Should we care that 50% of state schools didn't produce any medicine applicants in 3 years?

Brenda, the lowest GCSE requirement I've seen is actually 6As! Candidates need to do their research.

A five or six year medicine degree is also very expensive. Vacations are short so no time for that summer job and the course is very intense so paid work at weekends plus the travelling to different placements. Perhaps potential medical students from less financially well off backgrounds are put off by this and are less likely to apply.

Head teachers who are good at turning around poor schools come from all sorts of backgrounds. One thing they no longer do is actually teach. They will be earning in excess of £100,000 though so it makes a lot of sense to get out of the classroom if you have real leadership potential. I wonder how many children from Dewsbury get to be Doctors?

Ds's friend's father is a consultant who interviews for (Russell Group) medical school. both ds's friend and his older brother are set to follow in father's footsteps.

I was talking to this man and he said that fancy work experience is of no interest, eg shadowing consultants. They are more interested in those who volunteer regularly eg in care homes. Ds's friend pushes the WRVS trolley round the hospital. He loves it. These "opportunities" are open to anyone.

I think as someone mentioned upthread the full house A at GCSE thing does rule out most people from the start. It's tough to know you've fallen at a hurdle you had to jump at 16 or in many cases 15 years old. 7As is pretty good but not apparently good enough for many medical schools.

"A lot of people who go onto medicine from state schools have gone to private 6th forms because they did so well, that they got bursaries etc for their A-levels. What section of the data do these kids get put into?"

My understanding of the medical schools who offer extended medical degree courses for state school kids, is that they ONLY consider applicants from a particular type of school - non-selective state school, and they have lists of 'feeder schools' that their applicants must be from.

There's no fundamental difference between the social conscience of STEM grads versus MFL grads. It just comes back to numbers again. Having a greater volume of STEM grads (and MFL grads for that matter) in teaching, will give you a broader range of personalities, so it stands to reason that you'll get more of the Mr Mitchells of this world, in all disciplines.

I think this is another example of an unmerited lack of parity of esteem.

Ah, yes, and of course MFL teachers are known to love teaching in rough schools, unlike science teachers.

Mr Mitchell was a MFL teacher.

'A good chemistry physics or maths teacher can have the choice of jobs and will walk away from a school where there are problems '

I don't think this is necessarily the case at all.Look at Mr Mitchell from educating Yorkshire.he has gradually gone to rougher and rougher schools.I hear he is shortly moving to one of the most disadvantaged schools in the country.

Ooops, sorry: it was 13 years!

As one of the interviewees said, "everyone gets A Grades now." If grades were proper differentiators then this would go partway to resolving the problem.

Sorry Senua. The posting on You Tube said 2013. However, I think the programme is even more relevant now, because it is probably harder for students from lower economic circumstances to access Internships/ experience now than 2010!.

It was 13 years of Labour not 18 years !

Interestingly My Open University Tutor linked to me on You Tube The BBC Documentary from last year " Who Gets all the Best jobs" . It is worth watching as there is a large section about "internships" or getting work experience in medicine or Hospitals . The programme also talks how difficult it is for children from families of modest incomes to even have aspirations for any "Professional" Career not just Medicine.

Only just got round to watching this. The closing credits tell me it was made in 2010 by Fiona Millar, Mrs Alistair Campbell. Her conclusion: after 18 years of Labour education policy, the problem is not us it's Them.

A lot of people who go onto medicine from state schools have gone to private 6th forms because they did so well, that they got bursaries etc for their A-levels. What section of the data do these kids get put into?

A good chemistry physics or maths teacher can have the choice of jobs and will walk away from a school where there are problems eg behaviour, poor facilities, being blamed for poor grades and students are being taught by people who do not have a thorough background in the topics.

Potential medics need the support for the UKCAT, BMAT, interview as well as very high grades for A level and this does not come from a series of supply teachers.
The other factor is independent schools taking the high achievers from year 11 with the offers of scholarships and bursaries which happened at DS's school.

teaching should be a better paid profession.
BUT
qualified people are not by defintion good teachers

DH
inspires people into taking degrees in a subject that he did not do at GCE

Bill Gates had made his money out of an area that did not exist when he was at college.

The point is that teaching and learning are not the same thing
BUT
FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY
All learning should be treated equally : which has been the crass failing in the UK in the last 30 years

Yes, I agree teaching should be a better paid profession. However, if there were more STEM graduates, then that would inevitably lead to more STEM teachers, especially with the added financial incentives available.

At the moment, STEM teachers command high salaries in the private sector, and so can afford to turn their noses up at state sector bursaries. Increasing their number would balance that out.

Yes - but they won't go into teaching unless the pay and social status is comparable to what they could get elsewhere. Teaching should be hard to get into and hard to stay in unless teachers are really good - but the quid pro quo for that is that it should be very well paid. I understand that this is how it is in Finland and their children consistently top the world league tables , with nary a private school in sight.

I have not read all this thread just the first 2 pages. I think one issue is that Universities want so much more extra curricular activities and relevant work experience to populate the dreaded personal statement form.

Therefore some comprehensive students will not stand a chance vs some grammar school peers, and definitely not against the private peers.

"I know several chemistry and physics teachers with poor degrees in law, history, animal nutrition .."

Exactly Magrat, and that is why we need to encourage more pupils to study science, to help bridge that gap. We need a surplus of STEM graduate, enough to fill STEM jobs and related jobs such as science teaching. We need more of those students who naturally excel at written and verbal communication to go into STEM subjects ... if they have STEM skills as well as good communication skills they will have fantastic career opportunities, and extra financial incentives to go into teaching if that is their calling.

Magrat
My school, being gels, private selective had ALL relevant degrees for A Level teaching
and utterly crap at it some of them were

I have a degree in Geography.
That neither makes me a geographer, nor a competent teacher in that subject.

When I went on Uni filed trips to the continent, my blag it through languages based on holidays, were much more use than the A levels of others
I was taken to task by the professor of Geography at Nice University for my poor French Grammar
I floored him by pointing out that my English grammar could be shite as well.

Seriously : skill at teaching has ferk all to do with skill at learning.
People on my courses say that I make audit interesting and relevant.

DH and I today (over the nth bottle of wine) worked out how to apply his skills to enthuse those that selective education wishes did not exist : and it will be intellectually satisfying for he and I to work out the module, the teachers to approach it and the kids to achieve it : job done - economy saved

MFL has some pretty ropy teachers and an even ropier curriculum.

I certainly don't adhere to the "arts are superior" school of thought myself. Personally I think that A-levels set up a false dichotomy and that, at 18, all pupils need both verbal and quantitative education still.

Bonsoir, possibility, but I can only speak for the subjects I have experience of. I know many English, history, arts teachers at least have degrees in the subjects they teach. However, I know several chemistry and physics teachers with poor degrees in law, history, animal nutrition and forensic "science" (imo one of the least useful degrees around) who have completed "subject knowledge enhancement" courses before doing secondary science PGCEs.

I'd agree with the analysis that it is not either/or. We need a good distribution of graduates across the board. I don't think being a science graduate is better, or worse than being a humanities or arts graduate, but take exception to the reverse being implied with no evidence.

Magrat - poor quality teaching that leaves students with gaps in their knowledge is not confined either to science subjects or to the UK. Teachers are poorly paid versus alternative career paths for similar qualifications in many countries. The trend away from textbooks (which at least give pupils a framework for self-study) does little to address this issue.