Telegraph Article on UKCAT

[Faye101]

No, you are mistaken - those are opinions, not generalisations. What you did was make an absurd inference about certain posters' financial backgrounds based on those opinons. That is what I objected to.

Your opinion is a generalisation though, but I'm not going to debate semantics with you.

What is then? You sure as hell can't stop them doing it - that's what mummy and daddy are paying for, after all. Whatever is done to improve state schools you can be absolutely sure that the private sector will go one better - that's it's job. The only motivation for paying for something you can get for free is that the quality of it is better, that it's more exclusive, more competitive. Private schools wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't provide a leg up for these kids. Unless you advocate banning private education, I'm not sure that there is a solution to this particular inequality other than reducing the influence that schools can have by going with the grad route.

Through access courses and other initiatives like this. We need to empower people from schools that are maybe not the sort of schools that usually produce medical students. Edinburgh med school is involved in an outreach programme. People go out to schools that are in the more deprived areas, give them help with PS, discuss med school options with them. Applicants who are part of this programme are also allowed an interview at Edinburgh, an extra chance to prove themselves.

[Martigan]

My 2p's worth.
Grads are better experienced to know if medicine is right for then for schoolies it's more risky. But that doesn't make it wrong. I feel they would be wise to swap more 5 year for 4 years just because there is clearly higher demand.

As for the public / state debate. I have been state educated all the way but worked in organisations that are public school dominated. I have been treated as a 2nd class citizen by some people but mainly by those who were lacking in real ability. The others have treated me with respect and valued my work and perspective. I don't feel that my schooling has held me back. However though I started off in a state comprehensive, I got moved to a State Grammar school post GCSEs so may not be considered pedigree comprehensive.

[Clarkey]

I wonder what proportion of people who are already at medical school thing that graduate entry only is the way to go as opposed to applicants...

I don't think medicine needs to or should be graduate entry. Why should I have to run up debt and struggle through a course I am not really interested in to do the course I do want to do? I would not do well in the american system because studying calculus, advanced biochem and similar courses would do nothing for me, and I would fail. I am not the most scientifically minded of medical students but I do well because I am fascinated by the vocation of medicine.

Problems with widening access are continu3. I grew up in a deprived area, went to a state comprehensive and was lucky to get into medicine through a combination of hard work and the timely creation of widening access courses. I now work for the Social Mobility Foundation, encouraging kids who are from similar backgrounds to myself to go for medicine. If I were to tell these kids, (or even my 15/16 year old self) that they had to go to uni for 3 years to do a random course before they had a shot at medicine we would lose more of these type of students. It is hard enough convincing someone who has no idea about uni that they will be able to cope academically and financially as it is.

[Singh.Simran]

I think (not wanting to pick up on anything particular since my last post, because it has been too catty.. no offence )..

The way to improve diversity and fairness has to be both short and long term. Having immediate "meritocracy" at the level of application to med school will greatly favour the priviledged (that is, many independent schooled kids, but also the better funded and located states/grammars, and indeed just people who were well supported at home as opposed to those who weren't), so you have to somehow correct for things.

Being grad only would help on the one hand because once you're at uni, a lot of people are on give or take the same footing and you dont have to rely on a-levels or bmat to prove academic ability, but it is a greater commitment and medicine is only a career after all.. we'd lose a lot of good people to law, finance, teaching, plumbing. So do as they do with outreach, access, "positive discrimination" in various forms.

But in the long term? You need schools to be +/-10% of each other, realistically, otherwise the same cycle will go on as has done for centuries. Easier said than done and unlikely in our livetimes but worth making an effort.

[Rippy]

I think graduate only medicine is a pretty bad idea really. It forces people to do a 3 year degree they don't care about and get even larger debts.

Asking you to do 3 years of something you don't particularly care about is asking too much in terms of commitment.

[doctor2b]

The problem with grad only entry would be that people who would consider a medical degree, and are competent to do so, will not perhaps take another different degree to begin with, as the risk of not getting either a place on a medical degree after completion, or a decent job is much worse odds as if you were to go straight into a med course and get a job after. Med degree= good job, other degree=maybe med after, maybe another job if you can get it (not certain of a good job). For a lot of people this risk wouldn't be worth taking, paying at least a £30K education is worth more to some than others because some people have never even considered that amount of money in their lives, let alone spent it.
The way it works at present, with access courses, entry from Alevel, and Grad entry is the most varied entry schemes you can find worldwide- US has Grad only, other countries have Alevel equivalent only, others compentency test (eg UKCAT) only. The way we have in the UK everyone has an opportunity. The way these places are allocated at present isn't perhaps fair- there is a very small amount of access and gep places comparative to well qualified applicants for these places and the number of places on 5 yr standard courses, but given that these courses are relatively new, give it time.

[Rippy]

But loads of people already have to do that to stand a chance of getting a place at all... And, who is to say that people "don't care" about the other degree? Why, in that case, is intercalcation so popular when it doesn't directly affect the candidate graduating as a doctor? Maybe it would be a good thing for people to know that medicine is not the be-all and end-all - that there are other things that you don't learn in medical school that can help you be a better doctor?

What do you mean "people have to do that already"? Do you mean that some people currently have to go down the graduate entry route? Well of course, but that doesn't mean that it's right for everyone.

"Other things that you don't learn in medical school that can help you be a better doctor". Well, a medical degree presumably equips you with various pieces of knowledge you need, along with communication skills etc, so I would say it gives you the most relevant stuff. I don't see that another degree is required to make someone a better doctor. Gives you different skills perhaps, but they can be achieved in other ways.

As above, surely giving people the choice to do either undergrad or grad medicine is the fairest way? So people can do what they feel is right for them. To be honest, apart from those who have changed their minds or didn't get the grades, I don't know anyone who actively chooses to do grad-entry, so I think it'd be rather unfair to force everyone to go down that road. Certainly, it would likely have put me off.

[dotvicky]

Throwing in my tuppence worth. The UKCAT, along with the extra A levels, the months and months on my personal statement to try to express my whole being in 40 lines, the flashcards to prep for my interview, the books read, the websites and RSS feeds scoured, the work experience completed, the volunteer work done etc. etc. etc.

They are all just hoops to jump through (something which I imagine I will need to get *very* used to if I want a career in the NHS) to prove my commitment and my worth to the outside world. Some of them taught me things I didn't know and some have been incredibly valuable but many of them are just ticky-boxes that I needed to complete just in case someone somewhere decided fairly arbitrarily that that particular thing was relevant.

My overall feeling of the whole process has been that it's got a helluva lot of chance in it and there are a few ways to improve your luck but, as the wonderful 'Sunscreen' speech says:

"Whatever you do, don't congratulate yourself too much, or berate yourself either. Your choices are half chance. So are everybody's else's."

I don't think the UKCAT is a particularly effective tool for selecting candidates for medicine but I guess they'll just keep adding barriers until only the toughest and most committed make it through.

Cheers
Vicky

[Masuda]

OMG - I wrote the question that they use in this article!
Granted he's taking the mick out of the whole UKCAT using that question as an example but still - I feel famous!!

Sadly I think debating whether we think the UKCAT is useful or not is almost moot - it's here and its too late I think to try and get people to not use - 26 out of 31 Med schools are using it as standard - the question to ask is how best to deal with it and how best to jump the hurdle.

Artilce: Moves to encourage diversity of medical students will not make better doctors - Telegraph