Medicine 2021

[Millylovespuddles]

Hi all
It looks like there’s no medicine 2021 entry thread yet, so it might be an idea to get the ball rolling.
My DD is getting stuck into her A level course, doing well so far, but I’m guessing we parents could do with some mutual support and advice from parents who’ve been here before.

^What I am saying is that more people got 10 or less A*s (less than the average) than got 11 or more.
Or at least, given the evidence we have, that would appear statistically accurate.
My point was that 10.8 GCSEs at A star is not a minimum amount needed^

Nobody will achieve 10.8 GCSEs.

Just to repeat.
Most offers had 10 or more A* equivalent.
A mean is not a median.

Graphical software draws lines accurately.

My interpretation of the statistics is that more people will have 10 or less A stars then will have 10 or more, but 10 is the defining factor as it is the biggest number.

I am genuinely interested as to why this interpretation is incorrect, as I no longer teach stats, certainly not at this level. However I don't want to clog up the thread with statistical analyses so would be grateful if you could message me with the workings.

10 is the defining factor as it is the biggest number.

And thus we return to the original point I made a while back, illustrated very simply by the Oxford graph.

I think that the agonising over the graph neatly illustrates how simple things can be made to look complex by those wanting (even with the best of motives) to offer advice. Then applicants feel anxious if they don't take that advice. It's a concern. On the whole, none of this is complex.

And actually the websites really are sufficient, coupled with Open Days for those willing and able to attend. My experience is that plenty of very successful students rely solely on the first in fact, and strictly limit travelling to various unis.

Mum of 2nd year med here. When looking at which schools to apply, DD focussed on those who put more emphasis on the PS. This is because she didn't achieve as well as expected in her GCSEs and instead was lucky to have had access to very good work experience which probably put her in the 10% of applicants from this perspective.

In the end, she had 3 interviews and 3 offers, but she hardly mentioned any of work experience during these interviews. What work/volunteering experience does is make you more mature, self-aware, resilient and these reflect in the way responses at interviews are communicated.

It's a bit like having a panel interviewing a Year 6 and a Year 4 pupil. Both are able to speak about their school, the teachers, the extra-curriculum activities they engage in, but it would expected that the Year 6 pupils would be able to show more maturity in the way he responds to the question about life at school. It's an unconscious effect.

DD did little preparation for her interviews, but discussing the questions raised were no dissimilar to the discussions we had ourselves about her experiences at work (nursing home/hospice/hospital), or those she had with her colleagues and managers/tutors.

This seems to have also followed her in her studies as she finds it quite natural to engage with all aspects of medical school life.

A large part of applying to studying Medicine is learning the right boxes to tick, but there is also an element to it that no right box ticking will help with. This is why a number of pupils who fail to get a place first year do much better when they reapply.

I have never considered what I read or posted here to be about and battle of wisdom and debate on who know more about medicine applications but just reading other people's own experience to build my own wisdom that applied to my own dd.

Wow!

Not everyone can be right. Perhaps the diversity of views reflects both the diversity of applicants and the diversity of medical careers.

All I can claim is my own experience, which is pretty DD specific.

Her background is of a high achieving Central London private schools. 70% of A levels were at A*, most scientists took four A levels, some five, and almost half the year group went onto Oxford. It should have been straight forward. Take BMAT, because you have strong science knowledge, and head for Oxbridge/London. I suspect when there you would come across some equally well qualified peers from Goodbye Stranger's DS' high achieving grammar.

Except:

1. DD is dyslexic and so performs relatively badly on timed tests like UKCAT
2. She was seriously during the summer vacation and so missed the chance to go to Open days and decided to skip BMAT.
3. Her learning style is different. She is practical, picks up on concepts quickly and has an extraordinary memory, but is not good at essays. She had no particular desire to go to Oxbridge, and indeed saw advantage in stepping away from a high achieving culture.

So we were back to the drawing board, with a DD who had to focus on simply getting into school when she could, and a school who were less familiar with application processes for some of the med schools DD was looking at.

Insights I gained were:

1. It is not that simple. Lots will get four rejections each year, even with 4A* predictions. From what I can tell mumsneedwine's DD got both a very high UKCAT score, probably in the top 20% and came from a school ranking high on deprivation indices, while all of GoodbyeStrangers DC sound exceptionally bright and mature. It is therefore not surprising that both sailed through the process. In contrast, and in line with the school's experience, a couple of lovely and super bright friends of DDs got nothing first time round. (Interestingly despite one having a dad who is a serious big cheese in medicine.)

1. Treat it as a two year process. It helps make the stress more bearable, and you will have a better chance with achieved grades, experience of the process, and an additional year maturity.

1. Do your best to to nail the aptitude tests. If you can bear it, start early with UKCAT so you are utterly familiar with the format, and can perform it at speed. It is a speed test.

1. Then look at your strengths. DD had pretty good GCSE grades, though not up to Oxford standards, high A level predictions, lots of EC, volunteering and work experience, but a weakish UKCAT and no BMAT. Here I would stress there is no such thing as an "easier" medical school.The aim is for the applicant to find medical schools which will be "easier" for them. If you qualify for a contextual offer look at who offers them. London Universities (in all subjects) can come at a bit of a "discount" as lots of good UK students won't apply, but Imperial will expect good grades/BMAT, and so on. A spreadsheet is the way to go!

1. Read the Medical school website very carefully. If they use Personal Statements as part of the initial filter, make sure you have demonstrated and evidenced every skill and competence required, as it will be scored. It does not matter if it ends up a bit stilted, you need to tick the boxes. DD started with the selection criteria, made a list and then turned it into an essay. If they use the PS simply as a conversation starter at interview write something interesting, but obviously make sure you can expand. I believe that it is important to do your best to learn as much about a medical career through volunteering and work experience, as you can, primarily so you know what you are letting yourself in for, but also because being able to talk enthusiastically about first hand experience at interview is an advantage. (DDs school were pretty strong on this, saying even Oxbridge wanted a lot more than straight intellectual horsepower.)

1. The "best" medical school....here I am tempted to repeat some of the tales that come out of Swindon which hosts both Oxford and Bristol clinical students. Suffice to say both groups think they are "better", when in reality the Oxford students will have more science learning, and the Bristol one are able to hit the ground running in terms of patient communication, team work and learning on the job. Sadly I understand that the two groups barely socialise, which is weird as they could end up working alongside each other in the future.

The debate sounds eerily familiar. Central London parents fret incessantly about the "best" nursery, the "best" prep, the "best" secondary. When I was waiting for my 13 year old DD to emerge from a sports changing room, one of her peers asked me how she had done in the Maths challenge, and then asked how it was possible she had got a gold as her school was not as academic as Putney High or Godolphin, and certainly not as academic as St Paul's Girls which is where this girl was. DD had a bit more of the same when some of the girls with Oxbridge places started to detach themselves for friendships with those who were not going to Oxbridge. (In both instances I would look to the level of parental pressure on these girls to achieve, and the linking of performance to self-worth.)

Medical schools and medical careers are long term games. We chose DDs 11-16 school because we thought it would suit her, and because of its dyslexia support. And assume that they took her because they were content that despite her very spiky profile, she would thrive. We felt the same about medical schools. It was not about "the best" but the best for her. The practical, group working approach suits her. I get the point that some courses offer more science, but DD is more likely to learn through observing, and because she is loving her course. (Three years of essays would have been very difficult.)

I have recently met some high achieving young doctors and the advice from all three has been not to work too hard and have some fun whilst at medical school, because the pace only picks up once you qualify. As it is, if DD gets the seriously interesting intercalation that she has applied for, I think she will be as well qualified for her chosen specialisation at the end of her six years, as she would have been if she had gone to Oxbridge. More perhaps, because though her science knowledge may not be as broad, it will be deeper. There are always different paths to the same goal, and my observation is that "good enough" can sometimes be more sustainable and get you further, than trying to deliver to sky high aspirations.

This though is a weird London perspective. DDs close friend is the first in her family to go to University and is delighted to be at medical school, and wants to be a GP and will make a fantastic GP. DD's school was curious. Her friend's parents ran things, big things. Though she enjoyed it, she has no regrets about stepping outside this world of high aspiration and high achievement, onto a practical course, and would argue that being more grounded will make her a better doctor. Equally she can see why Oxbridge, including the proximity to research, might be a wonderful experience for others.

One tip is to read up on the intercalation options offered by medical schools. If you are interested in public health, think about Birmingham, child development Bristol etc. The option of an intercalation somewhere else can be a real advantage if you want the flexibility of changing track to a more academic or specialised branch of medicine.

And one last point. I hope teachers are not just telling girls to be "kind". The messages DD received were to be ambitious, to work hard, to focus, to be professional,and to believe that girls could achieve just as much as boys. "Kind" was something for yr2, but after that morphed into skills related to emotional maturity, including leadership. And yes, being made a prefect was seen as a real honour, obligation and opportunity for personal development. I cannot think that anyone would turn it down.

Epic post Needmoresleep, in a good way!

A very sharp distinction to be drawn between a poster who says I know everything so buzz off and a poster who says, in defence of the accusation, actually, I don't know nothing.

Agree with horses for courses - always a sound principle - but the fact remains that too little is often said about the more academic med schools and when it is, it seems to give some kind of offence, which is silly. Clearly only the minority of applicants can apply to those schools but they shouldn't be left out of the conversation altogether, which is the tendency.

As far as Swindon goes, do the Bristol students spend far longer there or are they just a few weeks, like the Oxford lot? No particular reason for asking, just wondering how well they got to know each other. DS never said anything about Bristol students at Swindon, let alone derogatory.

Bristol students go on six months placements in years three, four, and five, including to Swindon. One of DDs friends is there, and obviously it goes without saying that the Bristol medics are savier, more knowledgeable, better communication and empathy, etc.

Indeed another thing to look out for are placements. Bristol has a good mix. GPs can be inner city or rural, and as well as the BRI and Southmede they have placements in well established hospitals such as Swindon and Bath. DD is finding that she is getting better teaching in a market town where staff take the task of teaching the next generation of medical students seriously.

I don't disagree with you in terms of more academic courses being the right option for some students, and had DDs learning style been more conventional she would probably have been funnelled in the same direction. That said I have a particular issue with the concept of "best". But then over the years we have seen a few kids, not necessarily medics, crash and burn, as they lacked the resources to cope with (relative) failure. Or when simply working very very hard is not enough. Equally though DD has known some extraordinarily talented kids, who then go on to shine at Oxbridge, and beyond. On one level she misses those high aspirations, though has discovered a whole world of outdoor activities, friends from a diversity of backgrounds and from across the UK, and some pretty solid medical training and experience.

I hope we are agreeing that for medicine there is no "better" med school, just different and our DCs just need to work out where they are most likely to get in and which style of teaching will suit them.

People who get in to Oxford would quite possibly have been unsuccessful at Keele, which has an extremely high ranking for preparedness and vice versa, although both have the same A level requirements.

DS was in Swindon for a far, far shorter period Needmoresleep - just weeks. And they didn't quite commute but went back to Oxford three days a week as far as I know.

I'm pretty certain I'm not guilty of saying 'best' to characterise these schools. I've almost certainly used the term 'top ranking' since Oxbridge and the London schools do rank highly, so it's a fact. And in terms of competition, the academic ability/ achievements of applicants when combined with the quantity do make these schools the most competitive, so I've also used 'competitive'. And that's where the trouble begins! :)

I accept your point about 'best' completely. But I have my own problem with this group of med students being dismissed as nerdy and unable to relate to people. There's no reason whatsoever why academically high achieving young people aren't equally good with people as less academically high achieving young people, and that's the vibe given by the crowd on these threads who bridle at any mention of Oxbridge. It's just a nonsense.

Monkey it will be a fact that some med schools give superior training to others. I don't think you can get away from that fact. There are good secondary schools and poor secondary schools, good hospitals and poor hospitals, good consultants and clinically negligent consultants. Why would med schools be any different?

'Superior training'?

Horses for courses. Are you talking about researchers, GPs, or pathologists?

I have a friend who lives close to the hospital where DD is on placement. It does not have a great local reputation. However DD is really enjoying her placement and very grateful for the time and effort people are making. She feels she is learning more than perhaps she did in a busy teaching hospital.

Surely, though I not an academic, there is an argument that says that teaching approaches should be reviewed given information is readily available via the internet, and because of the more widespread access to diagnostic tests like scans. So perhaps more emphasis on communication and the ability to access and interpret data. Or a different balance between referrals and treatment by GPs. I am sure people who know about these things will have an answer.

And I do not think anyone is dismissing any group as nerdy and unable to communicate. So no need to argue. DDs school advice was to get volunteering, EC and work experience under your belt as Oxbridge expected more than just top grades. If you didnt have more about you you would not get a place.

Anyway I have given my take. I apologise if others see what I have said as in some way derogatory towards some medical schools.
And I will not claim any more knowledge other than having been through the process. It's a bit like selective London schools. Almost all get somewhere and soon most will be happy with where they are.

(Runs for cover...)

Needmoresleep it's an old refrain this good at science bad with people. It's been cited on almost every thread I can remember.

The wording is fairly minor. Your DCs' school undoubtedly offers a superior education to that given in poorly funded coastal state schools - I wouldn't get offended by that, and I doubt you would either! Just a phrase to reflect a reality. That's life. Things aren't equal. I suggest that if Monkey has strong objections to the various rankings she takes it up with whoever is responsible for the rankings and has a go at them instead!

To be clear I am offended by the shocking education provided in some schools - but not by the recognition of the reality.

On reflection that wasn't a great choice of phrase, superior training - the product of being occupied by something else which I'll now revert to. But clearly med schools won't all be equally good, that's all I meant, that's just never really going to happen.

Am I right in thinking that at the end of the 5/6 years they all sit the same exams? And in thinking that under the current system, when it comes to F1 posts, the points or whatever for being in the top 10% of an oxford cohort are exactly the same as being in the top 10% at Keele, or Edinburgh, or Kent, or wherever?

"But clearly med schools won't all be equally good, that's all I meant, that's just never really going to happen."

Yes but some (Birmingham is one example) enjoy a strong reputation for training GPs, perhaps linked to their strength in public health. I think they, and Belfast, are also good at trauma medicine/surgery. Others have different strengths, perhaps depending in part what national centres (don't know the proper name) they host.

Had a little chuckle. My DDs school is a v leafy comp with no contextual offers given for medicine. So she didn't 'sail through', she worked her butt off like every other student. UCAT was nearly the end of her and as I have stated several times she got her best score on the day. She had to get the same grades as those from Eton and do just as well at interview - like the majority of state school students. No one is going to let anyone in who can't complete the course. So her 3 A stars hopefully proved she was capable.
I am glad that there is now some awareness that people are allowed different opinions and that is fine. Something I have tried to say all along. None of us is 'right', we all have different perspectives and they are all valid. But information is fact and that's what I was objecting too - things change and I just want the people reading this (they have thankfully run away elsewhere) to get the most up to date info. Have a lovely weekend everyone.

Mumsneedwine, but surely you can agree that a strong UKCAT and three A*s put your DD in a strong position to get four offers.

The issue is that for many applicants the process is not such a walk in the park and, to be honest, posts that suggest that it is all pretty straightforward can genuinely jar for those who, like DD got through to mid-March without an offer and who were realistically expecting to have to reapply.

It is one of the problems with MN. We all want to be supportive, yet obviously we are proud of our DC. There is a real need to be aware of the stress some others can be under.

I also do not know if it is a function of your writing style, but you make teaching sound awful, your description of your DDs school makes it sound dire (indeed I have been tempted at times to post asking why you did not just move for the sake of your children's future) and more recently you have started to hint that your DD is struggling with medicine as a career choice. I had a mother who always moaned about teaching, until she retired when she really missed it, so I recognise the syndrome. The weird thing is that teachers in London that I know seem to enjoy teaching, and the same applies to doctors.

I also do not understand the Eton obsession. It's a school with a funny uniform. Medical schools are selecting individuals not the schools they went to. Their good applicants should get places, their weaker ones not. Ditto for other applicants. Medical schools want those who will make good doctors.

Have you noticed that potential applicants have felt the need to set up a new thread for support? This one has become a battleground for a few over invested parents of established medics already on a course. They argue the same points over and over again in a battle of egos every year. Could MN give you your own thread to try and outdo each other on and leave potential applicants out of it?

TomoeGozen, fine. However my 11:18:55 post was meant to be helpful. We received some fantastic help from some lovely MNetters. Without that I don't think DD would be at medschool.

I think the post you reference was helpful but the later tit for tat posts and then the unpleasant one to another poster - not so much.

Sorry. Your post of 17.08.59 aimed at me, is not exactly friendly either, is it?

Pot, kettle, black?

I don’t know what your problem is but I wish your DC all the best in their application. As I said, mine would not have made it to medical school without the real generous help, support and knowledge of MNetters. Obviously it’s different for those whose DC are A whizz kids. But others won’t be and some will still be waiting this time next year and perhaps even making plans for emergency gap years. It is tough, really tough. You may not expect to be in that position. However I have had enough PMs over the past couple of years to know how difficult it is when others use MN to boast of their DCs brilliant UKCAT results, their A grades and their numerous early offers.

I appreciate the time and effort posters here go to to share experience and insight - it's very useful to be able to ask questions about an area unknown to me. Thank you.

So- intercalation. Some courses have it automatically, some you can add it, some don't have the option. Any thoughts on how useful it is, other than getting an extra degree? DS thinks he might be interested in research so would a course offering intercalation be a good choice?
Thanks