Application Form For Postgrad Training: Fill & Download for Free

There are some really terrific answers here, especially from Suzanne McGee and Marcelo Soares, which have already covered most of which I (as an editor who fairly frequently hires early-career journalists) would say.Let me add a few things for your contemplation, however:• While many journalists (myself included) believe that no formal training in journalism is necessary (though it usually does no harm), and that a smart person can learn the business entirely on the job, the reality is that there are a lot of people out there trying to begin careers who do have journalism degrees, or other qualifications in the subject, from good courses at good colleges.So: you do, unfortunately, put yourself at a disadvantage if you can’t put “journalism” somewhere in the education section of your resumé. It’s not an insurmountable problem, but it is an issue.• Writing wonderful prose is not the prime skill of a reporter (which is what I assume you mean by “journalist”, because most people starting out mean that).The core of the job is finding stuff out and explaining it: spotting interesting stories and understanding what they mean (in other words, why they’re interesting); then using sources (people, data, records, other published material) to tease out the full story; and finally, being able to grasp all this in your head, weigh up what’s significant and what’s not, and put it into a comprehensible form for an audience.Oh, and sometimes to do all this very, very quickly indeed…Of course, if you can write beautifully too, that helps. But the abilities I’ve mentioned above are much more important than absolutely perfect spelling or a gift for the original metaphor. There will be other people who can correct your spelling errors (as long as there aren’t too many…) and metaphors are the icing on the cake, not the cake.• This leads me to the point that if you don’t study journalism, don’t assume the best alternative is English. While I would certainly never, ever turn away a promising candidate for a job because they had an English degree, it’s less relevant than you might expect.What’s the ideal? Well, as I imply above, it would be immensely short-sighted (and unfair) of me as an editor to specify particular degrees that first-job applicants must have.But a social sciences degree from a good college (say in geography or economics) stands out as particularly appealing, because it suggests you can work with hard fact and numbers as well as with ideas (numeracy is much, much harder to come by as an employer of journalists than literacy - and is increasingly important in these data-driven days).• Of course, I should also add that you can leverage degrees in apparently less relevant subjects into a journalism career, if you’re determined. A degree in Chinese would be pretty useful these days to a lot of business publications (indeed, I wish we had a Chinese-speaker on staff).A degree in architecture or chemical engineering or molecular biology can set you up nicely to work for a design magazine, or an industrial publication, or a scientific news service…and so on.• Note, too, that not all parts of a resumé carry equal weight. If you have a decent postgrad journalism qualification, the subject of your preceding degree is of much less importance to employers. And once you’ve been in the business for a couple of years, no diplomas are very relevant at all (though a master’s from a really top journalism school might still impress).So, we’re really talking here about getting the first job.• In summary, my advice would be: take a first (bachelor’s) degree in a subject that interests you. If that subject is journalism, then cool, but if it isn’t, don’t feel that’s excluded you from a journalism career - just be aware that you may need to take a shorter postgrad journalism qualification afterwards to be competitive in the job market.By the way, you don’t say where you’re from. My advice applies to the US, Canada and the UK, which are the countries where I understand journalism education.

I have passed MRCS in February this year. So I think I can answer this.First you need a primary medical qualification (PMQ) i.e. MBBS degree from any medical college.With this and without any formal training in surgery you can apply for the MRCS part A exam held by any of the four royal colleges. For the exams conducted in India, Edinburgh and English colleges have many centres throughout the year.Once you pass this you are eligible for part B. This is more of a viva type exam. It has centres in India and many countries around the world.Once you pass this, you are officially a member of the royal college of surgeons after paying the membership fee.Edit 1:I am adding this edit in view of recent requests from friends regarding a more detailed review about MRCSBefore going any further I would like to say a few words about the relevance of the exam in present day scenario:NO NONSENSE EXAM…. PERIOD!!!!Highly focussed on problem based approach which you are likely to come across in your daily clinical practice.I can dare say that even if you fail the exam in first or second part, you will still have all the knowledge needed for your routine surgical practice. So, its a win-win situation either way.Up to date.A world class degree, no doubt about it. The concepts you learn in the preparation of this exam are applicable world wide.I would highly recommend taking this exam in second year of MS / DNB be it General Surgery or Orthopaedics or ENT.MRCS PART A:Basically its an MCQ paper consisting of 300 questions taken as two separate papers on the same day.Time required for preparation : 4–6 months depending on your speed and other professional and personal commitments. I took the exam in second year of my MS in january 2016. Prepared for 5 months.Resources:Books:NOT OF MUCH HELP. But I would like to suggest a few which I read and found useful.Mrcs Part A: 500 Sbas And Emqs by Jaypee publishers ——- Good starter book and easy to revise.MRCS Applied Basic Science and Clinical Topics (Postgrad Exams)Paperback – 2013 — Undirected discussion and found it useless overall.Basic Science for the MRCS: A revision guide for surgical trainees by Raftery (Author) —————Avoid if possible.SBA MCQs and EMQs for the MRCS Part A Pack: 2 (Oxford Specialty Training: Revision Texts) ——— Found it to be waste of time.MRCS Part A: Essential Revision Notes by Parchment Smith———— NOT RECOMMENDEDONLINE QUESTION BANKSThese form the core of preparation for Part A!!!Very highly recommended.eMRCS, cheap, easy to do, has around 1500 questions, do and redo all the questions, try noting down all the mistakes in a book to revise later.Pastest, has around 3000 questions, moderately tough, same strategy as with emrcs.BMJ OneExam, has around 3300 questions, a bit costly but useful though.My advice with the question banks is start with emrcs then gradually get on with BMJ and Pastest.Always note down the mistakes and TRY NOT TO REPEAT THEM.General surgery alumni, Osmania General Hospital This is the link to the Facebook page in which I tried putting together illustrations, case notes, important notes of practical importance over a period of 3 years. This should serve as a good supplement for MRCS preparation.Finances :Exam fee : 490–540 GBP depending upon the college, if you are from India I recommend Edinburgh college as it is a bit cheaper than England and has more exam centres.Online resources : 450 GBP approximately for all three resources.Books : Didn't spend much on them. I would say a 100 GBP maybe.For more follow the below links :The Royal College of Surgeons of EdinburghThe Royal College of Surgeons: committed to enabling surgeons to achieve and maintain the highest standards of surgical practice and patient care. — Royal College of SurgeonsIntercollegiate MRCS

Because it is easy to apply to med school. You just go online, fill the form and that's you counted as med school applicant.You can apply even if your only motivation is to make money - either from the astronomically high salary you think doctors are earning or by ripping patients off. Maybe you applied because House looked tripping when you were drunk. You can apply if you have no people skills or if you would never pass the criminal background check. You can even apply if you have not met the prerequisites or if you had such a low GPA that you likely would struggle in med school.Out of all applicants (a) med schools need to screen applicants who meet the admission criteria (b) and interview them. After the interview a student may receive a conditional offer (c) subjective to meeting the expected grades or passing criminal background check. The number of places a med school can offer (d) is limited by how many students the school can accommodate (beyond certain point group sizes are just too large to facilitate learning) and by how many postgrad/residency posts (e) there are. The lack of training posts is the most important bottle neck as unemployment after spending lot of time, money and effort on med school is a horrible faith.The number of applicants >>> number of students who meet minimum requiremens for interview >> students who are considered suitable for admission after interview >≈ number of places in med school >= residency spots.I would also be wary of just looking at the admission stats as %applicants who succeed. If you have hundred applicants each applying to each of the ten medical schools in area each offering ten places each school would have admission rate of 10% even though all the applicants gained a place. The reason why most 'prestigious' medical schools seem to have lower rate of admission is probably more to do with having much more applicants (who may or may not be qualified for admission) and probably less to do with them being much much more selective. But obviously the top ten students are going to be more qualified when selected from a pool 1000 applicants than from 100 applicants when each cohort falls on the normal distribution curve.