There has been recent widespread UK press coverage about the case of medical school applicant Majid Ahmed.
By all accounts Ahmed appears to have a glowing academic record and many personal traits that reinforce his suitability to practice medicine. His university application initially made a very positive impression, securing him interviews at several UK medical schools. One of the medical schools, that of Imperial College, made Ahmed an offer following his dazzling performances both on paper and in person.
But then it all fell apart. Imperial retracted their offer when it became known that Ahmed was a convicted burglar. He had received a conviction for burglary only two years earlier, yet considered it so insignificant that he failed to declare it openly as he should have done. It was only at the eleventh hour that Imperial discovered his previous misdemeanour. That left them little option but to reassess Ahmed's application after an offer was in place.
There is widespread sympathy with Ahmed's plight. Most in support cite the fact that Imperial College is discriminating against someone who has already paid their dues to society. He has been convicted by the courts so why punish him a second time by shattering his university dreams? The conviction relates to an offence committed when he was a naive 15-year-old, who simply got in with the wrong crowd in his hometown of Bradford. Lots of people make mistakes when they're a teenager, don't they?
Entangled in their sympathy for the apparent underdog most people have failed to grasp the most pivotal issue of the case - Ahmed is a burglar who failed to declare his criminal status transparently from the outset. That's an indisputable fact.
UCAS ask people to declare relevant convictions when they complete their application form. Sadly the word 'relevant' is open to interpretation because it only applies to offences considered 'unspent' under the auspices of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It appears Ahmed, perhaps acting on duff information, had used this interpretation to withhold information about his conviction of 2-years earlier. That was a mistake.
A little elementary investigation would have told Ahmed that medical careers are exempt from that legislation. This means they are never truly spent because future employers (or universities) can consider them during the recruitment process. Serious medical school applicants know these rules inside out.
Medical school admission is a cut throat business. Every year tens of thousands of applicants chase only a few thousand places. Every year thousands of exceptionally well qualified applicants face heartbreaking rejection, but accept their defeat graciously and with maturity. Contrast this with Ahmed's behaviour - a convicted criminal in a position of entirely his own making, yet he's still trying to get one up on the universities.
The universities have to separate the wheat from the chaff and, with the spiralling number of grade As being awarded at A-level, it's getting increasingly difficult to do that on a purely academic basis. This means that the universities are paying closer attention to factors like the applicants' interview performance, work experience and personal qualities.
This being the case why shouldn't Imperial College favour an honest applicant with glowing qualifications over a convicted burglar with comparable qualifications? Criminal actions have consequences.
Thinking a 2-year-old conviction for an inherently dishonest offence is too irrelevant to mention shows a severe lack of judgement and integrity on the part of Ahmed. Vulnerable people deserve to be treated by honest medical staff of unblemished character.
I also find Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell's intervention quite worrying. He is in no position whatsoever to dictate admissions policy to any UK institution. No doubt he has chosen to speak out in a hapless attempt to win the maligned Government some urgently needed brownie points.
Mr Rammell: Just because your profession and Government is morally void in every sense doesn't mean we should dilute the standards required of our medical practitioners.
By all accounts Ahmed appears to have a glowing academic record and many personal traits that reinforce his suitability to practice medicine. His university application initially made a very positive impression, securing him interviews at several UK medical schools. One of the medical schools, that of Imperial College, made Ahmed an offer following his dazzling performances both on paper and in person.
But then it all fell apart. Imperial retracted their offer when it became known that Ahmed was a convicted burglar. He had received a conviction for burglary only two years earlier, yet considered it so insignificant that he failed to declare it openly as he should have done. It was only at the eleventh hour that Imperial discovered his previous misdemeanour. That left them little option but to reassess Ahmed's application after an offer was in place.
There is widespread sympathy with Ahmed's plight. Most in support cite the fact that Imperial College is discriminating against someone who has already paid their dues to society. He has been convicted by the courts so why punish him a second time by shattering his university dreams? The conviction relates to an offence committed when he was a naive 15-year-old, who simply got in with the wrong crowd in his hometown of Bradford. Lots of people make mistakes when they're a teenager, don't they?
Entangled in their sympathy for the apparent underdog most people have failed to grasp the most pivotal issue of the case - Ahmed is a burglar who failed to declare his criminal status transparently from the outset. That's an indisputable fact.
UCAS ask people to declare relevant convictions when they complete their application form. Sadly the word 'relevant' is open to interpretation because it only applies to offences considered 'unspent' under the auspices of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It appears Ahmed, perhaps acting on duff information, had used this interpretation to withhold information about his conviction of 2-years earlier. That was a mistake.
A little elementary investigation would have told Ahmed that medical careers are exempt from that legislation. This means they are never truly spent because future employers (or universities) can consider them during the recruitment process. Serious medical school applicants know these rules inside out.
Medical school admission is a cut throat business. Every year tens of thousands of applicants chase only a few thousand places. Every year thousands of exceptionally well qualified applicants face heartbreaking rejection, but accept their defeat graciously and with maturity. Contrast this with Ahmed's behaviour - a convicted criminal in a position of entirely his own making, yet he's still trying to get one up on the universities.
The universities have to separate the wheat from the chaff and, with the spiralling number of grade As being awarded at A-level, it's getting increasingly difficult to do that on a purely academic basis. This means that the universities are paying closer attention to factors like the applicants' interview performance, work experience and personal qualities.
This being the case why shouldn't Imperial College favour an honest applicant with glowing qualifications over a convicted burglar with comparable qualifications? Criminal actions have consequences.
Thinking a 2-year-old conviction for an inherently dishonest offence is too irrelevant to mention shows a severe lack of judgement and integrity on the part of Ahmed. Vulnerable people deserve to be treated by honest medical staff of unblemished character.
I also find Higher Education Minister Bill Rammell's intervention quite worrying. He is in no position whatsoever to dictate admissions policy to any UK institution. No doubt he has chosen to speak out in a hapless attempt to win the maligned Government some urgently needed brownie points.
Mr Rammell: Just because your profession and Government is morally void in every sense doesn't mean we should dilute the standards required of our medical practitioners.
