<p>According to Wikipedia :</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For cobrat, from the same source</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve left in the footnotes in the original.</p>
<p>[British</a> undergraduate degree classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_undergraduate_degree_classification]British”>British undergraduate degree classification - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Probably the most famous triple starred first recipient at Cambridge was Abba Eban.</p>
<p>Heh . . . I have to defer to keepittoyourself for information on that, cobrat. Not going to hazard a guess . . . although if keepittoyourself deals with applications for post-graduate work in the UK, he/she probably doesn’t see many thirds, if any.</p>
<p>Thanks, jonri, very interesting. It should probably be mentioned that there are also (still, I think) “pass” degrees that do not carry honors, and a designation of “overstanding for honors” for students who take more than the standard time to complete the degree. (At least, these existed when I was there.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Abba Eban was not a ‘triple starred first’ recipient, but seemingly a ‘triple First’, as in first class in three separate subjects.</p>
<p>“He [Abba Eban] came up as a scholar to Queens’ in 1934, studied Oriental Languages and graduated in 1938 with the unusual distinction of a triple First in Hebrew, Arabic and Persian, having won a whole clutch of scholarships and prizes.”</p>
<p>Physician here. Things have changed so much since I applied and went (including the percentage of women!). Many/most premed students will either change their minds or not get into any medical school- that hasn’t changed, btw. No matter how good the credentials there is no guarantee a student will get accepted by any specific medical school, especially places like Harvard. I would not want to gamble that my British credentials trumped those of any US student for a place in one of the hard to get into schools. The US medical schools have enough applicants to not bother with trying to translate British credentials to our system.</p>
<p>The British and American college educational systems are different. As I understand it, in Britain your final grade will be dependent on your final work, not the accumulation of work and tests prior to the final. This means you don’t need to constantly produce results but it becomes an all or none phenomenon. Could be easy to slack off and enjoy the college/country experience too much then not be able to do well at the end. There may not be the feedback to know if you are learning the material as we are used to in the US. British students are used to taking that single exam at the end of a term that determines their fate. </p>
<p>There are ways of attending college in Britain for a semester abroad to get that experience. I remember a girl who was fascinated with studying in England while a HS student- she was accepted to Cambridge. I believe hearing that foreign students are desirable because they pay full costs. She went to an American college and likely will get into a medical school.</p>
<p>Medical school straight from HS is done in other countries, unlike the US. I believe our system with the emphasis on a more well rounded undergraduate education has benefits. My Indian H never got to take all sorts of courses in a variety of subjects I did as electives, nor did he study a nonmedical field in depth. I got both a major and medicine.</p>
<p>A British medical degree may be in English but there will be a lot to learn for the US system. The vocabulary is different- generic drug names included. Procedures will be different. The would be resident will not have the familiarity with the way things are done here. It is a transition from one’s medical school’s ways to a different system for residency even for US grads(personally I think it is a good idea to change from one’s medical school to the different system to learn more and compare/contrast which work best).</p>
<p>A post mentioned where the student eventually wants to work and live. If as a US physician definitely stay in the US with possibly a semester abroad. Another possibility would be to do a year at Cambridge then transfer to a US university. Either route could involve more than four years/eight semesters. As a US physician with an interest in a field where Britain has the world expertise in one’s specialty arrangements to study there can be made eventually.</p>
<p>Make the choice of spending a year in Britain as one for his own personal experiences possibly at further expense and time to acquire the US bachelor’s degree. Sort of a gap year before college in the US.</p>
<p>If this HS student eventually decides on the PhD route instead of the MD route he can do grad school or a fellowship in Britain.</p>
<p>Short answer- do the US Ivy, especially if the student is that sure of wanting medical school. If he has the luxury of spending a year or more abroad consider the differences in educational styles and then decide. There is a reason so many foreign medical students choose to do their undergrad education in the US.</p>
<p>PS- I thought the term FMG (foreign medical graduate) was out and the nicer sounding IMG (international…) term was now in. Euphemisms don’t change the facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would they do that, if foreign students are hardly accepted into US medical schools, and they can do direct undergraduate medicine in their own country?</p>
<p>Current UK undergraduate here - not at Cambridge, but at another very reputable university. </p>
<p>To clear up on the subject of degree classification, the only degree classifications that you ever actually hear about are
<p>Before anyone starts to wonder about the % marks, they do look low compared to US marks, but it’s designed that no one ever gets 100%, especially essay subjects. Essay-based subjects are effectively marked out of 77%-ish, though it is possible to go higher in the sciences as they’re less subjective. </p>
<p>Employers will typically ask for a 2:1 or above, so anything at a 2:1 is entirely respectable. It’s very rare for them to require a 1st. </p>
<p>GPA doesn’t exist, either at school or university level. It’s all based on end-of-semester exams and maybe one piece of coursework per module.</p>
<p>I do think it’s rather a shame that the US medical schools apparently cannot cope with the idea of someone getting a world class education outside of the US. Cambridge would be a wonderful opportunity for him, and it’s a shame that - from this thread - it seems it would hinder him when applying to medical school. </p>
<p>Perhaps he could consider doing an MSc in the UK after he graduates from college? They’re normally one calendar year long, and can either be taught or research based. There’s also the option of studying abroad, or even just getting a passport, a backpack and a visa and going travelling on a gap year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From the perspective of friends and colleagues who did their undergrads in Oxbridge or other elite British institutions who later taught in US institutions, they tended to feel American undergrads are “spoon fed” and “micromanaged” much more because of those very “accumulation of work and tests prior to the final”. </p>
<p>In contrast, the all dependent on final work, there’s the assumption the undergraduate him/herself is responsible to allocate his/her time throughout the term to ensure he/she’s prepared for the finals. A factor in why they’d feel the British undergrad experience is great for students who are independent, are proactive, and don’t need much/any handholding in academic self-management while it isn’t for those who don’t have those traits. </p>
<p>There’s also the factor that because of the greater specialization and depth, the British undergrad degree is sometimes regarded even by some experienced US Professors I’ve encountered as more equivalent to something between a US BA/BS and MA/MS degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Different educational approaches. </p>
<p>My understanding is that taking disparate subjects to “broaden one’s horizons” was supposed to take place earlier in one’s education…middle or high school so by the time one becomes an undergrad, one’s supposed to have had that part taken care of.</p>
<p>Re # 64:According to Wikipedia, Abba Eban was ALSO a triple starred
graduate of Cambridge. If you go to the link I gave before and move your cursor over the words, you’ll see a list of famous starred, double starred, and triple starred grads.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s not what anyone has suggested and it’s just another silly slam at the allegedly parochial Americans. The reality is that US medical schools have overwhelming numbers of well-qualified domestic applicants from excellent colleges and universities; far more, in fact, than they can accept. They don’t need to take the time to trawl through international applications and try to interpret those applications in light of what they are looking for. It’s a function of the numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IME, people at Cambridge do know what a starred first is. I know someone who got one and when I meet people who were at Cambridge at the same time, they know he got one because that fact was published in a campus newspaper. There’s no explanation in said newspaper–it just says he got a “starred first,” and I assume that if there is no need to define that term people who read the campus paper know what it means.</p>
<p>I’ll grant you that in British society at large these terms aren’t well known or understood, but in the academic world they are. People who went to Oxford know what a congratulatory first is and people who went to Cambridge know what a starred first is. They may not know when they are “freshers,” but when results come out they learn…at least they do if most of their friends are getting firsts. </p>
<p>BTW, medicine at Cambridge doesn’t use the first, second, third scheme and firsts in law are the hardest to get in other subjects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, NJSue, but you are demonstrating the attitude that you claim does not exist. It is (almost) manifestly ridiculous to suggest that the glut of applicants with good MCATs from fine US universities means that medical schools who want to attract the best, most interesting students should exclude graduates of some of the top universities in the world for science studies (with good MCATs, etc.).</p>
<p>There is a legitimate issue, I guess, but it relates to the uniquely American concept that doctors should be humanists as well. I think most medical schools require some evidence of writing courses, and I bet that does not exist at Oxbridge. Somehow, I doubt that inability to write coherently and effectively is a big problem with Oxbridge graduates, especially those with firsts, but maybe I am wrong.</p>
<p>In any event, American medical schools are fine with taking applications from people with foreign undergraduate degrees as long as they have some US or Canadian master’s degree. I understand the value of that requirement as applied to foreign university systems that are not really known quantities. It’s silly as applied to Oxbridge. (Now, ask me where I draw the line. Imperial College? St. Andrew’s? Leeds? How about Melbourne? Wallongong? Cape Town? It’s not as easy as I pretend. And at most of those universities, it may be questionable whether students who read sciences other than biology get enough biology to satisfy medical school entrance requirements.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that US graduates are better prepared in essence or that there is anything wrong with an Oxbridge education. I am saying that US medical schools have very specific checklist-type requirements for applicants, nitpicky or stupid as those requirements may be, so if one is coming out of a different system, one is at a disadvantage that has to be “made up” somehow. If the OP wants to go to a US medical school, it is more efficient to go to a US undergraduate institution. Why would one want to have to get a masters or do a baccalaureate year after going to Cambridge just to get into a US medical school? Just go to the Ivy and be done with it (unless time and money do not matter). The OP asked if there was a disadvantage to going to Cambridge re applying to US medical schools right out of college. Yes, there is. I agree with Wis75. Now if the student is not sure about medical school or wants the experience of going to Cambridge, then I would give different advice, but if acceptance to a US medical school is the overriding goal, then attendance at a US college probably is the best way to achieve it.</p>
<p>For the record, it’s a 2 way street. In the old days, Oxford used to insist that Americans who got Rhodes scholarships earn a second BA. In the very earliest days, many of the winners were better athletes than students, and they did as told. But as time went on, academic credentials became more important. So, here would come hot shot American Rhode Scholar winner and he’d be told he had to spend 2 years earning a BA. </p>
<p>I can’t remember his name, but there is a professor at Cambridge who was, IIRC, a Rhodes Scholar from Dartmouth. In an interview with CAM (Cambridge Alum Monthly), he talked about his early days in the UK. His field was British lit and the attitude of the powers at be was that he was lucky they were giving him any credit towards a BA, while he insisted that he wanted to work towards a (real) master’s. He fought and fought and fought. He had to get syllabi for every English course he took at Dartmouth, etc. IIRC, he was finally given the chance to take the tripos for the previous year. However, his impression was that the authorities had him do this to prove that nobody who had studied British literature in the “colonies” could POSSIBLY know much of anything. Of course, he knocked it out of the park…and was allowed to get a master’s degree instead. He went on to get a doctorate and is now a professor of literature at Cambridge. (Yes, I know, Rhodes Scholars study at Oxford, but he’s a prof at Cambridge.)</p>
<p>It’s a funny article…at least I remember it that way. </p>
<p>In any event, it’s not as though the Brits aren’t parochial as well.</p>
<p>Yes, of course. I, and everyone else, agree that such advice is accurate.</p>
<p>I, and some others, but not you, think that the accuracy of the advice is a fairly damning commentary on the intellectual standards of the American medical school system.</p>
<p>By the way, it’s not necessarily a time-and-money issue at all. A kid could probably get a Cambridge BA and some sort of American MA in four years at far less than the sticker price of four years at Stanford, if he or she was not eligible for lots of financial aid. But I am not certain that kid would really be on equal footing with run-of-the-mill US college graduates, much less Stanford. So a kid in the OP’s position has to go to Stanford, or someplace like it, at greater cost.</p>
<p>Which, as I said above, is no great tragedy for the kid. But it’s the wrong answer for American medicine and American medical schools. The choice between Cambridge and Stanford, much less Cambridge and, say, LSU, should not be so obvious and one-sided.</p>
<p>Well, American medical schools are not in the business of training intellectuals. Intellectuals do not necessarily make the best doctors. And I don’t think the caliber of American-trained doctors is notably poor by international standards. Do you?</p>
<p>The US system for identifying and training doctors is not designed to sweep up worldwide intellectual talent. It doesn’t have to be in order to, as they say in the UK, be “fit for purpose.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe not…but I think US MD/PhD programs ARE and that’s what this young man is aiming for.</p>
<p>Moreover, this young man is an AMERICAN–it’s not as if US med schools would be contributing to the “brain drain” if he were accepted. Seriously, why should we discourage someone from getting exposure to other ways of thinking?</p>
<p>I’m not discouraging anyone from anything. I’m just annoyed at the idea that the practical choices (all good and great) that the young man faces are interpreted as some sort of big indictment of the American medical education system. Systems don’t deal well with exceptions, anywhere.</p>
<p>Oh please, there are so many things wrong with the medical/health care industrial complex, let’s all pile on the tragedy of the 20 kids a year who apply to the top US med schools from OxBridge but who are denied because their transcripts don’t match up with the MCAS protocol.</p>
<p>This is really silly. Go fight the doctors who are admitting 90 year olds to hospitals and recommending hip replacement surgery, or putting feeding tubes into people who are clinically dead. That’s our national tragedy regarding health care, not the presence or absence of a couple of Oxbridge grads in our med schools.</p>
<p>I don’t notice overseas med schools fighting to get our kids enrolled (except for a few exceptions in Granada, et al). And frankly- that’s fine with me. Our taxes pay for the post grad training of interns and residents in American hospitals- if that means the arcane med school admissions process tends to favor graduates of American colleges, who plan to practice medicine here- hey, that’s what the system was designed for.</p>
<p>Do you see the taxpayers in France or Germany clamoring to train physicians who come from American universities (or high schools?)</p>
<p>And go tell all the overseas “visitors” you will meet in the waiting room of Sloan Kettering, Mayo, Anderson, Mass General, Yale New Haven, etc. about the inadequate admissions practices of US med schools. These folks who have flown thousands of miles for advanced medical care and protocols not available in their own countries will literally look at you as if you are a crazy person. They bring critically ill children to get treatment they couldn’t get in their own country… and you think they’d agree that our national tragedy is making it hard for an Oxbridge grad (not impossible, but inconvenient and hard) to get admitted???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not relevant at all, as the student in question in this thread is a US citizen who wants to attend medical school in his own country.</p>