February 15, 2006

MDAP Phase 2

This section is for any students wishing to post issues/information/useful pointers for students involved in MDAP phase 2. Prof Peile and myself will also add any updates we have in addition to emailing round to relevant individuals
Thanks


- 18 comments by 2 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. Hey guys.

    We have been searching the web for any useful information regarding Phase Two of the process, other universities situations etc and have found a few web forums that have up to the minute info from other students experiences around the country:

    link

    link

    For the above link, there are excellent comments by a user called 'guardian angel' who is a doctor from london.

    There is also something on NetDoctor.net apparently but dont have password to check it out!

    Hope this can be of some use, even a little bit!

    Paddy & Steph

    17 Feb 2006, 18:46

  2. Colin Macdougall

    Also, found by others:

    mdap2006farce link
    medical-student.co.uk link
    medschoolguide.co.uk link

    20 Feb 2006, 21:53

  3. The unallocated posts can be found on newdoctor website

    link

    23 Feb 2006, 16:03

  4. Colin Macdougall

    From CHMS (Council for Heads of Medical Schools)
    re: NORFOLK AND NORWICH applications in round 2:

    Unplaced students …. need to know that if they wish to apply to Norfolk and Norwich, they need to apply before 15 March – N and N will be interviewing applicants and a separate and additional application to them will be necessary.

    If this is an issue for you, please let me know ASAP if you are at all unclear as to what you need to do

    27 Feb 2006, 17:44

  5. Colin Macdougall

    Dates for phase 2
    CHMS (see comment 4) have also informed us that the dates when MDAP will be open again are:
    3 March and 12 April
    To the best of our knowledge, all relevant students are around – if you expect to have any difficulty with accessing MDAP because of your whereabouts at this time, please let the W Midlands Deanery and me know ASAP

    27 Feb 2006, 17:47

  6. Colin Macdougall

    Further info from Prof Field, W Mids Dean:

    The least competitive area in WM is Shropshire and Staffs – we know we have 50 vacancies there

    27 Feb 2006, 17:53

  7. Colin Macdougall

    In response to another query from our Dean, the reply from
    Terry McMurray, PG dean from N Ireland on 28th Feb included the following:

    Northern Ireland is not over subscribed and there will be 28 rotations available in the next round.

    01 Mar 2006, 10:40

  8. Colin Macdougall

    Further to our earlier email attached we have now been advised by CHMS that MDAP wish to close the second phase on the 4th of April in order that some decisions may be made by Easter.

    As before if you have any problems or concerns with these dates, please:

    1. Contact W Mids deanery
    2. Let me know

    We have also been advised that if you haven't already done so you may request your score from the West Midlands Deanery if you want it. The quickest way to do this is to write to Andrea Borlenghi, F1 Manager, at:
    West Midlands Deanery, 97 Vincent Drive, Edgbaston, B15 2XE. Please include your email address and let Andrea know you are happy to be contacted by email to speed up her response to you. Please also ensure you include your MDAP access PIN number so Andrea can verify you are who you are. If you have already written into the Deanery please drop Andrea an email andrea.borlenghi@wmdeanery.org to let her know so that she can track down the correspondence and respond.

    Thanks,
    Colin Macdougall

    01 Mar 2006, 10:49

  9. Colin Macdougall

    A message from Prof Peile

    Proffessor Carter and the other Medical School Deans are united in trying to apply pressure for a fair, transparent process, which assures all graduates of UK schools a place in a Foundation Scheme. Council of Heads of Medical Schools is very actively taking this forward with COPMED (the council of Postgraduate Deans) MDAP and the Department of Health. As yet there is no progress to report but plenty of activity on your behalf!
    best ed

    01 Mar 2006, 17:47

  10. Supposedly an article will be in tomorrow Times about the MDAP process. Sat 4 March.

    03 Mar 2006, 18:31

  11. Have a look at this link, London med school presidents met with COPMED adn MDAP to discuss this years application procedures.

    07 Mar 2006, 00:02

  12. oops sorry this link, or click on my name which i seem to have made the link. Sorry.
    link

    07 Mar 2006, 00:03

  13. Colin Macdougall

    Answers to some of the queries raised at the last meeting from Prof Burr, lead for F1:

    Dear Yvonne,

    The matching process allocates applicants according to their scores, and their preferences. If 2 applicants have identical scores, and have both placed the same trust in the same place on their preference list, then a random allocation is made. Since all of this is computer-based, there would be no reason to default to ignoring the student's preferences. This would not make selection any easier, and we would rather have someone pleased than disappointed with the outcome.

    I have seen distribution curves for the marks awarded by different UoAs in MDAP, and they were almost superimposed on each other. We were also told that the mean scores from different UoAs were within 2 marks of each other. I was also told that the MDAP mean scores for applicants from within MDAP was identical to the mean for applicants from Med Schools outside MDAP. I have to say that I have not yet seen the data. I have asked for the scores to be analysed on the basis of "home" applicant vs "outsider" for all the MDAP UoAs. We would expect a slight bias towards home, on the basis of the educational and personal reasons question, but I am concerned to know that there has not been systematic bias. (Although you and I know that systematic bias against outsiders was part and parcel of the way PRHO posts were allocated!).

    I don't think I understand the 4th question. With regard to Q. 3, I did originally suggest that the "reasons" score should not apply if the candidate moved to a different Deanery, and I agree that it should be removed from the score.

    I will ask whether this can be done for Phase 2.

    Best wishes,

    Bill
    Professor William A Burr
    Postgraduate Dean, Yorkshire
    Yorkshire Deanery
    Willow Terrace Road
    University of Leeds
    Leeds LS2 9JT

    08 Mar 2006, 16:59

  14. What is Q4 to which Prof Burr refers? Im assuming this is the question about the "tick here to accept any F1 post if unmatched in phase2" as this is the only question we raised for which there is no specific reply. It is pretty important that we get reassurances that ticking this box wont put people in a position where they are allocated in "hard to fill" areas regardless of their rankings.

    Richard

    09 Mar 2006, 14:39

  15. "Although you and I know that systematic bias against outsiders was part and parcel of the way PRHO posts were allocated!"

    What does this comment mean?? Is this a suggestion that those who applied outside deanery should be expected to get a lower score?? How is this a transparent or fair process??

    The more I read the angier this situation makes me and the more I believe we have evidence to persue legal proceedings! Have you read the blog from steph? Just a list of excuses!!!!

    How dare they suggest that just because we apply out of our home deanery we should expect to be discriminated against?!! This doesn't seem to apply to the EU graduates who choose to apply to the UK for jobs!

    10 Mar 2006, 02:23

  16. Colin Macdougall

    Charlotte –

    I think the key to this sentance is 'PRHO'

    My reading was that this is a refferance to how things used to be (the previous PRHO jobs system) compared to how things are now – for F1 posts. In other words, my reading of this is that he is stating that the old system was well known to be biased against outsiders

    14 Mar 2006, 16:07

  17. Colin Macdougall

    A letter from the chair of COPMed

    Dear colleague

    Re: Recruitment into Foundation 2006 update

    I am writing to follow-up my letter of 1st March on the next steps in recruitment into the Foundation Programme.

    The website opened to second round applications on 3rd March and will close on 4th April, with students being notified of the results after the Easter weekend.

    After both rounds of matching are complete, there will be a review/appeal process available to students. The details of this process will be available as soon as possible after the Easter weekend.

    One controversial issue has been the proposal to check the clinical and communication skills of low scoring students. Following discussions with the Council of Heads of Medical Schools it was agreed that this should be revised and the following will now apply.

    Each employing hospital will be notified of the outcome of the matching process and that responsibility for any pre-employment checks will remain with the employer, as at present. NHS Employers, in partnership with COPMeD and CHMS will develop a guide for employers on best practice in pre-employment checks on Foundation Programme applicants, to support hospitals in this task. The guidance will include advice about validation of self-declared achievements.

    Despite the impressions in the press, we are seeing the advantages of a single application system which adheres to a common timetable, application form and methodology. Never before have over 5000 applicants been matched to posts this early in the year with a third getting their first preference and 85% one of their top ten choices. We are confident that there will be enough places for all graduates of UK medical schools in good standing to get a place on the Foundation Programme beginning in August 2006.

    There have been significant problems. We apologise for the poor communication and the insensitive way in which applicants were informed of the results of the first matching round. The website has now been made secure. We will use the feedback to improve our processes for the second round of matching and for the next selection round which starts in the summer.

    Thank you for your continuing patience with this process.

    Yours sincerely

    Professor Graham Winyard
    CBE FRCP FFPH
    COPMeD Chair & Dean Director
    Severn and Wessex Deanery

    14 Mar 2006, 16:09

  18. Colin Macdougall

    Yvonne raised our questions via Council of Heads of Medical Schools, as per my request

    1. There is a box to tick on the Phase 2 form which says words to the effect of " If I am unsuccessful in obtaining any of the above posts, I will accept any post I am offered. Students are so disillusioned by the process that they seek public reassurance that if they tick this box, then every effort will still be made to place them in a post of their choosing, rather than defaulting to this option, which may make life easier for selectors!

    2. Students have heard so much about the rage of scores being different in different deaneries, suggesting systematic bias before they enter a common process. Rumour has it that NW Thames scored tightly from 24–32 whereas scores in the 40s were found in N Ireland. Students would be reassured if CHMS could ask for breakdown of Deanery scores (mean and range) and that if there is significant variance by Deanery, students suggest that a correction factor should be applied to all individual student scores to 'level the playing field' before they compete nationally.

    3. Students request that the score for 'reasons for choosing this deanery' be disregarded in the next round as being unfair and irrelevant elsewhere

    4. Students request reassurance that those who have been disadvantaged by having to take Phase 2 posts are not further disadvantaged by the F2 post system, and request a rethink on this.

    Here is the reply from Professor Bill Burr (postgraduate Dean for Yorkshire, representing CopMED, which he has authorised us to share with you:

    Dear Yvonne,

    The matching process allocates applicants according to their scores, and their preferences. If 2 applicants have identical scores, and have both placed the same trust in the same place on their preference list, then a random allocation is made. Since all of this is computer-based, there would be no reason to default to ignoring the student's preferences. This would not make selection any easier, and we would rather have someone pleased than disappointed with the outcome.

    I have seen distribution curves for the marks awarded by different UoAs in MDAP, and they were almost superimposed on each other. We were also told that the mean scores from different UoAs were within 2 marks of each other. I was also told that the MDAP mean scores for applicants from within MDAP was identical to the mean for applicants from Med Schools outside MDAP. I have to say that I have not yet seen the data. I have asked for the scores to be analysed on the basis of "home" applicant vs "outsider" for all the MDAP UoAs. We would expect a slight bias towards home, on the basis of the educational and personal reasons question, but I am concerned to know that there has not been systematic bias. (Although you and I know that systematic bias against outsiders was part and parcel of the way PRHO posts were allocated!).

    I don't think I understand the 4th question. With regard to Q. 3, I did originally suggest that the "reasons" score should not apply if the candidate moved to a different Deanery, and I agree that it should be removed from the score.

    I will ask whether this can be done for Phase 2.

    Best wishes,
    Bill

    I hope at least some of this information is helpful, all the best, Ed

    22 Mar 2006, 20:56


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

February 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jan |  Today  | Mar
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28               

Search this blog

Galleries

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXXII