seriously.

more things going wrong? is that even possible? i didn't write over the weekend because it was judgment day(s). the time allocated - sensibly over a weekend of course when no-one in the world was at work or available to give help - for us to rearrange our preferences, work out the best possible way tho play the system, and hopefully secure an interview.

now that the lords of MTAS have decided that everyone is to have at least one interview, guarenteed in their first choice deanery/specialty it was then decided that before these were offered us lowly applicants should have the chance to reorganise the order of our preferences on our application forms, because, it was argued that with the chance of only one interview we may change our minds and want to put a seemingly less popular deanery or specialty choice as our first choice to try and maximise the chances of getting a job.

the other name for all of this is gambling.

so, i decided not to change my preferences. i had been lucky enough to have an interview in my second choice place, and leaving things as they should be should hopefully mean i get offered an interview in my first choice place. i say hopefully because one thing we have all learned by now is not to trust the system.

so far it seems to have gone alright for me. but i keep hearing utter distaster stories from other people who have had interviews and have now been told that after reconsideration they are not eligible for the post and the interview (that they have already had has been withdrawn), other people who have already had interviews and have now been told that there are no vacanices for that specialty in that deanery. what does that even mean? there are no medical jobs in a whole deanery? that they have already allocated all the jobs and are not offering further interviews? or is it just another mistake within this vast catalogue of errors?

and some people who have applied for one specialty in four areas have been told that they are eligible for some of the areas but not others. how is this possible? eligibilty criteria are as follows: 1) full GMC registration, 2) able to work in the UK and 3) meets person specifications requirements. how can one individual be considered eligible in one place and not another?

and why can't individuals in that situation be told which aspect of the eligibility criteria they do not meet. perhaps there has been a simple error that could be rectified in time.

how can the eligibility criteria be so complex and ambiguous?

how can the government have got this so wrong?