Medicine 2025 entry

[HGC2]

Inspired and slightly terrified reading the 2023 entry threads and how much prep has to go into a medicine application!

DC wants to do medicine, probably in Scotland as a Scottish student, doing well at school but this doesn't seem to be enough! School has little / no experience of applications for medicine as a not fantastic state school!

Can anyone advise what work experience / volunteering they will need (currently volunteering at sports club with hope of job)
what are the spreadsheets that people talk about?
How do you strategically apply?

I have one child at uni and they just applied and got a place, this seems like a whole other level!

On reflection, why does saying in effect that it's an especially tough call to get into the unis named warrant anger? It's just a fact.

This is a useful guide as to where to go. Trainees ranking how supportive and happy they are. Not Med school, but it's the same people teaching 😊. Not sure what poor N Yorks have done !

@Karolinska because I work across many many schools on medicine applications, because state schools in poor areas can't afford to pay for advice.

@Karolinska sorry, but getting into Bristol requires a high UCAT, but you only need 4 at English and Maths GCSE and AAA. However Sheffield need 7 7s and AAA. Which is a higher calibre student ?

Oxford and Cambridge relied on BMAT which was expensive to take (unless poor and then it was free). And interviews that it helped if you had coaching for (wonder who that favours ??).

Imperial and UCL are ruled out by many students as London is too expensive to live in.

So, they are not getting the 'best' students, but the ones who fit their criteria. It's a strategy game applying these days.

Do medicine. Become a doctor.

This might be useful too.

This !!

@Karolinska this might interest you. Newcastle and Birmingham Deaneries most likely to get into anaesthesia

www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/briefing-note---exams-and-recruitment-outcome-reports_pdf-60060997.pdf

Off to watch the football. It's always the hope that kills.

For those of you who have my spreadsheet please feel free to share at your schools. The more students know how to get in, the fairer this process is.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 ⚽️ 🥅

Not wanting to create any controversy or add any fuel to the debate, but just aiming to get the correct message out there.
I am using a name change to post this as I don’t want to be outed.
I am a consultant in the NHS and I have been college tutor for over 5 years, so I look after trainees ( junior doctors), in my speciality. I am involved in recruiting and ARCPs, amongst other things. I can tell you, for medicine it really doesn’t matter what university you graduate from, it’s irrelevant.
Your achievements ( academic and non-academic), interpersonal skills, demonstration of enthusiasm, for example, will be the key factors that make you stand out and score points.

Are you London based Puddinglane? (hunch based on username :))

I completely see that university doesn't matter in one sense. But my own DS phoned this evening and I asked him this exact question about the recent round for the specialty registrar posts and he said that at a party on Friday every single one of his Oxford friends at the party - a sizeable group; it was a birthday party for an old uni friend - 100% - had got their first choice of job on the pathway (the stage which enables you to apply for consultant posts at the end of the four years).

This is a single cohort and those stats say something pretty revealing about the quality of the group. Obviously one sample but I very much doubt DS's cohort was much different from the cohorts immediately before or after. So one can claim it doesn't matter which uni - that no uni is a barrier to success - but that is slightly disingenuous and ignores the very high success rates for certain unis. A number of these applied for the most competitive specialties too: London cardiology etc. (Tbf most were London).

And I'm not sure why it should be a problem. We want the brightest minds to get to the top positions in the NHS. It's good that the siphon seems to work that way.

DS did make the point that the skills which enabled Oxford student to get into Oxford medical school - knowing which boxes to tick and having the ability to tick those boxes - is replicated in this medical career ladder sphere.

Which is kind of the same thing that I've already said.

Football not going too well up here (Scotland).

I am very grateful for all the advice and it's useful to see the conflicting arguments and therefore different strategies for applying. I guess it is all a bit hypothetical to us at the moment until our DC have UCAT scores.

Has anyone been to open days yet? It's kind of a shame we have to do it now before knowing the scores. Mine went to Glasgow this week, which she seemed to like a lot. I think the odds are worse for her as RUK student though, so I am not sure if it's a sensible option.

@ColouringPencils there will be more sensible options than a Scottish Uni. But if it's the absolute favourite it can be worth a punt. But statistically you'll have a better chance elsewhere.

@Karolinska I really don't like the terminology used here, all medical courses accept only the brightest and the best students. None of the students are inferior to others........ Who is to say that Oxford produces the best doctors? I know quite a few consultants with PHD.s that have recommended their children not go via Oxbridge routes for a variety of reasons.

My question was aimed at the type of teaching offered at each university and from reading the debate the question has sparked my thoughts on this are that DD should go to the uni that appeals most to her for the method of teaching and of course, she 100% needs to be strategic in her application.

DS is a determined and passionate student who hugely aspires to achieve she also has equal measures of empathy and social awareness. I'm sure that those are the skills that will see her succeed wherever she goes.

@mumsneedwine thank you for your part in the debate. Voice of reason.
@Puddinglane12 thank you, super helpful

Any student getting into any medical school is bright. Any student succeeding in getting through and graduating is bright. ALL of them will have v similar A levels with v similar grades at GCSE.

Many students don't want London (too expensive), or Oxbridge (no early patient contact) or Bristol (bonkers UCAT needed).

Students need to choose a city and course that suits them and their stats fit, it will make absolutely no difference in their chances of speciality training.

Passing exams does not make you a good doctor. It's why MMIs are used - soft skills are as important as the academic rigour needed.

Thanks, and useful.

My point, and I knew it would spark a debate as it always does, was that for some students having the option to intercalate is beneficial and therefore worth considering should a student have a clear idea about future specialisation, or be interested in a more academic path. (Or potentially have an escape route from medicine.)

A major difference between courses is that some are five year and some are six, and some allow you the option of a sixth year.

Do you think that intercalation can be advantageous?

If so it would suggest that six year or 5+1 courses can be advantageous, for some students. It does not make the medical schools themselves 'better' but does suggest a reason why some students might prioritise Oxford or Imperial or Bristol over others. Equally that extra year makes the course more expensive (both fees and the year's lost income) so for others it would make sense to avoid six year courses.

Most medical students will be content to get through the system in 5 years and then specialise. However we have known some who have had clear aims: tropical medicine, expedition medicine, medical ethics, paeds, even pathology from the getgo. DDs own interest in bio mechanics originated from her love of sport. She does not regret her intercalation at all and enjoyed an academic year in the middle, with a change of scenery (less expensive if you live at home), and different peers (her course was located within an engineering department). Whilst the poor radiologist, asking his students if they knew how scanners worked, did not expect to get chapter and verse.

Anyway an earlier poster asked about factors to consider when selecting a medical school. For some, intercalation options should be one.

@Needmoresleep and I agree, it's a good thing to have on the list to shortlist. The opportunity to intercalate can be important to some people so it's one of the rings you might want (or not). Plymouth have an amazing emergency medicine degree where I believe you get your go with HEMS teams.

But. Choices are wider if you do well on UCAT.

In terms of university medical research departments - you will find an awful lot of individuals in them not only don’t have medical degrees, they often don’t even have a PhD in a medicine-related subject! However, if you do want to get into academic medical research I recommend doing a medical degree as then you go on the clinical pay scale. If you think the clinical pay scale is bad, you have not looked at the academic pay scale!

SoTiredNeedHoliday that's fine of course. If you really think that all medical students are of absolutely equal ability and aptitude then that's your prerogative. Your question was about career progression. It's very clear that not everyone makes it through the various stages. mumsneedwine has been vocal on the shortage of training places and as you get through the first hurdle the next one is no easier. It's equally clear that certain universities see more of their students getting through those various barriers and that's to do with the type of student they admit, greatly helped by excellent teaching, not to do with any name or associated/ perceived prestige. I don't pluck this stuff out of the air. Anyone able enough should get through the ranks, regardless of uni. My only point was a direct answer to yours. Not for F1 and F2, couldn't matter a bit, but later on - the reality would appear to be yes. And for perfectly logical reasons. I'll leave it there but no need to tick me off for stating what actually happens on the ground.

Passing exams does not make you a good doctor. It's why MMIs are used - soft skills are as important as the academic.

Absolutely correct. Passing exams doesn't get you a place at Oxbridge either mumsneedwine. And of course knowing how to talk appropriately to patients is key, but being able to handle the science is critical also. DS clearly meant that knowing what Oxford was looking for and being able to deliver is something he thinks he and his peers manage to replicate successfully at the various stages in a medical career. That makes sense I think. Anyhow, something accounts for why they seem to do well - and it's certainly no longer the old school/uni tie.

And just to be clear I have at no point been talking about Oxbridge exclusively but the group of unis which feature regularly at the top of the tables.

@Karolinska It's very clear that not everyone makes it through the various stages. mumsneedwine has been vocal on the shortage of training places and as you get through the first hurdle the next one is no easier. It's equally clear that certain universities see more of their students getting through those various barriers and that's to do with the type of student they admit

I'd love to be linked to these statistics please, as that is a really helpful comment. Can you please post the link of which unis are able to negotiate all the barriers better than others?

Many thanks

As for 'ticking off' not sure what you're getting at tbh.

on looking at the rankings those that are top overall are quite a different list than those that rank highest looking at purely graduate prospects