Med School Snobbery

**golaiya1** · 09-03-2007, 09:38 PM

Everyone knows that a med degree is a med degree no matter where you go.
But when med schools have finished and your applying for jobs will the med school you went to play a greater role in wheather you get the job over other applicants. For say if someone went to Oxford medical school would they get the job over someone who went to a medical school lower down the league or a med school at the bottom of the league table. because mostly we can see that happening in other subjects and courses but is this the same for medicine.

Can someone please fill me in on the true about this thanks.

**Krishna** · 09-03-2007, 09:49 PM

iv spoken to different ppl about this.. and in theory.. it doesnt matter what uni u go to because at the end of the day ur going to be educated in medicine and get registered etc. But in reality, it does matter.. theres no defining standards in that this uni is better than that.. but different ppl/drs etc will all have different impressions/prejudices/opinions etc in regards to what uni u went.. either way u look at it.. oxbridge medics do hav a significant boost /or disadvantage(again dependin on the person) in their cvs due to the uni they went to (not to say tht that makes them better candidates tho.. it givs them a signifcant boost but doesnt mean they r viewed as better than u fullstop).. and unis tht have established reputations (imperial,eboro, ucl, kings, newc, manc etc etc) may also giv u a boost when compared to the relatively new medschools out ther(hyms etc)
its hard to answer this question properly.. cos everythings objective.. it all totally depends on the person.. but iv spoken to several drs who do quite clearly state/feel that it does matter.

**PeteG** · 09-03-2007, 10:17 PM

It's very simple. The new method of applying for Foundation jobs and Specialist Training jobs removes this kind of snobbery. It's done on-line and the university from which you graduated is not mentioned - unless that is you specifically wished to mention it in the 75 words that you get to describe your academic/non academic achievements etc. The first part of the application process now removes personal information - age, sex, name - to try and prevent prejudice and you are marked according to how you answer the questions provided. The better the mark, the better the chance of getting the job.
That's not to say the new way of doing things is perfect; there are some substantial problems in the running of the scheme, but hopefully they'll be ironed out by the time you apply for jobs. There aren't any "jobs for the boys" anymore.

**Irondukesteve** · 21-03-2007, 06:01 AM

Personally I was interviewed at UEA with the new OSCI style interviews and also at Kings. I thought the Kings interview was TERRIBLE. It started late and one of the interviewers didnt even show up for the interview!!!!! When I asked my interviewer what her name was she said to me, "It doesnt matter sit down!" If Kings can be judged by what happened on the interview day...I definitely dont want to go there. Complete disorganization. However the people interviewing at UEA were genuinely interested in the candidates, and wanted you to do well. Personally I think that universities can only ride on their reputations for so long. How they train, teach, and treat their students and people applying will eventually catch up with them.

**Miss M.** · 07-04-2007, 12:38 AM

Ach, it's the person who makes the doctor not the flippin' school they attended.

**S Knights** · 07-04-2007, 03:24 AM

It doesn't matter. By that stage the things that matter are having post-graduate qualifications from the relevent royal colleges and research / case reports etc to your name, along with a genuine interest in the speciality.

**f_debelder** · 07-04-2007, 01:04 PM

First, what's an OSCI style interview? I thought they were clinical skills exams?

who went to a medical school lower down the league or a med school at the bottom of the league table.

Have you looked at the standings of unis in both "league tables", say in the Guardian and the Times. They will be completely different, because each paper ranks each uni by different criteria. Seriously, what relevance does "graduate employment" and "graduate destinations" have anything to do with medicine, where at a rough guess 95% of house officers who stay in the UK are taken up by the NHS?

The medical degree is regulated by the GMC, you will get the same degree regardless of where you go, except it will be taught in a different format.

And finally, if you had read about the whole new MTAS system of allocating F1/F2 jobs, you would see that it isnt really a factor where you went to uni, because your entered into a national competition for places.

I chose a London uni (Barts) to apply to because (one of the factors was) I wanted to work in London when I graduated; that would make sense under the old system of being allocated a HO job in one of your Deanaries' hospitals (sp?), but that isn't the case anymore!