A Devil's advocate

Whelan et al's article on Medical Training Application System (MTAS) fiasco (Psychiatric Bulletin, November 2007, 31, 425–427) reincarnates the proverbial dead horse. Was there another side to the story? Why do the Colleges tend to forget that they had been consulted on the process before it was implemented? Our College organised meetings on MTAS in London and then pulled out senior house officers from the farthest corners of the UK to sell it. Did they raise a brow regarding the questions on the application form?

But more importantly, was it wise to have changed horses mid-stream? As someone who went through MTAS’ birth pangs, I can say that the panic started when ‘surprisingly’ many were not short-listed. Forgotten was the lost tribe who had been on the list and as we went through the interview process, we found that most of those who were short-listed had more than two interviews. Hypothesis: was the system more specific than sensitive, as all screening processes ought to be? Had the process been allowed to run through to its original programme, the second round would have seen many vacancies, as those who had been through the first round would have taken only one run-through slot despite being offered many interviews. Hypothesis: could then the system have balanced it, as second round vacancies would be proportionate to the candidates unsuccessful in the first round?

Were we too unnerved to give the system a fair trial as designed (now conspiracy!!) originally? Would any process of selection in future be credible not only in finding a doctor, but distinguishing a surgeon's glove from a psychiatrist's couch?