This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All the links which I have removed basically seem to "exist to sell products or services" which is one of the categories of links which are listed at Wikipedia:External links as "Links normally to be avoided". Could anyone please explain why we should be ignoring this guideline in this case? Cheers -- Pak21 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The links to 123doc, and its "portal" http://www.mrcppart1.co.uk/ has been removed as they are just selling commercial services. 86.141.162.25 15:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
– == what certificate after MRCP == So many overseas ,hard working doctors,obtained MRCP,while they are working abroad(out side their country of origin),mostly sudanese ,pakistani,egyptian or other nationalities. due to the recent regualtions in postgraduate training,MRCP is now considered as entry point to higher postgraduate medical training,a large number of doctors(overseas)continue training in subspecialities after MRCP. but they need official recognition,iam not sure whether the new scheme of MRCP speciality board examinations BY 2008 will give a chance to those doctors or not.
I see that Neil Dewhurst has deleted what he considers to be "historical irrelevancies." Is it not appropriate for an encyclopaedia article to include the history of a topic, as well as the present state of play? It does not serve solely as a source of career advice.
The article does not yet explain how far the MRCP (UK) exam of the three UK Royal Colleges of Physicians has converged with the MRCPI of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland. Part One has been identical for a long time: I believe the Part Two exams have been brought together also, but don't know how far this has gone. NRPanikker ( talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why compare costs of a UK exam with a US exam? All other things are not equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.5.180 ( talk) 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
"Comment from personal experience" transcribed from the talk page on Maurice Pappworth.
I cannot put any of this into Papworth's page, nor into the page on the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, but I hope these comments will help. I attended the RPGMS in the early 1970's, and it was clear to me that things were being done to patients without their knowledge and there was no ethics committee at all. I brought this up, respectfully, but the result was damaging, to say the least. With regard to Papworth, he was indeed an angry man, and rightly so, but he was not a great medical teacher, nor did he ever claim to be one. I saw and heard him in action, and what he drummed into his classes was that the MRACP exams were a trial of gamesmanship, that had nothing to do with the good practice of medicine. He said that he would show his class how to pass the oral exams, and he did it well. I was an usher at those exams at the Royal Free Hospital. The applicants were expected to make "Snap diagnoses" literally from the end of the bed, in what I termed "Smart Alec medicine." As far as racism was concerned, it was not limited to Jews either. Once at the exams at the RFH I saw 2 examiners mocking a Pakistani candidate and deliberately confusing him with misleading and confusing questions. As it happened, the President of the Royal College of Medicine was also the chief physician of the RFH at the time and the chief censor (examiner). Prof Sherlock was a world renoun authority on liver disease and highly respected by all. She was also a very direct lady who stood no nonsense and she set very high standards for the practice of medicine and for the behaviour of doctors. She stood and listened to the disgraceful matter in progress and beconed to me. "Who are you"? I told her. "What is happening here" (The candidate was by then trembling and near to tears). I told her what I had seen and she stepped in and said to the 2 examiners "Gentleman, it is tea time". "One moment, we are not quite finished here" came the reply. "Oh yes you are, finished for now and forever.". She took the candidate aside and apologised and asked him to come to her the next day for her morning ward round. At the end she said "Congratulations, doctor, you have passed". I was so proud of her, but the examination of candidates continued to be a demeaning and inappropriate process for decades. Historygypsy (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Dr Herbert Ho Ping Kong recently described his experience of 48 years ago:
The above was extracted from "The Art of Medicine: Healing and the Limits of Technology by Herbert Ho Ping Kong and Michael Posner, ECW Press 2014, ISBN 978 1770905665 The late Dr DMF Batty was a dinosaur of the old Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. His college obituary is silent about this, but that of his colleague James Innes says he was often paired as an examiner with "the outwardly fearsome Dr Batty whose reputation for failing aspiring candidates had spread far to the East of Suez." NRPanikker ( talk) 19:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC) NRPanikker ( talk) 20:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)