It is with a mixture of admiration and slight envy that I look upon those who triumph as best of the best in tough competitive examinations. Surely, to emerge on top they have to be ‘special’. The Laughlin Prize, established in 1979, is awarded after the spring and autumn MRCPsych Part II examinations to the candidate obtaining high marks and the best recommendation from the examiners.

Given the above, I wished to find out more about the winners, their preparation for examination and whether winning the prize influenced their later career choice. I also hoped that the information obtained from this exercise would inspire trainees preparing for MRCPsych examinations. So I set out to conduct a postal questionnaire survey of all winners and contacted the College for a list of names. However, for confidentiality and data protection reasons, I was only given the names of those who won the prize since 2000.

I piloted the questionnaire on one winner; the final version was designed to gather some demographic information and also consisted of open-ended questions such as ‘Did winning the prize influence your career in any way?’, ‘Did winning the prize change others’ perceptions of you?’ and ‘Was your preparation for the examination any different?’ I sent out the questionnaire to the 12 winners identified and received seven replies. Below is a brief summary of the results.

Mean age 33 years (range 27-40); gender: male 5, female 2; ethnicity: White 5, Indian 2; country of medical training: UK 4, India 2, Australia 1; current subspecialty: general adult psychiatry 3, child psychiatry 1, old age psychiatry 1, liaison psychiatry 1, forensic psychiatry 1; self-rating of the importance of the prize in terms of career path (rated on a scale of 1-10): 5.7 mean, range 2-8.

Five individuals reported that winning the prize did not influence their career in any significant way, although four of them felt that maybe it did help them get jobs and increased their overall confidence. Two respondents felt that it did influence their career choice (one towards a clinical career and one towards an academic post). Only one person said they probably worked harder than their peers, whereas others said their exam preparation was no different. Interestingly, two respondents said: ‘I tried to enjoy the clinical examination’, and ‘Before the exam I realised that I had become too goal-orientated and that I needed to start enjoying being with patients’.

In summary, given the limited number of responses, no valid conclusions can be drawn. The predictive validity of the Laughlin Prize could also not be assessed, as the sample only comprised winners since 2000. Although there were more males (5/7) and White individuals (5/7) in this cohort, given the sample size, attempting to explore reasons for that would be merely speculative. Majority rated the prize highly in terms of its importance in their career path, although only two respondents actually felt it influenced their subsequent subspecialty or academic/clinical career choice. It is to be noted that those who said the prize did not influence their career choice had already made clear plans for their future, even before taking the examination. Although most respondents (6/7) said their preparation for the examination was no different to their peers, it is worth noting that two reported trying to ‘enjoy the experience’. This might be an important message for trainees in that rather than trying to see the exam as an ‘artificial’ and stressful experience, maybe they should anticipate it as more of an enjoyable experience, no different to their daily doctor - patient interactions.

Having read through the responses (and as was pointed out by one of the winners), it was felt that the winners of the Laughlin Prize were inadequately acknowledged for their achievement. Surely to be the best among a cohort of 500-odd doctors is no mean feat and is indeed, in my view, something special. If future trainees are to be inspired to work harder, maybe the College (Exams Department) could do more to acknowledge these ‘special ones’: maybe by publishing their names on the College website or interviewing them for the Psychiatric Bulletin. Someone once said that ‘The most intelligent and the most competitive are the most reluctant to acknowledge their peers’. Is this the case, and if so, should it not change?

If any Laughlin Prize winner over the past 20 years wishes to contact me, I would like to repeat the survey.

Declaration of interest

S.G. did not win the Laughlin Prize and the views expressed here are solely his own.