for the replies but unfortunately none has answered my question. Please can we remain on topic.

My question is, given the competition and an overall competition ratio of 2:1, what happens to the 50% of Doctors who do not get training in their chosen speciality? If as Clarkey said, they go on to get more experience in their chosen speciality before applying again, this would surely create a backlog of doctors year on year? Also, I've heard that now there is a move for specifying a MAXIMUM number of years experience in order to be accepted onto speciality training. Whether or not this is written in black and white is irrelevant if the preference is there.

Can anyone help with that question, specifically.

[Clarkey]

Guys, thanks for the replies but unfortunately none has answered my question. Please can we remain on topic.

My question is, given the competition and an overall competition ratio of 2:1, what happens to the 50% of Doctors who do not get training in their chosen speciality? If as Clarkey said, they go on to get more experience in their chosen speciality before applying again, this would surely create a backlog of doctors year on year? Also, I've heard that now there is a move for specifying a MAXIMUM number of years experience in order to be accepted onto speciality training. Whether or not this is written in black and white is irrelevant if the preference is there.

Can anyone help with that question, specifically.

I also said that the vast majority of people apply for more than one specialty, most people get a place doing something, or they leave medicine, or they work abroad.

[yazoo]

I am not suggesting that undergraduates do not have a hope if they are competing for places against a GEM graduate, but only that GEM grads are more likely to secure their chosen specialism because their mature attitude lends them to better practices which achieve higher marks, better understanding of clinical science and better communication skills. (btw, I'm referring to the highly competitive 4yr courses)

They have much more than a hope. I think you underestimate many of the traditional entry sudents, perhaps becuase you have no direct experience to draw upon. Sure there are some wasters (some of whom go on to make wonderful Drs in the longer term), some who make the wrong career choice etc etc. But equally, many are mature (at least by the time they graduate) and talented people.

[yazoo]

Still for you to think that in the three years that it takes to acquire a non-med degree that students 'just' acquire a degree is myopic. There may not be recognisable differences to you, but consultants I've spoken to have seen plenty and gauge them. In three years, friends of mine have acquired skills that though applying for medicine are good enough for places in top investment banks.

I am interested to know what skills you think a new non-medical graduate would have that a traditional entry medical graduate would not have by the end of their medical degree (remembering that many medical students can choose to intercalate if they wish). I want to know why I am being myopic, as I largely agree with Clarky.