We are committed to the NHS, we have more doctors...

kinger101

ToriP wrote: »

Would we rather lower wages and in turn not attract the brightest?

If you have oversupply, you can eliminate those that underperform.

BobQ

kinger101 wrote: »

Well done boy. Top of the class.

http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a748

Can the BMA stop people training as doctors?

I can see there is no point training doctors if there are no employment opportunities, but surely that is for the Government to decide. Yet it seems content to limit training opportunities.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/courses/bachelor_medicine_bachelor_surgery.php

someone's got something wrong because the website is pretty clear that the course is available to self-funded students from the UK and EU plus international students.

It says

Our medicine degree offers an innovative approach to medical education for self-funded and sponsored international students (non UK/EU), training them to become professional, compassionate doctors.

That seems to exclude UK/EU students

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

As long as you are willing to pay for it, that is no problem.

But that's not really all that relevant to the issue of what the UCL is doing as the students concerned have to self-finance. Thus it costs the taxpayer pretty much nothing.

Interestingly enough, the University of Buckingham (which is a private university) already offers degrees in medicine. The difference with the UCL is that they are a public university, who have decided to open a private medical school. As has Aston University, who will also be opening a private medical school in due course.

I am not sure why that should be a concern to anyone.

That may be so, but either the Governmemt believes we need more doctors or they do not. In 2014 the NHS recruited 3000 foreign trained doctors so they seem to accept there is a shortage.

THe BMA should not set the numbers we train, the Government should not cap the numbers.

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

It says



That seems to exclude UK/EU students

The way that I read it is that self funded students from the UK/EU would be allowed onto the course. I suspect the problem with state funded students from the UK/EU is that they would be subject to the funding cap (£9k?) and that doesn't cover the cost of studying medicine.

If I had to guess I'd say that the university had set up the course as a cash cow, effectively to get foreign students to subsidise locals studying other courses. I strongly suspect that if as a UK local you rocked up with £180,000 and a desire to study medicine that the uni would find a way to accommodate you.:money:

BobQ wrote: »

That may be so, but either the Governmemt believes we need more doctors or they do not. In 2014 the NHS recruited 3000 foreign trained doctors so they seem to accept there is a shortage.

THe BMA should not set the numbers we train, the Government should not cap the numbers.

Well of course that was the sort of thing Mrs Thatcher's Governments were trying to stop when she took on the unions, professional bodies and institutions such as the London Stock Exchange. Unfortunately her rather ludicrous belief in the Poll Tax, albeit for sound reasons, did for her.

princeofpounds

The cost of training a doctor is given as £485,390, but £249,261 of that is post-grad,

Thanks - it's not clear how the post-grad arrangements work with this degree. I presume it has to be part-and-parcel at some level, because you won't be a doctor otherwise.

and £59,797 is for living expenses and 'lost production costs',

Seems slightly weird to put this in the numbers - all other students pay for their own living costs; is medicine somehow different? Similarly there is lost production, but these people are not doctors yet and so the production is lost from some non-medical part of the economy (perhaps they would all have been pharma salespeople instead!). Unless they mean something else by this?

chris_m

Generali wrote: »

If I had to guess I'd say that the university had set up the course as a cash cow......

You think that's not the reason they stopped calling it Lancashire Poly or, even, Preston Poly ?

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

Can the BMA stop people training as doctors?

I can see there is no point training doctors if there are no employment opportunities, but surely that is for the Government to decide. Yet it seems content to limit training opportunities.

They certainly seem to think that they can.

kinger101

BobQ wrote: »

Can the BMA stop people training as doctors?

I can see there is no point training doctors if there are no employment opportunities, but surely that is for the Government to decide. Yet it seems content to limit training opportunities.

The article would indicate that is the case. The clinical phases and post-grad is carried out in hospitals, so the current practitioners are required to teach new entrants.

We train very many people at university for whom there are no realistic prospect of a graduate job. It's not just a problem in medicine, but as we're importing medical staff, it would seem there's no under-supply from our current pool of graduates.

kinger101

Pennywise wrote: »

I often wonder if we "over-train" doctors. Why not have shorter courses/training periods for particular branches rather than have this long term training scheme lasting many years where the doctors are trained in all kinds of areas they're unlikely to work in once qualified.

Eg, why not have a, say, 3/4 year course specifically aimed at qualifying as a GP. No hospital, no surgery, just concentrating on diagnosis, prescriptions and referrals with direct hands on experience in a GP surgery.

In other professions, there are usually many different streams that the trainee can take so as to specialise once qualified. It's fairly rare that everything is taught/experienced, so why not something similar for doctors?

I think the current 5 year medical programme plus 2 year foundation are in reality the basics that any doctor needs. Becoming a GP after that takes another 3+ years. A doctor may only get to find out which specialism they're interested in their second foundation year.

It's difficult to see how what is essentially vocational training can be condensed. I've certainly been to a couple of GPs which are the product of the current system whom I would not describe as overqualified.