Influence of med school rankings

[golaiya1]

hey clarky iif you don't wanna offer anythin useful then don't offer anything at all.

[angel-a]

hey clarky iif you don't wanna offer anythin useful then don't offer anything at all.

[sbailey]

Would just like to point out there are no UK rankings for medical schools. They are all the same standard, though the structure of the courses vary.

The "rankings" in the broad sheets are useless (except the Guardian one a few years back when lesicester came out top!)

Whatever you think about rankings, there can be no doubt that some medical schools are simply more competitive than others, which is reflected in people getting lower quartile rankings than they would elsewhere. Oxford and Cambridge medics definitely lose out here. The unfortunate reality is that there is no fair way to correct for this without there being a national exam that everyone sits.

[Gizmo says -]

but competitive in wat ways?

gthere many different types, and jus becos you'e used to one form of competitiobn, one cannat assume thats the blueprint for the deciding who gets employed in the enitre profession.

that assumption mite be the real barrier for you macca-Baileyz. It culd easily stifle your ability if you let it.

[Chulalongkorn]

Whatever you think about rankings, there can be no doubt that some medical schools are simply more competitive than others, which is reflected in people getting lower quartile rankings than they would elsewhere. Oxford and Cambridge medics definitely lose out here. The unfortunate reality is that there is no fair way to correct for this without there being a national exam that everyone sits.

In what way do Oxford or Cambridge students miss out? Surely you are not suggesting they are brighter than other medical students?

[yazoo]

In what way do Oxford or Cambridge students miss out? Surely you are not suggesting they are brighter than other medical students?

It's an interesting question. Given that Oxbridge spend much more time and energy interviewing/selecting, why do they do that if it makes no difference?

[thom5455]

Given that Oxbridge spend much more time and energy interviewing/selecting, why do they do that if it makes no difference?

I'm not sure that they do, I would say many medical schools are equally picky about who they take on.

[yeliab_cram]

oxbridge definately have a more comprehensive applications process, but other medical schools are getting increasingly thorough. for example, in Leeds, when i applied they only interviewed 20% of applicants, everything else was PS. Now, they interview all but international students, and have introduced UKCAT.

I think oxford and cambridge look for more specific traits in their applicants and are more set in their ways than some other medical schools. this does not mean they are automatically better than other medical students. some would argue that the oxbridge courses are outdated for 21st century medicine (im not sure im one of them, but still).

dragging yourself into the top quartile is going to be difficult no matter which university you study in. It should be worth more than it currently is. selecting tomorrows doctors essentially based on some creative writing is really no way to proceed.

Lets go back to the medical CV, and create a computerised way of evaluating those in a fair and just way nationally.

[thom5455]

oxbridge definately have a more comprehensive applications process

Can you justify that statement with anything concrete, or is it just your opinion?

[Arch_Angel]

Having to currently hack through the Oxford graduate entry application (and pay extra for the pleasure) I can say they are pretty thorough.

3 references
an extra personal statement
an extra set of details
at least (or so it appears) 2 interviews per applicant
Everything in triplicate

Looks like they do things properly

Nik