Australian MD and MBBS difference

[neulite]

OK. So the University of Melbourne is going to be offering a "graduate professional degree" beginning in 2011...an MD. How is this going to be different from graduate entry programs...the MBBS? Will MD Aussie graduates have advantages over current MBBS degree holders?

Also, what are the details of the current MD credential an Australian holding an MBBS can earn?

Quote: "Graduate entry to the current medical course is available in 2008 and 2009. From 2011 the current medical course will be replaced with a graduate professional degree. Further details forthcoming."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shan564]

OK. So the University of Melbourne is going to be offering a "graduate professional degree" beginning in 2011...an MD. How is this going to be different from graduate entry programs...the MBBS? Will MD Aussie graduates have advantages over current MBBS degree holders?

Also, what are the details of the current MD credential an Australian holding an MBBS can earn?

Quote: "Graduate entry to the current medical course is available in 2008 and 2009. From 2011 the current medical course will be replaced with a graduate professional degree. Further details forthcoming."

Right now, the MD is a higher research degree. It's a qualification that's awarded to people who already hold an MBBS degree and have an excellent track record of high-quality research. Usually, it takes about 7-10 years of full-time research after getting the MBBS degree (although you're paid like a physician, not a grad student) and it's comparable to a PhD degree.

I'm not sure what Melbourne will be doing to call their degree an "MD". They haven't released the details yet, so I'm assuming that there will be some stipulation where you have to say that your degree is "MD (Melbourne)" as opposed to "MD (research)". In the British/Australian system, it is common to put something in parentheses after your degree; for example, a lot of people have a "BS (Honours)" degree rather than a simple "BS" degree.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

I'm assuming that there will be some stipulation where you have to say that your degree is "MD (Melbourne)" as opposed to "MD (research)". In the British/Australian system, it is common to put something in parentheses after your degree.

That is correct.. If melb does decide to offer an MD instead of MBBS, it won't really matter. People will know that the MD (Melb) will be equal to the MBBS (Syd).

 

[neulite]

Was directed to this link for information by Matt at OzTrekk:

http://www.oztrekk.com/APP&INFO/MBBS/index.html

 

[lyndal]

Agreed. The university of Newcastle (which is an undergraduate programme) also labels theirs as different - as a newcastle graduate I have a B.Med rather than an MBBS. It means nothing- Newcastle are just being funky and different, I'd say Melbourne are being the same. This waill make no difference to your qulaifications int he future

 

[shan564]

Agreed. The university of Newcastle (which is an undergraduate programme) also labels theirs as different - as a newcastle graduate I have a B.Med rather than an MBBS. It means nothing- Newcastle are just being funky and different, I'd say Melbourne are being the same. This waill make no difference to your qulaifications int he future

I was wondering about that. Do you know why they do that? When I first saw your email signature, I wasn't sure if you were a physician or not.

 

[jaketheory]

Melbourne is going the MD route because of their new "Melbourne Model" under which they are restructuring all of their professional degrees. For more info on that, go to their website. Essentially they are trying to position themselves in the academic world with America and Europe. This includes the primary medical qualification being designated as MD. The curriculum and admissions selections will be different than traditional grad-entry Aus MBBS programs as well (all described on their website). Unlike other grad entry MBBS programs there will be specific coursework requirements prior to matriculation to include physiology, biochem, and molecular bio. Further, the pre-clinical basic science curriculum will be shortened to 1 year and the clinical curriculum lengthened to the remaining 3 years. Integrated with this will be a required research component. This is similar to the structure of Duke's curriculum.

Also, the traditional British system MD degree is not equivalent to a PhD and does not necesarrily require 7-10 years work, and especially not full time for that duration. Many Aus unis have MD programs to which you can apply in a similar way as a PhD, though they do usually require some clinical experience post-registration. The MD is less rigorous than a PhD. The MD can be completed in as little as 2 years full-time, while the PhD will generally require a minimum of 3 years full-time. Lastly, the majority of PhD programs can not be undertaken part-time, while the majority of MD students continue clinical work while completing the MD part-time.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

Melbourne is going the MD route because of their new "Melbourne Model" under which they are restructuring all of their professional degrees.

Melbourne didn't really originate this idea of graduate entry for medicine however. Flinders and Sydney Universities were North American style 4 year graduate entry programs long before Melbourne even considered changing and they still call theirs a 'bachelors' (ie. Sydney's 4-year "graduate entry" MBBS).

Whatever they do call their new degrees, just like in North America... their entry-level medical degree MD will still be no better or higher than an MBBS, BMed, MBChB, etc.

An entry-level medical degree is an entry-level medical degree.

Its all the same thing.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

The university of Newcastle (which is an undergraduate programme)

I think people get caught up on and confused with the terms "undergraduate" and "graduate-entry" and "postgraduate".

In the United States.. Medicine (MD) is "graduate-entry" meaning you usually require a previous degree for admissions. However, even a US MD program is still considered "studying undergraduate medicine". Meaning you have yet to study medicine ever before. It is an entry level course in medicine.

When you graduate and you enter into a specialty training program (resident or registrar position) you are then considered to be studying "graduate medicine". Because you are studying the field of medicine at a level higher than an "entry level qualification" (ie. MD, MDCM, BMed, MBBS, MBChB, etc).



All entry level medical qualications are equivalent no matter what they call them and no matter what country you obtained them from. Even if the title has the word 'doctor' in it (ie. US-MD), it is still an entry level degree.

 

[jaketheory]

Melbourne didn't really originate this idea of graduate entry for medicine however.

i don't think anyone was claiming that Melbourne was the first to offer grad-entry medicine in Aus. I was merely explaining its move to granting the MD for undergrad medical education.

 

[shan564]

I've been wondering about something; maybe somebody here knows the answer.

If I were to go to Australia and do the MD (the research degree, not the Melbourne professional degree), what would I call my degree in the US? Since the MBBS is equivalent to the American MD, what is the Australian MD equivalent to? Could I say that I have a higher doctorate (i.e. PhD or ScD)?

I'd like to do an MD after my MBBS... but I don't want the extra degree to be pointless if I come back to the US.

 

[Leforte]

There is no American equivalent of the MD (research) degree given in Australia/England/etc. The research MD is not considered an equal to the PhD (or an ScD for that matter), and if you earn an Aussie MD, you can not call yourself an MD/PhD if you return to the US. If you want to pursue in depth research, get the PhD - if you want to get involved in research without going through the whole ordeal involved in a PhD, get a research MD, MMedSci, MS, etc. There are many physicians in the US who are interested in research, and pursue post-docs to gain the experience - they are not awarded a degree and use their time in the lab to get the experience, connections and start their own projects in a focused sense. Many can obtain R03/K08 grants to help fund these interests as well as NIH loan repayment (35k/year).

So, I don't think not being able to add letters after your name if you spend time in the lab means that the time spent in research is pointless. Many physicians/students do this without the expectation of needing a degree to highlight their accomplishment. I think that most senior people involved in research would agree that publication record is a better predictor of success than the letters after your name.

As far as the US-MD vs MBBS - everyone agrees that they are equivalent. Both are addressed by the title "Dr" and neither has an advantage compared with the other. Why the US and many European countries use MD and England/Australia/Etc use MBBS - who knows. Perhaps it is because most professional degrees in the US are historically undertaken after an undergraduate degree (Case in point the JD vs Bachelor of Laws). Medicine in general is a stickler for tradition - I would also guess that the physicians in Australia who have gone on the obtain the research MD would be adverse to change which would award the MD after completion of the undergraduate medical curriculum, as it may dilute the value of their MD, which was obtained after severals years in research.

As a side note (completely off topic) - if the Queen makes an Englishman or Australian a Knight of the British Empire, they can use the title "Sir". However, when she awards it to an American, they are not allowed to use the title "Sir", but can put KBE after their name - it doesn't mean that one is less of an accomplishment than the other, just something that tradition/precedent has made a policy of....

 

[shan564]

So, I don't think not being able to add letters after your name if you spend time in the lab means that the time spent in research is pointless. Many physicians/students do this without the expectation of needing a degree to highlight their accomplishment. I think that most senior people involved in research would agree that publication record is a better predictor of success than the letters after your name.

I know that the experience isn't "pointless"; I just said that the degree is pointless. If I wanted to get research experience, there are thousands of options for places to go around the world... but if I want to do the MD, then I have a limited number of options. If I were doing research just for the experience, then I'd want to leave all of the options open... but if I do at an Australian medical school, I'd be doing it for both the experience and the degree.

In any case... I figure if nothing else, I can put both "MBBS" and "MD" after my name if I were to do it that way. But that's still 4 years away; I guess I should take it one step at a time, right?

 

[Leforte]

Actually, you'd put jut the MD after your name. It is considered a higher degree in the same field. It would be like someone putting:

I. M. Leforte, AA, BS, MS, PhD

instead of I. M. Leforte, PhD

 

[jaketheory]

i disagree. since the Aus MD is a research degree and not a professional degree, you'd use both MBBS and MD because some people not in clinical practice (no clinical degree) earn the Aus/British MD. the mbbs (or US MD) is the primary medical qualification required for medical practice; you will always list it. you would not list a bachelors or research masters if you have a phd though, because those are not professional degrees required for entry to practice.

and there are US equivalents to the Aus/British degree. a handful of US schools offer the Masters of Medical Science which is a 2 year full time degree in clinical medical research. I work at Harvard and know they offer it. but like a previous poster pointed out, it is definitely not necessary to do a research degree to do research. i work in the lab of an MD; he has no research degree, and he is a respected authority in his field and supervises graduate students. other people in his field are big name with only an MD as well. if you want the research experience but dont want to go through the PhD, id suggest doing a summer research program in med school, a year out research program (many available in the US), followed by research electives while in mef school and a post doc or any combination of those. i know all these options are available in Aus except maybe the year out, but even as an Aus MBBS candidate you could do a year out program in another country (at least in the US). the research fellowships in Aus also wont be called postdocs in Aus simply cuz the Aus primary medical qualification is not a doctoral degree, but they still exist, though they may be much more competitive than postdocs for an MD in the US.

 

[Leforte]

From: http://www.uq.edu.au/study/program.html?acad_prog=7504

-------------------
Medical Doctorate

As the highest academic award in medicine, the Medical Doctorate (MD) is designed to give formal public recognition to scholars who have made substantial, original and outstanding contributions to medical science as evidenced by their published work.

The MD is a higher doctorate gained by the compilation of published work on a coherent theme and is judged by national and international peers. It must demonstrate the candidate's authoritative standing in the field and achievements in the advancement of knowledge.

Entry Requirements

Students must hold one of the following degrees from this University:

* MBBS for not less than 7 years
* MMedSc or MPhil for not less than 3 years
* PhD in a branch of Medicine
Alternatively, a student may hold qualifications from another tertiary institution, for not less than 7 years, which is considered equivalent to the MBBS & has carried out a substantial part of the work associated with the proposed candidature at or in connection with this University.
-----------------------------

Obviously, this degree is for those physicians/surgeons who have produced a substantial amount of publications in international peer reviewed journals, have been practicing medicine for at least 7 years past obtaining their initial medical degree and are considered leaders in their field.

As far as the Master of Medical Science at Harvard, I am not sure it would be considered the equivalent of the research MD - Indeed, one of the entry points for eligibility to submit a research MD is completion of the MMedSc degree with at least 3 additional years of contribution past this. Like I indicated before, I do not believe that Americans award an equivalent degree. I still have yet to see an American degree that has the same requirements for admission and thesis submission as the research MD degree.

Finally, since the research MD is considered the highest degree in medicine (per the above), and the MBBS the entry degree in medicine, when listing degrees it is customary to only list the highest degree if multiple degrees are obtained in the same field. I worked with many physicians who have the MBBS and MD (and one with both and a PhD, too) - all listed their qualifications as ---> My Name, MD, FRACP. (or --> My Name, MD, PhD, FRACP).

 

[shan564]

I was just thinking I could use both "MBBS" and "MD" if I come back to the US, just so that I can distinguish myself from all the other MD's.

 

[Ezekiel20]

I think it's a clever marketing decision by Melb Uni to offer an 'MD' instead of 'MBBS'.

In general, North Americans are very more into prestige than Aussies, and the 'MD' title carries with it an enormous amount of prestige.

Previously, North American graduates of Aussie med schools would have to use the MBBS title and explain to everyone what it means, or go through certain processes to earn the right to give themselves an 'MD' title. But by offering a straight 'MD', an international student would probably choose Melbourne over other med schools unless there were strong reasons not to.

I personally prefer the MBBS title. 'MD' sounds a bit too showy for my liking

 

[jaketheory]

i still stick with my previous post.

a phd is definitely a more rigourous degree than the MD. i personally think it ridiculous for someone to chase after an MD after they have a PhD. seems they must have some self confidence issues and think putting extra letters after their name will help.

and obviously there will be some differences in admissions requirements for the Aus/British schools. but the duration of the MD at UQ is also listed as requiring only 1 semester part-time!

indeed it says a masters in medical science is one entry pathway, but i would question whether an aus/british MMedSc is equivalent to that in the US in the same way as MD's (PhD's really are not either since a PhD can be done in 3 years in Aus/Britian but usually requires 5 or more in the US, but thats a while other discussion). a masters by research in australia requires no coursework, while a US masters by research has a significant coursework component.

and considering you point out that the MMedSc is one pathway to the MD, it illustrates that a medical degree is not even required (the MMedSc does not require an MBBS for admission). having had the MBBS for 7 years is also trivial as it requires a minimum of 7 years post-MBBS to attain RACP fellowship. most doctors would not think of getting an MD until either they finished physician (or similiar) training or have experience comparable to physician training.

And lastly, as I mentioned, since the MD does not strictly require a qualification that grants medical practice privileges, you would still list the MBBS. this is not however universal: if you have FRACP, the MBBS is a requirement for FRACP and thus you would need not list the MBBS in addition to FRACP. FRACP is the equivalent of board certification in the US (though subspecialization is not required in the US as it is for FRACP). if you are board certified, you obviously have a medical degree.

in regards to using both the mbbs and md upon returning to the US: noone will care. most of your patients wont know what the hell the mbbs is, and they will think the MD is the same as a US MD, not knowing it is a research degree. academics really wont care about it either; many of them may also not know it is a research degree. those who are aware of the mbbs, may wonder why you have 2 medical degrees. further, they will know you are a foreign grad which they dont usually hold in the same regard as US MD's.

so i acknowledge there are differences in admissions; a lot of aus schools base admission and the degree itself on previous work, kind of like an honorary degree which you must defend. others will require 2 years full-time, but you will still need clinical experience for admission. you cant go straight from the mbbs into the MD like you can the PhD; however, to do a PhD with a clinical focus might require unconditional registration.

and i like your quote ezekial.

 

[Leforte]

jaketheory - sounds like we agree on the key points. Do research because you enjoy it, or want to be exposed to it. Don't go into it to chase letters. You can be a successful clinician investigator without a PhD or research MD provided you get good training and mentorship from senior investigators. Trust me, the time can go by very slowly in the lab if your interest is mainly on obtaining another qualification, and as a physician/surgeon, that time is better spent in clinical training for those with little research interest. Even obtaining a research qualification, obtaining funding is a whole other issue, with current funding rates at an all time low.

As far as the esteem of the degrees, who cares. Pts worry about 3 things when selecting a physician: 1) Availability, 2) Affability and lastly, 3) Technical ability (and usually in that order). I have yet to have a patient of mine ask about qualifications. Also, physician colleagues are often more interested if you can play well with others, their referred patients' happiness and the outcomes/complication rates of your patients than what letters are after your name.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

Previously, North American graduates of Aussie med schools would have to use the MBBS title and explain to everyone what it means, or go through certain processes to earn the right to give themselves an 'MD' title.

I don't know any US state that requires an MBBS grad to "earn" the right to use the MD title. Most US state boards of Medicine allow an MBBS graduate who has become ECFMG certified, completed enough ACGME credit to obtain a state medical license.. to use the title "MD" if they so wish because every US state board of medicine views the MBBS and US-MD as equivalent degrees in medicine. The medical license you recieve from every single US state board of medicine as an MBBS is the exact same license you recieve as a US MD.

PHY-993
Use of the M. D. Title: The Wisconsin Medical Society: 1) defends the use of the M.D. title by physicians who graduated with an M.B.B.S. and are licensed to practice medicine in Wisconsin; and, 2) believes in clarifying Wisconsin statute so that International Medical Graduates licensed to practice as medical doctors can use the title M.D. (HOD,0495)

 

[Ezekiel20]

I don't know any US state that requires an MBBS grad to "earn" the right to use the MD title. Most US state boards of Medicine allow an MBBS graduate who has become ECFMG certified, completed enough ACGME credit to obtain a state medical license.. to use the title "MD" if they so wish because every US state board of medicine views the MBBS and US-MD as equivalent degrees in medicine. The medical license you recieve from every single US state board of medicine as an MBBS is the exact same license you recieve as a US MD.

PHY-993
Use of the M. D. Title: The Wisconsin Medical Society: 1) defends the use of the M.D. title by physicians who graduated with an M.B.B.S. and are licensed to practice medicine in Wisconsin; and, 2) believes in clarifying Wisconsin statute so that International Medical Graduates licensed to practice as medical doctors can use the title M.D. (HOD,0495)

Thanks for clearing that up. It must've been misinformation that I picked up from this forum a while ago..

 

[JoeNamaMD]

What happened to Eziekiel 25??

 

[Lokhtar]

Sorry to dig this up, but I am seriously considering Australia for my medical education. If I wanted to do a PhD in Australia after the MBBS, is this possible? Or are there combined programs for the MBBS/PhD like there are in the States?

 

[JoeNamaMD]

There are combined programs.

 

[Lokhtar]

Do you know where I can find the requirements for that, if it is open to internationals, the tuition for the PhD portion, etc?

 

[JoeNamaMD]

Check out www.uq.edu.au, they have an MBBS Phd program, I am not sure about USyd.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

Do you know where I can find the requirements for that, if it is open to internationals, the tuition for the PhD portion, etc?

Check out this thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=519034

It is mainly about combined programs in the UK, but I have included info about Australia as well.

 

[jaketheory]

Sorry to dig this up, but I am seriously considering Australia for my medical education. If I wanted to do a PhD in Australia after the MBBS, is this possible? Or are there combined programs for the MBBS/PhD like there are in the States?

you can do a phd after mbbs and there are combined programs at several unis. however, unlike md/phd programs in the US, you will still have to pay tuition for medical years and will not receive a stipend for those years either. you'd probably would not have to pay tuition for the phd years, and likely would receive a stipend. your acceptance to the phd program will likely be dependent on you getting a scholarship to fund tuition and the the stipend.

i know UQ, flinders, and ANU have available the option to do a combined mbbs/phd, and likely other schools. i believe USyd specifically does not. it is however, quite unusual for australians to do combined programs. one would generally complete the medical degree and the internship to ensure they their phd project is on a topic which parallels their clinical interests so the phd would benefit them when applying for specialty training. i spoke in person with the admissions director of one of the AUS med schools, and he simply stated it was not the usual route to a research career in aus.

i would guess this is because, as an aussie, one could get the same training by doing undergrad entry medicine and then a phd, which could be completed in as little as 8-9 years for both the medical degree and phd. most FRACP/PhD's i've known of did it that way: undergrad medicine, internship, PhD, and then RACP fellowship. of course, i think you can even have your phd go towards some of your RACP training provided the phd is in a discipline closely related to your specialty.

 

[shan564]

USyd don't have a standard MBBS/PhD program, but they'll work out a special program for you if you want to pursue that option. I seriously considered it, but I ended up deciding against it because it was too expensive. I'll reconsider if they give me a lot of scholarships for the PhD portion of the degree, but I don't think it's worth it at the moment... I'd rather to the PhD for free in the US after I finish the MBBS.

 

[Lokhtar]

Yea, that would be the other option, since it is free. I did not know that it wasn't automatically free in Australia.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

USyd don't have a standard MBBS/PhD program, but they'll work out a special program for you if you want to pursue that option. I seriously considered it, but I ended up deciding against it because it was too expensive.

Get PR status first. Then you will be eligible for Australian research scheme which is only available to citizens and those with PR status. They will pay you a stipend, but not to internationals.

 

[shan564]

They say that if you get PR status, then you'll lose your place as an international student in the MBBS program... and you may or may not be able to get a place as a local student.

 

[Dr.Millisevert]

They say that if you get PR status, then you'll lose your place as an international student in the MBBS program... and you may or may not be able to get a place as a local student.

Might be true. Which is why it may be advisable to apply for PR before applying for the MBBS.


If your family has the money to help with your tuition (some may) then you can claim on the PR application that you have ">$100k to invest in Australia" or some other vague question like that. If you can prove this on PR you can get extra points in your PR application. Might be just the extra umph you need to get PR before you apply for Med school.

 

[jaketheory]

Might be true. Which is why it may be advisable to apply for PR before applying for the MBBS.


If your family has the money to help with your tuition (some may) then you can claim on the PR application that you have ">$100k to invest in Australia" or some other vague question like that. If you can prove this on PR you can get extra points in your PR application. Might be just the extra umph you need to get PR before you apply for Med school.

i believe the immigration dept changed its procedures in the last 6 or so months so that you are no longer awarded points for investing a large sum of money.

i could be wrong but i have been keeping up to date somewhat with immigration regulations as i just applied for a PR visa. looks like i'll even have it in time to make next year's application deadline and thus save boat loads of money.

 

[jaketheory]

They say that if you get PR status, then you'll lose your place as an international student in the MBBS program... and you may or may not be able to get a place as a local student.

depends on the school. some schools guarantee a local fee place. only thing is, it is expected that the new govt will do away with local fee places. safest just to avoid getting PR while enrolled as a med student.

 

[JoeNamaMD]

Immigrating to Australia under the Rudd government is starting to get easier. PM
Rudd is initiating the biggest immigration push in Australia since World War 2. They lowered the points necessary to get PR a bit, it used to be around 130, now its 120 for an independent and 100 if you are sponsored. Quite a few internationals get sponsored for PR, the deal is that they work for a while in an area of need.

 

[neulite]

Here's a quesiton relating to the original topic: What if an American MD travels to Australia to work as a doctor. Does he/she use the MD title granted here in America or must they use MBBS as to not confuse it with the highly regarded Australian MD?

 

[jaketheory]

Here's a quesiton relating to the original topic: What if an American MD travels to Australia to work as a doctor. Does he/she use the MD title granted here in America or must they use MBBS as to not confuse it with the highly regarded Australian MD?

i would suspect they use the MD. heck, melbourne is about to. besides, i dont really think the aussie MD is "highly regarded". i doubt the average patient knows what the hell it is. only the academics would care much about it.

also, aussies are very aware that doctors in N. America have MD's. they do watch ER, House, and Scrubs. maybe even grey's anatomy.

and the MD is actually a pretty common first professional degree in medicine. i know that it is the degree in South America, France, Turkey,Czech, poland, etc...

the mbbs being spread around the world like china, india, egypt, australia, etc... really traces to british imperialism.

 

[JoeNamaMD]

If you get PR as an international there is a good chance you will be kicked out. In some cases you might become a local full fee paying student.

In general, if you plan to work in Australia UQ=Usyd=Melbourne=UWa=UNSW, generally all Aussie medical schools will prepare you equally to work in the country. Even if you go overseas, few academics will be able to tell the difference between the schools. In America, everyone knows Cambridge and Oxford, but few will discern between Queensland and Sydney.

UQ got a lot of good publicity because of Dr. Ian Frazer. Dr. Peter Doherty, who won a Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1996, received his Veterinary degree at UQ. There was this girl who claimed USyd had a Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, I looked this up and there was no record of anyone affiliated with USyd who won a Medicine Nobel Prize. UWa has had an alumni that won the prize.

....Actually Bernard Katz, an Australian physician and Nobel Prize winner, conducted research at Sydney Hospital which is an affiliate of UNSW. He spent most of his career in the UK. Interestingly he was born in Germany and fled that country in the 1930s.

 

[gmacpac]

If you get PR as an international there is a good chance you will be kicked out. In some cases you might become a local full fee paying student.

I was told by the UQ rep is Chicago that UQ really doesn't care if we get a PR status while studying there. They used to be more stringent about it, but now they don't really care. It doesn't mean they encourage it, I think as long as they get their 42K yearly they are not going to go out of their way to kick anyone out.

In hind sight, this may have been a sales pitch as well. Since there is no written declaration by UQ of the above statement, no one is going to feel liable about adhering to what they say over the phone.

Just a thought.

 

[jaketheory]

If you get PR as an international there is a good chance you will be kicked out. In some cases you might become a local full fee paying student.

In general, if you plan to work in Australia UQ=Usyd=Melbourne=UWa=UNSW, generally all Aussie medical schools will prepare you equally to work in the country. Even if you go overseas, few academics will be able to tell the difference between the schools. In America, everyone knows Cambridge and Oxford, but few will discern between Queensland and Sydney.

UQ got a lot of good publicity because of Dr. Ian Frazer. Dr. Peter Doherty, who won a Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1996, received his Veterinary degree at UQ. There was this girl who claimed USyd had a Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, I looked this up and there was no record of anyone affiliated with USyd who won a Medicine Nobel Prize. UWa has had an alumni that won the prize.

....Actually Bernard Katz, an Australian physician and Nobel Prize winner, conducted research at Sydney Hospital which is an affiliate of UNSW. He spent most of his career in the UK. Interestingly he was born in Germany and fled that country in the 1930s.

totally agree. the guy at UWA was actually pretty big. he proved the link between stomach hylori bacteria and ulcers or something. was quite a huge discovery.

even if you went to oxford or cambridge, you would still have to deal with being an fmg. sure, its better than being from the caribean or whatever, but the US prefers US med grads. there is no question about it. i have met cambridge and oxford med grads in the us. they are still subject to the fmg stigma.

never heard of a nobel winner at syd, but defintely am aware of the affiliations at UQ and UWA. doesnt change american perspectives. research is not clinical practice. if your clinical training is not from the US, you will be at a disadvantage. doesnt mean it cant be overcome, but youll be disadvantaged!

with the new govt, it is pretty much certain you will be kicked out! many of the schools state that if, as an international student, you become a PR, you MAY be transfered to a domestic full fee, but full fees will no longer exist under the Rudd admin. possibility of getting CSPis incredably small; it is really not worth the risk. you will almost certianly get kicked out! either get PR before med school or get PR after finishing!

 

[JoeNamaMD]

Obviously there is a stigma coming if you go overseas for your education. Still Australian grads in the US are not looked on like Caribbean graduates, everyone knows they are obvious rejects who did not make it in the US system. From those people I knew, they seemed to do fairly well matching in residencies in the States.

As far as staying in Australia, the Rudd government has become more immigration friendly than that of John Howard, in fact, I believe migration to Australia will increase 30 percent this year alone.