An earlier study of gendered achievement at the UWI School of Medicine at St. Augustine suggested that most differentials were negligible to small at the preclinical stage and small to moderate at the clinical stage (De Lisle and Pit-Miller 2002). One explanation for these small gender differences was that the stringent selection processes created sample restriction. In 2003, changes were made to the assessment scheme in the biomedical sciences, with the elimination of a number of formats. It is useful, then, to conduct a more complete gender analysis, which includes an assessment of outcomes such as completion and repeat rates. These may prove to be better estimates of individual and institutional impact. This longitudinal study analyzes achievement and completion data for a single cohort of students across 5 years of undergraduate training. Gender differentials from 76 assessments across 3 major stages are evaluated for impact, variability, and both statistical and practical significance. For the achievement data, only eight statistically significant gender differences were found in the clinical areas of psychiatry and paediatrics. For completion, repetition, and grade status, males did much more poorly on (1) the numbers completing on time, (2) numbers repeating, and (3) mean time to complete later Phases IC (paraclinical) and II (clinical) and the overall programme. Therefore, although gender differences in achievement remained practically small, delayed completion and grade status were notable problems for some males. A possible explanation was that males perceive and respond differently to clinical learning environments.