Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Canadian/american Premed System Setup For Burnout


Recommended Posts

1.The 4 year program is tailored towards Canadian students at SGUL and US Grads (That is what I mean by Canadian applicants who were rejected from the grad stream. SGUL (4 year grad stream) is a back up for Canadians rejected to the 4 year program (in Canada) if you have 150k. Thanks for proving my point)

 

2. "UK graduates have have excellent education at home, free or at a reasonable cost. " This point is highly debatable. First of all UK med students have become strippers and prostitutes to pay their fees. Well cant expect more maturity from a high school grad.

 

http://gawker.com/5889836/stripping-to-pay-your-way-through-med-school-definitively-a-real-thing

 

Also even if they wanted to come to Canada for medicine, they would not get in. Thats the fact, I do not care whether it is an issue of money etc, for the sake of my argument we are only concerned about the difficulty of gaining admission, which clearly is harder in Canada since we dont have quotas for international graduates with shitt ton of money.

 

3. St Andrews accepts students straight out of highschool. This again proves my point that it is EASIER TO GET ACCEPTED in comparison to Canada. It is a plan B. Perhaps many students consider it plan A. Why? It is because its harder in Canada and more time consuming and most importantly more uncertain vs UK.

 

4.About 7 % of spots in UK are for international kids. How many in Canada? None. So moral is admission is harder in Canada for all applicants. In UK, it is easier for Canadians to get accepted. For UK applicants its also easier, 40% acceptance rate, no undergrad gpa tension etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think I can see sarcasm dripping from that post.       Why do you think the med school application process should be "fair" to applicants from Ontario? I'm rather of the opinion that the need of

Not doing undergrad wouldn't make the stress associated with medicine go away. It would shift part of it to high school students who would now have to fight for medical school spots, and the rest of i

Seems that there is a lot of misinformation here about how medical education is structured in Europe. To clarify this, here are details about UK system vs. Canadian system. Which is better? There are

oh the 150000 pounds. Small detail :)

 

So that route would save you I suppose 2 years?

 

Not really, the length of med training is roughly the same. It saves you:

 

 

 

1. undergrad requirement

 

2. uncertainty  (you know whether you get in or not when you are 18).

 

 

 

And yeah, you pay 150,000 pounds for it as international. In Canada and US is not free either.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3.St Andrews accepts students straight out of highschool. This again proves my point that it is EASIER TO GET ACCEPTED in comparison to Canada. It is a plan B. Perhaps many students consider it plan A. Why? It is because its harder in Canada and more time consuming and most importantly more uncertain vs UK

 

4.About 7 % of spots in UK are for international kids. How many in Canada? None. So moral is admission is harder in Canada for all applicants. In UK, it is easier for Canadians to get accepted. For UK applicants its also easier, 40% acceptance rate, no undergrad gpa tension etc.

 

Ad 3, The issue  in question was that, according to you, UK international programs are for Canadian "rejects". But the point is, people don't wait to be "rejects". As you say, the Canadian system, with its undergrad requirement,  is more time consuming and more uncertain. That's why some (who can afford it) opt for 5/6 year UK system as a plan A. No such option here!

 

Ad 4, Exactly. No undergrad, no GPA circus. Assuming that you do not seriously imply that British are somehow inferior to Canadians (which the first part of your post may suggest),  which med education system would  you prefer?  UK,  with their 7% places  for high -paying internationals - if that bothers you -  and enough places for home students to have a decent chance to get in. Or Canadian system, with crazy competition for home students.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4 year program is tailored towards Canadian students at SGUL and US Grads (That is what I mean by Canadian applicants who were rejected from the grad stream. SGUL (4 year grad stream) is a back up for Canadians rejected to the 4 year program (in Canada) if you have 150k. Thanks for proving my point)

.

 

It's just a technicality, but for the sake of accuracy let me correct this. SGUL has regular 5/6yr program for high school grads, and there are home (UK and EU) students, plus international students  subject to 7% quota - like all other universities in UK . Graduate entry program at SGUL (GEP) does not take international students.

 

What you are referring to  is INTO, a separate program established just few years ago which is run by SGUL but not as a part of their regular UK med program.They are  partnering with US universities,  offering  International Medicine (Bsc/MBBS- 6 years), International Graduate Medicine (MBBS- 4 years) and in Biomedical Sciences (BSc Hons) that are exclusively for international students. Clinicals are  in US. No 7% quotas, because there are no home students. Increasingly popular with US and Canadians, especially 6 yr program.  Haven't seen statisctics about how easy/difficult is to get to this program, but it is definitely outside of  regular UK system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, the length of med training is roughly the same. It saves you:

 

 

 

1. undergrad requirement

 

2. uncertainty  (you know whether you get in or not when you are 18).

 

 

 

And yeah, you pay 150,000 pounds for it as international. In Canada and US is not free either.  

that's 300K Canadian + living expenses for 6 years either with restriction on loans and grants etc - obviously not everyone has access to that. There is of course uncertainty - it is just back loaded onto the residency point rather than up front.

 

There is no easy route of course free of risk - there couldn't be. End of the day there are still a lot more people that want it than are going to get it. It is always going to be messy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just a technicality, but for the sake of accuracy let me correct this. SGUL has regular 5/6yr program for high school grads, and there are home (UK and EU) students, plus international students  subject to 7% quota - like all other universities in UK . Graduate entry program at SGUL (GEP) does not take international students.

 

What you are referring to  is INTO, a separate program established just few years ago which is run by SGUL but not as a part of their regular UK med program.They are  partnering with US universities,  offering  International Medicine (Bsc/MBBS- 6 years), International Graduate Medicine (MBBS- 4 years) and in Biomedical Sciences (BSc Hons) that are exclusively for international students. Clinicals are  in US. No 7% quotas, because there are no home students. Increasingly popular with US and Canadians, especially 6 yr program.  Haven't seen statisctics about how easy/difficult is to get to this program, but it is definitely outside of  regular UK system.

I am sorry but you are incorrect. SGUL does take international applicants for its graduate program and ONLY internationals. The UK applicants or EU applicants are NOT considered. Here is my proof:

 

http://www.intohigher.com/uk/en-gb/our-centres/into-st-georges-university-of-london/study/courses/course-list/international-graduate-medicine-mbbs4.aspx

 

To be clear "

St George's, University of London in partnership with INTO University Partnerships is offering degree programs in International Medicine (Bsc/MBBS- 6 years), International Graduate Medicine (MBBS- 4 years) and in Biomedical Sciences (BSc Hons) that are exclusively for international students."

 

So people go for both 6 year and 4 year stream. So it is not just 6 year stream as you suggested. What this means is people who get rejected in Canada go for the 4 year stream in UK. It is easier to get accepted if you have the money. In contrast, there are no quotas in Canada. So Canada is more difficult to gain admission.

 

I am sorry I am not here to have a debate. But I just like to clarify my points. Older, are you a med student from the UK? just curious.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's 300K Canadian + living expenses for 6 years either with restriction on loans and grants etc - obviously not everyone has access to that. There is of course uncertainty - it is just back loaded onto the residency point rather than up front.

 

There is no easy route of course free of risk - there couldn't be. End of the day there are still a lot more people that want it than are going to get it. It is always going to be messy.

Haha this is absolutely true! exactly what i wanted to say!

 

Also NOTE: currently the UK immigration policy doesnt allow them to practice in the UK.

 

 The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has very strict policies on non-UK/EU citizens staying on in the UK post graduation to practice medicine. This has nothing to do with what program you graduated from or what school you went to- it's just based off of the applicant's country of citizenship. Most likely students in the INTO SGUL MBBS programs will be going on to pursue residency after graduation in the US or their own home country. If an applicant wishes to stay on and try to practice in the UK, then the staff at SGUL will help out with any advisement, however, with the current policy by the UKBA it's just extremely difficult for non-UK/EU citizens to stay on in the UK right now. The policy could change down the line, but that's all up to the UKBA.- the admissions officer wrote this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but you are incorrect. SGUL does take international applicants for its graduate program and ONLY internationals. The UK applicants or EU applicants are NOT considered. Here is my proof:

 

http://www.intohigher.com/uk/en-gb/our-centres/into-st-georges-university-of-london/study/courses/course-list/international-graduate-medicine-mbbs4.aspx

 

To be clear "

St George's, University of London in partnership with INTO University Partnerships is offering degree programs in International Medicine (Bsc/MBBS- 6 years), International Graduate Medicine (MBBS- 4 years) and in Biomedical Sciences (BSc Hons) that are exclusively for international students."

 

So people go for both 6 year and 4 year stream. So it is not just 6 year stream as you suggested. What this means is people who get rejected in Canada go for the 4 year stream in UK. It is easier to get accepted if you have the money. In contrast, there are no quotas in Canada. So Canada is more difficult to gain admission.

 

I am sorry I am not here to have a debate. But I just like to clarify my points. Older, are you a med student from the UK? just curious.

 

Cheers

 

 

Nothing to debate, I just wanted to make sure that accurate information is provided in case somebody is interested in it. You question my information which is 100% consistent with the link you provided?

 

I explained the difference,  INTO is not  a regular med school program offered to UK students. I repeat I have no idea how easy or difficult is get to INTO. Just pointing out that  it cannot be compared with general UK med school admission.

 

At SGUL, INTO is only a fringe program ( I heard it has difficulties in organizing placements in US).   First and foremost, SGUL has a regular med program that UK and international students (subject to quota) apply through regular admission process, like to any other UK med school.   

 

So if any Canadian wants to go to SGUL,  options are as follows: 1) 5/6 yrs regular program (7% quota), 2) 6 yrs INTO, or 3) 4 year INTO. 4yr regular program is not available to Canadians.  INTO is entirely for internationals.

 

I don't see an issue here, it is what it is.  What's to debate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha this is absolutely true! exactly what i wanted to say!

 

Also NOTE: currently the UK immigration policy doesnt allow them to practice in the UK.

 

 The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has very strict policies on non-UK/EU citizens staying on in the UK post graduation to practice medicine. This has nothing to do with what program you graduated from or what school you went to- it's just based off of the applicant's country of citizenship. Most likely students in the INTO SGUL MBBS programs will be going on to pursue residency after graduation in the US or their own home country. If an applicant wishes to stay on and try to practice in the UK, then the staff at SGUL will help out with any advisement, however, with the current policy by the UKBA it's just extremely difficult for non-UK/EU citizens to stay on in the UK right now. The policy could change down the line, but that's all up to the UKBA.- the admissions officer wrote this.

 

SGUL's INTO Is designed for students who  want to go back and practise in North America. If an international wants to practice in UK, regular program at any med school is probably the best option.

It is difficult, but not impossible to stay in UK - as you noted, immigration policies are  very strict. But why?  Doctors are paid much better in Canada and US.

 

Being IMG is a sorry fate in Canada. At least in US, INTO graduates will be on the same footing as locals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SGUL's INTO Is designed for students who  want to go back and practise in North America. If an international wants to practice in UK, regular program at any med school is probably the best option.

It is difficult, but not impossible to stay in UK - as you noted, immigration policies are  very strict. But why?  Doctors are paid much better in Canada and US.

 

Being IMG is a sorry fate in Canada. At least in US, INTO graduates will be on the same footing as locals.

I wouldn't say same footing, you can look at the NRMP match rates of IMGs, it is still significantly lower than US seniors. NRMP is much better for CaRMS for IMG, by 1000 fold, but it is still no golden gaurantee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks that's really good information. Btw I was just curious, are you a med student in the UK ?

 

Not me, a close family member is. We are EU, and EU students have "home" not "international" status in UK.  It is interesting to compare different med education systems. Some good points have been brought up on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say same footing, you can look at the NRMP match rates of IMGs, it is still significantly lower than US seniors. NRMP is much better for CaRMS for IMG, by 1000 fold, but it is still no golden gaurantee.

 

 I meant there are no systemic barriers such as meager quotas for IMGs in Canada. It is interesting why the match rates of IMGs are  significantly lower than US seniors. Is there another kind of bias or perhaps IMGs do not perform well on USMLE?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I meant there are no systemic barriers such as meager quotas for IMGs in Canada. It is interesting why the match rates of IMGs are  significantly lower than US seniors. Is there another kind of bias or perhaps IMGs do not perform well on USMLE?

I'm going to assume you don't know much about the US match system, so I will write a bit of a longer post for you :)

 

IMGs are expected to have higher board scores and more competitive profiles to compete with US grads. While in Canada, there are not an abundance of extra spots, so there is quotas. In the US, up until now and the next few years - there has been an abundance of extra spots, which IMGs have been able to take. They were still able to get into competitive specialties, just needed to be stronger applicants. However, that said, maybe in the next 5+ years, the number of US grads will come closer and closer to parity with the # of residency spots (Much like in Canada) and the average IMG will get shut out more and more. 

 

Just because there isn't systemic barriers such as quotas for IMGs in the US, doesn't mean program directors and institutions don't have biases towards their own US graduates over IMGs/FMGs. Some programs simply do not take IMGs at all, or have minimum STEP 1 scores etc in place they must meet before even being considered. Many programs on the flip side have plenty of IMGS in them, maybe some of those programs are less desirable to US grads or are dependent on IMGs to have resident labour etc.

 

That said, a competitive IMG at the current situation, if they perform well and apply broadly and carefully, is still in a decent position to match. A friend of a friend from SGU with a 260+ step 1 score (which if you know anything about the US system, that is an AMAZING score) applied to less competitive disciplines, but to the top programs in those disciplines and has been interviewing at top tier schools that make most Canadian programs look like sprott shaw community college. 

 

But my point wasn't to talk about competitiveness of IMGs, no doubt many of the ones who make it through are better than the average US student, but due to biases and preferences for US graduates, they have a harder time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to assume you don't know much about the US match system, so I will write a bit of a longer post for you :)

 

IMGs are expected to have higher board scores and more competitive profiles to compete with US grads. While in Canada, there are not an abundance of extra spots, so there is quotas. In the US, up until now and the next few years - there has been an abundance of extra spots, which IMGs have been able to take. They were still able to get into competitive specialties, just needed to be stronger applicants. However, that said, maybe in the next 5+ years, the number of US grads will come closer and closer to parity with the # of residency spots (Much like in Canada) and the average IMG will get shut out more and more. 

 

Just because there isn't systemic barriers such as quotas for IMGs in the US, doesn't mean program directors and institutions don't have biases towards their own US graduates over IMGs/FMGs. Some programs simply do not take IMGs at all, or have minimum STEP 1 scores etc in place they must meet before even being considered. Many programs on the flip side have plenty of IMGS in them, maybe some of those programs are less desirable to US grads or are dependent on IMGs to have resident labour etc.

 

That said, a competitive IMG at the current situation, if they perform well and apply broadly and carefully, is still in a decent position to match. A friend of a friend from SGU with a 260+ step 1 score (which if you know anything about the US system, that is an AMAZING score) applied to less competitive disciplines, but to the top programs in those disciplines and has been interviewing at top tier schools that make most Canadian programs look like sprott shaw community college. 

 

But my point wasn't to talk about competitiveness of IMGs, no doubt many of the ones who make it through are better than the average US student, but due to biases and preferences for US graduates, they have a harder time. 

 

 

Thanks for your insights.  Indeed, Canada is the harderst in  1/ admission to med school and  2/ getting in as IMG.  Causing burnout and other misery in the process.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are a QuARMS student, in which the requirement to maintain a competitive undergraduate GPA or even write the MCAT is waived due to being on your schools Green Team and EcoClub, or by way of auspicious connection, the possession of a publication.

I assure you the very small number of individuals who got into quarms generally have impressive involvements, a few who make some 4th year premeds cv's look bland. And yes many of them do have connections, can't hate the player hate the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you are a QuARMS student, in which the requirement to maintain a competitive undergraduate GPA or even write the MCAT is waived due to being on your schools Green Team and EcoClub, or by way of auspicious connection, the possession of a publication.

 

QuARMS could be a step in the right direction - the objective makes sense ( "shorten the minimum length of undergraduate training for students before entering medical school at Queen’s, while at the same time enriching and focusing their curricular and extracurricular university experiences to prepare them for direct entry into medical training"). 

 

However, limiting it to 10 students renders the entire process a joke. Why not allow larger number of students to enter this program (as a pilot project), and then evaluate results vs.  traditional route. It won't cost more, and may turn out to be the best model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

QuARMS could be a step in the right direction - the objective makes sense ( "shorten the minimum length of undergraduate training for students before entering medical school at Queen’s, while at the same time enriching and focusing their curricular and extracurricular university experiences to prepare them for direct entry into medical training"). 

 

However, limiting it to 10 students renders the entire process a joke. Why not allow larger number of students to enter this program (as a pilot project), and then evaluate results vs.  traditional route. It won't cost more, and may turn out to be the best model.

 

Agree with the above post. A sample of 10 is too small, especially for the long duration and potential complexity of the comparative study. No process is perfect, and that's why the system needs to constantly self-evaluate and evolve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the above post. A sample of 10 is too small, especially for the long duration and potential complexity of the comparative study. No process is perfect, and that's why the system needs to constantly self-evaluate and evolve.

 

Perhaps a sample of 10 is small, but it's 10 people per year. If they do this for a few years, they should have enough numbers to work out if the program is working or not.

 

Also, if they increased that number, it would take even more spots away from people applying out of undergrad. I mean, it's not like they can increase the size of the class without the appropriate finances to support that. I can only imagine the rage on these forums if they increased QuARMS to 50 (as an extreme case) and left only 50 spots for regular admission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a sample of 10 is small, but it's 10 people per year. If they do this for a few years, they should have enough numbers to work out if the program is working or not.

 

Also, if they increased that number, it would take even more spots away from people applying out of undergrad. I mean, it's not like they can increase the size of the class without the appropriate finances to support that. I can only imagine the rage on these forums if they increased QuARMS to 50 (as an extreme case) and left only 50 spots for regular admission.

 

As someone already commented, the 'chosen 10' are not necessarily  the representation of the best candidates (the current criteria include, for example, nomination by the school - and we can guess what individuals will be nominated).

 

Taking more people to a program like QuARMS would not reduce overall  chances - try straight from school, and if you don't get in, try as a grad. That's exactly the advantage of the UK system - you can apply after high school, and if you don't succeed, you can  get another degree and apply as a grad.

 

With regards to financing, 2+4 is definitely less costly to taxpayers and individuals than the current 4+4 (increasingly, 5+4 or 6+4) model. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone already commented, the 'chosen 10' are not necessarily  the representation of the best candidates (the current criteria include, for example, nomination by the school - and we can guess what individuals will be nominated).

 

Taking more people to a program like QuARMS would not reduce overall  chances - try straight from school, and if you don't get in, try as a grad. That's exactly the advantage of the UK system - you can apply after high school, and if you don't succeed, you can  get another degree and apply as a grad.

 

With regards to financing, 2+4 is definitely less costly to taxpayers and individuals than the current 4+4 (increasingly, 5+4 or 6+4) model. 

 

How is it less costly? Does the government subsidize our undergraduate education costs? (I'm not sure - would like to hear what facts people know about this) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the government subsidizes education costs by quite a bit. That is why undergrad costs a lot less than professional programs. In Ontario, professional programs are also subsidized by the government but not nearly as much. Actually, back in the 90s professional programs were subsidized just as much as undergrad programs were. Undergrads are "regulated", that's why they all cost about $8K a year. Professional undergrads don't fall into this category (nursing, engineering, biz schools, etc.). You can thank Mike Harris for that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it less costly? Does the government subsidize our undergraduate education costs? (I'm not sure - would like to hear what facts people know about this) 

 

You really think your tuition covers your education costs? Not only undergrad programs are subsidized, but professional programs also, including medicine  -  despite huge tuition increases. And not only in Quebec, medicine is heavily subsidized in Ontario as well.

 

Medical education costs taxpayers dearly, so question arises why add to it an unnecessary cost of 4 year undergrad program -  the extra cost to both taxpayers and students.   Programs like QuARMS could alleviate it to a certain degree, but not if they are limited to 10 students!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it less costly? Does the government subsidize our undergraduate education costs? (I'm not sure - would like to hear what facts people know about this) 

 

raw data is your tuition pays about 1/3 to at best 1/2 of the true cost of education. It is worse in medical school. The remaining funds come from the government and sponsorship - which is why all the schools have such dramatic and persistent fund raising efforts (which you will learn about post graduating for sure).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...