Influence of med school rankings

[DamianUK]

sbailey..
Well i guess getting a 1st or 2:1 wouldn't make them typical..probably above average.

You had to have a science degree (from an approved list) with 2:1 or above (most people in my year seem to have 1st's).
Sounds like St' Georges were haing a quiet year..i may have applied if it was that easy to get in.

[Gizmo says -]

The main problem with your argument is that you are assuming the Oxbridge students on your course are typical, which although it may be the case, we have no proof of it. Add to this the fact that they are a very small sample, by your own admission. One of my friends got a 3rd in preclinical medicine at Cambridge - he wasn't allowed to progress to clinical school because he hadn't passed enough of the professional exams, but he was still accepted onto St George's grad-entry course after taking a year out. So, would it be fair to take him as representatve of the Cambridge standard as a whole?

he didnt even mek the grade and went to sgul, whereas Damio's colleagues did mek the grade and went to . completely differently, like comparing an unsucessful med skool applicant to a medicine grad..

No more exacting than any other grad-entry course, but I don't doubt it was very competitive.

exactly Damio's point that you are reiterating, thats nuffing new.

[sbailey]

sbailey..
Well i guess getting a 1st or 2:1 wouldn't make them typical..probably above average.

You had to have a science degree (from an approved list) with 2:1 or above (most people in my year seem to have 1st's).
Sounds like St' Georges were haing a quiet year..i may have applied if it was that easy to get in.

Well then, the fact that everyone who gets in needs a 1st or 2.1 necessarily means that they ought to be of a similar standard. Why are you so baffled? The fact remains that 50% of Oxbridge students graduate with 1sts and 2.1s, so these students were probably nothing special by Oxbridge standards, whereas your contemporaries from e.g. York are statistically more likely to have been at the very top of their year. If you compare standard-entry students, without the postgraduate filtering by degree result you have been exposed to, you might see more of a difference.

As for St George's, maybe they were having a quiet year, but the fact remains many med schools are too competitive to ever accept a student with those credentials. As an example, the typical intake at Oxford consists of:
1) Top 2/3 or so of Oxford preclinical students.
2) Cambridge preclinical students with 1sts or high 2.1s in preclinical (often only 1sts, but in my year 3 people got in with 2.1s).
3) External applicants with many strings to their bow, often PhDs in a medically relevant discipline or simply being one of the top medics in their own med school.

It's amazing how defensive some people are about this issue. I can understand being skeptical, but at least open your mind to the possibility that these quartiles are not perfectly well-aligned across med schools with different admissions processes and reputations.

[sbailey]

he didnt even mek the grade and went to sgul, whereas Damio's colleagues did mek the grade and went to . completely differently, like comparing an unsucessful med skool applicant to a medicine grad..

What are you on about? Please write in English.


He didn't make the grade at Cambridge but got into a "highly competitive" course at a different uni. I'm sure Warwick is much better, but that's not the point I was making. I was pointing out in a general sense that there are different standards on different courses, and until we accept this very basic point we're not going to get anywhere.

EDIT: Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but he got into medicine at Cambridge but was unable to get through the exams and ultimately was kicked out for this reason.

[Gizmo says -]

you want to point out that he was unable to mek it thru cambridge yet capable enuff to mek it in georgies GEP.

its clear what you want to point out, its just a pity you try to fit this case around your own argument.

please write wiffout mekking fings your own agenda.

[sbailey]

you want to point out that he was unable to mek it thru cambridge yet capable enuff to mek it in georgies GEP.

its clear what you want to point out, its just a pity you try to fit this case around your own argument.

please write wiffout mekking fings your own agenda.

My agenda is why I'm writing on this thread, same as you. I'm not asking for brownie points for being at Oxbridge, I'm asking for a fair system that makes all this petty arguing unnecessary. It's funny that you're so against open competition, I wonder why?

[Gizmo says -]

yeah obviously i'm against open competition becos you say i am.

not.

its always the same agenda wif you, why cant you accept that some of the ex-oxbridge students at Damio's med skool are on par wif others but wif different strengths and weaknesses like everyone else?

[sbailey]

I already accept that they are on par with the other students at his school, largely because the standards of entry on most grad courses are high enough to ensure top quality candidates (who may have studied anywhere). I also accept that Oxbridge students may have different strengths and weaknesses as a whole compared to other student bodies, probably leaning more towards academia. You seem to have forgotten that I'm the one arguing against homogeneity.

[Gizmo says -]

I already accept that they are on par with the other students at his school

no you dont, you objected to Damio pointing out that they scored just like everyone else.
Damio wasnt say they werent typical, just that they werent superior in exams in that instance.

..on most grad courses are high enough to ensure top quality candidates (who may have studied anywhere).

which grad courses dont ave as igh a standard, then?
in your experience of being on or applying for all these other grad courses?
fort not.

I also accept that Oxbridge students may have different strengths and weaknesses as a whole compared to other student bodies, probably leaning more towards academia.

yes. med exams aren't merely academia, of course, in fact thery are largely not....becos medicine isnt really academia of any kind of depth, merely volume of study.

You seem to have forgotten that I'm the one arguing against homogeneity.

not forgotten it, just i've not raised it becos that goal of yours isnt relevant to me.
you've raised it needlessly, thats all.

[sbailey]

no you dont, you objected to Damio pointing out that they scored just like everyone else.
Damio wasnt say they werent typical, just that they werent superior in exams in that instance.

I objected only to him using that as some sort of proof that students at Oxbridge are pretty much the same academically as students from other universities. If you only compare students with 1sts from other universities to students with 1sts from Oxbridge then it should come as no surprise that they're very similar. If you take a typical student from Oxbridge and a typical student from a less competitive university, then you would expect there to be a difference.

which grad courses dont ave as igh a standard, then?
in your experience of being on or applying for all these other grad courses?
fort not.

I don't know, macca. Would you like me to get out my crystal ball as well?

yes. med exams aren't merely academia, of course, in fact thery are largely not....becos medicine isnt really academia of any kind of depth, merely volume of study.

Well, it is academia in the sense that you are required to learn things and apply them, and some people are better at that than others. I agree it's not the same as true research-level academia, which has less rote learning and emphasises independent thinking. Medicine also has a "performance art" side to it which favours a particular type of person, and not necessarily the more intelligent ones. Nevertheless, people who did well at preclinical are mostly doing well at clinical, so I suppose academic strength does come into it, even if this is only because academic strength usually reflects a high level of motivation.

not forgotten it, just i've not raised it becos that goal of yours isnt relevant to me.
you've raised it needlessly, thats all.

Or rather, you don't understand the word homogeneity? (Sorry, low blow.)