Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General International Discussion' started by yimfong, Nov 6, 2002.
the course of this 2 universities are quite similar. Do u think which one is better?
They're both pretty much the same - they do have very similar courses. When I applied Oxford was ever so slightly easier to get into, but that might have changed by now. But as for actual reputation in the UK, grads from other med schools, such as the London ones, Nottingham, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol have a better reputation for all round education ie can actually talk to a patient rather than know the initimate detail of the Creb's cycle!
It depends what you want and where you want to work after you graduate. Being truthful, it doesn't matter which med school you go to in the UK if you want to work in the UK because they all have pretty much the same reputation. If you want to work not in the UK, then maybe you want to pick a med school which is more known internationally. Oxbridge I guess fills that requirement.
But all in all, its not where you go, but what you do once you get there. Which would you pick, the Cambridge grad who passed their degree, or the Leicester grad who passed their degree with honours, got prizes in cardiology, surgery and public health, was editor of the student newspaper, and published a reaserch paper or 2?
I'm no help I know
Although med education should be the same, what I've heard is that the science people stick to Cambridge, the arts people stick to Oxford.
Cambridge seems to be getting much more government money in terms of research.
In UK, Cambridge has a better reputation (more difficult to get admitted to as a student; i.e. you need higher A-level scoresl). In US and other parts of the world, Oxford has a better reputation. Oxford's reputation could be partly based on rhode's scholarship and partly on its ties with the rest of the world. Oxford, as a university, has more international students, esp. many visiting students from the US. Cambridge, by comparison, seems a little more xenophobic (not the right word, but the university just does not have that many international/visiting students).
Either one, you will be fine. But if you want to impress some Americans or Canadians back home, stick with Oxford.
In the UK, Oxford has traditionally been thought of as having the edge over Cambridge in the arts whereas Cambridge has traditionally had the edge in the sciences.
Things are now changing and such sweeping generalisations are now misleading. With regards to medicine, if you are intending to stay in the UK then it doesn't matter whether you go to Oxbridge (by the way Oxbridge is a term frequently used for Oxford and Cambridge) or any other medical school. Infact some argue that other medical schools have the edge over oxbridge in producing clinicians however I believe that ones achievements in medicine only really take off during the postgraduate years.
Anyway, you must take into account that most north americans will make the incorrect assumption that Oxbridge is "better" than other UK med schools.
In most parts of the world where universities are public, it often does not matter where one goes. In Canada, yeah, McGill has excellent name internationally, but people are just as happy going to Queen's, U of Toronto and UBC. In UK, yeah, Oxbridge has excellent names but government funding for research is not channelled ALL to oxbridge (which are public universities, by the way).
However, in US, the schools with the biggest names (i.e. Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford,etc.) are all private. This is in distinct contrast with the rest of the world. These private schools do have more money and better facilities and can throw money around like no public universities can. And a lot of times, reputation is built on this insane amount of money.
So whereas people in UK, Canada, Japan, etc. don't care about name as much, in the US, people are more susceptible to it (perhaps, because reputation of university = $$$). And if you are paying big $$$ as international student studying medicine in England, why not get some name recognitiion back home (i.e. choose Oxbridge over Imperial) ?
The six-years degree of Oxford includes a year of BA. Can current students or ex-students tell me whether i could skip it or not.
what are your qualifications? i'm not a student there but know they have an accelerated 4 year program for people with a bachelor's degree in a bioscience or chemistry. you may be able to skip some coursework if you have a bachelor's in another subject, but i'm not sure.
Oxford has a four-year graduate entry program for medicine. Cambridge does not. THe requirements are that you have a degree in a science field (therefore would have fulfilled many of the requirements of the pre-clinical years). You also have to take their specific entrance examination. However, I have heard that Oxford's four year program (or any four year program in the UK) has not been accredited yet in the US, so if you're looking to do a residency or work in the US in the future, this may hinder you.
Cambridge also run a four year graduate programme. By the way, Cambridge students also graduate with a BA.
cambridge does not take international students in their 4 year program.
I trained at Nottingham and am now spending a year teaching anatomy at Cambridge.
The courses at the two universities are really quite different and would suit different types of people. Another thing that I'm sure separates the two are the type of people accepted.
In Nottingham the course was much more focused on communication skills and early patient interaction and less on the basic sciences. In Cambridge the basic sciences courses are much tougher and students really have to put the hours in to pass the course.
If you want to get the best grounding possible in basic sciences I would go for oxbridge, if you want a slightly less demanding course that focuses on communication skills and attitudes towards patients choose a newer school like Nottingham, Newcastle, Leicester etc.
Hope it helps,