Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Higher education

Talk to other parents whose children are preparing for university on our Higher Education forum.

Is Trinity Hall Cambridge right about elite schools?

1000 replies

mids2019 · 07/01/2026 20:19

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jan/07/cambridge-college-elite-private-schools-student-recruitment

Interesting position but maybe there are those at Cambridge that think encouraging students from the state sector has gone too far? Wonder if other colleges will follow suit.

Cambridge college to target elite private schools for student recruitment

Exclusive: Trinity Hall’s new policy described as a ‘slap in the face’ for state-educated students

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jan/07/cambridge-college-elite-private-schools-student-recruitment

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
nearlylovemyusername · 13/01/2026 19:14

@Marchesman
very interesting post, thank you for sharing.

Reading this it seems that Francis Green and his supporters are Russian or Chinese agents trying to dumb down British kids. If they believe that private schools give advantage, surely the obvious conclusion is to learn from their experience and try to do the same in state sector? not to remove this option of a bit better education from those who can get it? how does this help society to have equality at the price of general degradation?
Please make it make sense

MargaretThursday · 13/01/2026 20:00

Foucaultspenguin · 13/01/2026 18:50

No it absolutely isn't. Which part of the application process are you so sure that it helps with? Many doctors actively dissuade their DC from becoming doctors nowadays so the inverse is probably more true.

I think they're moving away from this, but work experience used to be very important.

I have family members who are doctors in various capacities. I also have friends who are doctors/various other medical things that I am close enough to ask.

If any of my dc had been interested in being a doctor, then I could have without any effort of my dc's part got them 3x experience in various fields of doctor. With very little extra effort, I could have asked my friends who are: GP, ENT consultant, OT (x2), prosthetics engineer (not sure if that's exactly his title), physiotherapist, dentist and pharmacist, most, if not all, would have given at least a day and probably a week or two.
I know others who I probably could ask who would be slightly less likely to say yes, but I know closely enough to ask.
People that would be happy to give a relative/friend's dc a leg up.

If they'd said yes, then I could have taken my dc at the timings they required, or sorted out accommodation (probably with the person involved) for my dc.

I'd imagine that someone who is actually a doctor would have even more people they could call on.

Yet, I spoke to someone two or three years ago that wanted to apply for medicine. They had themselves (parents pretty uninterested) contacted every GP that they could physically get to in the area, asked at local pharmacists, spoken to the local hospital and contacted all the care homes in the area. They were spending every weekend working at a care home as all the work experience they could get. They had to get there themselves which was quite expensive, as parents were totally disinterested - except because she was earning they thought she should now pay rent, which was about 75% of her earnings...

So whose work experience would look better on paper?
Who was showing more tenacity at trying to work towards being accepted for medicine.

Yes, it is moving away from that (for obvious reasons) but I suspect that it still has some sway when they get huge numbers of applicants for the places.

Foucaultspenguin · 13/01/2026 20:03

Araminta1003 · 13/01/2026 14:02

@nearlylovemyusername - same grade profile and extracurricular activities at the London superselective grammar schools, with similar rates of Oxbridge qualifiers.

Why programme a kid to a) think an “8” is a failure and b) leave the country if you get into LSE/Imperial but not Oxford.
Getting in has been down to competition in your college on the day for many many years. Telling kids you are a genie and a victim when they are uber privileged won’t do them any favours in the work place.

I completely agree with this. It has always been the case that getting into Oxbridge is a bit of a lottery and there is a degree of unpredictability about their interview process. It is doing children no favours to tell them that they are victims. I find it truly shocking how much supposedly educated people find it so hard to understand (or choose to ignore)that context does matter.

OhDear111 · 13/01/2026 20:08

@MargaretThursday It’s also a throw away line from the disaffected doctors. The ones I know earn plenty. One is an academic and the consultants had dc at the private schools. Why would their dc think was an awful career? It’s been a very good one and continues to be for many.

I totally agree about work experience but it’s not just that where there’s advantage. It’s knowing how it all works. What the interviewers are looking for. Having confidence because you know how to show you are the right person to get a place. It is more difficult for others and I don’t believe high achieving well paid consultants and GPs tell dc not to bother. The ones I know best said the opposite.

MargaretThursday · 13/01/2026 20:13

@OhDear111
Completely agree.

The doctors I know that have said they've told their child not to go into it, I also know that their dc didn't get grades good enough in today's world. Whether they applied and didn't get in or decided they wouldn't get any offers I don't know.
30 years ago the grades you needed to get in were much lower. I seem to remember from when my relatives were applying that certainly Bs were acceptable, and I think even Cs.

You get similar comments on Oxbridge, how they/their dc "rejected" Oxbridge by not applying.

OhDear111 · 13/01/2026 20:25

@MargaretThursday Well they mostly need the grades but the increase in places might have lowered the bar. What does Buckingham want? My friend got B,C,D at A level and got in. Her dm has died and she certainly knew about illness in the family.

Foucaultspenguin · 13/01/2026 20:26

OhDear111 · 13/01/2026 20:08

@MargaretThursday It’s also a throw away line from the disaffected doctors. The ones I know earn plenty. One is an academic and the consultants had dc at the private schools. Why would their dc think was an awful career? It’s been a very good one and continues to be for many.

I totally agree about work experience but it’s not just that where there’s advantage. It’s knowing how it all works. What the interviewers are looking for. Having confidence because you know how to show you are the right person to get a place. It is more difficult for others and I don’t believe high achieving well paid consultants and GPs tell dc not to bother. The ones I know best said the opposite.

I repeat, you do not need medical work experience to apply and be successful at getting into medical school. Any work experience is sufficient to draw upon for interviews. Historically, it was required but has not been for a number of years.

And yes, many doctors dissuade their DC from joining the profession nowadays. Fact.

Foucaultspenguin · 13/01/2026 20:34

OhDear111 · 13/01/2026 20:25

@MargaretThursday Well they mostly need the grades but the increase in places might have lowered the bar. What does Buckingham want? My friend got B,C,D at A level and got in. Her dm has died and she certainly knew about illness in the family.

3 As at A-Level is probably the most straightforward part of getting into a standard entry med school course. My DC and most of their friends had perfect stats at both GCSE and A-Level.The UCAT is a more significant differentiator and that does not require tutoring, although a month's Medify subscription helps a lot. You really need a top 10% or above UCAT to have quite an open choice in where you want to apply. Some DC are naturally very in tune with it and find it quite straightforward but other very academic DC don't score that highly. It's a funny old test.

OhDear111 · 13/01/2026 21:36

You are completely avoiding the round robin interviews and that everyone has the A levels! Insider knowledge helps as it does with vets.

Foucaultspenguin · 13/01/2026 21:46

OhDear111 · 13/01/2026 21:36

You are completely avoiding the round robin interviews and that everyone has the A levels! Insider knowledge helps as it does with vets.

You can buy a book that is more than ample prep for any MMI interview! I'm not sure what 'insider knowledge' you think having doctor parents is going to bring to this. Both my DC got four offers and school friends with doctor parents got none. Anecdotal but I think it evidences my point.

Marchesman · 13/01/2026 22:37

For heavens sake.

"All UK medical schools now require applicants to have experience in a caring or service role, either paid or voluntarily, in health or related field, as well as direct observation healthcare. You can get a placement in a range of healthcare settings, such as a GP practice, hospital or even internationally. Keep in mind that it will take some time. You may need to apply to many places before you get a positive response.
Make the most of any contacts you have, such as relatives, neighbours or friends who work in healthcare or in a hospital." BMA 2025.

Foucaultspenguin · 13/01/2026 23:35

Marchesman · 13/01/2026 22:37

For heavens sake.

"All UK medical schools now require applicants to have experience in a caring or service role, either paid or voluntarily, in health or related field, as well as direct observation healthcare. You can get a placement in a range of healthcare settings, such as a GP practice, hospital or even internationally. Keep in mind that it will take some time. You may need to apply to many places before you get a positive response.
Make the most of any contacts you have, such as relatives, neighbours or friends who work in healthcare or in a hospital." BMA 2025.

I'm surprised you don't know that the reality is that you do not need any physical medical experience and that many successful applicants don't have real life medical work experience and rely on MOOCS such as the very good BSMS one instead which anyone can access. That coupled with something like weekly volunteering in a care home and maybe paid customer facing work more than suffice for interview reflection and successful outcomes.

Notanorthener · 13/01/2026 23:51

Araminta1003 · 13/01/2026 09:55

I think the point is that the NLCS/St Paul’s girls are as good as the Westminster kids academically so why are they not getting the same hit rate? May just be a confidence thing for girls.
It is more of a girls’ school question really (not necessarily a question of state vs independent). You often also see a lot of the most confident girls then join more boy heavy schools for Sixth Form, if they are focussed on elite uni.

Your presumption is wrong: they aren’t as good academically overall; there is a longer tail at the girls schools and some of the best girls are cherry picked by Westminster. Westminster almost doubles its intake at 6th from. All of those added at 6th form will have been interviewed and deemed Oxbridge quality. (Some will be boarders and will come from overseas so they have a massive pool of talent to select from; SPGS/NLCS do not have boarders.)

NLCS by contrast adds only 20 or so at 6th form and will lose more than this to selective state 6th forms and co-ed schools. They can’t be as super-selective at 6th form as W as they need to fill up on numbers for the £.

Remember that Oxbridge are looking for students who are >A star quality from these schools so comparing A level results between schools is not sufficient. (A levels aren’t what they used to be/grade inflation etc etc.)

Marchesman · 13/01/2026 23:53

Foucaultspenguin · 13/01/2026 23:35

I'm surprised you don't know that the reality is that you do not need any physical medical experience and that many successful applicants don't have real life medical work experience and rely on MOOCS such as the very good BSMS one instead which anyone can access. That coupled with something like weekly volunteering in a care home and maybe paid customer facing work more than suffice for interview reflection and successful outcomes.

Your second-hand anecdotal experience isn't worth a hill of beans in the real world. But you have made it clear that you will not be told.

"More affluent families are more likely to be able to pay for tutoring, private schools, commercial preparation courses and university visits. Social capital is crucial in giving access to ‘privileged knowledge’ of the system. Family networks – friends in the medical profession or universities, for instance – can be vital for getting access to work experience in medical contexts or understanding how medical schools approach admissions.

Looking at the experiences of former participants in Sutton Trust access programmes, issues related to school and family contexts and support came up frequently. The most common barriers cited by this group of respondents ahead of the application process were finding and arranging work experience placements (cited by about 70% of respondents), and a lack of appropriate knowledge, experience or ability to offer support from family or carers (about 60%). Other common issues (cited by about 40-50%) were a lack of support or advice from school, unfamiliarity with the medical school admissions process, and a lack of support from teachers." Unequal Treatment? Access to medicine for socio-economically disadvantaged students, Sutton Trust (2025).

Foucaultspenguin · 14/01/2026 00:50

Marchesman · 13/01/2026 23:53

Your second-hand anecdotal experience isn't worth a hill of beans in the real world. But you have made it clear that you will not be told.

"More affluent families are more likely to be able to pay for tutoring, private schools, commercial preparation courses and university visits. Social capital is crucial in giving access to ‘privileged knowledge’ of the system. Family networks – friends in the medical profession or universities, for instance – can be vital for getting access to work experience in medical contexts or understanding how medical schools approach admissions.

Looking at the experiences of former participants in Sutton Trust access programmes, issues related to school and family contexts and support came up frequently. The most common barriers cited by this group of respondents ahead of the application process were finding and arranging work experience placements (cited by about 70% of respondents), and a lack of appropriate knowledge, experience or ability to offer support from family or carers (about 60%). Other common issues (cited by about 40-50%) were a lack of support or advice from school, unfamiliarity with the medical school admissions process, and a lack of support from teachers." Unequal Treatment? Access to medicine for socio-economically disadvantaged students, Sutton Trust (2025).

Two recent successful application rounds with two different DC is the real world as far as I am concerned.

The Sutton Trust is a totally different scenario as that is specifically addressing socio-economically disadvantaged DC and nobody was talking about that. We were merely debating accessibility for DC who do not have doctor parents and whether there is a need to pay for expensive tutoring for UCAT and interviews.

On one hand you say that the bar is too low to get into medical school these days (you don't even need A-Levels) and on the other you say that it is almost impossible to secure a place without a lot of help. Which is it? It really can't be both.

PemberleynotWemberley77 · 14/01/2026 10:19

@cantabsupervisor thank you for taking the (surely considerable) time to write what might be the best MN post I've ever read.

My DS has just received an offer to read Joint Schools History & Politics at Magdalen- a really challenging proposition. As parents we know he has exceptional talent and have placed ourselves under enormous financial and professional pressure to fund an independent education. Many of his classmates have international reach and aren't even applying for Oxbridge but aiming for top US, EU or Asian universities instead. That's a loss to both our Higher Education sector and UK soft power in the future. Trinity Hall signalling that their applications would be welcomed is a smart move and of course nothing at all to do with donations.

Our investment in our DS's education was not 'to get him into Oxbridge' but to enable him to fulfill his potential in whatever direction that takes him. I know he has flourished, has had intellectual stimuli, teaching, debate etc that simply would not have happened for him otherwise. It is available for free in pockets- of highly selective grammars and 'Outstanding ' state schools in leafy suburbs or Teach First London academies: there is enormous disparity within the state sector. But we live in a deeply rural area far from London, where the only state school within 15 miles is Ofsted-rated as Requires Improvement across all domains, and which looks set to lose its sixth form altogether.

Your post has reminded me of why we made the choices we did, and reassured me that we were not mad to do so.

peacefulpeach · 14/01/2026 10:42

cantabsupervisor · 08/01/2026 10:38

OK, I'm a Cambridge humanities academic. State school background myself. Have been in the ecosystem here for twenty years. I have lots to say about the 'indy schools are full of tim-nice-but-dims who have been heavily overtutored while sink comprehensives are full of sharp-as-nails poor kids who just need to be given the chance'. Yes, this is definitely true - but it doesn't really impact the Oxbridge scene that much because we spot the over-tutored kids a mile off. A few will be admitted, but not overwhelmingly. Cambridge is not flooded by hundreds of stupid private school children who were only let in because their parents gave large donations to the college. The indy kids who are admitted, are bright kids. The question is just whether there are lots of state schools kids who, given the same training, could do as well.

Lots of people know this I know but some don't, so I shall explain the setup here. The Oxbridge system is built around what are called supervisions (Cambridge) or tutorials (Oxford). Students have one to one (or one to two) meetings with academic supervisors once a week to discuss essays that they have written specifically. These essays are designed to be more than 'informative' - students are being taught to be deliberately argumentative, provocative, interesting. To not just answer the question, but challenge the assumptions of the question. Early on, I get some of my students to write essays that argue something that they themselves don't believe. You get the idea. Now you might say that this only prepares people (men?!) to go into Westminster with its heavily bombastic, rhetorical MO - rather than producing genuinely curious, intelligent graduates who know a lot of 'facts'. In which case, Oxbridge might want to redesign what it's here to do. But I would say it actually does both.

Two observations:

  1. Overall, indy students have always presented as much better at all this - their essays have always been miles more sophisticated from the start. And I mean miles. I have had Westminster, Winchester, St Pauls and Eton (yes - it's now pretty academic there) undergrads who from the very first supervision of Michaelmas in their first year have hit the ground running with extraordinarily creative, detailed, clever arguments. The sort of stuff I wasn't turning out until my third year at best. They have been taught the art of rhetoric, they know how to digest material quickly and effectively and produce something genuinely interesting. They can reference stuff from the classics, the Bible, politics, the arts - stuff that isn't covered in the National Curriculum. Meanwhile my state-educated students, including the grammar ones, have always had a much slower start. In the past, some managed to catch up, some not. Of course, I have also had a whole lot of less-intelligent indy students who just coasted, and some state educated students who were writing essays that were 'fine' early on, but it's true to say that 99% of the time, my very top undergraduates were always from indy schools and 99% of the time, my struggling ones were always from state schools. I know this sounds like hyperbole; it's genuinely not. The top ones are not just 'tutored' - they have been completely immersed in a world of curiosity and intertextuality that doesn't exist in the state sector where a class of 30 needs to be regularly evacuated if one kid is having a meltdown, or even just in a place where there aren't the resources to take the time for this stuff. So even if they get into Cambrdige, they're already turning up at a disadvantage.

  2. Over the last 10/15/20 years, the decline in the standard of undergraduates that come up to Cambridge over that time has been HUGE. I mean, seriously seriously worrying. I now have students turning up who don't really know how to write essays. Some don't write in proper sentences. And this is Cambridge! These students can't structure a simple argument, let alone write a 2500 essay every week that involves reading several books and journal articles, and finding something vaguely 'original' to say. And this is most seen in the state students - so the advantage gap I described above between the indy and the state students who get in is widening.

This is entirely the fault of lack of funding, and the National Curriculum which no longer has very high expectations, which indy schools are able to mitigate, but state schools don't always have the resources to do. It's also the case that many state schools are not even offering some of these subjects or opportunities. Music is a case in point - you are just simply not going to produce so many good musicians if you 1) don't actually offer the subject, but also 2) don't have a chamber orchestra or chapel choir. Nobody expects the Royal College of Music to accept someone who can't play the violin as well but possibly has the 'potential' just because they didn't go to the Yehudi Menuhin School, so why are we expecting Cambridge to do that? Likewise, nobody expects the Arsenal junior team to accept someone who only has the 'potential' over someone who is already showing that potential fulfilled. Kings College Cambridge has had a reputation now for accepting a high percentage of state school students - the upshot now is that nobody (and I mean not one) in the back row of Kings College Choir is actually at Kings College. Because the best singers will be coming from places that nurture the choral tradition, and that can only be in a place with a chapel choir. I think that's a little sad.

I don't think anyone really believes that indy school kids are innately cleverer (aside from the small percentage benefiting from genetic advantage of generations of success). There will be plenty of intelligent state kids who had they been to indy schools, would have turned out to produce even more sophisticated arguments. The problem is that 18 is just too late to start this process. Lady Margaret Hall in Oxford spearheaded a foundation course for students, and now an increasing number of colleges at both institutions are running it. But by this age, a different style, approach, habits have set in, and it's very difficult to reverse and build on. It would simply require extremely intense and expensive 1-to-1 supervision over a long period to bring out the true potential of all the 'brilliant but failed' state kids. Which really isn't the job of Oxbridge colleges - it would be a much cheaper, easier, more effective job if it were done much earlier. I suppose you could make a case that Oxbridge could start an intensive programme for state school students much earlier - but really this stuff needs to be lived and breathed. It can't be a few weekend courses here and there. Most supervisors are academics whose 'real' work is research. So when they supervise undergrads, they want to talk about actual content and ideas, not have to go through their essays finding typos, looking for where they've just used ChatGPT. That's not a good use of academics' time or college's money.

I don't know what the answer is for Oxbridge, but it's not to just let more state school children in and try to 'top them up'. The result of that is 1) the state school kids are failed - they never turn out as bright, and they drop out more than the indy ones; 2) the standards of these institutions just keep dropping, because not only are the standards of graduates lower, but the universities are spending lots of money and resources on trying to bring up the standards of a few by miniscule amounts. The cost/benefits is woeful.

Like I say, I don't know the answer for Oxbridge. But I entirely understand why Trinity Hall has done this, and said it publicly, in a hope to attract some of the sorts of kids I've described above.

Really interesting post. Ta

Comtesse · 14/01/2026 12:23

PemberleynotWemberley77 · 14/01/2026 10:19

@cantabsupervisor thank you for taking the (surely considerable) time to write what might be the best MN post I've ever read.

My DS has just received an offer to read Joint Schools History & Politics at Magdalen- a really challenging proposition. As parents we know he has exceptional talent and have placed ourselves under enormous financial and professional pressure to fund an independent education. Many of his classmates have international reach and aren't even applying for Oxbridge but aiming for top US, EU or Asian universities instead. That's a loss to both our Higher Education sector and UK soft power in the future. Trinity Hall signalling that their applications would be welcomed is a smart move and of course nothing at all to do with donations.

Our investment in our DS's education was not 'to get him into Oxbridge' but to enable him to fulfill his potential in whatever direction that takes him. I know he has flourished, has had intellectual stimuli, teaching, debate etc that simply would not have happened for him otherwise. It is available for free in pockets- of highly selective grammars and 'Outstanding ' state schools in leafy suburbs or Teach First London academies: there is enormous disparity within the state sector. But we live in a deeply rural area far from London, where the only state school within 15 miles is Ofsted-rated as Requires Improvement across all domains, and which looks set to lose its sixth form altogether.

Your post has reminded me of why we made the choices we did, and reassured me that we were not mad to do so.

I wholeheartedly agree - this is probably the most interesting thread I have ever seen on MN. Thanks to @cantabsupervisor for the inside track on this….

Londonmummy66 · 14/01/2026 13:05

@cantabsupervisor - thank you - very interesting post. The comments on the Kings Choir especially sadden me as DH & I used to run a parish junior choir that regularly gained Oxbridge choral scholarships - an incoming vicar decided that they wanted a gospel choir instead (despite there not being any gospel singers in the area) so the robed choir which was mainly state school kids was disbanded. This is happening all over the place so DC from poorer backgrounds are being denied a free musical education that can lead to better things. And every service that the DC attend is exposing them to the bible and other cultural themes that I grew up taking for granted.

The other issue I have noticed is so many DC at very good state schools are basically being "taught to the test" So rather than being allowed to really think about issues and explore they are extracting the "question 3 answer" or the "question 5 points" from a passage. Is this part of the issue?

Needmoresleep · 14/01/2026 15:26

To cut through this medical debate.

Medicine is a great career. Working for the NHS is not. The levels of inefficiency, vested interests and lack of workplace planning is shocking.

This August DD was among the 50% of her year group finishing Foundation without jobs to go to. Over 10,000 of them. (That excludes those who had left the profession or who had already found work overseas.)

In total the UK had about 5,000 training places (including GP) on offer but over 50% went to applicants from overseas. So about a 10% chance of getting onto training if you don't count the backlog of those still trying from previous years. The competition is seriously intense so you both need to do well in the exams, and in the lottery that is the Situational Judgement paper, but also gain "points" with add-ons like research, competition prizes or additional qualifications. Really hard to do if you are in a hard-to-recruit deanery with no research going on. (Health is devolved and F1/F2 contracts are different across the UK. Selection for training is national. Those on the English contract actually get personal development time to help them prepare. Elsewhere even required training often happens in your own time.) It also helps if you come from a medical family or have access to networks that enable you to be part of research projects. The alternative is to buy the additional CV enhancements. One SHO told DD that his family had spend £20,000 ensuring he had the published research and competition prizes needed to to help him be selected for UK training. You look at the boxes that need to be ticked and ensure you tick them. Coming to the UK for training then opens the door to good, and well paid, consultancy level jobs in places like Dubai and Singapore.

The real issue is that the UK is pretty unique in not offering resident priority for health care jobs. In most countries you can only get a visa to employ an overseas applicant if there is no suitable local applicant. In the UK the job must go to the best qualified applicant, wherever they are in the world. This is supposed to ensure we can recruit the best staff. So entry level staff positions are spammed by hundreds of applications organised by overseas agencies, with at least some candidates likely to have the additional experience/qualifications that a newly qualified UK doctor does not have. Nor does the UK doctor, who does not have this type of agency support, have the time to apply for hundreds of jobs after busy shifts.

DD is currently locuming. No work at all for six weeks, but the agency told her not to worry. Most jobs start in August. By September people start leaving either because they don't like the UK or find a job somewhere they prefer, or because they are not good enough and have been let go. She had strong references so, assuming a "good" flu season, she would soon be in work.

True enough. Bizarrely she has wound up covering long term sick for a Associate Speciality Doctor, ie someone with decades of experience who is at the top of the tree for those not going down the training route, the equivalent of a consultant. Apart from a part-timer, DD is on her own with a ward of about 25 very sick and unstable patients and with a group of first year doctors to train and supervise. With just two year experience herself. No sick leave, no obvious way to book annual leave, no support or training - just get on with it. She probably earns half of what the post holder earns. It started with a one month contract. The agency told her not to worry. Yes the month had run out but she should keep going in until the NHS either stopped paying her or told her to go away. In fact her contract has just been renewed for the fifth time. DD thinks she is doing a good job but there is no feedback on whether she is doing well or where she could improve. Just a text from the agency confirming the NHS want her to stay. They did not even invite her to the Doctors Christmas lunch. (Which the nurses found very funny. DD is the fifth locum in the position but the only one to be kept on. Luckily they are very competent, and seem to appreciate her.)

Her friend, in contrast, is locuming in the world's most boring job. Some sort of community hospital where they need a doctor on hand and to write discharge notes.

In practice both could probably stay for as long as they want in their respective roles, but don't want to. Zero hours, not great pay, a long commute, and no career prospects. DD is becoming exhausted. It is the sort of role where she needs to have conversations about resuscitation (DNR) on a daily basis, and crises happen through the day so delayed lunches or unpaid overtime are the norm. She is resilient but burnout is looming. She can't really take more than a day or so off, as getting a locum in as a short term replacement for a locum already on a short term contract is unlikely. She is trying to manage first year doctors but without experience or training. And if she did burn out she gets no sick leave or support. Her next role might be no better. You don't get to choose. The agency puts you forward for jobs, in multiple places, in multiple specialities. It is luck what you get, and you can't afford to turn any job down.

Demotivation is endemic. Streeting talks about NHS productivity falling. Does he not realise that if you fail to provide 90% of doctors with a career path, a regular job, or even acknowledgement of their contribution, you end up with a demotivated workforce. Some overseas trained doctors are good, some are worrying weak. The same applies to UK trained doctors. The training career path takes no note of ability, experience or references. Just exam performance and add-ons like research. Yes perhaps we need the best of the best from across the world to be our future consultants (if they choose to stay...). But we also need to value and reward those who are hands-on, dedicated and capable, especially those willing to work in busy hard-to-recruit places.

The NHS is still bringing in armies of doctors in from overseas. This is almost certainly saving money as it has created a hidden army of under-employed, relatively low paid doctors living from one short term contract to another. Some will be those whose initial contracts have come to an end, but increasing numbers have been through UK medical schools. (One Cambridge graduate we know is in a similar position. He locumed for a year, then got a year long fellowship in his preferred speciality at a London teaching hospital. Unfortunately he did not get into training and budget cuts meant that the role he hoped to move onto was cancelled so has been forced to take a short term contract abroad.)

DD is lucky. She has a great job in Australia to look forward to. A year's rotational contract in a major hospital group in a state capital in her preferred speciality. Seven out of the 11 are Australian, the remainder are Brits. She knows seven from her deanery and six from her medical school all headed to the same hospital in the same city. More than she knows who got onto to UK training in any speciality anywhere in the UK. Within the year her deanery stand to lose 25% of her year group to Australia alone. As well as the tremendous waste of tax payer money, this approach to work force planning may be keeping the NHS going in the short term, but suggests disaster in the medium to long term.

If she does well she can apply for specialist training after a year. Unfortunately that then risks a bit of a one-way journey as, apparently due to BMA opposition, we do not recognise Australian qualifications, even though the training is practically identical. Returnees have to spend years of applying for equivalency. So same-old, same-old. If she wanted to come back she could not be appointed to an NHS role but, because we are short of consultants, there will probably be a locum job somewhere.

Pacificsunshine · 14/01/2026 15:50

That’s shocking @Needmoresleep , I don’t think most citizens or tax payers want this.

TheaBrandt1 · 14/01/2026 16:03

TERRIBLE

Explains why a lovely young doctor in my sports team has a job assessing disability claimants.

peacefulpeach · 14/01/2026 16:07

TheaBrandt1 · 14/01/2026 16:03

TERRIBLE

Explains why a lovely young doctor in my sports team has a job assessing disability claimants.

Oh that’s depressing. Come on Starmer - prioritise British graduates. It’s not difficult.

nearlylovemyusername · 14/01/2026 16:36

This is really shocking...

Needmoresleep · 14/01/2026 17:03

The Times ran a very good series of articles a couple of months ago, including one on the 10,000 British consultants stuck in Australia.

The BMA is conflicted as around 40% of their members are overseas educated (IMGs), often in equally dead-end jobs, and life isn't great for them either. Hence the focus on training when what is really needed is a restoration of resident priority and not designating entry level posts, the ones new doctors need to gain experience, as skills shortage posts....because they are not. (Some Trusts are now getting more nuanced and adding NHS foundation experience as a desirable skill.)

That said we are looking at a second lost generation (the last was about 20 years ago when changes in specialist training meant that a large number had to leave.) Plenty of people, based on previous AIBU threads, do not see it as a problem seeing overseas training as just as good as in the UK. (According to the Times something like one in six Nigerian medical graduates now works for the NHS.)

There are similar problems with nurses. UK educated ones need a degree but we accept experienced nurses from overseas without a degree, albeit on a lower payscale. Cheaper, so unemployment amongst new graduate nurses is an issue.

This article about 700 doctors being brought into a single trust on a "work experience" scheme at lower pay illustrates the problem. It appears that Birmingham is not the only trust to have taken part in the scheme. 700 jobs our unemployed young doctors could have had. They too need work experience. Whilst Pakistan is a WHO red list country that needs doctors. (Reported elsewhere but the Mail is without a paywall.)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15450487/40million-NHS-cash-suburban-home-woke-scheme-Pakistani-doctors-work-experience-UK-GUY-ADAMS-investigates.html

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.