welcome to Ireland

[elainep]

Hi all
New member here, I am an Irish applicant to RCSI, UCD, UCC and UL in that order (all GEP programmes). I would be happy to answer any questions about the colleges, preconceptions, rumours, accomodation, lifestyle etc that you have before making your mind up.
Our application process is different in that we have to sit an entrance exam in March to get in so we don't have interviews or anything like that.
Hopefully I'll be starting in September with one or some of you

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Raigon]

Hi all
New member here, I am an Irish applicant to RCSI, UCD, UCC and UL in that order (all GEP programmes). I would be happy to answer any questions about the colleges, preconceptions, rumours, accomodation, lifestyle etc that you have before making your mind up.
Our application process is different in that we have to sit an entrance exam in March to get in so we don't have interviews or anything like that.
Hopefully I'll be starting in September with one or some of you

Hi Elainep!

I'm a US applicant from Taiwan (I know it's weird. I grew up in the states, but our family moved to Taiwan during high school so I completed college there, too). I took the MCATs by mistake because I thought I'd be applying to an American medical school, but instead found out that I can't apply to a US medical school because I need to complete a degree there or take a post-bacc program. They require that I take at least 2~3 years of undergraduate studies there and because I want to start medical school right away rather than delay, I'm applying elsewhere to either Ireland or Australia.

I was going to try for Ireland, but I heard it's really competitive because Ireland has high mate rates for US students studying there. I'm actually afraid of applying because of my GPA (don't know how to calculate it) may not be competitive enough. If you know anything about international applications, I was wondering if you could give me some directional guide?

My stats are MCAT 30Q and weighted percentage: 79.1% (although our school writes on the report card that an 80% is an A, most schools don't use that). I believe my GPA was converted to a 3.3~3.4/4.0 when asked by one of the admissions staff, which seems to be fairly uncompetitive as told by some people.

So if you would help, what schools would you recommend for me with my stats?

And also, a question I've been meaning to ask - why do most internationals apply for medical school in Ireland instead of, say, England? Is it just because Irish medical schools are better or is there another reason such as England not being as internationally friendly as Ireland?

And what are the average costs per year of medical school? I want to compare costs to, say, Australian medical schools.

Thanks a lot for your help!

 

[elainep]

Hi Elainep!

I'm a US applicant from Taiwan (I know it's weird. I grew up in the states, but our family moved to Taiwan during high school so I completed college there, too). I took the MCATs by mistake because I thought I'd be applying to an American medical school, but instead found out that I can't apply to a US medical school because I need to complete a degree there or take a post-bacc program. They require that I take at least 2~3 years of undergraduate studies there and because I want to start medical school right away rather than delay, I'm applying elsewhere to either Ireland or Australia.

I was going to try for Ireland, but I heard it's really competitive because Ireland has high mate rates for US students studying there. I'm actually afraid of applying because of my GPA (don't know how to calculate it) may not be competitive enough. If you know anything about international applications, I was wondering if you could give me some directional guide?

My stats are MCAT 30Q and weighted percentage: 79.1% (although our school writes on the report card that an 80% is an A, most schools don't use that). I believe my GPA was converted to a 3.3~3.4/4.0 when asked by one of the admissions staff, which seems to be fairly uncompetitive as told by some people.

So if you would help, what schools would you recommend for me with my stats?

And also, a question I've been meaning to ask - why do most internationals apply for medical school in Ireland instead of, say, England? Is it just because Irish medical schools are better or is there another reason such as England not being as internationally friendly as Ireland?

And what are the average costs per year of medical school? I want to compare costs to, say, Australian medical schools.

Thanks a lot for your help!

Hi there!
I'm afraid, as an Irish/EU student, we don't have MCATs or GPAs and I would be totally unfamiliar with those terms so I can't be of any help with your stats. Perhaps the admissions offices of the colleges could help you out there?
We have to sit an exam not unlike the MCAT called the GAMSAT and basically get in the top 15-20% for a place, plus have a bachelor's degree of 2:1 (about 62%+ overall grade) as a prerequisite to apply.
I don't know anything about English schools either, I'm afraid. I guess these questions are more suitable for someone who has gone the international route such as yourself.
What I can tell you is that Trinity is the most internationally recognised uni (from what I have heard - but I have also heard their medical school is not the best - you would have to talk to a Trinity student to confirm). UCD 's med school has an excellent reputation and amazing facilities in the new Health Sciences Building. I am personally hoping to go to RCSI for the 4 year Graduate Entry Programme but they accept applications for 5- and 6-year programmes too for international students. RCSI used to have a reputation as a school where international students could pretty much 'buy' their way in but that has changed and I know it is competitive enough for international students to get into the Graduate programme, which sounds like a fantastic course and which present students rave about. UCC and NUIG have good reputations here in Ireland and UL's medical school is only new and the programme they follow is seen as a bit revolutionary so its status isn't really known yet as the students have not yet graduated.

I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help but if you do end up heading over here I would be happy to help with more localised info Good luck!

 

[Doc22B]

Hi
I was wondering if you could tell me about the cities themselves (quality, cleanliness etc). I know of Dublin since I have family there, but Cork, Galway, Limerick (esp Limerick since I do have an offer of acceptance there).
It would be great to have someone elses perspective on those 3 cities (I have done some research on them). Thanks so much.
Cheers.

 

[elainep]

Hi there!
Interesting Q re: cleanliness - check this list out - seems Limerick and Cork on a dirty par! http://www.towns-ireland.com/cleanest-and-dirtiest-towns-ireland/
In terms of social life, Galway and Cork are fab with lots of pubs and shops and both having festivals etc on quite frequently. Galway is a beautiful city to be in on a nice summer's day but it is smaller than Cork. Both Cork and Galway are great college towns in my opinion.
Have never been to Limerick so can't comment - it has a reputation for being dangerous but that as far as I know is limited to its outlying suburban estates some of which have a violent reputation - I think this is something the media have latched onto rather than a reliable indicator of the city's safety. My cousin spent 4 years in Limerick at UL and has nothing but praise for the college and its campus which is apparently very well laid out.
All cities have a train and bus service to Dublin if you want a weekend up there with friends or anything. Cork would be the biggest city of the three after Dublin.
I have Cork and then Limerick on my applications list, purely because I have been to Cork and always liked it as a city; also, because Cork has a different teaching method e.g. using cadavers for anatomy/dissection labs and Limerick use models (not saying this is a bad idea but would just prefer a bit more of a traditional approach).
That is something to bear in mind too: Cork's 4 year programme would have more lecture-based teaching than Limerick's self-directed, PBL approach. While you have to live in the cities for 4 years, you have to learn their way too so it's worth keeping all those factors in mind.

 

[Doc22B]

Thanks soo much elaine!
That link is hilarious and deterring at the same time. "Littering Blackspot" is not a great title for a city to have eh lol.
But I have heard the same from some UL students that the campus is nice. That reputation as 'dangerous' is a little discerning as well.
I find out today my fate with Cork or UCD so *fingers crossed*.
And yes that non-cadaver component of Limerick is unorthodox but students have said that their anatomy is up-to-par...(but to be honest I would prefer a cadaver).
The PBL curriculum is definetly not for everyone; highly self-directed learning. You are also right, students applying to these schools (especially Canadians like moi) should do their research on the curriculum...they may end up hating it.
I could debate for hours on the pros and cons of the PBL vs Didactic approach to teaching med, but I can honestly say I am comfortable with both.
Thanks again! Excited to begin my next chapter in life in IRELAND!

 

[krazyfish]

Hi Elainep!

I'm a US applicant from Taiwan (I know it's weird. I grew up in the states, but our family moved to Taiwan during high school so I completed college there, too). I took the MCATs by mistake because I thought I'd be applying to an American medical school, but instead found out that I can't apply to a US medical school because I need to complete a degree there or take a post-bacc program. They require that I take at least 2~3 years of undergraduate studies there and because I want to start medical school right away rather than delay, I'm applying elsewhere to either Ireland or Australia.

I was going to try for Ireland, but I heard it's really competitive because Ireland has high mate rates for US students studying there. I'm actually afraid of applying because of my GPA (don't know how to calculate it) may not be competitive enough. If you know anything about international applications, I was wondering if you could give me some directional guide?

My stats are MCAT 30Q and weighted percentage: 79.1% (although our school writes on the report card that an 80% is an A, most schools don't use that). I believe my GPA was converted to a 3.3~3.4/4.0 when asked by one of the admissions staff, which seems to be fairly uncompetitive as told by some people.

So if you would help, what schools would you recommend for me with my stats?

And also, a question I've been meaning to ask - why do most internationals apply for medical school in Ireland instead of, say, England? Is it just because Irish medical schools are better or is there another reason such as England not being as internationally friendly as Ireland?

And what are the average costs per year of medical school? I want to compare costs to, say, Australian medical schools.

Thanks a lot for your help!

My situation is seems opposite of yours. I completed high school in Taiwan and came to the US for university.
Having applied through the English system and Irish schools last year, I think I can answer your questions.

As for your question regarding applications to Ireland or England, both are internationally friendly. First and foremost, applying to Ireland for North Americans and Canadians are simpler because of the Atlantic Bridge Program. The program handles all the application procedures and basically acts as a middle person between the applicants and the schools. Like previous posters have indicated, they have been doing this for a few years, and are aware of the kinds of criteria sought by the Irish medical schools. They also tell you exactly what documents you need.

Applications to England are done online via UCAS (http://www.ucas.co.uk). The biggest and first hurdle is that the medical schools in England are not very unified meaning that they have their own requirements. For each of the schools you are interested in, you have to send an un-official transcript(s). Each school then determines if your they accept your qualifications (degree, GPA) and will tell you if they require additional documentation. Its complicated because each school interprets non-EU degrees their own way. For example, University of Leicester medical school required a 3.6 GPA, but other schools would say 3.3, or 3.5 is sufficient. This really depends and it doesn't mean that just because they require a "higher GPA", their program is "better". You can apply to a maximum of 4 schools (for medicine and other clinical programs) out of the 30 something. But e-mailing the school (and they reply slow) and getting them to give you verbal consent that you can apply is the first step. You would also need to take the UKCAT.

It seems like people apply less to England because 1) it is really competitive and 2) you have to contact each school by yourself (more work, less guarantee). Some schools reserve certain number of admission slots for international applicants (ranges from 10-25 on average), but depending on the location of the school, they might get over 100-150 international applicants alone. Anyways, this is just a general outline. Ask me if you have more detailed questions!

 

[publichealthdr]

As a doc, I would say that the quality of students from the Irish GEP course is lower than from the traditional courses.

So would recommend going into a normal med course, rather than an accelerated course.

 

[jnuts]

As a doc, I would say that the quality of students from the Irish GEP course is lower than from the traditional courses.

So would recommend going into a normal med course, rather than an accelerated course.

Be careful what you read.

As of this year, the first Irish GEP class starts its Intern year/Residency. I'm not sure what this poster was referring to, but as of today no Irish GEP has started practicing.

At best this comparison is, at most, based on very limited exposure to one of the GEP programmes clinical postings. It is not supported by the academic scores of the GEP classes. In fact, the GEP students are out scoring the regular admits on both in-house and standardized exams in both OSCE and written exams.

There is a fair amount of competitiveness between 5-years and GEPs at the moment. I'm most tempted to I'd attribute this claim to that bias.

 

[publichealthdr]

Be careful what you read.

As of this year, the first Irish GEP class starts its Intern year/Residency. I'm not sure what this poster was referring to, but as of today no Irish GEP has started practicing.

At best this comparison is, at most, based on very limited exposure to one of the GEP programmes clinical postings. It is not supported by the academic scores of the GEP classes. In fact, the GEP students are out scoring the regular admits on both in-house and standardized exams in both OSCE and written exams.

There is a fair amount of competitiveness between 5-years and GEPs at the moment. I'm most tempted to I'd attribute this claim to that bias.

That's why I said quality of students, rather than docs.

A lot of us are quite worried about supervising the new GEP docs when they come on stream, if their abilities as students is anything to go by.

You can attribute that to whatever you like, but I only care about how good students are.

 

[HQvhs]

That's why I said quality of students, rather than docs.

A lot of us are quite worried about supervising the new GEP docs when they come on stream, if their abilities as students is anything to go by.

You can attribute that to whatever you like, but I only care about how good students are.

I would be curious as to why you say this? What is different about GEP students? How do their abilities differ to those from 5 year courses?
Except for UL, GEP students share rotations with 5 year programme students, so they're getting pretty much the same clinical exposure AFAIK; and they sit the same exams. However, I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

 

[jnuts]

That's why I said quality of students, rather than docs.

A lot of us are quite worried about supervising the new GEP docs when they come on stream, if their abilities as students is anything to go by.

All OSCE, standardized test, and Irish exam results to the contrary?

You wouldn't consider that your impression might be due to a selection bias?

 

[publichealthdr]

I would be curious as to why you say this? What is different about GEP students? How do their abilities differ to those from 5 year courses?
Except for UL, GEP students share rotations with 5 year programme students, so they're getting pretty much the same clinical exposure AFAIK; and they sit the same exams. However, I could be wrong, but that's my understanding.

All OSCE, standardized test, and Irish exam results to the contrary?

You wouldn't consider that your impression might be due to a selection bias?

I don't know what selection bias means in this context. But what we're seeing is not that surprising:

The school-leavers are the creme de la creme, intelligence-wise. They have an intellectual sharpness you would expect from people in the top 3% in the country.

The GEP students have done a degree, and got a 2:1 (which more than 50% of college students get in Ireland/UK).

They study for a few months for GAMSAT, where 1 in 3 get offered a place, by scoring only a bit above the average.

So, one cohort are in the top 3% academically in the contrary, and the other cohort are a bit above average. And that's what we're seeing.

The dogs on the street know that the unis have a vested interest in making this GEP programme work, as they introduced it against the wishes of many practicing docs. One uni even admitted to us that they have failed no GEP students!!!!!

There have been no indications given to us about exam scores, but it wouldn't surprise me if the GEP student average was better than the kids. Many of them have backgrounds in the physical/biological sciences, which puts them at a distinct advantage. Plus the OSCEs are about exam technique, and bear no relevance to the realities of medicine. They suit older students much better.

Thats not to say all traditional students are better than all school leavers. But most of us see the trend, and it's a reasonably regular topic of conversation.

Many docs would have preferred to expand places for the bright school leavers who barely miss out on paces at med school, rather than bringing in a cohort of people who haven't had to demonstrate academic excellence.

 

[jakkass]

Publichealthdr, your point is confusing to me. You say that you only care how good students are; you agree that grad med students are outperforming the regular intake in assessments but you're still worried about supervising them because of their 'ability as students'?! All this, and none of them have actually interned yet!

 

[publichealthdr]

Publichealthdr, your point is confusing to me. You say that you only care how good students are; you agree that grad med students are outperforming the regular intake in assessments but you're still worried about supervising them because of their 'ability as students'?! All this, and none of them have actually interned yet!

Lets get away from the fact that none of them have graduated yet. as they're in the advanced stages of their training now, and are about to qualify. I never said or implied anything else.

I said that the older students are good at exams. I am not aware of any data in Ireland suggesting the GEP students outperform the undergrads. But the point I'm making is that, even if this were the case, this is not what we're seeing on the wards. On the wards, we're seeing the traditional students who are going to make very good doctors. While I stay back after nightshift to teach the GEP students because they will get slaughtered on the wards when the graduate..

Anyone who's actually working with the students knows the difference between a student who's good at exams, and who's good at the job. Like I said, one of the med schools told us they haven't failed ANY of their grad students in anything. That's worrying for anyone who's been involved in medical education in any way.

I hold no preconceptions. Neither do the large number of docs who share my concerns. But condensing a course into 4 years, and teaching to to a group who are less intelligent (on average) than those doing the 5 or 6 year courses, is just asking for trouble.

 

[asd979]

And what of those international students who obtained a degree here in North America and are now pursuing medicine in Ireland? I don't know if I believe this idea that suddenly because there is a graduate degree program where the course is 4 years long that these students are not capable of handling it, while those in the longer programs can. All North American medical programs here are 4 years in length and there doesn't seem to be problems with that. There will always be a few who can't hack it, it's the nature of school.

 

[publichealthdr]

And what of those international students who obtained a degree here in North America and are now pursuing medicine in Ireland? I don't know if I believe this idea that suddenly because there is a graduate degree program where the course is 4 years long that these students are not capable of handling it, while those in the longer programs can. All North American medical programs here are 4 years in length and there doesn't seem to be problems with that. There will always be a few who can't hack it, it's the nature of school.

The problem with the Irish students is that the REALLY smart ones got in when they did their school leaving exams.

In North America the really smart ones did a degree first, and did really well in it and then went into med school. So, you end up getting them applying for "grad med" entry, which is normal in the states.

In Ireland we're seeing a lot of people who didn't do so well at school, and got average 2:1 degrees, and are now being asked to smash through a degree in a shorter time period than the kids who are, arguably, more intelligent than them.

 

[HQvhs]

The problem with the Irish students is that the REALLY smart ones got in when they did their school leaving exams.

In North America the really smart ones did a degree first, and did really well in it and then went into med school. So, you end up getting them applying for "grad med" entry, which is normal in the states.

In Ireland we're seeing a lot of people who didn't do so well at school, and got average 2:1 degrees, and are now being asked to smash through a degree in a shorter time period than the kids who are, arguably, more intelligent than them.

As a leaving cert student who got into medicine, I can assure you that people who got the highest points are not necessarily the smartest kids. Some are, yes. But a lot just happened to be good at the LC, went to a good school, a grind school, or just tore away at the books for two years. In addition, a lot of people don't know what they want to do when they leave school, and a lot of the people with high points don't go into medicine.

However, the new HPAT has changed that, and I have definitely noticed more of a correlation between someone's HPAT result than their LC results. Now, this may well be subjective, and one med school in one year is not exactly scientific. It's just an observation that I've made.

 

[jakkass]

Lets get away from the fact that none of them have graduated yet. as they're in the advanced stages of their training now, and are about to qualify. I never said or implied anything else.

I think that they haven't been on the wards yet is not something we should get away from. You have no idea how good they are, which is a pretty important point since you're quite willing to write them off 'on average'.

But the point I'm making is that, even if this were the case, this is not what we're seeing on the wards.

What wards?! Do you even work in Ireland?? Let's wait for these guys to actually be rubbish before you go saying how terrible they are and how much extra work you would hypothetically do teaching them. Jeez Louise.

 

[DocOz]

I'm going to hope that the shortsighted ignorance of publichealthdr is aimed at his experiences with Irish GEP students, as I am unfamiliar with that system.

Speaking for Canada, the supply of medical school applicants has increased sharply over the past 10 years. As an example, in 2002, the number of applicants at uOttawa was about 2100. This year, there were 3600 applicants. I believe this was actually down about 200 spots because they removed the inclusion of one's graduate GPA (and thus those who were banking on this gpa boost didn't apply).

The number of total spots only just increased this year from about 140ish to 160ish. This trend can be generalized over all of Canada. The number of students who are perfectly qualified to get into medicine is astronomical. The margin of error for being accepted, to waitlisted, to straight rejected, is also incredibly tight (ex. at Dalhousie this year, the spread between accepted to rejected was about 1-2 points out of 100. Personally, I think the metrics need work, but that's a separate issue.

To say that those entering GEP classes are average students is pretty ignorant. Only the top 10% of any med class on the planet contains the 'cream of the crop', the other 90% are on par with an equal number who got rejected. This is largely a result of the dice roll med admissions have become in Canada because there are so many qualified applicants.

I would guess you're going to see a lot more 'above average' to 'excellent' students coming your way from North America to Ireland, the Caribbean, and Australia.

 

[DocOz]

The problem with the Irish students is that the REALLY smart ones got in when they did their school leaving exams.

In North America the really smart ones did a degree first, and did really well in it and then went into med school. So, you end up getting them applying for "grad med" entry, which is normal in the states.

In Ireland we're seeing a lot of people who didn't do so well at school, and got average 2:1 degrees, and are now being asked to smash through a degree in a shorter time period than the kids who are, arguably, more intelligent than them.

I somewhat apologize, I didn't see that you separated your experience between Ireland and NA.

 

[publichealthdr]

I think that they haven't been on the wards yet is not something we should get away from. You have no idea how good they are, which is a pretty important point since you're quite willing to write them off 'on average'.



What wards?! Do you even work in Ireland?? Let's wait for these guys to actually be rubbish before you go saying how terrible they are and how much extra work you would hypothetically do teaching them. Jeez Louise.

We have GEP students on the wards in Ireland. Lots of them.

 

[jnuts]

We have GEP students on the wards in Ireland. Lots of them.

Yeah but they're not working yet; and as I keep saying, are doing better as students by any objective measure.

GEPs are asking for extra tutorials because we're interested not because we need them more. We take our studies much more seriously than your average 5-year, many of whom are in the proccess of realizing that their decision as a 17y/o to get into medicine wasn't the right one.

Anyone who has been out of secondary school long enough will tell you there are two ways to get a top grade. The first is to be brilliant. The second is to sublimate a serious psychological instability into a pathological compulsion to get the greatest 'reward' (be that grades or medical addmission). These types of people also avoid intellectually challenging subjects as they are actually looking for the easiest validation possible. Sorry about the psych-babble but it is pretty universally held that secondary school success is on of the poorest indicators of future professional success at the top end.

This problem is manfest in an extreme capacity in Ireland where medical school admissions are only based on a standardized test score. In Ireland over the last decade, getting into medicine from the leaving cert became more competitive. More admissions were made on very marginal points differences. These marginal decisions really favour the second type of success (least challenging path for highest possible rewards), which does not create great doctors in the long run.

We also never talk about why GEPs do better on OSCEs. It may not just be an age difference as you'd like to assume. It may be that living outside of medicine for a while improves your patient interactions; which I think makes you a better doctor.

 

[publichealthdr]

Yeah but they're not working yet; and as I keep saying, are doing better as students by any objective measure.

GEPs are asking for extra tutorials because we're interested not because we need them more. We take our studies much more seriously than your average 5-year, many of whom are in the proccess of realizing that their decision as a 17y/o to get into medicine wasn't the right one.

Anyone who has been out of secondary school long enough will tell you there are two ways to get a top grade. The first is to be brilliant. The second is to sublimate a serious psychological instability into a pathological compulsion to get the greatest 'reward' (be that grades or medical addmission). These types of people also avoid intellectually challenging subjects as they are actually looking for the easiest validation possible. Sorry about the psych-babble but it is pretty universally held that secondary school success is on of the poorest indicators of future professional success at the top end.

This problem is manfest in an extreme capacity in Ireland where medical school admissions are only based on a standardized test score. In Ireland over the last decade, getting into medicine from the leaving cert became more competitive. More admissions were made on very marginal points differences. These marginal decisions really favour the second type of success (least challenging path for highest possible rewards), which does not create great doctors in the long run.

We also never talk about why GEPs do better on OSCEs. It may not just be an age difference as you'd like to assume. It may be that living outside of medicine for a while improves your patient interactions; which I think makes you a better doctor.

I'll respond to your post in detail when I have time later (especially the great "better at patient interaction" myth). But just for my own reading, can you point me in the direction of the paper that says the Irish GEP students do better on their exams. We're being given very different reports from our people who also work at the universities. So, I'd like to see that paper, for my own interest, as medical education is something I'm heavily involved in at a clinical level (rather than pre-clinical). Many thanks. Sorry for the short reply.

 

[jnuts]

I'll respond to your post in detail when I have time later (especially the great "better at patient interaction" myth). But just for my own reading, can you point me in the direction of the paper that says the Irish GEP students do better on their exams. We're being given very different reports from our people who also work at the universities. So, I'd like to see that paper, for my own interest, as medical education is something I'm heavily involved in at a clinical level (rather than pre-clinical). Many thanks. Sorry for the short reply.

No worries about the brevity. Its something I can only aspire to

If we're going to debate the 'O' and 'S' in OSCE (objective and standardized) I'll have to read up on it, but I know that most of the developed world is using them for medical school exams, membership exams, and speciality exams, and not one country or organization curves the results for examinee's age.

In terms of the results I've mentioned, there is no a paper, but I do have direct knowledge of the pattern at my university. Though the grades are ‘confidential' they are posted by student number. At RCSI, GEP student numbers fall into a different range than the 5 years. You can work out the averages on the exams and OSCEs we all sit (and we all sit the exact same exams in the final two years) from that information. I'm also adding things that are well communicated between people, like North American board results and the comparative match results of the first graduating class this year. Though I can't offer you peer review, I hope you'll look at my long honest posting history about both the positives and negatives of my education in Ireland and confirm for yourself that I'm not falsifying this observation. Regardless, the onus isn't really on me proving that GEPs do better, as all I need to do is refute your unsubstantiated claim that the GEP programmes are producing inferior graduates.

Can I ask where you're getting your reports about grading differences that imply the opposite trends to my claims? You mentioned earlier that there are programmes where not a single GEP has failed; implying that you are aware that we are out-performing our counterparts. At the time, I assumed that you are trying to evoke the theory that there is some conspiracy about GEP grading. This is a very popular conspiracy theory, but if you told it to a Psychiatrist he'd probably think you had persecutory delusions. There would have to be so many people unanimously involved, including all the examiners--some of whom hate GEP students, and the Irish Medical Council auditors --who if anything are biased against the GEP programmes (remember they refused to accredit the first programme at UCD). This last group is especially worth mentioning as the IMC visits each GEP programme anually and directly reviews not only our ciriculum, but also samples of our lowest, middle and higest scoring exams. All it would take if there were some grand conspiracy is a single member of this panel to blow the whistle. Conspiracy theories aside, now claiming that you are unaware of the overall performance trend you brought up yourself when you thought it served your point, and asking that I produce published evidence, sounds a little disingenuous.

I may have overstepped by saying that all GEPs do better as RCSI is the only program I'm familiar with. However, RCSI is the only programme that has existed long enough for any comparison of clinical skills to be possible (there is a possible exception in Limerick, which has no traditional admits to facilitate direct comparisons). RCSI has the oldest prgramme and their first GEP class graduated this year, Limericks' first class is in 3rd year, and the other GEP programmes are all still 'pre-clinical'. This may actually include Limerick which, if I remember correctly, only has one final clinical year.

The only theories I can posit, other than animosity, to justify your strong defence of a trend not many have observed are as follows. One is that you're either using limited RCSI experiences which I know for a fact don't generally fit the trends you've mentioned. Two: You may be using exposure to Limerick students--who I'll concede I know nothing about--but if they are under-performing it may well be due to deficits in the education at Limerick. Three: you might be referring to early exposure to other GEP pre-clinical students, which may explain why you thought their skills were sub-standard, given that the intensive pre-clinical attachments to hospitals are a novel part of the curriculum generally confined to GEP programmes in Ireland. I have noticed that not every supervising doctor is aware that GEP students on intesive pre-clinical attachments are, at the most, in their second year, are therefore pre-clinical and understandably would have fewer of the skills expected of the clinical medical students normally circulating through hospital.

I would really like to know what GEP programmes you've had exposure to that cause you such concern that you're advising strangers to not participate in them. That information would be quite useful to the general readership of these forums--student doctors and medical school applicants. The rest of the debate we've been having really isn't.

I know that I've been egging it on to a certain extent, but remember that all of this started when you suggested that an applicant preferentially enrol in a 5-year programme over a GEP programme. The only real point you've made to support this (other than anecdotal, and only semi-plausible, concerns of clinical instructors) is that the inherent qualities of GEPs are somehow inferior because they may have not scored as well on their leaving certs. Even if this is a real difference, it isn't exactly something the hapless applicant can help, nor is it something that wasting time in a five year programme is going to ameliorate. That applicant should still pick the GEP programme.

 

[Arb]

For what it's worth, I recently met some RCSI students and they freely admit that the GEP students out-perform the traditional students consistently and that consultants and tutors love them.

IMO it's easy to see why this is the case. The whole mentality of the Irish system is wrong. The older students sees it as "training" while the traditional students sees it as "schooling". They don't realize that in a few months, they will have the Dr. in front of the name and that carries a certain expected competence. Instead, you get students who focus on whatever will help them get the A/first class honours and not what being a doctor entails. That's why you see interns and SHOs around who can't even do basic skills that medical students are suppose to be able to do like inserting a central line. There are interns and SHOs out there who can't even do a continuous subcut suture and I am willing to bet a large proportion of my class will never have sutured or inserted an urinary catheter by the time they graduate.

Also, don't get me started on the mythical leaving cert. Once you find out what it really is about, it is not that impressive and it certainly has no correlation with intelligence as a previous poster has mentioned. Hell, half your class in Ireland will have known each other after going through the Institute. I'm also willing to bet a lot of these 590 600 point getters wouldn't score above 30 on the MCAT.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of bright, young, students around. Some of the most talented people I've ever met are in my class. But, there are quite a few who you will make it through when they would most likely be weeded out in a North American system. Some of these people will get first class honours....these are the ones who will ace their surgical paper but has never scrubbed in or helped close an operation. Also, these are the ones who can write a brilliant paper on weird and wonderful arrhythmias but don't know how to turn on the defibrillator (true story). It makes you wonder...

Addition: I would lean towards a 5 year program for North Americans, not for the curriculum, but for the unique experiences and advantages that being in Ireland affords you and which will make you stand out when you apply back home.

 

[Jocks]

Instead, you get students who focus on whatever will help them get the A/first class honours and not what being a doctor entails.

This is true, most students focus on what's going to be examined, and if you mention learning something relevant that won't be examined...you just get a blank look. As for the OSCE, it's just a theatre act...whoever puts on the best show gets the best marks, regardless of how things are done in the real world.

Hell, half your class in Ireland will have known each other after going through the Institute.

HAHAHAHAHA...so true...

But, there are quite a few who you will make it through when they would most likely be weeded out in a North American system.

A bit of an exaggeration, there are few students here who couldn't hack it back home...the NA med system protects its own as soon as you get in...but the focus of education is different. As Arb noted earlier, our time on the wards is seen as "schooling" rather than "on the job training".

However, they don't need to choose a specialty before they graduate...they can spend a few years (intern/sho) "training" and figuring out what field they want to go in to.

I also second Arb's suggestion about 5 year programs...in my time here I've travelled all over europe. In my pre-clinical years I took many 5-day weekends to go visit sunnier climes. I wouldn't ever trade it for one less year here.

Jocks

 

[jnuts]

Addition: I would lean towards a 5 year program for North Americans, not for the curriculum, but for the unique experiences and advantages that being in Ireland affords you and which will make you stand out when you apply back home.

Now that's a sound point. If I had the time and the money, I'd have taken a longer course to reduce my stress level and take a bit more time to explore Ireland and Europe.

On the other hand, being in a class where you're a lot older than the average has its downsides. And I think that the extra year is a lot easier to sell to yourself than to Residency committees back home.

 

[jakkass]

Regardless, the onus isn't really on me proving that GEPs do better, as all I need to do is refute your unsubstantiated claim that the GEP programmes are producing inferior graduates.

The only theories I can posit, other than animosity, to justify your strong defence of a trend not many have observed are as follows. One is that you're either using limited RCSI experiences which I know for a fact don't generally fit the trends you've mentioned. Two: You may be using exposure to Limerick students--who I'll concede I know nothing about--but if they are under-performing it may well be due to deficits in the education at Limerick. Three: you might be referring to early exposure to other GEP pre-clinical students, which may explain why you thought their skills were sub-standard, given that the intensive pre-clinical attachments to hospitals are a novel part of the curriculum generally confined to GEP programmes in Ireland.

Jnuts, excellent post, says it all really.

Another possibility is that he is taking his experience from grad programs in other countries (not Ireland) and is projecting based on what he sees there. That's fine, but massively unfair to the current crop of Irish GEPs who work hard and have done nothing to warrant such blatant prejudice. Bad form from a public health doc!

 

[Doc22B]

This may actually include Limerick which, if I remember correctly, only has one final clinical year

Just wanted to correct jnuts. Limerick does indeed have 2 clinical years (3rd and 4th).
And I am about to enter UL for Med come September. Is there still a stigma attached to UL and its students, curriculum etc..? Is it substantiated by actual evidence?

Thanks for all the info by the way.

Cheers.

 

[jnuts]

Just wanted to correct jnuts. Limerick does indeed have 2 clinical years (3rd and 4th).
And I am about to enter UL for Med come September. Is there still a stigma attached to UL and its students, curriculum etc..? Is it substantiated by actual evidence?

Thanks for all the info by the way.

Cheers.

Sorry about that, I visited UL in first year but have had no contact since. At that time, the clinical years seemed really far away and I may have gotten confused, caught up in the rumour mill, or they've changed the programme. Everything I've mentioned in other posts about it being geared towards general practice also came from things people told me then. The only reason I post anything about UL at all is that there doesn't seem to be anyone from there participating in these forums.

In terms of hard evidence, it might be hard to come by. As I pointed out, their most senior class is just finishing up third med (fourth med in the traditional Irish reckoning). That class has no North Americans. One Canadian guy started the programme but I think he left during first year to chase a musical career. During training, most students have very limited contact with people from different colleges. I've met a couple people from NUIG for about a week, the odd Trinity or UCDer, but that's really it. They've all been very nice, but I've never say anything about comparative clinical skills from such a limited sample. Clinical trainers tend to be in one hospital or associated with one programme so they'd also have a tough time making comparisons.

As you know, UL is a new medical school and additionally the University isn't that old or large. It doesn't come across the radar of most people yet. I suppose there's an advantage there as the potential for 'stigma' is pretty limited without the long-standing rivalries found between the older schools (UCC, Trinity, RCSI, UCD).

The UL kids graduating next year will do fine in Ireland as the Internship application is blinded to everything other than class rank and applicant programme/regional preference. It'll be at least two years before we can talk about any issues of stigma or match results with certainty.

I've always maintained that going to Ireland is a gamble. Unfortunately, UL has a few more cards face down.

 

[publichealthdr]

I'll pop back in here as I'm being accused of being unfair etc etc.

I advised someone at the beginning to avoid the GAMSAT courses. I stand by that.

From my experience in Ireland and one other country that uses GAMSAT, the students are of lesser standard than those on the traditional course. The finished article is also MUCH worse (not speaking about Ireland in this case).

I appreciate that makes the GAMATers mad. But that's what I believe. I'm open minded enough to know that sometimes my opinion is a minority one, and in a situation like that I'd keep my mouth shut. But I have had several long conversations with clinicians about how poor the quality is coming through GAMSAT. Clinicians (not all, I'm sure) are planning to have to supervise the new interns much more than we previously have.

Am I surprised by this? No. Previously to get into med school in Ireland, you had to get 550 points+. And Ireland has always produced excellent doctors. Our reputation overseas is certainly as good as any other country's. We are, by and large, very highly regarded, and for good reason.

Now, to get in via GAMSAT, you can get a pretty average leaving cert and a pretty average degree (in that more than 50% of graduates get a 2:1). In the only published paper from the Irish GAMSAT, 1 in 3 applicants were offered a place. So, while you may well be exceptionally clever and get into medicine via GAMSAT, you can also be decidedly average and get in.

This will sort itself out in the labour market, as there will be junior doc unemployment in the coming year in Ireland, and very few will make it to consultant level. I think the GAMSATers are going to end up stuck in middle grade jobs for life, which is unfair on them. It' also unfair on them that it's expected that doctors do a PhD/MD in order to get a consultant job, and the GAMSATers will be old enough graduating, without having to deal with 3 years out of their training.

It's also simply not a good indicator of performance in a graduate population. In the latest paper published, looking at the 3 indicators of performance in med school, GAMSAT came last, after GPA and interview score.

We've also been told by one of the big GAMSAT unis (that I suspect several if you attend) that they haven't failed any of their GAMSAT students. This confirms what many of us think, that the exams have been made easier. Go to oxford, cambridge, harvard etc and people fail exams. I have never come across a cohort with a 0% fail rate. I have not heard one single medic in Dublin who believes tis is because the students are so clever.

So, I don't know what the advantage of GAMSAT is. The GAMSATers themselves tell us they work harder and they're better with patients etc, when there's no evidence of this whatsoever. Life experience isn't going off to study arts before doing GAMSAT. Sure the much older ones can cope with a crying patient better than the younger ones. But I'd rather an extra 10 years medical experience in a junior, than 10 years "life experience", because working on the wards will give you more life experience than almost anything else.

I think things will be OK. The new interns will be heavily supervised, which will keep them safe They won't be working the crazy hours of old, so they won't burn out a easily when stuck in staff grade jobs. But I would have preferred to open up more paces to those kids who just missed out on medicine in their leaving cert. They're some seriously bright cookies, but they might only have 530/540 points, but they can start straight away, and they'll have a great work ethic.

I know the GAMSATers are getting offended at what I'm saying, so I'll back away here. But I don't think it's legitimate to ignore the opinions of the docs on the ground. There's a problem here, and it needs to be fixed.

 

[jnuts]

I'll pop back in here as I'm being accused of being unfair etc etc.

I advised someone at the beginning to avoid the GAMSAT courses. I stand by that.

From my experience in Ireland and one other country that uses GAMSAT, the students are of lesser standard than those on the traditional course. The finished article is also MUCH worse (not speaking about Ireland in this case).

I appreciate that makes the GAMATers mad. But that's what I believe. I'm open minded enough to know that sometimes my opinion is a minority one, and in a situation like that I'd keep my mouth shut. But I have had several long conversations with clinicians about how poor the quality is coming through GAMSAT. Clinicians (not all, I'm sure) are planning to have to supervise the new interns much more than we previously have.

Am I surprised by this? No. Previously to get into med school in Ireland, you had to get 550 points+. And Ireland has always produced excellent doctors. Our reputation overseas is certainly as good as any other country's. We are, by and large, very highly regarded, and for good reason.

Now, to get in via GAMSAT, you can get a pretty average leaving cert and a pretty average degree (in that more than 50% of graduates get a 2:1). In the only published paper from the Irish GAMSAT, 1 in 3 applicants were offered a place. So, while you may well be exceptionally clever and get into medicine via GAMSAT, you can also be decidedly average and get in.

This will sort itself out in the labour market, as there will be junior doc unemployment in the coming year in Ireland, and very few will make it to consultant level. I think the GAMSATers are going to end up stuck in middle grade jobs for life, which is unfair on them. It' also unfair on them that it's expected that doctors do a PhD/MD in order to get a consultant job, and the GAMSATers will be old enough graduating, without having to deal with 3 years out of their training.

It's also simply not a good indicator of performance in a graduate population. In the latest paper published, looking at the 3 indicators of performance in med school, GAMSAT came last, after GPA and interview score.

We've also been told by one of the big GAMSAT unis (that I suspect several if you attend) that they haven't failed any of their GAMSAT students. This confirms what many of us think, that the exams have been made easier. Go to oxford, cambridge, harvard etc and people fail exams. I have never come across a cohort with a 0% fail rate. I have not heard one single medic in Dublin who believes tis is because the students are so clever.

So, I don't know what the advantage of GAMSAT is. The GAMSATers themselves tell us they work harder and they're better with patients etc, when there's no evidence of this whatsoever. Life experience isn't going off to study arts before doing GAMSAT. Sure the much older ones can cope with a crying patient better than the younger ones. But I'd rather an extra 10 years medical experience in a junior, than 10 years "life experience", because working on the wards will give you more life experience than almost anything else.

I think things will be OK. The new interns will be heavily supervised, which will keep them safe They won't be working the crazy hours of old, so they won't burn out a easily when stuck in staff grade jobs. But I would have preferred to open up more paces to those kids who just missed out on medicine in their leaving cert. They're some seriously bright cookies, but they might only have 530/540 points, but they can start straight away, and they'll have a great work ethic.

I know the GAMSATers are getting offended at what I'm saying, so I'll back away here. But I don't think it's legitimate to ignore the opinions of the docs on the ground. There's a problem here, and it needs to be fixed.

And I'm reasonably sure as soon as the post-graduate docs are on the ground and you have first hand exposure that problem will be fixed. The opinion of the docs on the ground will change.

I disagree that more post-secondary places would have better option. Almost every country in the world is moving to increase post-graduate medical training. Post-secondary used to be the norm in North America and then became the minority and finally vansihed. The value of cross-disciplinary training in Sciences and Humanities to the medical population is obvious and well validated in research.

What's evidence base behind the predictive value of the leaving cert? As far as I know, those points don't correlate well with other secondary school standardized tests that have been validated in a much larger population (the IB, A levels, and the SAT).

In know very little about the GAMSAT (but I'd like to see the study you reference). By contrast the North American MCAT has the highest predictive value of any factor.

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/admissionsadvisors/research/bibliography/start.htm

Maybe there's something wrong with the GAMSAT as a test as opposed to the graduates. The GAMSAT pool can also be compared directly to the MCAT pool as the current crop of graduate students in my college mixes these two groups. We're all acheiving the same spread of exam results.

In terms of the exams being easier than previously, graduate students and traditionals write the same exams. Graduate students just fail them less frequently (and we do fail on occassion, its just much rarer). Graduate students also get first class honours more frequently. Its pretty hard to get around that piece of direct evidence of ability with the medical cirriculum with secondary information like past performance on the GAMSAT or GPA.

Finally, hospital and ward work destroy communitication skills and professional empathy. Any of the relevant research on communications skills in the past four years has shown that. Its been in the BMJ at least twice this year already. Its certainly far from the right type of life experience.

 

[publichealthdr]

And I'm reasonably sure as soon as the post-graduate docs are on the ground and you have first hand exposure that problem will be fixed. The opinion of the docs on the ground will change.

I disagree that more post-secondary places would have better option. Almost every country in the world is moving to increase post-graduate medical training. Post-secondary used to be the norm in North America and then became the minority and finally vansihed. The value of cross-disciplinary training in Sciences and Humanities to the medical population is obvious and well validated in research.

What's evidence base behind the predictive value of the leaving cert? As far as I know, those points don't correlate well with other secondary school standardized tests that have been validated in a much larger population (the IB, A levels, and the SAT).

In know very little about the GAMSAT (but I'd like to see the study you reference). By contrast the North American MCAT has the highest predictive value of any factor.

http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/admissionsadvisors/research/bibliography/start.htm

Maybe there's something wrong with the GAMSAT as a test as opposed to the graduates. The GAMSAT pool can also be compared directly to the MCAT pool as the current crop of graduate students in my college mixes these two groups. We're all acheiving the same spread of exam results.

In terms of the exams being easier than previously, graduate students and traditionals write the same exams. Graduate students just fail them less frequently (and we do fail on occassion, its just much rarer). Graduate students also get first class honours more frequently. Its pretty hard to get around that piece of direct evidence of ability with the medical cirriculum with secondary information like past performance on the GAMSAT or GPA.

Finally, hospital and ward work destroy communitication skills and professional empathy. Any of the relevant research on communications skills in the past four years has shown that. Its been in the BMJ at least twice this year already. Its certainly far from the right type of life experience.

The opinion of the docs on the ground hasn't changed in the other GAMSAT country I worked in, and unless the current crop of Irish ones incredibly in the next few months, I doubt it will change in Ireland either.

The benefit of cross training is not "well validated in research". In all the med-ed conferences I've ever been at,and all the GAMSAT implementation meetings, the GAMSAT proponents have always admitted this is not an evidence based approach. They never say it, but it's a cost/resource issue. EVERYONE knows that. SURELY you're not going to deny that????

The link that you gave is a bibliography, as opposed to a link to any evidence. one of the studies listed compare MCAT with GAMSAT. The problem with the MCAT studies is that A) They're not big B) They don't compare MCAT with GAMSAT and C) The brightest kids still do MCAT, as you don't filter out the brightest in the states, like we do in Ireland, by sending them straight to undergrad medicine.

The closest studies to the Irish setup would be the Australian studies, where they're using GAMSAT longer than anyone else. One of them is here :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18341459

I hate using "conclusions" as it's bad practice for the med students not to read the papers fully, but I know people often don't have full access at home:

"CONCLUSION: The school's selection criteria only modestly predict academic performance. GPA is most strongly associated with performance, followed by interview score and GAMSAT score. The school has changed its selection process as a result."

The results from your uni haven't been released to us. But none of us would be surprised. The exams there are becoming more and more farcical. No relation to the real world at all. But until we can look at the results ourselves (which people are very keen to do) then I think we can accept that you have your biases, and the statistical analysis won't throw up something as simple as "GAMSATers are better". If the results are good, I'm sure they'll publish a paper in the next few years, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

In the meantime, give me a smart as hell undergrad in a busy shift, who can remember lots of info under a lot of pressure when tired. Give me someone committed enough to give up their teenage years to study to get medicine.

I'd rather not have the intern who has a 2:1 in psychology and has never shown any particular evidence of academic excellence or of an above average work ethic. They can continue to argue about "life experience", but aside from a passing reference to some random studies which may or may not have been in the BMJ, then no-one has ever shown any evidence of this. And the real life evidence is not compelling at all!

Anyway, I said I was done, and I should walk away now, before I offend any more students. I have nothing against the GAMSAT students, who are mostly quite pleasant. They just don't have the academic sharpness of their undergrad peers (by and large).

 

[iwantajob]

@publichhealthdr

It seems like you are making too many contradictions. First you're saying the quality of GEP students is lower, then you're saying GEP students do well on exams but only have problems with practical training, then you're saying they don't do well academically because they aren't the cream of the crop who didn't go get into medical school directly.

You're not making any sense whatsoever! If you want to argue that GEP students make less quality doctors that traditional students thats fine, but at least provide us with reasons what make sense. Here's the truth, the definition of a traditional route in North America is attending medical school with a Bachelor's Degree. Medical schools in North America (especially in specific Canadian provinces...you Canadians know what I'm talking about!) is extremely competitive therefore many have to resort to other options. Fact is, doctor shortage in Europe is not as bad as in Canada because you guys are producing a lot of doctors and you will not understand real competition unless you've lived here and applied here. Fifteen years ago it was easy to get accepted in Canada, now its just ridiculous. I know friends who had the top MCAT scores, school scores, LOTS of extracurriculars and they still couldn't get in because of the level of competition in the province they are applying in. Medical school admissions in North America is also very very random. It doesn't really make sense how some of the students get accepted whereas others get rejected (in private US medical schools, a lot of it has to do with how much money one has and will possibly donate back to the school once they graduation...I know this because my mom is friends with a woman whose husband is the dean of admissions). I think the European school admissions is a lot more reliable, less political, and less money driven when considering their students for admission.

The traditional students are still youngsters right out of highschool or North American students who want to get into school without writing the MCAT. If you look at the stats of many of the GEP applicants here, it seems to me that the ones who got accepted or were interviewed had prior research experience or even a Masters degree. Wouldn't you think they would have better practical training that the traditional students but you say they are worse?

 

[jakkass]

Publichealthdr, if you don't mind me asking, have you ever worked as a doctor in Ireland and if yes, when and for how long. Do you have *any* direct exposure to GEM students in Ireaalnd, as opposed to the 'other country' you have worked in?

Also, do you think it is fair to write off these students before they've even put a foot wrong? Can you not wait one year for the first graduates to make their mark before you judge them with your all-knowing wisdom? If you're right about the undergrad grads being so much better, time will tell very quickly. Whay are you so anxious to label these students as inferior when you have exactly zero evidence, other than your religous belief in predictive value of the leaving cert? Is that how public health works?

Also, how many people people fail (as opposed to drop out of) undergrad med in Ireland, even bearing in mind that half the classes are made up of foreign students who are barely literate in English?

 

[publichealthdr]

Publichealthdr, if you don't mind me asking, have you ever worked as a doctor in Ireland and if yes, when and for how long.


I work in Dublin and teach a lot of students on the wards, and have done for a number of years.Not willing to say where.

I was going to continue this debate, until you started writing things like:

before you judge them with your all-knowing wisdom?

.

Now it's just people getting angry and sarcastic. Take care.

 

[jakkass]

I work in Dublin and teach a lot of students on the wards, and have done for a number of years.Not willing to say where.

Are you also the poster known as Tallaght01 who posts on several other message boards, disparaging Irish GEM students with absolutely no evidence? And the Tallaght01 who has spent the last number of years in Australia (hence the exposure to GAMSAT) and before that in the UK and never did anything more than locum work in Ireland and has had no exposure to Irish GEM students? I think that you are, since no one else on the internet feels quite so passionately about GEM students and GAMSAT and you use the exact same arguments, phrazed in the exact same way.

I was going to continue this debate, until you started writing things like:

Now it's just people getting angry and sarcastic. Take care.

Sorry if I offended you. Still, being precious is a nice way to duck questions you don't really want to answer. If you change your mind, I would love to hear your answers to the questions I posed above, particularly whether you think it's fair to be prejudiced againts students you have had no contact with and know nothing about. Or any evidence to support your argument, really. Until then, you just come across as someone with a rather large chip on your shoulder.

Weird.

 

[publichealthdr]

Are you also the poster known as Tallaght01 who posts on several other message boards, disparaging Irish GEM students with absolutely no evidence? And the Tallaght01 who has spent the last number of years in Australia (hence the exposure to GAMSAT) and before that in the UK and never did anything more than locum work in Ireland and has had no exposure to Irish GEM students? I think that you are, since no one else on the internet feels quite so passionately about GEM students and GAMSAT and you use the exact same arguments, phrazed in the exact same way.



Sorry if I offended you. Still, being precious is a nice way to duck questions you don't really want to answer. If you change your mind, I would love to hear your answers to the questions I posed above, particularly whether you think it's fair to be prejudiced againts students you have had no contact with and know nothing about. Or any evidence to support your argument, really. Until then, you just come across as someone with a rather large chip on your shoulder.

Weird.

I'm not "tallaght01", and I've hardly ever even been in tallaght. Someone from tallaght probably wouldn't be as "precious" as me.

I haven't worked outside of Ireland in the last 4 (and a bit) years.

 

[Fiddler09]

Dear Eight Pound, Six Ounce, Newborn Baby Jesus:

(don't even know a word yet, just a little infant, so cuddly, but still omnipotent)

Please let me work under the tutelage of 'publichealthdr' when I become an intern.

Thanks,
Ricky.






[sorry - this thread is getting farcical - thought I'd shake it up a bit]

 

[thriplesss3]

HI
i am a medical student in turkey i just wanted to know can i do my speciality in ireland and what are the requirements!

 

[jnuts]

Please start a new thread if you'd like to start a new topic