Unaccredited Biomedical sciences degrees

[Shimy]

This is for anyone who works in a university within the above department or perhaps whose dc is studying Biomedical science currently.

Biomedical science degrees to my knowledge, offer 3 pathways: scientific Research , lab work (HCPC) or Medicine. Without accreditation, you cannot work as an HCPC. Most of the newer universities are accredited which allows their students to register as an HCPC as well as follow a research path if they so choose. The higher ranked universities, Cambridge, Bath et al and all of the RG except Queen Mary are running non accredited degrees and I’m very curious as to their rational for this. Can anyone shed some light?

If the degree is accredited by the Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS), or otherwise approved by the Health Care Professions Council (HCPC), graduates can register with the HCPC as an NHS biomedical scientist without providing further evidence of proficiency (typically a training portfolio). See www.ibms.org/registration/becoming-hcpc-registered/. People with unaccredited degrees, or degrees in subjects other than biomedical sciences, can still train as NHS biomedical scientists but they need to acquire the additional evidence. However, quite a small proportion of biomedical sceinces graduates pursue this career path, regardless of whether their degree is accredited.

People studying for biomedical science degrees at Russell Group universities are quite unlikely to be intending to pursue careers as NHS biomedical scientists: they are generally more academically oriented and will be using it as a route to postgraduate quailifications to take them into research careers. Personally, I think many are misled by the name of the degree and they would be better off studying physiology, cell & molecular biology, genetics, etc.

The process of getting IBMS accreditation is very bureaucratic and I assume the universities that don't go through it consider the effort not to be worthwhile for the number of their students who would need an accredited degree. I would hope they would support their students who did want to follow this path to gain the required experience to complete a training portfolio, but my experience of universities in general - and Russell Group in particular - suggests this might be a vain hope.

The elephant in the room, of course, is the number of students taking biomedical sciences degrees in the belief that this is the most appropriate first degree for people wishing to study medicine as a second degree. Except in the case of programmes that accept a certain number of the university's own biomedical sciences graduates onto the medicine programme (e.g. St George's), biomedical sciences is no more appropriate as the first degree than a whole range of others. Again, I think students are misled by the name.

The process of getting IBMS accreditation is very bureaucratic and I assume the universities that don't go through it consider the effort not to be worthwhile for the number of their students who would need an accredited degree

I think it’s this sentiment that I find shocking and was hoping I’d be wrong. I also wonder how much support the unfortunate few receive to become registered and wether these universities make it very clear in their information so thatapplicants are aware of this loophole before they apply. I’m also assuming they cannot think much of HCPCs as a worthwhile career. It seems because most are research intensive institutions, they shoe horn everyone along this path on purpose, that’s their prerogative of course but cannot understand why they can’t offer both career options, they will still have their full subscriptions.

Why shocking? Should all degrees have exactly the same content and accreditation? As long as applicants are aware what's the issue? Clearly different universities will be attracting different types of applicant.

Besides which there are other routes into NHS science work for life science grads with no accreditation. Arguably better as the NHS training includes a Masters degree.

I’m also assuming they cannot think much of HCPCs as a worthwhile career.

QUB and QMUL being the honourable exceptions here. Either that, or they haven't really quite got the hang of the whole RG thing.

All degrees don’t have to have the same degree and accreditation and I didn’t say they have to. My question is about a specific degree and the rational for opting out of accreditation that would give graduates more options from the start.

Perhaps they don't want to offer the modules that the IBMS prescribes. Perhaps they feel other modules play to that university's strengths. Perhaps they feel that the sort of applicants they have would be better served with more module choice. Perhaps they don't have lecturers in a particular discipline. Perhaps they don't feel the accreditation is particularly useful for the time/ effort/ resource involved.

It clearly isn't seen as essential to the applicants that apply so maybe they're right....

I'm Interested why you think non accredited biomedical Science graduates are more academic? Speaking as someone who's just graduated with an accredited BMS degree, it's simply a matter of preference. Just as nursing or medicine are regulated by the nmc and gmc, so has biomedical Science regulated by the Hcpc - you cannot call yourself a Biomedical scientist without the registration as it is a protected title. No degree is worth any more than another, it just means those who choose accreditation may want to pursue state registration... Not all biomed graduates do. Some go into teaching, medicine or onto postgraduate education and research . I personally struggled getting into the NHS because even though I'm accredited, I missed out on the internship in my second year... I now work in th
chemistry on a better wage than I would have had working as an MLA in the NHS whilst doing a masters in Toxicology. It's such a broad degree, you have enormous flexibility to go wherever you want... If you aren't accredited its really not that big of a deal... It just means you need to have your degree topped up with a few modules. It doesn't mean you're any better or worse than anyone on an accredited program.... Science is science, you either know it, or you don't. In short, it's more cost effective to do accredited and you'll only end up paying thousands more to top up, and that's before you've even started the path to registration. Hope that helps.

I'm Interested why you think non accredited biomedical Science graduates are more academic?

Where have I said this?

it's simply a matter of preference
Of course it’s a matter of preference, hence my question about accreditation.

It seems because most are research intensive institutions, they shoe horn everyone along this path

You posted ^ which suggests you think the reason RGs often don't seek accreditation is because their students tend towards academic careers rather than healthcare science careers.

Accreditation as the pp said isn't that big a deal. And clearly not particularly important for those that choose this degree at HEIs that don't accredit.

Not really a big deal either way tbh.

What you should be looking for in a Biomedical Science degree, is a course that offers a broad module content and a decent amount of lab exposure. I think we did 9-12 hours a week in labs... Not all unis offer that, but it is very important because you need to develop your practical lab skills. I would also highly recommend a sandwich placement whether your degree is accredited or not ... You leave uni much more employable to someone who has just done the straight 3 year degree. There are exceptions, of course.

@titchy How does that infer they are ‘more’ academic? Accredited degrees offer both research and nhs work pathways, so non accredited degrees are not ‘more’ academic, they just don’t offer the models that lead towards accreditation. Which is what I meant by shoe horning students in research.
I don’t think it’s so much the type of students they attract, but more about the type of students they want to attract.

Anyway, it doesn’t seem there’s any new information being added by this thread and it’s in danger of posters extrapolating things not intended, so I’ll leave it here.

But you seem to think it's dreadful that some universities don't opt for accreditation. Whereas it really isn't. There are plenty of routes available to those without accreditation.

Obviously some universities focus on providing a grounding for research careers, and others for practical careers - why do you think that's bad?

@titchy... Research careers are practical careers. 🙄

one is more of an educational program (university accreditation) the other is more of a hands on technical program.
similar name two different job sectors.
lots of programs are like this engineering comes to mind.

engineering comes to mind.

So the BEng courses, as opposed to MEng, are there for people who want to research Engineering, not practice it?

I made this mistake in the 90’s. I worked in research in big pharma and then went into academia, so I was ok, work wise, but I did feel I’d lost out by rushing into doing an uncredited degree without giving proper consideration to the consequences.
It is a bit of a “jack of all trades” degree and if I had my time back, I wouldn’t do it again.

Research careers are practical careers

I realise that - sorry poorly phrased. I meant PhD and post-Doc type research as against working in an NHS lab.

• engineering comes to mind.

So the BEng courses, as opposed to MEng, are there for people who want to research Engineering, not practice it?*

As far as I can see, the BEng is there more for people who either aren't wanting to actually be professional engineers, or who don't have the necessary qualifications to embark on the full accredited MEng and so may need to take a different route.

I did an intercalated degree in biomedical science (from KCL) in the 1990s. My motivation was academic interest; learning for the sake of learning itself. And the idea of getting a BSc in a year was attractive.

Got 1st class honours and it looks nice on my CV. I have no idea whether it was accredited or not.

If I had had to pay for that extra year, I might have felt differently, but it was covered by a full scholarship.

Whether or not a degree is accredited could be anything from important to irrelevant, depending on what you want to do afterwards.

This is a subject close to my heart as DD is currently studying biomedical sciences at an RG university. Her degree is accredited by the Royal Society of Biology. When we asked the admissions tutor about IBMS vs RBS accreditations for this course he told us that the courses with the IBMS accreditation only qualified the student to work for the NHS, whereas the RBS accreditation opened more doors and offered more flexibility. You can do top up modules to get IBMS accreditation if you want to work for the NHS.

She does several hours of lab work a week. The university is very proud of its research intensive status.

DS is looking at a Biomedical Sciences degree, at an established "red brick" university which regularly features highly in good universities guides. They do accredit their degree, and this is used as a selling point at the Open Day. It gives you options, the tutor said and she's absolutely right. DS has no desire to work in the NHS or in a medical setting a biochemist, but it gives you more flexibility in the jobs market when you graduate.

They also offer a "top up" year to a full MSc for those who want to get that, but the BSc is accredited anyway.

Which university Pineapple?

DD can also top up to an MSc