The latest news is that people who received no interviews at all will have
their applications looked at and may receive an interview. How is this going
to happen when we are already well into the interview process?
I am attending the NW interviews tomorrow...in fact have to be up in 6.5
hours to be in Manchester for 7.30AM, its going to be two very long days.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill Bailey
Sent: 18 March 2007 22:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ST Interviews
At the risk of being hung, drawn and quartered, I was involved in the Common
Stem ST1 interviews in Trent. The interview process itself, IMHO, was better
than the traditional "talk me through your CV" bore. It involved 8
Consultants running 4 10 min stations. 2 were clinical, 1 paper appraisal
and the last a check of portfolios etc. The candidates were of a high
standard and only 2 of around 26 interviewed were judged to be below the
line.
The problem in my view lies in the short listing process and although the
candidates I saw were generally good, I obviously don't know how many
deserving people didn't get through to interview. The short listing
questions were largely irrelevant and clearly open to cheating anyway - we
are supposed to be selecting doctors not creative writers!
Anyway, I think if they can sort out the short listing the interview side of
the process should be better - of course whether there are sufficient posts
in the pot to start with is an entirely different matter.......
Cheers, Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Spencer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Bill Bailey" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: ST Interviews
> My view, FWIW: The first monstrous failings of the MTAS short-listing
> process were evident from the first day I short-listed (paper-based,
> vertical scoring). After the second day of short-listing (web-based, still
> vertical, repeating all previously done short-listing as I had seen 'wrong
> specialty' applications), I had absolutely no confidence that the process
> could select, with any certainty, the correct applicants to whom to offer
> interviews.
>
> I withdrew from interviewing as I felt it would be entirely hypocritical
> to continue in a grossly unfair process which was not, to use a currently
> popular buzz-phrase, 'fit for purpose'. One of my colleagues feels
> similarly and has also withdrawn from interviewing. It seems that other
> colleagues involved feel that 'the College says we should continue, so
> we'll continue'... I have not seen any argument against the criticisms I
> have of the process... nor any real justification for continuing with a
> flawed system which clearly can not achieve its objectives... and I can't
> say that I understand consultants who manage to ignore the failings of the
> process and the devastation this whole thing has wreaked on our junior
> staff.
>
> I also want to employ the best possible juniors in our department: I do
> not believe this is achievable with MTAS. When I withdrew from
> interviewing I emphasised that I am very keen to be involved in any fair
> system which can identify the best applicants for the posts... and I am. I
> do not believe the 'independent' review has thus far come up with any fix
> which makes MTAS fair (indeed, what is has come up with are
> recommendations only - it is apparent that different deaneries/specialties
> have different intentions about following the recommendations).
> Withdrawals from interviewing have prompted the deanery to express doubt
> as to whether they will "continue to provide trainees to those departments
> who did not feel that they could support the current process". Ho hum.
>
> If anyone can explain to me how we are supposed to ignore gross unfairness
> in a horribly flawed application process, I am genuinely very keen to
> understand the positions adopted by many colleagues - to continue with
> this *despite the problems*. "Because the college says so"... "because the
> deanery says so"... and other similar answers (which I have heard) do not
> answer the questions!
>
> Sarah
> (Surprised that MTAS had escaped this mailing list for as long as it did!)
>
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:42:31 +0000
> Adrian Boyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Well said, I have now refused to take part in any further part of the
>> process until it is at least fair. My experience of interviewing was that
>> some were excellent and some were unappointable (and would not have got
>> through a traditional shortlitsing process) while excellent guys were not
>> offered interviews. I ended up interviewing guys who clearly had designs
>> AM or ITU (my idea of what makes a good intensivist may be very far from
>> the intensivists think!)
>>
>> It wouldn't take much for us to rock the boat right over, it is shipping
>> water fast now
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>> COI I want to employ the best possible juniors in my department
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 22:52:29 +0000
>> Doc Holiday <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>From: Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]>
>>> That said, I still agree that there are lots of problems with MTAS as it
>>> stands.
>>>
>>> --> Now, here, we're on the same track.
>>> I have been writing references for doctors and involved in others'
>>> application processes since 1997. I am 100% certain than MANY on this
>>> list have been at this for WAYYYYY longer than that. I have also been
>>> involved in such a process not only in the UK & Ireland, but also in 6
>>> other countries, to a minor extent mostly. I cannot recall ever being
>>> completely satisfied with any such process before. However, this process
>>> is the one furthest from satisfaction that I have ever come across. No
>>> demographics will affect my opinion, as I express it below - this
>>> written format being much more abbreviated and polite than my actual
>>> feelings and thoughts in the matter.
>>>
>>> I would be complaining about it even if it were perfect, merely for the
>>> way in which it has been introduced.
>>>
>>> I have never been as useless to the people I am supposed to help as I am
>>> this time.
>>>
>>> I have never before found it difficult to look junior colleagues in the
>>> face.
>>>
>>> This is the first time I have ever found myself feeling guilty that my
>>> action/inaction, among others', is letting other physicians down.
>>>
>>> I have never been as surprised by the number of interviews allocated/not
>>> which did not fit with my predictions/expectations based upon the
>>> attributes of certain doctors.
>>>
>>> I have never before noticed so much unfairness, at least in appearance.
>>>
>>> I cannot recall in the past ever seeing so much despair, anger,
>>> confusion, uncertainty, etc. EVEN BEFORE any decisions on shortlising
>>> were made, i.e. only with the process.
>>>
>>> I have never before seen so many seniors angry about any application
>>> system.
>>>
>>> I have never seen a process so incompetently managed.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I cannot recall demonstrations about the SpR scheme, when it came out.
>>> And that was NOT a perfect system by any means.
>>>
>>> I have never before felt this certain that there was SOMEWHERE SOMEONE
>>> sitting and giggling about how he managed to sneak through a system
>>> without actually putting ANY thinking into it.
>>>
>>> At no point in my experience in the NHS (not even during the European
>>> Hours Directives & Banding fiasco) have I been this certain of the
>>> inevitability of industrial action within a few weeks as I am at this
>>> time.
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> MSN Hotmail is evolving - check out the new Windows Live Mail
>>> http://ideas.live.co.uk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl -
>> www.blackspider.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
