Dear editor
We read with great interest the expert opinion of Singagireson et al and agree with the key points raised.1 However, this can be seen to be only one part of the multidimensional foundation program application. It is important to add that we feel there are multiple inequitable components that impact on UK medical students’ foundation program application.
The author emphasizes that the situational judgment test (SJT) and medical school performance make up two points of the application performance; however, there are two factors that have a larger-than appreciated impact on the foundation program application – “PubMed-referenced publications” and additional degrees (eg, an intercalated BSc or PhD).2
The author raises the question of significant disparities between the opportunities available at medical schools across the UK. This is clearly shown in the national variability in intercalation opportunities – some medical schools offer compulsory BSc-intercalated programs, whereas some schools offer only intercalated degrees to up to a maximum of one-fifth of their students.3,4 Similarly, the foundation program accepts applications from postgraduate medical students who may have previous masters or even PhDs. There are up to five points available for an extra degree in the foundation program application, out of 100; the presence of a PhD adds five application points, with a Master’s or Bachelor’s degree contributing up to four points.2
In addition, publications are valued at up to two points in the foundation program application where one point is available for each PubMed-referenced publication a student has authored, up to a maximum of two points.2 It can be argued that the skills learnt from extra degrees give medical students a far greater opportunity to do research and publish work in a particular field.5 Thus, individuals who have been given an opportunity to study for an extra degree are at an advantage in more than one way when approaching their foundation program application.