Sackler vs. RCSI

[bubster9]

Which do you think is a better school to go to? What's better for coming back to the US for residency etc. Also, what about American electives and clinical time for both schools? Any info appreciated!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[leorl]

I'm not in med school yet, but my perspective is that both are equally highly reputed and neither one would be "better" for getting back into the US. You're an IMG regardless, and they're both excellent schools. Each allows time for American electives (well, you can do electives anywhere you want) and allow for you to do rotations elsewhere as well. THe way I was told by my Premed advisor - you're pretty much good to go if you attend med schools in Australia, UK, Ireland, Canada and Israel. By Israel, she meant Sacklers. And all the Irish schools are looked upon well enough, with RCSI probably being the most prominent.

 

[bubster9]

Thanks for the reply, do you happen to know about length at RCSI, I know Sackler is 4 but for some reason I want to say that RCSI is 5, is that correct does anyone know. However, RCSI is English speaking patients so that's a plus!

 

[The Pill Counter]

rcsi is 6 yrs but degree holders are exempt from the first year, so it is a 5 yr program.. By the way, rcsi is much more expensive than its fellow Dublin schools. Look at Trinity and University College as well if you're interested in going to Dublin.

 

[jue]

hi, well i've heard that although sackler is a foreign school NY recognizes it as a local school i.e graduates of sackler are not treated as IMG's in NY. RCSI, is a good school but the program is about 5 years long plus the program isn't intended to prepare you for the USMLE.

 

[Stephen Ewen]

It is my bias to favor medical programs that teach medicine over MORE THAN four years. There are some of us out here who think, with good cause, that it is far more conducive to permanent learning when the curriculum is spread a bit more thinly.

 

[leorl]

RCSI is very expensive, so I would also recommend that you look at Trinity College and the University College schools (there's UC Dublin and UC Cork, both are fine). I'm biased towards Trinity because of my previous experiences there. I applied to both RCSI and Trinity so will hopefully hear in March/April. RCSI is 5 years for those who have already received an undergraduate degree. They favor degrees in the sciences. And Stephen Ewen is good in commending more-than-4 year schools because what that implies is that you get more clincial experience during medical school than you would in the US or other 4-year schools. Actually, a lot of Canadians and Americans I've met attended Trinity and RCSI for that reason. Although RCSI is not geared for the boards and you will have to study for them yourself, the added clinical experience is very good preparation and is a plus. I myself don't really care whether the schools help prepare students for the boards - I mean, it's in a foreign country after all and they should not, and do not gear their students for work in America. My friends there do study quite a bit...but also have time to have fun as well. And the Irish are such funny people.

I do not know much about IMG Status in NY after attending Sacklers...but I'll say this - I don't believe they'd be so lenient. If you check up on this, please tell us . But Sacklers is international, no matter what...so I'd think its graduates would be perceived as IMGS, even if technically they aren't. However, it doesn't really matter...I was quite surprised after talking to various people, just how highly regarded both RCSI and Sacklers are. And Trinity as well (although its famous because of its literary connections)

 

[The Pill Counter]

These 5 and 6 year schools are designed for school leavers, ie. 18 yr olds. Besides a bias for 5 yrs schools, what is the evidence that they produce better doctors? I have 5 yrs of university education as i'm about to begin med school. At an older age, and with more education behind, does that bias hold up? In English schools, graduates are usually excused from 6 mos to a year of the program, all usually time devoted for research, so they don't lack for clinical experience. By the way, new graduate programs are appearing in England all the time. We've seen that this is the trend in Australia and U of Otago in New Zealand is also considering the transition. Perhaps these countries see the wisdom in graduating doctors that are older and have more overall education and experience than just simply having an(unecessary?) extra year in med school.

 

[neilc]

i agree with stephen in that the longer in school period is conductive to good retention of material. i am a 30 year old student with a degree in anatomy and physiology from an american school enrolled in a 6 year program. there is some overlap, some review of basic chemistry, physics and biology especially, but the benefit is the class load. the material is covered more slowly, in great detail and you have fewer courses in a semester. i have 3 years of basic science and 3 years clinical. that means that anatomy, neuro, histology, embryology, biochem, etc...are given over 1 more year! no matter what your background is, i believe that it helps you retain.

 

[KungFuMaster]

I am probably diverting away from the topic but I don't think we should worry ourself too much about how IMG will be treated in America. I can guarrantte you that all the IMG issues will not conern you anymore when you are practicing medicine in America. I understand that at this stage of the game, there are too many issues to be concerned about but once you are fully board certified with the right visas to stay, then all the things that we have been discussing go right out the windows. It seems like practicing doctors don't really care about this IMG thing, except those policy makers like AMA do. But they don't seem to have much control over practicing doctors. Almost all doctors concern more about the HMO stuffs than medical school stuff. It is just like when we were in high school concerning about how colleges will affect our life forever, but experience has told us that it's not true at all, but that's in a general sense.

 

[The Pill Counter]

neil: i respectfully disagree. what you describe as your background, then doing six years of medical school sounds like over-kill. Rote, didacted learning does not produce better clinicians. In England, the new med. schools and some old ones (Cambridge, St. Georges Hospital) have implemented shorter PBL programs (some even 3.5 yrs long) Why would England risk its reputation of producing world class physicians if it didn't believe that this mode of education is better? Half of Australian physician's graduated from the shorter PBL programs, specifically because educational movements in the seventies mandated better medical training. Obviously the six yr programs for 18 yr old school leavers wasn't the answer
Medical school is about training doctors of the future, not providing the ultimate Step 1 classroom

 

[neilc]

the point about the 6-years is not that we get more material, it is that the material is presented over a longer period of time, which lends itself to long term understanding. at the 4 year schools, your summers are crap and you have many difficult classes at once. 6 years makes it more humane. also, while PBL may be fun and interesting, there is a lot of critisism out there. it just does not give you a good basic science background. actually, i think PBL is evolving as a way to keep medical education shorter by sacrificing basic science.

now, for the most part it is a only a decision about how you want to learn it...
first there is the 4 year, cram it down your throught traditional, with one eye on only remebering this crap until after the USMLE
next you have the PBL program which gets you talking about real medicine and patients the first day, but at the cost of a solid basic science.
and finally, you have the longer version of the traditional, which lets you learn everything better, but at a cost of 2 years.

the amount we need to know has drastically increased, but the time to learn it in has not. overall, they all prepare you to be a physician very well. it just depends on you as an individual and how you want to learn medicine.

 

[foreigndude]

An extra year at medical school (5 year program) is something I also was concerned about. My pediatrician went to RCSI and is probably the best physician I know. He has a fantastic knowledge of medicine. I was accepted at CORK but declined after learning more about the Irish medical system. There are plenty of good foreign medical schools out there that cater to U.S. students. You should probably focus on these. If you are stumped as I was check out <a href="http://www.foreignmedschool.com" target="_blank">www.foreignmedschool.com</a>
They know what to look for and give you the pro's and con's of each school. When I signed up with them, I requested that they focus on Cork as a posibility. Although their service takes about a month, it is well worth it.
Foreign (Now) Dude

 

[leorl]

Oh, just as an aside...if you're interested in pediatrics, RCSI is good...but really look at Trinity College. They have correspondence and collaboration with the American Pediatrics Association and conventions for them will frequently happen in Dublin.

As far as schools that particularly cater to US students...that's not really what I'm looking for, and not a huge priority for me. Yes, makes my life harder...but also more interesting.

 

[Winged Scapula]

foreigndude - Please refrain from suggesting users frequent fee for service sites such as foreignmedschool.com.

Doing so, especially in multiple posts, is tantamount to spamming which is in violation of SDN regulations.

I am sure you are only doing so in a sincere desire to help others, but IMHO (and most of the other Moderators here) these corporations offer nothing which cannot be done by ANYONE for FREE. Please feel free to offer information or advice as you see fit, but refrain from advertising a commercial venture here.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Stephen Ewen]

Ditto.

 

[Telluride]

Originally posted by jue:
•hi, well i've heard that although sackler is a foreign school NY recognizes it as a local school i.e graduates of sackler are not treated as IMG's in NY. RCSI, is a good school but the program is about 5 years long plus the program isn't intended to prepare you for the USMLE.•••


Woah there... RCSI _does_ prepare students for the USMLE. In fact, it is important that students do well on the USMLE so RCSI can continue to be proud of getting US students into good residencies. Now that being said, perhaps there is a weakness in pharm, but overall, RCSI students are fine when it comes to the USMLE

 

[jue]

hi telluride, what i meant was that RCSI wasn't created with the USMLE in mind unlike some other international schools. this doesn't mean that their students don't do well in the USMLE, as you have already stated RCSI grads perform quite well on the smelly's (i think they call them that over there), in addition to that i think they also offer review classes prior to the MLE's but i'm not to sure about this. however, in spite of all this sackler still has a curriculum more similar to that of med schools in the states and so IMHO i think sackler will better prepare you for the USMLE's.

 

[The Pill Counter]

why does everyone seem concerned with finding a foreign school re-created in the image of a US school? I think SGU would be the best bet if that is what you had in mind. RCSI is a century old Irish institute that has a history of welcoming foreigners. Irish, English, Australian, these schools answer to their General Medical Councils, not AAMC. Their purpose in life is not to teach out of a Step 1 prep book. They are not subservient to the American Medical Education Model. They do, however, provide us with a great opportunity to receive a world-class education. After a few years in Oz, I'll know it's my responsibility to prep for the USMLE. Granted some schools go farther out of their way than others. I think Sackler, with its formalised ties to New York would provide a closer US style education, and the Carribean schools are designed for the USMLE.

 

[Telluride]

This is my perpetual gripe about these international debates. Anybody can state their OPINION and make it sounds like they know what they are talking about. Here people are discussing their OPINIONS on how well foreign schools prepare students for the USMLE, their OPINIONS on what the curriculum may entail etc etc etc ad nauseum!

If you do not have first hand experience (and my boyfriend/girlfriend/dog went there is NOT first hand experience), or cannot cite a source, then leave your opinion to yourself. People who are making decisions about future medical school should be given accurate information.

 

[leorl]

I totally agree with rsk and telluride. Why the hell go to an international school if you place such a priority on attending a school that caters to Americans??! And IMHO, that really defeats the purpose of going to an international school. I stated this in a previous post...their job is NOT to make sure people in their country and Americans can get into American residency programs. And that does not make their quality of education inferior to US standards.

Jue, I don't exactly know what you were thinking in posting this: "however, in spite of all this sackler still has a curriculum more similar to that of med schools in the states and so IMHO i think sackler will better prepare you for the USMLE's." You have an obvious bias towards Sackler, and that's fine. But statements like that are completely unwarranted. Actually, RCSI has a rather traditional curriculum and covers the same material that US schools do: anatomy (organ system blocks), microbiology, biochemistry, some immunology, pharmacology, pathology, etc. and even add some courses which might be most beneficial in behavioral sciences (psychology). They might even be a little stricter in the fact that there is not much flexibility and no incorporation of programs like PBL. The timing of courses might be a little different but that doesn't really affect students studying for the USMLE. So, your claim that the curriculum is less intune with the US curriculum is not only false, but has no bearing with USMLE preparation. As a matter of fact, there is a 100% match rate into US residencies and a 97%+ pass rate on the USMLE parts - at least among the Atlantic Bridge program students, which most North American students apply through. So, having a curriculum geared towards USMLE and catering to American students really does not have a significant advantage versus those schools that do. And maybe if people are that concered about sticking with a US curriculum, they should not be going overseas because then they are missing the whole point of wanting to study internationally in the first place.

 

[KungFuMaster]

I agree with Leorl. What is the U.S. curriculum anyway? Nobody has defined that yet. Most U.S. students study from well-known textbooks no less than foreign students. In other words, the more books you read, the better off you are. Almost all of the U.S. med students I know told me that most students don't go to classes regularly anyway, all they study were from books or notes. Though I might be diverting from the topics again, what exactly constitute a good medical educaiton? They have always claimed that this school or that school has the best "quality". But what is that quality? Yes some medical schools, either abroad or domestic, have tremendous facilites and resources. BUT do medical students actually use them to "enhance" their doctoring skills. No I don't think so. Yes they study in BIG libraries and stuff but that's nothing more than study room. It's not like all the resources and books in the library flow into their brain through osmosis.

 

[Jackson 01]

Just a note about information given about a program that the poster does not attend. Alot of this info is incorrect. The best thing is to contact a student at that program and ask them. In fact some of this information is so misleading that it raises questions as to the persons motives.