NHS Clinical Scientist Recruitment

Unless I'm misinterpreting your post are you saying that everyone who passed is only average-good and a lot of people who have failed are great? Surely there are going to be a lot of great applicants who have passed as well?

Most does not = all I really don't understand why you think I am saying everyone who fails is a bad candidate, I clearly say a lot of very good candidates will be rejected.

No, I didn't mean that. Of course there would be a lot of great people there. But there could be WAY WAY MORE great people there to choose from (as it had happened in past years). So I don't believe the loss of people with the greatest qualifications to have been small. I think it was very big. I think they did it to make the selection process easier and cheaper for them but without caring about the huge loss of great people. Because by no means the loss was small from what I've seen/heard so far.

No you said they will lose only few good candidates and most will be bad candidates that will lose which I don't think is true at all as I said before. I haven't said that you think everyone who fails is bad but you still said most. I don't have a great amount of experience I will be a trained BMS when I complete my degree but even if people don't have experience in NHS, masters etc this does not mean they still aren't good candidates. Some people want this so much more than others because to some it is just another option once they graduate. But I am one of those who wants this as my career and nothing else and I know myself and other people are good candidates. Its just annoying that for a job as a clinical scientist that does play an extremely important role in the care of patients they want to determine this on numerical and logical tests and does not seem sensible.

I stand by that. I don't think this thread represents the people applying very well, I think most people on this thread are very very interested in becoming a clinical scientist and have a lot of experience hence they have posted on a thread about it. Most applicants will probably be in their final year of uni with very little to no experience and will have put in barely any practice for the tests. Imo they are bad applicants, you can't really believe that out of 30,000 people applying most of them have years of experience and/or post grad qualifications?

I understand your frustration and I agree with you it's not fair, but I don't agree that most people who have been rejected are great candidates. I think purely because of the numbers applying, most will be poor, but there will also be a lot who are great and have unfortunately failed the tests.

Yes, that's what I meant. The sad thing is that because the "bad apples" are so many, statistically, the possibility for some of them to pass through is still greater than that of the great apples passing through. In other words, the great apple pool has been minimised greatly. Last year, they would at least have a chance to be seen.

I stand by that. I don't think this thread represents the people applying very well, I think most people on this thread are very very interested in becoming a clinical scientist and have a lot of experience hence they have posted on a thread about it. Most applicants will probably be in their final year of uni with very little to no experience and will have put in barely any practice for the tests. Imo they are bad applicants, you can't really believe that out of 30,000 people applying most of them have years of experience and/or post grad qualifications?

I understand your frustration and I agree with you it's not fair, but I don't agree that most people who have been rejected are great candidates. I think purely because of the numbers applying, most will be poor, but there will also be a lot who are great and have unfortunately failed the tests.

I can't see how you can say an applicant is poor anyway and that there will be so many. Just because people have failed doesn't mean they do not have experience. Many from my uni did not have a year placement, but have had experience with the UKCAT test and have passed the tests for this scheme. So they will just be graduates applying with no experience or anything but are getting through. If I was to get through, I would not say I was an excellent candidate even though I have a years work experience because many people with be applying from within hospital and who have masters, phds etc. From what others have said previously they know people who have been successful with this scheme and have had no experience at all in this sector, which is why I don;t understand how you can say candidates are bad just because they have no laboratory experience, masters etc. When I did the tests for this scheme you could say I didnt perform well on that day, I stressed my self out and just panicked which I know is probably the whole point of it, but it is easy to do and may have just been the case a lot of the applicants that had failed. Which is why I don;t see that it is fair that you say most are bad applicants.

You are totally misunderstanding what I am saying here. You said most people who are failing are great candidates, I presume you mean, they have lots of experience and maybe masters degrees and PhDs, they really want to be clinical scientists, understand what the job entails etc. I said I don't believe that is true, I think most people will have no experience, will be in their final year of uni and won't even have practiced for the tests. If you haven't even practiced for the tests, have failed them, have no experience and no post grad qualifications how can you be a good candidate compared to others?

See now you are still saying again that people failing tests are not good candidates. So why were newly graduated students with no experience given a place for the graduate programme, when then there was no online tests that had to be done after the application was submitted. They obviously had something about them over all the other applicants. I know experience is important but sometimes employers want a determined, punctual, hard working person and just because you have experience etc may not mean you have this. When I left my placement the student replacing me started a month before I left, who had an interview and was chosen and will go on and probably complete her portfolio and have a years experience, but the staff there could not stand them. This was only because she was late to work everyday, would refuse to do tasks set by BMSs and had other problems with her. So having experience does not necessarily mean you are a good candidate does it. I don't think it is fair that people with such experience can't continue further when yes there are applicants who have no experience. But I can't see how you can decide who is and isn't bad applicants. When people reading this thread have probably passed but may have no experience at all and may only have their degree and your saying to be a good candidate you can only have experience or a masters etc.

I am getting quite angry now to be honest. I have never said anywhere that everyone who fails is a bad candidate, yet you taken my posts very personally as if I said you personally are a poor candidate. If you are going to compare candidates based on this thread (like you have done previously to say most people failing are great candidates) then you can only go on things like experience and knowledge, these are obviously in the form of lab/patient experience, qualifications, achievements, knowledge of the scheme and job etc. Without knowing people personally how else did you deduce that most people getting rejected are great candidates? Unless you think everyone who applies is a great candidate.

A good candidate is one which best fits the person specification. A less suitable candidate would be one who doesn't fit the spec as well. It is a spectrum.

The composition of the spectrum before and after the test may not vary by much at all, but if it does it certainly wouldn't show a bias to less suitable candidates would it.

Therefore it's reasonable to say that, while the primary purpose of the test is to limit the numbers, it does so with some level of positive bias toward the most suitable candidates.

If you had a distribution of person spec scores for the pre and post test populations, I would expect a variation in the mean score and the spread.

You don't know that people who have failed are good or bad candidates, no one knows do they? I haven't once said that you said everyone who fails is a bad candidate, but you said most are and only a few good candidates will be lost. When how do you know this? I'm not taking it personally, I just don't think it is fair that when it is upsetting that you have failed on some silly test and then have said that most people are bad candidates when you don't even know. Yes I know people with more experience do have a better chance maybe and it really isn't fair that people highly experienced are missing out because of tests. but I guess everyone applying will have a degree or expecting a degree at quite a high level, so they still have a lot of capabilities don't they? I really don't see how it is fair that you can say people are bad candidates just from failing and not having experience etc.

Exactly. I don't see what is wrong or offensive about saying this.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have used most. No one knows for sure do they. But the post you originally quoted me on was in response to people complaining about the tests saying they had no purpose, were pointless, unfair, were going to cause a lot of great candidates to be rejected etc. I was just saying that personally I don't agree with using the tests as the only way to reject people, but I don't think they are pointless, they are relevant and will get rid mostly of bad candidates. I did not mean everyone who fails them is a bad candidate, and maybe mostly was a bit of an exaggeration for which I apologise. But I would be shocked if the quality of candidates is poorer after these tests than before. If that was true they truly would be pointless and barely anyone would use them.

You didn't just say this though, because of course people who haven't failed are better candidates because the failed ones aren't through. I just mean you can't start saying most who will fail are bad candidates when you don't even know what their background of experience, voluntary work, masters etc is. I understand that some people who haven't been successful aren't the ideal candidates but this may have not been what they wanted which maybe why they didn't put the effort in. I tried hard to pass these tests and didn't so can't see how by passing or failing you can determine how good a person would be for the job. But you are saying that people with no experience are 'bad' candidates and now I just don't see how this is fair for people who have been successful to get through to the interview stages but only have their degrees when realistically they have as much chance as you at getting the job if you both got through to interview stages.

I know nobody would use them but it is the first time I think this scheme has used them.

I think its best to just agree to disagree, because this is just gonna go on and on lol.

Yeah I think that's the best idea. If I've offended you then I'd like to apologise, no hard feelings? Have you applied to any of the clinical science jobs in Wales or Scotland?

And the same if I have offended you, and no, no hard feelings lol. No I'm from the Midlands, and only really wanted to stay around here and not move away. I was going to apply to Wales, haven't decided yet, suppose I had better make my mind up soon lol. Have you?