Ooops, didn't realise they could read the reference on-line!
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Fogarty
Sent: 19 March 2007 13:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ST Interviews
I must admit I find the references dead easy. They take no more than two
or
three minutes for each candidate - and I've done over a dozen now.
Admittedly, I don't bother with any free text except for the very last
box -
on recommendation.
Two problems with the referee system however:
1 The candidates can view your reference on-line as soon as you've
completed them. I'm concerned that this will prove a disincentive to
honest
refereeing. For example, I did a rather "frank" reference on a weaker
candidate last week. He simply turned around and "rejected" my
reference,
and presumably went off fishing elsewhere till he found a more
favourable
reference. The result? There will be a lot of watered down mediocre
references out there with the result that panels will have difficultly
distinguishing weak candidates from average candidates. So, fit for
purpose?
I think not...
2 The other problem is MTAS's insistence that candidates take signed
"verified" copies of the reference to interview. This is infuriating
nonsense. They've been produced on-line by a very secure system. How on
earth is a signature going to somehow "verify" the process? I've thus
far
refused to comply with this part of the process. I'm tempted to ask my
candidates to forge my signature on the printout as I doubt the panel
will
have any idea what my actual signature looks like. Seems such an odd
juxtaposition of antediluvian crap with state-of-the-art technology.
AF
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Holiday" <[log in to unmask]>
> I have never before had such difficulty in and taken so long to
complete a
> process, while achieving what I consider such a poor final product, as
I
> have in completing references this time.
|