Tweet
Hi everyone!
It's my first time posting here so I do apologise if I overlook forum etiquette.
I'm currently studying a foundation year at university with progression to medicine. The foundation year allows progression to medicine and other science based courses subject to the achievement of specific grades. As part of the universities response to the COVID19 pandemic they announced all students on my course will progress to the next level of study regardless of academic credit, grades etc.. apart from me.
I spoke to the Head of Quality Assurance who explained "professional bodies with clinical practice components, such as the General Medical Council, monitor institutional level criteria and policies to ensure that an appropriate standard of attainment has been achieved for entrants admitted to the course and to ensure ongoing registration it is not possible to waive such criteria."
I spoke to an Educational Policy Administrator at the GMC who said they wouldn't be involved in this process, wouldn't set specific criteria and said the only guidance they give is "Organisations must make sure that recruitment, selection and appointment of learners is open, fair and transparent" I then sent this response to the Head of QA at the university to which he/she responded with "It is important for the University to uphold entry and progression requirements for professionally regulated programmes with clinical practice elements, and whilst specific criteria is not explicitly defined by the GMC, such adherence is part of our obligations as an accredited provider".
My issue with this is I feel its incredibly unfair to allow everyone else to progress regardless of grades apart from me under the guise of PSRB/regulatory body guidelines that are based on rhetoric. It seems like a "because we can" decision rather than something that has substantial justification.
There is no mention of achieving specific grades due to regulatory requirements to gain entry to the course in my student contract, the module handbook, the course website or anywhere for that matter. The foundation year itself isn't regulated which is stated clearly on the website and documentation. The Programme Manager for my course said even she didn't know the specifics as they were never explained to her, it was just given as a matter of fact by medicine admissions. The one thing they did say from the get go is that I had to pass an MMI (interview) to assess my suitability, which I did and my Programme Manager tried to argue with medicine that they can only enforce that, but to no avail.
I really feel like they are mugging me off here. Does anyone have any advice or resources I can use to formulate a concrete argument?
TIA
It's my first time posting here so I do apologise if I overlook forum etiquette.
I'm currently studying a foundation year at university with progression to medicine. The foundation year allows progression to medicine and other science based courses subject to the achievement of specific grades. As part of the universities response to the COVID19 pandemic they announced all students on my course will progress to the next level of study regardless of academic credit, grades etc.. apart from me.
I spoke to the Head of Quality Assurance who explained "professional bodies with clinical practice components, such as the General Medical Council, monitor institutional level criteria and policies to ensure that an appropriate standard of attainment has been achieved for entrants admitted to the course and to ensure ongoing registration it is not possible to waive such criteria."
I spoke to an Educational Policy Administrator at the GMC who said they wouldn't be involved in this process, wouldn't set specific criteria and said the only guidance they give is "Organisations must make sure that recruitment, selection and appointment of learners is open, fair and transparent" I then sent this response to the Head of QA at the university to which he/she responded with "It is important for the University to uphold entry and progression requirements for professionally regulated programmes with clinical practice elements, and whilst specific criteria is not explicitly defined by the GMC, such adherence is part of our obligations as an accredited provider".
My issue with this is I feel its incredibly unfair to allow everyone else to progress regardless of grades apart from me under the guise of PSRB/regulatory body guidelines that are based on rhetoric. It seems like a "because we can" decision rather than something that has substantial justification.
There is no mention of achieving specific grades due to regulatory requirements to gain entry to the course in my student contract, the module handbook, the course website or anywhere for that matter. The foundation year itself isn't regulated which is stated clearly on the website and documentation. The Programme Manager for my course said even she didn't know the specifics as they were never explained to her, it was just given as a matter of fact by medicine admissions. The one thing they did say from the get go is that I had to pass an MMI (interview) to assess my suitability, which I did and my Programme Manager tried to argue with medicine that they can only enforce that, but to no avail.
I really feel like they are mugging me off here. Does anyone have any advice or resources I can use to formulate a concrete argument?
TIA
Comment