NHS Clinical Scientist Recruitment

I'd still be impressed if they let everyone know by 28th April. You have to remember very few organisations interview around 800 people in less than 3 weeks. Problem is we have the 11 day weekend coming up.

I like the interview style - I think its fair. The only thing I do not like is that if you get a 1 or a 2, you will be not appointable even if you scored full marks on the other questions/stations. I feel like I did brilliantly on 3 stations, one station was not so great. I answered the questions to the best of my ability but I am not sure if the answers I gave were correct (at the other stations I was sure I was giving the answer they wanted to hear). I would feel so gutted if one answer let the whole thing slip through my fingers. People should be just put into rank order, even if they get a 1 or a 2 and the people at the top should get the job.

I am really anxious about hearing the outcome - I just want to know at this point, its not good for our mental health to keep going over it in our heads!! Especially if other job offers are coming up. Its helping me at least to know that other people like yourselves are going through the same thing.

Hmm, I don't mind too much about the waiting - I can imagine these things take a while because of having so many applicants to score and place with their preferred hospital etc. I also didn't mind the interview process, I can see that it is fair and gives lots of potential employers the chance to meet the candidates all in one convenient location.

However, what bugs me is that it is really quite impersonal. At the end of the interview you get a score...a number...nothing more or less. You don't get the chance to show the people you would be working with how well you'd fit into their team, and they don't get much say in who they get, no matter how much they might have liked one particular person. They can only give you a number. I suppose it means that the best candidates are given the jobs rather than there being lots of bias; but I find that kind of sad.

I agree, I would be pretty happy if we found out by 28th April but word on the street is that this will get pushed back to end of May.. so who knows how long the wait will be.

Since we're going through a "ranting about the application process" phase on this forum, I'd like to say that I thought some of the questions felt a bit like they were just looking for a number of specific buzzwords (or buzz-phrases). I didn't really think that was conducive to finding the right people, even though I felt that I performed better on those than on the science/knowledge questions.

I hope that's not too revealing for anyone!

Interviews are all done now, so its ok. One of my interviewers on the science station even said: "Okay, I've got a few questions on physics for you"...and there I was thinking I was being interviewed for a vascular position and not medical physics or clinical engineering positions! All, I could say was okay...and try and answer those terrible physics questions! Not fair IMO.

Blood flow and circulation has a lot of physics to it..

Since we're going through a "ranting about the application process" phase on this forum, I'd like to say that I thought some of the questions felt a bit like they were just looking for a number of specific buzzwords (or buzz-phrases). I didn't really think that was conducive to finding the right people, even though I felt that I performed better on those than on the science/knowledge questions.

I hope that's not too revealing for anyone!

Some questions I have been pondering with all this waiting time..

1) How strongly are our choices of where to be placed likely to be taken into account does anyone think?

Seems all very well to rank people according to scores, but wouldn't a hospital prefer someone with one point less who had made a strong decision that they would like to work for a particular trust? Or is that not being considered?

2) Are job offers the final decisions? If two candidates agreed they would prefer the training positions offered to each other would there be the potential to swap places?

These are just musings that I haven't seen addressed in any of the documents posted on this thread. I'll also reiterate what has already been said: I think most people would be thrilled to be placed anywhere and wouldn't think twice about accepting. Hasn't stopped me wondering though..

I think the fact that each hospital shortlisted the same amount of people should mean most people get 1 of their top 3 - but (always a but as these are just musings too) as we werent told who shortlisted this may be messed up a bit i guess.

Hospitals may rather have someone who scored 1 less point but they have agreed to MSC so won't be able to do anything about it. MSC it is meant to get the best nationally not just locally - but this may cause a few people to reject their offer so it wouldn't be hiring the best nationally anyway.

True; but they don't have to take anyone. I know at least one lab that said they would pull the post if they didn't get one of the candidates that they shortlisted.

I suspect the labs get a fair amount of say in it. Because the MSC annoys them, they may find no-one signs up for it next year. One thing that I learned during BMS supernumary training is that lab staff sometimes think that training is more hassle than it's worth.

True; but they don't have to take anyone. I know at least one lab that said they would pull the post if they didn't get one of the candidates that they shortlisted.

I suspect the labs get a fair amount of say in it. Because the MSC annoys them, they may find no-one signs up for it next year. One thing that I learned during BMS supernumary training is that lab staff sometimes think that training is more hassle than it's worth.

None of the Trusts near where I live signed up for the MSC national programme for that reason. They prefer to train up existing staff, etc.