Influence of med school rankings

[elles]

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

Yep, sounds like it.
In terms of academics I think, on average (important point before people start flaming me cos they think i'm saying they're obviously stupid because they go to medical school Z etc. ) I'd be inclined to agree:

- On the things we have to assess e.g. point of entry qualifications across all medical school entrants it looks that way - if you accept on average A level performance is related to intelligence etc etc.
- They've used academic aptitude tests for some time - OMAT/MVAT as precursors of BMAT
- A key focus of their (multiple!) interviews is academic

As yeliab_cram said - these are specific traits they're particularly looking for though & I wouldn't say they automatically make "better doctors", but think they would suggest on average their intakes are probably more academic - so if the quartile thing is supposed to represent academics (big premise - what is it actually supposed to measure? the whole thing seems quite muddled with the lack of uniformity...written v. clinical exams, resits, preclinical etc) it would be skewed there compared to elsewhere.


I don't like worms, so perhaps a can of those chocolate wafer waffley things can be exploded instead..?
<potential conflicting interests - I'm an Oxford student >

[yazoo]

No worms yet! Just my total agreement. I think it holds true for medicine and any other subject (with the rare exception), at least as far as the UK is concerned.

This is not to say that there are not plenty of very bright (some brighter) people at other univeristies. This is an averages thing.

[Gizmo says -]

peeple at oxford need to get AAA to get in though dont they?
thats not an indication of their intelligence, its an indication of wat they need to acheive their aim. Getting AAA is just an artifact of wat they need to obtain, as are the BMAT and in fact the exams at the university itself- they wuldnt try to pass them if they didnt ave to, wuld they?
Or wuld they? well no, its pointless to suggest the opposite.


i needed AAB to get in, and frankly, i wasnt interested in doing anymore work than was necessary for any insubstantial reason.
Surely thats more intelligent than putting in extra effort needlessly?
Of course it is - the doctor who toiled needlessly on sum patients wuld nend up neglecting other patients.

[elles]

I mentioned point of entry qualifications i.e. what the students have actually achieved - not what the offers are. There are stats comparing these by medical school, although admittedly they're UCAS tariff rather than numbers/grades, so maybe Cam students are just consistently top because they're into keyskills/music exams!

Anyhow, I didn't have to pass my 4th or 5th A2, my AS or my AEA to fulfill my Oxford offer. & sure to do so was extra effort, but I don't think it was needless - I was capable, enjoyed doing them & probably gained something from the experiences, whilst still being able to balance other things.

If we're playing the "good doctor" card , I'd rather mine had the general attitude that it is worth doing more than the bare minimum to get by ('oh, it's ok - my patients are alive - who cares about mere subjective symptoms... ') if they're capable of it.

[thom5455]

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

To be fair though, many public sector jobs have an equal or more thorough application and vetting procedure that pay much less than medicine does.

Going back to the original point of this post, are oxbridge students really at a disadvantage or is it a case of feeling hard done by?

[yazoo]

Going back to the original point of this post, are oxbridge students really at a disadvantage or is it a case of feeling hard done by?

The answer to that depends on whether or not you think Oxbridge students are, on average, more intelligent & do better academically. If the answer is yes, then many of them would be disadvantaged in the current application system.

In reference to Gizmo's post, I think results mean nada beyond indicating a basic degree of intelligence (a good school can make a huge difference, as you know...). Many med schools have AAA but i think Oxbridge rep and interview process means they get the academic cream. As I said already, academic cream does not a great Dr make (but it doesn't necessarily hurt either). Many of the medics from Oxbridge I have come across have been excellent people people as well as clever and hard working - a very good combination for Drs, I think.

[Gizmo says -]

I mentioned point of entry qualifications i.e. what the students have actually achieved - not what the offers are. There are stats comparing these by medical school, although admittedly they're UCAS tariff rather than numbers/grades, so maybe Cam students are just consistently top because they're into keyskills/music exams!Anyhow, I didn't have to pass my 4th or 5th A2, my AS or my AEA to fulfill my Oxford offer. & sure to do so was extra effort, but I don't think it was needless - I was capable, enjoyed doing them & probably gained something from the experiences, whilst still being able to balance other things.

and stoodents from other skools didnt choose to do other fings wif their time whilst still being able to balance fings? of course they did, but it didnt add up in ucas tariff, or count towards exams.
it seems to me that if you choose a more academic course then you need to tek on board the extra wurk in some areas, thru dint of your own choice, or else one shuld ave chosen a different course and different skool. For instance, if you choose ucl or imperial then you need to tek on board the extra wurk for an intercalated bsc, and its a mite trite to complain that you aint getting nuffing for doing that when yuo didnt need to choose it in the furst place - though its inexorably easier for the ucl stoodent to steadfastly claim that it meks them a better doctor for doing it, especially when its choice of NO CHOICE or accept that its sumfing they didnt want (not that i'm comparing a ucl-er wif an oxy in any bad sense,mind. Well.... maybe bad for the ucl-er hehehe!).
For another fing, you didnt know that medicine job application systems wuld change to their current formant afore you got into oxford, so it must feel dubbly unfair to now lose the feel of reputation that you applied for, as well as being saddled wif your choice of extra academic wurk whilst losing the previous self perceived gain. So i sympathise, macca (if only to show i can spel the wurd hehehe).

If we're playing the "good doctor" card , I'd rather mine had the general attitude that it is worth doing more than the bare minimum to get by ('oh, it's ok - my patients are alive - who cares about mere subjective symptoms... ') if they're capable of it.

why is that a valid counter argument to 'do wats necessary for several patients instead of do whats unecessary for a few and sod the rest'? Agreesd though thats a poor analogy for me to apply in the furst place, and nearly as meaningless.

[elles]

If you want to continue to try & make this all about me...

For another fing, you didnt know that medicine job application systems wuld change to their current formant afore you got into oxford, so it must feel dubbly unfair to now lose the feel of reputation that you applied for, as well as being saddled wif your choice of extra academic wurk whilst losing the previous self perceived gain. So i sympathise, macca (if only to show i can spel the wurd hehehe).

- There are lots of reasons why I chose Oxford - "reputation" wasn't on the pros & cons list.
- I haven't lost "previous self perceived gain". I did beyond what was necessary for an offer at the time because I wanted to & I enjoyed them - not with job applications in mind.


I do think this quartiles = across medical school things is unfair. It's based on a big assumption. Lots of reassurance about GMC monitoring of minimum standards but I've seen very little about the spread - other than external examiner comments, which are obviously anecdotal.

& I do think Oxbridge medics are on average more academic (for the reasons I gave), there are probably trends for certain traits within other medical schools.
As I said, this doesn't automatically mean better doctors - but whatever they do think measures this should be applied fairly across the cohort they're using the score for i.e. a uniform method and comparisons actually made across the whole group - not in units that you might expect to have different distributions (either due to initial student sample or teaching), otherwise it's just not.

[sbailey]

Elles, since you mentioned external examiners' comments, I do remember reading one comment once which said that students at Oxford were mostly of a standard that would achieve merits and distinctions at other med schools. That must surely be saying something? I know an FY1 who started this year and his impression is that the Oxford FY1s tend to be more competent than the externals who joined the Oxford deanery (and he isn't an arrogant bloke at all, so I trust him on this one). That's not to say all doctors training elsewhere are crap - far from it! But I do think that Oxford does a pretty good job (partly because the competition for entry is particularly high, but also because the teaching is better than average), and to pretend all med schools are exactly the same is frankly naive and unfair.

[yazoo]

- There are lots of reasons why I chose Oxford - "reputation" wasn't on the pros & cons list.

Really? I would have thought reputation of med school came very high on most applicants lists (unless they are just wanting a place and are happy with any place...) (and that is not a bad thing - shows good attitude IMO!). I wanted to know that my med school was well respected externally and also well respected by those who were there already - and I would describe that as reputation.