MDAP is no more!

**DrPie** · 27-06-2006, 01:33 AM

That is very interesting. Im hoping a lot of stuff in there is example data. And i hope that the application form on there is deliberately taken from the old MDAP scheme... as its no different

**WAMS** · 27-06-2006, 02:22 AM

I'm not sure there should be as much weight on academics. By getting a degree in Medicine means that you're competant to practice as an FY1. That's why the degree is unclassified. It goes against what we've been told for the last five years.

It seems that the people from the London medical schools were the least happy with the whole MDAP thing as other people were able to apply successfully to London.

**DrPie** · 28-06-2006, 01:13 AM

hmm im not so sure. It is possible to qualify with an MBChB (hons), so its not necessarily unclassifed. The fact, however, that the majority of students do graduate with an MBChB means that there needs to be some way of ranking students in terms of the academia (people who scraped by get the same degree as those who did exceptionally well). If an MBChB is a training programme to become a doctor- which it is, then to some extent those that are academically doing better on the course should be acknowledged for their achievment.

While I completely accept that academia is not the be all and end all of a good doctor, I would rather be treated by a doctor who knows his stuff and is competent at his job (while also having an appropriate bedside manner and all that jazz). Academic ranking can help determine the former and the application form (non-academic examples, examples of teamworking etc etc) the latter.

Just an extreme example....If one of my family were to suffer some sort of life threatening emergency I would rather a doctor who knows his stuff inside out treat her/him and save her/his life at the expense of a good bedside manner and all the other stuff that the GMC are incorporating in to the Good Doctor. However, thats not to say I dont recognise the importance of the non-academic side of being a good doctor.

That is why- I dont believe job allocation should be based on academia alone (as it isnt) and does take in to account other factors (as it does) but I think greater weighting on academia is the right way to go.

**yazoo** · 28-06-2006, 01:08 PM

I beleive more waiting should be placed on academic performance than last year, but less than proposed. I also think the system needs to be fairer - not quartiles - I think there is too much variation here.

Perhaps: 60 marks for people in the top 10-20% of their class consistently during clinical studies, 20 marks for people in the bottom 10-20%, and 40 for everyone else. That way academic elements are recognised at the extremes and other factors have more baring for most of the class. Which is what I beleive would be appropriate for my class where many people are pretty good, few are awful, and few stand out as exceptional.

**jonesy** · 28-06-2006, 01:32 PM

I think the way things are going they'll soon be introducing a degree class system into Medicine i.e. 1st, 2i etc... maybe it's the fairest way to do things??

**yazoo** · 28-06-2006, 01:42 PM

Unfortunately, final grades are not the basis for awarding jobs though. Only results from the 1st 4 years are available. I would argue that the 1st 2 years are largely irrelevant from a clinical perspective - which is, in my opinion, the most imprtant factor.

All people with a medical degree are assumed to have reached a 2.1 standard anyway. Classification exists informally already.

I think the way ahead will be national qualifying exam.

**jonesy** · 28-06-2006, 01:51 PM

Oh geeeez no! sorry the words "qualifying exam" are kind of haunting me at the moment, we get our 1st yr results tomorrow ya see and i'm very nervous!

As for the MTAS, you see most 5 yr courses would see it as pointless counting the first two years, but for us at warwick (4yr), we do qute a bit of clinical in the first year and a half compared to 5 yr people, so we'd have to count all years.

To be honest the whole thing is confusing me. Sorry i'm not being clear!

**yazoo** · 28-06-2006, 02:00 PM

Good luck with the results!

Your university will be deciding how to allocate its own rankings. Which again I think is wrong... Top 20% etc etc in clinical years only (years 3 & 4 or equivalent) would allow GEP to be comparable 5 year, and people moving for clinical phase not to be disadvantaged/advantaged!

But my view doesn't count

**jonesy** · 28-06-2006, 02:11 PM

I think that's a very good idea actually, but you're right all this discussion means didly squat! They make it so tough for us to get to the clinical phase anyway, so why does it count? Clinical practice is surely what matters at the end of the day!

Damn, i wish they'd listen to us! Although, Warwick have been very forthright in getting our opinions, i can't really complain about our medical school.

Thanks for the wishes yazoo, need all the help i can get!

**WAMS** · 28-06-2006, 05:54 PM

Not including the clinical years would devalue them. It may mean people wouldn't bother doing any work. Also, continual good grades is a good marker of success.

About the national exam, this has been discussed for a while and have a feeling in my waters that it will happen!

Even if someone scrapes by medicine and gets MB ChB they are de factor still competant to be a doctor. I agree with our head of medical school in that I am opposed to the idea of ranking and find it invidious. (I had to look that word up when I first read it!).