Article Text

Download PDFPDF
UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) changes: a step in the right direction?
  1. Eden G L Seager,
  2. Fariha Chowdhury,
  3. Josh Stephenson,
  4. Fiona Asiedu
  1. Queen Mary University Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Eden G L Seager, Queen Mary University of London Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London E1 4NS, UK; edenseager30{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

We thank Thakker et al1 for their insights into the recent announcement of changes to the UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) application process. As medical students now entering our fifth year of study, we are concerned that the changes to the application process have been established without adequate input from the medical student community, yet we appreciate attempts to reduce pre-existing inequalities in medical education. We offer our opinions on the proposed changes and the effects that these will have on current and future students.

We agree that the proposed changes serve an injustice to those students who have already made substantial investments in the pursuit of additional degrees, but who miss the cut-off time (2023) by which the changes will take effect. In an open letter to the UKFPO from the British Medical Association, the authors propose that the date of introduction of these changes be reconsidered so that those who have already undertaken additional activities are credited appropriately for their work.2 We feel that this is the fairest solution; a sentiment that is shared by many of our student colleagues who feel disappointed that their hard work has been effectively nullified by these changes and are frustrated that this outcome has been ignored by the UKFPO. If Thakker’s supposition that the UKFPO’s decision has …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors EGLS and FC are responsible for researching articles and constructing the letter. FA is responsible for revising and balancing the arguments made. JS is responsible for appraising the final content and approving the final draft for submission. EGLS submitted the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.