3 A Levels for medicine when everyone else is doing 4

[MoreNmore]

DS is at a well-known grammar where 4 A levels is the norm for medicine applicants. He’s done his EPQ and is doing 3 sciences & maths A level. He wants to drop physics. School (strong on Oxbridge) say “because his peers are doing 4, his doing 3 will be seen as a less competitive application”. He’s getting good BMAT scores in practise but who knows on the day? He isn’t applying to Cambridge where l know many have taken 4 A levels. More interested in the London med schools. He’s emailed and asked and they just quote the standard “3 A levels required”. He doesn’t know his predicted grades yet but it’s more the risk of missing an offer together with the extra work load of the 4th A level that is bothering him. If many of his peers at school are doing 4 and he does 3 will admission a Tutor think “hmm despite going to X School he’s only take 3 A levels..”. His school have a huge cohort of medicine applicants every year.

titchy OP mentioned UCL. I read her post fine. Obviously there are also less competitive med schools in London too but UCL was pretty top of the range last time I looked.

The clue is in BMAT of course.

Imperial also pretty top. Both strings that Oxbridge applicants are highly likely to apply to as well. This is all very elementary stuff.

OP I genuinely think your DS should have a good talk with his Ho6, because you don’t want him misled by poor quality overly generalised advice.

No idea where strings came from! (Typing on a boat).

There is really no such thing as a "top medical school", just different types of teaching that get you to the exact same degree.

The clue is in BMAT of course.

If you're implying that BMAT unis are "top" compared to the rest, you're clearly not a medic or an applicant. If you were you'd know that Lancaster, Leeds and Brighton also use the BMAT, not just your Oxbridge and London schools.

Getting back to the question about contextualising data - I don't think I saw it on any other website, and the OP isn't considering Oxford, but the Oxford Medicine website says:

"Wherever possible, your grades are considered in the context in which they have been achieved. (See further information on how we use contextual data.) "

If you then click on the contextual data link in this sentence, it says:

Three types of contextual data will be considered for students applying for an undergraduate course:

The first one is headed "Prior education", and reads:

"1. Prior education

The performance of the applicant’s school or college at GCSE or equivalent level;
The performance of the applicant’s school or college at A-level or equivalent level and;
The percentage of students eligible for free school meals at the applicant’s school or college at GCSE or equivalent level."

It then goes on to look at postcodes and other things. But it does seem to suggest from this entry that indeed the performance of all schools at GCSEs, and then at A Levels is considered, and maybe that is where the OP's school and some of the posters are getting this from.

On the other hand, this is Oxford, and I certainly haven't seen this on any other website (not that I have checked them all).

Oxford also requires somewhere between 8-12 GCSEs at grade 8/9 l don't believe that is a requirement anywhere else. It therefore would make sense that for that component, they would look at the schools in which those GCSEs are achieved.

Maybe the HO6 is talking Oxford particularly.

I know a few young people who have gone to study medicine in recent years. They all had three A levels and attended comprehensive schools.

Bimkom Thats it!
I guess this is what the school referring to. They do have a lot going to Oxbridge and I suppose for all they know my DS could change his mind so they are wanting to keep his options open. Makes sense really (goodbyestranger made this context point also - thanks).
I think the general consensus is that otherwise 3 A levels will not be an issue for medical schools but Oxbridge will perhaps look a bit more closely at context.

Cambridge only require 3 A levels, even for medicine. They do require A grades in two of them and some require specific subjects and/or an A in a specific subject. They would prefer to see applicants predicted 3 A grades than an applicant predicted 2 A stars and 2 or more other A levels. Most successful Cambridge applicants will be predicted 3 As and most will achieve it. That is a factual statement based on their published statistics and freedom of information requests, important so that people know what standard they need to be a competitive applicant. I'm not interested in boasting about what grades my own child has and since they are now a junior doctor its irrelevant.

Cambridge might use information about the school if they cant decide between 2 otherwise similar applicants, but this is at the margin when applicants have similar grade predictions and similar BMAT exam results. There are applicants with 3 a* predictions and a great BMAT, some they think are unsuitable to their style of teaching and quite a few where it isnt easy to decide which of 2 well qualified applicants to take. At the margin they might be less inclined to take the applicant from Eton than from a 6th form college because they are trying to widen access but 4 A levels from Eton isnt going to trump 3 A levels from elsewhere and evidence they have a real commitment to medicine.

Doing 4 (or more, it happens) A levels can be seen by universities as a negative, potentially showing they are not sufficiently interested in the course they are applying for. Some schools push 4 or more for their place in league tables, universities would rather have 3 and more evidence of interest beyond the curriculum.

There is a lot of debate about whether Physics or Maths is the most useful additional subject for medicine if you want to do 3 sciences - but Chemistry and Biology A levels are the 2 that medical schools normally like best.

If the Cambridge style of teaching appeals to him doing 3 a levels should not put him off applying.

There is a lot of debate about whether Physics or Maths is the most useful additional subject for medicine if you want to do 3 sciences - but Chemistry and Biology A levels are the 2 that medical schools normally like best.

Personally, I don't think A-level maths is useful at all for medicine. Statistics is a bit more useful; psychology considerably more so. The great majority of medicine applicants take biology/chemistry/maths but this is really because it's their schools' preference rather than because medical schools demand it. Again personally, I think physics is more useful than biology. This is partly because only a small proportion of biology A-level is particularly relevant to medicine (a higher proportion of PE A-level is) and partly because the biological concepts are easier for intelligent students to learn from scratch than the physical ones. The problem with physics, though, is that so few comprehensive schools will have specialist physics teachers and it's therefore even harder for students in those schools to get the highest grades.

Schools seem remarkably resistant to prospective medics' taking a non-science A-level, even though Cambridge is the only medical school that requires three sciences. Students who do history, philosophy, RE or politics are likely to be much more comfortable than all-science students both in BMAT writing tasks and in interview discussions, as well as being better able to adapt to styles of learning in which you can't find a direct answer to every question from a single source.

Oh, just to add, here is more from the Oxford website later on in the shortlisting section:

"We also used GCSE performance data for schools in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to help tutors to assess whether an applicant's grades at GCSE may reflect an under- or over-performance within the context of the school at which they were taken. Therefore, it is possible that the chance of being shortlisted was increased/reduced if an applicant had a higher/lower proportion of A* grades than would be predicted for the average student applying to Oxford from their GCSE school. "
Again, doesn't specifically discuss A level, but does sound to me like your HO6 might be talking to Oxford.

We also used GCSE performance data for schools in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to help tutors to assess whether an applicant's grades at GCSE may reflect an under- or over-performance within the context of the school at which they were taken.

In other words DfE performance tables. Which are for state schools only....

My DD has friends whose 3rd A levels include drama, photography, art, history. All have biology and chemistry as they are required - some Unis like one or the other but if you don't take both you do narrow your choices.
Oxford look at GCSE school data as far as I know but they've told us that they don't differentiate between Eton and my comp - they are looking for Progress 8 & contextual flags. Not one other Uni goes even this far !
And ALL medicine courses are competitive and one is not better than the other. First choice F1 positions get pretty much equally allocated to all Unis from what I've seen, and I have never asked any Dr where they studied. I just want them to treat me well.

Oxbridge looks at the GCSEs in context but at admissions talks still say they only offer based on 3 A levels, don't care about 4th, quality over quantity so don't let a 4th drag your other 3 down. That is Oxbridge specific

That is every medical school subject talk that I have sat through specific as well. If a student is as capable at achieving 4 A as they are at 3 A then why not take 4 A levels? However if spreading themselves over 4 instead of 3 means that grades might slip then it makes sense to take 3.

I get the impression that this is about the school’s stats rather than the individual pupils.

With regard to the third A level – at the subject talk at HYMS they admissions officer said that they preferred students to have taken an arts or humanities subject as a third subject as it showed breadth of education.

Oxford sifts for interview on a formula based on percentage of A star at GCSE contextualised plus the BMAT. Unfortunately there’s the small matter of getting an offer based on interviews performance and the whole application which then follows.

Mums need wine I look for a smart doctor with a good grounding in the science tbh. I couldn’t give a stuff about how nice they are or about how much they wanted early patient contact. I’m looking for serious scientific competence. That’s what tends to come out of the medical schools ranked top by the people who compile these tables. Very clearly all unis are not equal and the medical departments are no exception.

I’m giving up totally on typos. This morning I was on a boat and since then I’ve driven 450 miles to arrive home to broken internet so am typing on a weeny weeny little phone.

I look for a smart doctor with a good grounding in the science tbh. I couldn’t give a stuff about how nice they are or about how much they wanted early patient contact. I’m looking for serious scientific competence.

That’s one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read, I’m sorry.

When you are ill, whether the doctor went to oxford and graduated 1st or has 44 A*s at alevel is of no relevance. You want a doctor who has a good bedside manner, who involves you in and explains decisions about your health to you. You want a compassionate & empathetic doctor. If ur looking for “scientific competence” primarily as you suggest then you don’t want a doctor, you want a scientist. You want a doctor whose primary focus is your best interest. Some of the best doctors I’ve meet have achieved BCD at alevel ( an oncologist who treated my cousin) and a few friends from medical school. I’d be surprised if you’d ever had a long-term condition and spent days at a hospital.

Contrary to most people’s belief on being a doctor, it’s not that difficult intellectually. Sure, you need to understand the conditions and drugs etc but say if you forget the number of chest compressions required- it would be readily available to check. If you forgot the side effects of a drug, that is also online. The vast majority of being a doctor is about being efficient and being quick at doing stuff. Very little of the day to day knowledge of being a doctor requires extensive knowledge of medicine. It just simply doesn’t. Recognising emergencies is obviously important and dealing with it there and then also. No one cares if you’ve memorised the Krebb Cycle or if you know the ins and outs of the pathology of Toxoplasma gondii. It’s all very systematic- checking of to-do lists, making sure the correct scan has been requested.

That’s what tends to come out of the medical schools ranked top by the people who compile these tables. Very clearly all unis are not equal and the medical departments are no exception.

“Top” medical schools like Oxbridge or Imperial tend to attract and accept students who are interested in medicine academically as well as practically. Interested in research and generally more interested in the science behind say diabetes and beta-blockers or ACE (Angio-tensin enzyme) inhibitors than the clinical side e.g. symptoms, prognoses. That’s fine & we need those kind of doctors. But to say that there is suggest that there is some disparity between medical departments is plainly wrong.

Long post and I hope I’ve just got the wrong end of the stick but I doubt it. You come across rather ultracrepidarian.

It has never occurred to me to ask where a doctor did their medical degree. All I am concerned with is that they are competent. DD had life saving surgery at 9 weeks old. DH had life saving surgery 4 years ago. I really couldn't care less whether those surgeons achieved their degree at Oxbridge or UCLAN.

My daughter did three A levels: chemistry and biology and Drama. She had two med school offers, and has been in the top 15 each of her first two years at medical school. I’m including that fact to show that not concentrating on sciences at A level has not hindered her.

The Drama has helped with essay writing skills and general communication ability.

Hardly anyone in her selective school did four A levels.

Cleopatrai I'm afraid I stand completely by it. But then I've ha encountered serious clinical negligence on several occasions (in very, very serious situations), and so that may well have skewed my views/ wised me up. Please don't tell me what I look for - I know exactly what I look for, as outlined above. Very patronizing and I'm far from alone.

So yes I do now absolutely look for an intelligent doctor who knows his or her stuff. That doesn't mean I ask specifically whether they're Oxbridge graduates or not (although as it happens my own GP is, and is excellent), but it's usually pretty clear whether they're seriously competent or not and for minor things it's not relevant. For serious conditions it is. The idea that all medical schools are equal is slightly fatuous since even if the teaching is all at the same level (which it won't be, in the nature of things), the ability of the intakes differ. And mumsneedwine is drawing a dubious conclusion from the fact of the rather odd system of allocating F1 places, which skims off the top performers in each school but doesn't compare them directly. Still, someone thought that was a good idea just as someone thinks it's a good idea to rank medical schools. Not my idea - theirs.

Anyhow, there's some outrage about the very notion of top medical schools going on here for whatever reason and it's wholly irrelevant to the OP. She has a DS aiming for the more competitive schools - or at least as the preferred choice - and the point was about the school's advice. Some terrible advice is given out on MN by posters who think that the world is uniform across schools, universities and subjects when it really, really isn't. Then they get cross because a Ho6 says that his experience at a high performing school is that you won't have a competitive application to a top medical school without showing a bit more than an applicant from a school with slower paced teaching, simply because they think their experience fits all situations for all time, which it doesn't. Which is why my advice is for the DS to go back to his Ho6 and drill down to the facts, make his own judgment based on those facts and go from there.

If you're implying that BMAT unis are "top" compared to the rest, you're clearly not a medic or an applicant. If you were you'd know that Lancaster, Leeds and Brighton also use the BMAT, not just your Oxbridge and London schools.

worriedaboutray I read backwards so missed this. Yes I do know that recently those schools started using BMAT. Thing is, the OP referred to London medical schools and juxtaposed that with the BMAT so it was a small step (as opposed to a gigantic leap) to go UCL/ Imperial. On the grounds that Lancaster, Leeds and Brighton er.... aren't in London, unless they've moved (but Lancaster was definitely still there just by the M6 yesterday, my route didn't take me past Leeds or down to Brighton so I can't confirm).

The OP's DS has ruled out Oxbridge, if you read her post.

Ah well. All those Drs coming out of 'lesser' Universities won't need to be treating some people as they won't be good enough for them. Not a clue where my GP or any Dr I've ever seen went - don't care, just want a kind Dr who knows their stuff. But if you want to rank the Unis then please go ahead - whatever floats your boat.
You are aware the GMC oversees every medical school to ensure training meets standards, and that a new exam is coming in so all students sit one the same. And SJT is very important for F1 positions and they need empathy and people skills to pass OSCEs. Science is one part of the training.