|
Arch_Angel,
I agree with a lot of what you've said, but the email does say that the med schools "HAVE NOT....TAKEN THIS COMPONENT OF THE RESULTS INTO CONSIDERATION". So it seems to me, that any interview invitations/rejections/acceptances made so far have been made with the exclusion of the AR section, and all future interview invitations/rejections/acceptances will also be made with the exclusion of the AR section. So it doesn't "change the playing field" from that point of view for later or subsequent decisions relative to people who've been interviewed/accepted already.
What it does substantially influence is if your university or course choices were based on how good your UKCAT score was - particularly if that was primarily because of the AR section. And considering we all knew our UKCAT scores before applying, and probably also knew last years cut-off points, that would have been an entirely reasonable (but now misguided) way of helping to make those choices, unfortunately....
Have sent the following to them:
Dear Pearson Vue,
I wish to register my extreme dissatisfaction with this anomaly, and with the evident unacceptable delay in informing students of the discrepancy.
It is impossible to underestimate the impact that this farcical mistake will have on many applicants' lives and future careers. Every candidate who did the UKCAT, based the choices they made as to university and course choices to a certain extent on their success at the UKCAT. Unfortunately, we are now informed that our interpretation of this score was not accurate as we should have excluded the AR section at the time. Had Pearson informed the candidates at the same time as they informed the universities (i.e. presumably by the 15th October when the universities began considering our applications, should the email be believed), then many candidates may well have changed their university choices on their UCAS forms, to reflect these changes. Hence many candidates will be unsuccessful in medicine or dental school applications this year due to this discrepancy, whereas if we'd been informed by the 15th October, we would have been able to take their revised averages into account and choose universities which had different selection criteria.
Furthermore, if extensive quality checks could be undertaken since the end of the testing sessions, why were they not undertaken before the testing commenced as would be prudent given both the high impact that these tests have on peoples lives and future careers, as well as the money that we each pay in order to take this test?
I expect a full and unequivocal apology for this unprecedented farce, and it is only right that some efforts should be made to refund candidates whose future careers now hang in the balance due to your ineptness in both the test administration, and predominantly due to the delay in informing us.
|
