On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:10:25 +0100
Eric wrote:
overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

Oh please. Even compared to driving a bus or a lorry I doubt the stress even
comes close, never mind other non transport related roles. How about they
try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis for less than those fat arsed drivers
get paid for pushing some buttons then letting the computer drive. What a
****ing joke.

--
Spud

In message , at 11:18:34 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, d remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at
A-level material.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:18:34 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, d remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-level
material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

tim

In message , at 20:04:56 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, tim..... remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-
level material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

Entry to medical training in the UK is highly competitive and greatly
(I've seen as much as 10x) oversubscribed.

politics Perhaps junior doctors need to remember the weren't forced to
study medicine /politics

Some require even more than AAA, for example Oxford:

"A-levels: A*AA, in three A-levels taken in one academic year
excluding Critical Thinking and General Studies. Candidates are
required to have Chemistry (compulsory), plus Biology and/or
Physics and/or Mathematics to full A-level."

Back in the day (early 70's) I had four A-levels in sciences; today
they'd be called A*AAC, but only three were taken the same year (one I
took the year after, having already confirmed a Uni place). Many
students went to Uni with two A-levels.

UCL's clinical medicine course entry averages 532 UCAS points (which is
halfway between A*A*AA and A*A*A*A).

My daughter is doing a related course at UCL which requires AAAA in
sciences, but that's OK because she has A*AAA. The biggest problem was
getting the school to agree to let her drop General Studies (which was
virtually compulsory), but simply a way to easily increase a school's
league table results - however clearly cuts no ice with the major
universities.

In retrospect, I don't think they had any argument with the A*AAA, not
including General Studies.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:04:56 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, tim..... remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-
level material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

Entry to medical training in the UK is highly competitive and greatly
(I've seen as much as 10x) oversubscribed.

I know

that's why they *can* use AAA as a filter and still get to select on other
criteria

All you've done is confirm my statement


snip the rest as it added nothing at all of relevance to my comment

tim

On 20/01/2016 21:32, Roland Perry wrote:

The biggest problem was
getting the school to agree to let her drop General Studies (which was
virtually compulsory), but simply a way to easily increase a school's
league table results - however clearly cuts no ice with the major
universities.

In my day (mid-1990s) General Studies was compulsory at my school, and
when I enquired about not doing it - or at least not turning up to the
lessons, and just sitting the exam - I was told that this was not
permitted (in retrospect, I wonder if they could/would really have
kicked someone out over it?). There seemed to be a sincere belief that
universities would choose an applicant with lower grades in proper
subjects but with General Studies over someone with better grades (and
possibly also Further Maths) but without General Studies.

Are (were?) there any universities where this was actually the case, I
wonder?


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:06:10PM +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 20/01/2016 21:32, Roland Perry wrote:
The biggest problem was
getting the school to agree to let her drop General Studies (which was
virtually compulsory), but simply a way to easily increase a school's
league table results - however clearly cuts no ice with the major
universities.
In my day (mid-1990s) General Studies was compulsory at my school

In my day (early 90s) it was compulsory if you were only doing three
A-levels. I never asked, but I presume that the justification was that
the school's insurers didn't want a load of teenagers with loads of free
time goofing off and doing stupid ****.

when I enquired about not doing it - or at least not turning up to the
lessons, and just sitting the exam

There was an exam?

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

Support terrierism! Adopt a dog today!

It was the other way round at my school - there were no General Studies lessons, but everyone had to take the exam (2x3hr papers).

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:04:56 -0000
"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:18:34 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, d remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-level
material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

If you're talking some 3rd world dump then no doubt, but one would hope most
if not all western nations do initial selection on candidates based on
intellectual ability.

--
Spud

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:04:56 -0000
"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:18:34 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, d remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at
A-level
material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

If you're talking some 3rd world dump

Nope, some EU countries

then no doubt, but one would hope most
if not all western nations do initial selection on candidates based on
intellectual ability.

On appropriate aptitude certainly, but being a doctor out in the real world
doesn't require many of the skills that "passing exams" test.

tim