Anyone applying for Medicine or Dentistry?!

[mummywithquestions]

Anyone started preparing their application yet? It seems a bit earlier than it was when I first went to uni but my son is already well underway with his personal statement and UKCAT/BMAT preparation.

Just wanted to speak to other mothers to share the stresses of UCAS and chat about upcoming interviews etc!

Competition for places at Cambridge is much less fierce than it is for Oxford, if that matters to anyone :)

sally I sincerely hope the OP is not touting ps wares! Paying for a ps to be ghost written is about as low as it gets. You'd have to be a pretty weak applicant to go down that route, and anyone offering those services is pretty dubious, on a number of scores. Don't touch these people with a bargepole!

there are fewer applicants per place at Cambridge but they are very well qualified. Typically they'll have over 90% ums at AS in their three most relevant subjects, predicted grades of AAA (and some colleges will require an A* in chemistry) and successful applicants a good BMAT (some colleges offfer interviews before the results are known). Cambridge will, however, interview anyone with a realistic chance. Oxford have lower offers but make some strange decisions about who they interview.

As Cambridge announced an increase to its offers this year they may have fewer applicants per place this year than last year.

(BBC comment on science offers www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25826701)

Oxbridge and UCL have little contact with patients in the early years of the course.

Yes alreadytaken, you're right: far more applicants per place at Oxford, all of whom have to be very highly qualified at GCSE and on their BMAT to be interviewed. The standard of applicant is almost certain to be the same as at Cambridge in terms of ums at AS, that just happens not to be a criterion. My point was that Oxford is almost twice as competitive - it's quite useful info for applicants evenly split with their choice!

thanks for the reply, SallySparrow. :)

In 2013 there were 3084 applicants to Cambridge who went on to get AAA and 2106 at Oxford. Add in AAA and you get another 2171 at Cambridge and 2281 at Oxford. 10117 applicants at Cambridge in total and 11495 at Oxford. So overall Cambridge has a higher percentage of applicants who go on to get the highest grades. Nearly 3/4 of the acceptances at Cambridge are those with AA*A or above. At Oxford the figure is less than 2/3rds.

There may be a subject breakdown somewhere but if so I can't be bothered to find it.

The message is simple -apply to Cambridge if you are reasonably confident of getting excellent A levels as they are likely to take you. Apply to Oxford if you are not so confident, if they interview you they may take you with lower grades.

alreadytaken I was attempting to give good practical advice to those applying to the research unis for medicine. I was not attempting to do your son down! This isn't personal!

I actually think the message more objectively is: Oxford is more competitive and the offers across both universities are now standard. So apply to Oxford if you prefer it as a place to be and are aware of the higher ratio of applicants per place. Apply to Cambridge if you prefer it as a place to be but want to maximise your chance at securing an interview in which you think you'd do well and are nervous of the stats at Oxford - since at the end of the day there's no clear water to put between the two unis in terms of teaching, research, prospects etc. an applicant might want to go for the easier option.

Another important consideration is for applicants to be aware of those medical schools which take on more first years than they can keep on. This is very dangerous territory indeed, and well worth researching.

Oh I've just re-read your post alreadytaken. Perhaps I should say that due to the title of the thread I was restricting my comments purely to medicine. Approx the same number of applicants have been applying to Oxford for medicine as to Cambridge, but for half the number of available places. That's all. The standard of applicants is indistinguishable. Hence my point about competition. I see you've broadened the stats, which obscures that point.

Hi all, this is a very useful thread but unfortunately the OP has been banned for persistent spamming. We will leave the thread, but don't expect to hear any more from Mummywithquestions.

. All credit sallysparrow.

I do think a useful discussion could focus on what people know about the unis which take on too many students, then spit them out after first year or subsequent exams. Highly able students thrilled to get a place but being spat out with an uncertain future is a major danger area. I'm aware of two unis which do this, but are there more?

Molio, how does one find out this information? And would you be willing to share the two you know of? DS is about to apply, and this information may help his decision making.

It's not on websites as a rule. My understanding is that Birmingham and KCL have a reputation for this. Birmingham says it 'gets it's numbers right', but that appears to be by shedding students along the way. Of course Birmingham and KCL admissions tutors are very welcome to prove me wrong!

Thanks for that Molio, thankfully, he's not interested in either of these two!

I'm not interested in childish competitive parenting, Molio, only in the information you are providing, which I think gives the wrong impression to potential applicants. The standard of applicants at Oxford and Cambridge is different. Both get applicants from those expecting to get high grades but Oxford gets more applicants from candidates who achieve lower grades. I could find published overall figures easily but the picture for medical applicants shows a broadly similar picture.

There are more medicine places at Cambridge but more excellent candidates trying to take those places. Personally I wouldn't describe that as "less competitive". However if students are realistically expecting to get AAA* at one sitting then the chance of admission at Cambridge is higher. If you restrict your comments to that group then yes, Cambridge is "less competitive".

Oxford places more emphasis on GSCEs, Cambridge on AS. Candidates with less than perfect GCSEs might do better applying to Cambridge.

From this year Cambridge medics have to stay in Cambridge for the clinical years and can no longer apply to other medical schools. Those applying to Oxford this year would still be able to move (usually to London, sometimes Cambridge). The intercalated degree in Cambridge can be done in almost any subject that will take you (not usually languages), Oxford is more restricted. Cambridge does dissection, Oxford prosecution. Cambridge is colder in winter. I suggest students look very hard at the course and where they want to live.

I think it would be very hard to sustain the argument that Cambridge has a higher calibre of applicant for medicine, since there is no evidence whatsoever to show it. All medics at both universities are of an exceptionally high standard, but it may be useful for prospective applicants to know that there are almost twice the number to beat off at Oxford. The very simple corollary is that Oxford is harder to get into, but that in no way implies Cambridge is easy!

There are not enough places for all Oxford medics to stay on for the clinical years; there is a selection process in the final undergraduate year, based on performance in the previous years.

Glad to be of help Mindgone :) Very happy to answer any questions if I can.

Do you have any advice for a prospective Graduate Entry Medicine Course applicant?

My background:
-Bombed A-levels due to personal circumstance
-Went to University and got a high 2.1
-From there went to another University and did a post-grad nursing qualification.
-Worked as a nurse in neurosurgery (theatres), NICU, Outpatients(Diabetes, breast cancer diagnostic clinics & MDT clinics, colorectal and general surgical).
Stopped working as a nurse 7 years ago (children).

I am doing my Chemistry A-level this year. I'm thinking of getting my nursing PIN back next year (both for recent NHS experience and for being able to earn some money to afford GEM).

I have spent my time out of work doing voluntary work:
-Governor at two schools
-Sit on Select Committee for Children and Young people
-Have done voluntary work in two schools
-Sit on admission appeal panels for my LA

All of these roles require team-work, responsibility, etc.

Obviously I'm very aware that GEM is extremely competitive. Also, I'm only able to apply to one SoM because of my family situation (I have a child with SN at special school and support my parents - I can't move house). So I need to present a really strong application to succeed.

There's also the small matter of a minimum 3000 score on the UKCAT....

lougle I really, really hope you succeed but I wouldn't feel confident to offer advice. Very best of luck.

”I do think a useful discussion could focus on what people know about the unis which take on too many students, then spit them out after first year or subsequent exams. Highly able students thrilled to get a place but being spat out with an uncertain future is a major danger area. I'm aware of two unis which do this, but are there more? . . . My understanding is that Birmingham and KCL have a reputation for this.”

My question is, “Why would medical schools want to do this?”

Do they have nothing else better to do than to waste everybody’s time (not to mention expenses), the students, their parents, admission tutors, hospital consultants, UCAS and not least the universities themselves?

You have said so yourself, these are highly able students (naturally thrilled to get a place in this extremely difficult process with very limited places) and to all intents and purposes, initially good enough to enter medical school with a view to qualifying as a doctor. The fact that some of them are being spat out along the way by these medical schools only tells me that these schools produce the ultimate super-class doctors at the end of the process! Given the choice, I’d sooner be treated by these doctors then ones from Oxbridge.

Your question is a good one peteneras. Is your understanding the same, that some schools do take on more students than they can process through the final years? These are the two who seem to have a reputation and in the case of one, it seems to be a reputation of longstanding.

I can't quite see what the relevance is to Oxbridge medics though . Those two universities have a record of very low numbers of students across all subjects dropping out or being sent down, which one can only assume is due to their much higher levels of scrutiny and assessment at entry level. They certainly don't appear to be cavalier in who they accept or don't, and invest a lot of resources in the process.

I completely agree that it's shocking that highly able students sign up to schools in the expectation of being fairly treated, and are treated as cannon fodder instead. Perhaps I'm getting this wrong, but if any schools are getting rid of large numbers of a cohort along the way, it's got to be wrong.

Perhaps I understand it too well to ask the (good) question that you have conveniently evaded to answer, molio. At the risk of repeating myself, my question is, “Why would medical schools want to do this?”

” I can't quite see what the relevance is to Oxbridge medics though. . .”

Well, to be honest, neither could I as this thread specifically asked for anyone applying for Medicine or Dentistry but you seem to be talking of nothing else except Oxford and Cambridge right from your very first post and continuing right throughout.

I can't fathom the answer peteneras. That's why I asked you if you could hazard a guess. To me, it doesn't make sense.

I offered advice about Oxford and Cambridge only because those are the two I know best. Hearsay is good, but only up to a point!

Sorry, peteneras, I meant that what you said about students getting kicked out isn't really relevant to Oxbridge medics, as so very few leave, or are asked to. I

What I understand P to be saying is that some medical schools fail lots of students along the way and some get most of them through. One explanation for the latter is that they are doing better at selection and teaching/mentoring. Another is that they should fail more and that KCL/Brum have got it right.

AllMimsy I very much doubt that if you take KCL and Birmingham on the one hand and Oxford and Cambridge on the other, that it's likely that the first two have vastly superior methods of selection over the latter! It would interesting to hear a purported justification: Oxford and Cambridge have far higher entry standards in terms of raw grades, both use the rigorous BMAT and both have interview sessions which extend for far longer than either KCL and Birmingham, in which both academic ability and suitability for a medical career are scrutinised fully. That's not to say that those who get places at KCL and Birmingham aren't very able - they will be.

But it actually seems far more likely an explanation that KCL and Birmingham are far looser in their entry selection, which is why they need to weed out. That said, it's very harsh on the able students that do get the boot - it would be fairer not to let them in on false pretences.

I’ve seen the marks last year of all the students from a particular year group of one of the schools you mentioned earlier, paying particular attention to the 15% of the ones who failed. In most cases, they had failed on one particular paper/test by one or two marks (at most, maybe three or four marks) BUT had otherwise scored tremendously in all the other papers scoring on average in the high 80’s but still registered a fail overall. This looks brutal to me but am consoled with the knowledge that those who passed would have gone on to make super doctors which is what we all want.

” Oxford and Cambridge have far higher entry standards in terms of raw grades . . .

But it actually seems far more likely an explanation that KCL and Birmingham are far looser in their entry selection”

If not for the fact that I personally know one or two candidates in very recent years who had been rejected by Birmingham and one had gone to Cambridge and the other to Oxford, I would have believed you, molio.