The Student Room Group

What's your view ?

Interesting article/s in the news I read today. I saw this article on the daily mail but I find it can sensationalise things. So here's some guardian articles.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2288308,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/youthjustice.ukcrime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/students.medicine?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews

What's your view, do you think Imperial made the right decision ? I don't know what to think. My view is that newspapers rarely do give all the facts and so I'm reluctant to side one way. I can see both sides really and Imperial have every right to reject him. But then again, apparently he wrote them a letter being very upfront about his past and it was a 4 month community service, so he didn't go to jail, not to say it wasn't wrong, but does that mean he should be damned for life because of something he did at 16 ?

I'm intrigued to know if he had an insurance medicine offer, and what was their opinion, depends on where it is because if i recall certain places want the CRB check earlier than others.

I Think That It Was A Bad Decision. One Wrong Decision At 16 Has Cost Him His Place. He Has Turned His Life Around And Done Exceptionally Well. I Hope He Can Get In Next Year
Reply 2
He probably should've got in.

One person is unlikely to send a whole med school into disrepute. I'm in no doubt that unsavoury things happen at med schools all over the country and they're easily covered up, forgotten or a blind eye is turned to them.

The problem is his conviction is obvious. Not that it exists. He could do much worse (and people do) but as long as its not made official, no one cares.
Reply 3
I'm not sure about this, like you say newspapers rarely let a complete disclosure of the facts get in the way of a good story. I note, looking at the timeline, that this is applying from a gap year with a full set of results and work experience etc. He has made two appeals, one against Manchester (They say his work experience wasn't relevant to the application) and one against Imperial for the criminal records thing. I also notice that he didn't make full disclosure as part of his initial UCAS application (He says due to bad advice, which is really very believable given as his school haven't sent people to medical school before) and that he sent the letter when he learnt about full disclosure as part of the CRB investigation and thought to pre-empt it (Which again is a perfectly fair move and exactly what he should have done).

But from there, Imperial brought him before Fitness to Practice, where he was given a hearing and then rejected (Which is the bit the papers haven't been mentioning much). Imperial can't release information about this obviously (Because its a confidential hearing) and the student himself hasn't mentioned it. The only thing Imperial did say is that they have to run to GMC standards because, in his final year, he would have to go through exactly the same process again anyway in order to acquire his provisional registration.

Which is a long winded way of saying there's not much to say on the subject, really. I wouldn't mind putting a few pennies on the fact that he's reading this thread at the moment because he seems like a pretty clued up kinda guy. He's probably a perfectly decent chap who cocked up, which happens. But from Imperial's point of view, why would they take on a potential liability when they have two thousand other kids from which to choose a safe pair of hands? The one thing that did annoy me was his MP rattling on about "Public bodies being public accountable" and all that jazz, which is, quite frankly, *******s. Imperial have a perfectly good code of admissions which is clear to anyone who applies and he's been rejected within the terms of that code, whether anyone likes it or not. What he means by "Accountability" is "Responsibility to listen and take heed of every noisy **** who decides medical school admissions are their business after ten minutes of broad education on the subject".
Reply 4
There is a lot of trust put in the hands of a prospective medic and a future qualified doctor , if Imperial feel they would trust some-one without a previous conviction more - then that's there prerogative as far as I see it.
I'm against, he should be let in. Otherwise people who have been convicted should not have any hope left for a better future at all, so would continue what they are doing.
There's already a thread on this.

The bottom line is he would have been asked to declare any convictions, including spent, and didn't? He's got no argument really, it's lying really and deserves to have the application withdrawn.

Sorry if I've misunderstood the situation. I just saw the other thread this morning and skimread the BBC article. I'm off to read about it in the Guardian now :smile:
Reply 7
AEH
I'm not sure about this, like you say newspapers rarely let a complete disclosure of the facts get in the way of a good story. I note, looking at the timeline, that this is applying from a gap year with a full set of results and work experience etc. He has made two appeals, one against Manchester (They say his work experience wasn't relevant to the application) and one against Imperial for the criminal records thing. I also notice that he didn't make full disclosure as part of his initial UCAS application (He says due to bad advice, which is really very believable given as his school haven't sent people to medical school before) and that he sent the letter when he learnt about full disclosure as part of the CRB investigation and thought to pre-empt it (Which again is a perfectly fair move and exactly what he should have done).

But from there, Imperial brought him before Fitness to Practice, where he was given a hearing and then rejected (Which is the bit the papers haven't been mentioning much). Imperial can't release information about this obviously (Because its a confidential hearing) and the student himself hasn't mentioned it. The only thing Imperial did say is that they have to run to GMC standards because, in his final year, he would have to go through exactly the same process again anyway in order to acquire his provisional registration.

Which is a long winded way of saying there's not much to say on the subject, really. I wouldn't mind putting a few pennies on the fact that he's reading this thread at the moment because he seems like a pretty clued up kinda guy. He's probably a perfectly decent chap who cocked up, which happens. But from Imperial's point of view, why would they take on a potential liability when they have two thousand other kids from which to choose a safe pair of hands? The one thing that did annoy me was his MP rattling on about "Public bodies being public accountable" and all that jazz, which is, quite frankly, *******s. Imperial have a perfectly good code of admissions which is clear to anyone who applies and he's been rejected within the terms of that code, whether anyone likes it or not. What he means by "Accountability" is "Responsibility to listen and take heed of every noisy **** who decides medical school admissions are their business after ten minutes of broad education on the subject".


Part of it must have been the fact that it was in 2005 - ie a recent occurence. They would have to be worried as to whether this goes to show propensity for dishonesty - ie: whether its the thin end of the wedge.

I do think however that this should have been a private matter anyway. Sometimes peer pressure (in whatever form) can be very very difficult to resist. That is not to say to cave in is right or somehow theft is justifiable because one happens to live in Brixton.

If he'd been cautioned for it at 12, they would have let him in. I think personally, subject to relevent references, he should be given a second chance. After all, if those politicians look to those of their own ilk; consider the fact that were we to have a Conservative Government (which is looking ever more likely) then we would have David Cameron, Osborne and Johnson in arguably 3 of the most powerful positions in the land. Now they diddn't commit theft, that much is true, but its not bad for a bunch of Bullingdon reprobates is it?

A different perspective is needed here. If anyone from IC does read this, give the lad a chance and gte some good PR on the way.
Reply 8
From the guardian article:

The college requests information on a candidate's 'unspent' convictions only

:eek: And yet his was a spent conviction, right? So he was honest with them when he didn't need to be and the result was his place was withdrawn? If so, that's terrible, but perhaps I've misunderstood?
Reply 9
Wangers
Part of it must have been the fact that it was in 2005 - ie a recent occurence. They would have to be worried as to whether this goes to show propensity for dishonesty - ie: whether its the thin end of the wedge.
2005 isn't that recent when you're young though. There's a world of difference between a 15 yo and a 19yo.
I'm sure he's learnt a lot about the world in those 3 years.
Reply 10
This brings to mind a case a while back where a doctor commited GBH against an ambulance driver and was allowed to carry on practicing... Yet he can't become a doctor after having burgled someone at 16?

Latest