Should we care that 50% of state schools didn't produce any medicine applicants in 3 years?

[legallady]

Well if no one from those schools wanted to study medicine then maybe not but if they are not achieving the grades to be able to apply or are not being given the correct advice then maybe we should.

Certainly it seems wrong that half of applicants in that time frame came from independent and grammar schools. It suggests that our qualified doctors a few years down the line will come from a very narrow demographic - similar to our lawyers and politicians - and that can't be good for our society.

What (if anything) is going wrong?

Rabbit stew, whether we like it or not, the Alevel system has got easier. It's no good having a student with mediocre grades. They just aren't going to keep up with the level of work needed for a medical degree. It's expensive to put students through a medical degree so the recruiters need to pick students who are going to succeed. These are the ones getting exceptional grades, who aren't going to balk at the level of comittment etc.
My DH went to medical school albeit a number of years ago. He came from a comp where only a handful of children did A levels. Even all those years ago he had 4 A's, lots of voluntary work and a part time job in a supermarket. He didn't get good careers advice but knew that he wanted to do better than working in a supermarket for the rest of his life so he found out what he needed. He was lucky that his parents gave him lots of support (not financial because they couldn't afford it) and encouragement. On his course there were a number of people who came from similar financial backgrounds.

Rabbit. I think Economies of Scale can in to play here . It has to be less expensive to run a 1500-1800 pupil comprehensive rather than running 3 separate schools. The council also have the added bonus of selling off the other two schools to property developers for. £££.

Need. The comment at the end of your post about kids going to their local University is slightly demeaning ! The scenario you talk about with kids having a steady job/career is in itself only available to about the the top 10-15% of people.

I really don't follow your logic TalkinPeace.
DP came from a family which didn't possess a book. He loves reading and was accused of being gay! He did well though because he had a supportive school. If the schooling is good disadvantaged kids can do well.

But were many schools closed down, smokepole, rather than being required to convert?

Sleepytea - I don't follow your argument that grades are either mediocre or exceptional. I do follow the argument that it's all rather a lot of effort supporting people whose families aren't able to support them, and that it's much cheaper to go for people who clearly have lots of backing behind them, so you don't have to provide so much.

Whether it's an argument that is defensible is another question, of course.

I think there are too many bright student have gone to medicine study, banking , law in this country. Those are all careers that provide a very good salary. However, science and engineering are the foundation to push a country forward.

Smoke, it was not meant to be demeaning. I don't know how best to put it. At DHs school reunion it was noticeable how very few had moved far from the area, and he was the only one who had ended up in a professional job in London. My cousin reported similar when teaching in a pleasant city. Bright kids could have got further but wanted to stay close to home. It is seems a factor on the south coast, with bright kids talking about Southampton or Bath, but not Oxford or Imperial.

Aspirations in private school London are very different. Much higher and very international. Schools don't have to push students towards applying for Oxbridge, but rather students considering which is better, Oxford or Harvard. The norm is to work very hard in order to achieve the grades needed.

I can support that medical schools might show flexibility on grades to a student who has achieved exceptionally well compared with the norm for their school and who are likely to be able to cope with the demands of medical school. And who can also show, though volunteering or working, that they know what they are letting themselves in for and can hack the less glamorous aspects of work as a doctor.

However I don't understand an argument that has poorer students considered incapable of finding volunteering opportunities. And regret that poor advice at school may have some students choose the wrong options or not understand how hard they will need to work to achieve the best grades possible.

For some on MN private schools are the root of all evil. Not true in this case, and making that argument wont do much to help students who need to understand that an awful lot is required of them if they want to achieve their ambitions.

I also don't understand why you say steady jobs are only available to the top 10-15% of people. I can accept that aspiring to be a medic is limited to the more academic (not "top") but plumber, supermarket manager, chef? This is probably more a north/south divide, and a whole other debate about whether people in areas of high unemployment should "get on their bikes". (Ducks!)

rabbit in my direct experience, medical departments are committed to widening access.

Just as the majority of highly selective universities are (though some do more than others).

We visit schools, we run outreach programs and summer camps. We look carefully at all applications, actively searching for flagged candidates. We regularly make contextual offers.

But it is not our responsibility to reparate for the failures of the state education system in toto. There is no justification for accepting inappropriate subject choices, or inadequate grades as standard.

But TheWordFactory, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the reporting from which this thread arose indicated that medical schools themselves had agreed that they were not doing enough to widen access? People on this thread have certainly not limited themselves to talking about inappropriate subject choices, but have explicitly argued that A grades won't hack it when others have As - in the same, relevant, appropriate subjects, that is... I would argue that it is not necessary to have 11 As at GCSE in order to become a good doctor, and if people think it IS the case, then no wonder people who might make good doctors are not even applying.

Rabbit, my understanding was that if you come from a top performing school you may well be expected to have mainly A at GCSE. (DS' school got around 90% A at GCSE so hardly unexpected.) However Universities will look at context, and the bar will be lower for pupils from elsewhere.

However no medical school can accept students who might struggle academically. There will be two problems taking students with lower grades. First that they will have to catch up, and second it is then not proven that they can handle, say, the more difficult concepts in chemistry.

Medical schools are there to train competent doctors, not be a tool for social engineering. They see diversity as useful, but there is only so much they can do if schools don't produce qualified applicants.

Rabbit, a child who can only achieve b's and c's at A level is likely to struggle at medical school. There is a heck of a lot more to study when you're trying to be a doctor. It's not good enough to say we'll accept child x who has 3 b's. x has done really well to get these grades because he/she comes from a very disadvantaged background and hasn't been given good advice. This child is likely to go to medical school and be completely overwhelmed by the amount of stuff to learn. They may be an exceptionally compassionate child but if they can't pass the exams then they are not going to achieve a medical degree.
I'm interested in the fact that people seem to think that there is an issue when children of doctors go onto be doctors. Why is this any different from a plumbers son going onto be a plumber, or a shopkeeper employing their child? Any child growing up with a parent who works will have an advantage in understanding how that occupation works.

Needmoresleep - as I said, my understanding was that the reporting indicated that medical schools have agreed they are not doing enough? I'm not stupid, you know, of course medical schools won't want to accept students who they think might struggle. However, given that some universities offer a 30-week course to students who didn't even do science A-levels in order to catch up (something my own father did many years ago when he decided, having done arts A-levels, to pursue medicine, being the first ever state educated person to go to the medical school in question, so obviously things have improved since then...), I don't think the "more difficult concepts in chemistry" are beyond people who did not study A-level chemistry.

*whom

Oops! Wrong thread!

Rabbit I carefully used the words "not proven". If a candidate has an A* in A level chemistry medical schools can be reasonably confident they can do it. If they don't, they may be able to do it or may not.

Some will then get in via access courses, but by and large Universities should be able to expect schools to advise/prepare good candidates properly. The onus should not be on medical schools to make up for shortfalls in secondary education.

The onus should be on the whole of society, surely, to stop passing the buck? It's always someone else's fault - the parents, the lazy kids who can't look up the requirements of medical schools on the internet, the schools, the universities. Yet it's OUR society, not someone else's. It's the same with apprenticeships and tertiary education - nobody really wants to provide the apprenticeships, they just want the finished product, which is always inadequate due to someone else's fault. All anyone can say about it is, "I wouldn't start here," and "don't look at me."

I believe that nowadays absolutely nobody will get onto a medical degree course in the UK without A level Chemistry or a higher qualification in Chemistry, no matter how good their other qualifications are. Graduate Entry schemes are even more competitive to get onto than Direct Entry and because they are shorter (to keep costs down and to recognise the greater life experience of the students, I suppose) the students have to hit the ground running.

KCL medical school has what has always seemed to me to be a very good scheme for trying to widen access. A six-year medical degree programme open to students studying A levels/Access to Medicine at eligible non-selective state schools in London, Kent and Medway, and to participants of Realising Opportunities across England. Students study the core curriculum at a slower pace and with greater support for first three years. Programme content and assessments are the same as the standard five-year medical degree programme. The offer might be as low as BBB at A level. I'd be interested to know if the pass rates and career progression are as good at the end.

Rhetorician

I do take your point - and I wasn't terribly clear - I was meaning that current academics are more often than not children of academics themselves. I do agree that the landscape of academia is changing and that the quiet life of contemplation, teaching & research is more myth than reality. I also agree that there is a growing casualisation of staff - which I imagine is inspired by behaviour across the pond.

mumsneedwine

Do be careful of this 'state' school statistic. I know that Oxford boast a very high percentage of 'state school' backgrounds - but in fact they are including institutions like the King Edward VII grammar schools in Birmingham (which are free to pupils) as state schools. Technically they aren't wrong - but as one parent told me her DD (a friend of DD1) is in a class where 75% of the kids went to private primaries which prepped them for the 11+.

I suspect if you asked Oxford/ Cambridge to separate out grammar schools (private or free to pupils) - the percentage of ordinary state pupils would be radically lower.

You know, I reckon it would be a lot more fun to ask whether we should care that private schools are churning out far too many medical school hopefuls (it's not as if there's a shortage of applicants, after all), and is their career advice to students failing to spread the benefit of a top quality education to more sectors of the economy?

I think you might find that private schools churn out a lot of everything including classicists, linguists, and engineers and indeed actors musicians and Olympic athletes. My guess is that if any group are over represented in medicine, it is Grammar school students.

Personally, I don't care if private schools churn out too many medical students because I don't necessarily believe that they do. We know that private schools tend to be selective so are more likely to have a cohort of children who get grades good enough for medical school when compared with state schools linked with areas do deprivation.
How about we reverse the question. Should we care that state schools churn out a higher ratio of plumbers (picked by me as an example occupation because mentioned earlier in the thread and also can be high earning)? I think I am more concerned that there are probably many children who do not have aspirations other than to leave school and possibly get a low paid job. We should have a better careers service and educational support for all children. Some children prefer academic work, other prefer hands on stuff. Instead of complaining that too many private school children become doctors, we should be asking what we can do to increase aspirations of the children who are not capable of being doctors. How can we give these children a trade or find them an occupation that suits them best?

But I was under the impression that state schools weren't churning out enough plumbers, or builders, or brick layers. And private schools aren't helping much, there.

Funnily enough, we need a lot more people who are willing to care for our elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled, etc. We need so many of these people, we can't afford to pay them properly. Education is often used as a means to avoid being asked to do what needs to be done but doesn't win you any glory, any respect or any money.

Has anybody actually SEEN or linked to this Research yet?

Just that I'm still unclear whether its
11-16 : in which case I utterly agree with WordFactory that schools need a kick up the arse on their facilitating subjects and careers advice.
or
16-18 : in which case its a non-issue because lots of colleges are not doing A levels, let alone Med school.

Do be careful of this 'state' school statistic. I know that Oxford boast a very high percentage of 'state school' backgrounds - but in fact they are including institutions like the King Edward VII grammar schools in Birmingham (which are free to pupils) as state schools. Technically they aren't wrong - but as one parent told me her DD (a friend of DD1) is in a class where 75% of the kids went to private primaries which prepped them for the 11+.

I can very well believe this- I am in Birmingham and those children who now attend KES but did not attend private prep - I would imagine that very much like a lot of the boys that DS1 plays Rugby with- they received +++++ tuition in excess of £30 a session, at least twice a week.
Completely unobtainable for any child from a 'poor' family.