From Mr J. McDermott, MRPharmS
SIR,—While sympathising with the predicament "A Pharmacy Graduate" finds him- or herself in (PJ, January 29, p183), I would like to offer a counterpoint to his or her letter. I was among the cohort of graduates who took the first registration examination in 1993. Not being an intellectual high-flier (my degree classification was lower second), I nevertheless did not find the examination unduly taxing. My memory of it was that most of the questions could be answered by the average student who made the most of the preregistration year, who kept calm, applied common sense, and had some skill in numeracy and time management. It is my impression, for which I have no evidence, that many students are disadvantaged by the false security and time constraints of the open-book paper. My advice to candidates is to trust themselves where they know the answer, go to the books where they have time, and be prepared to make one or two educated guesses.
The suggestion that preregistration tutors and/or the Society should do more to coach graduates for the examination is questionable. Being a professional means planning and directing one's own learning, assessing one's weaknesses and taking remedial steps. Preparing for the registration examination is the beginning, not the end, of this process. I would also contest the idea that the multiples invariably provide superior training. I was fortunate to secure a preregistration placement in an independent community pharmacy. I cannot remember receiving any bespoke training for the examination, whether lectures, materials or mock tests, but what I did receive was on-the-job training by the side of experts that was second to none. I hope you will allow me to express my gratitude to my employer, Noel Dixon, and my tutor, John Hall, for the effort they put in, considering the quality of material they were presented with.
It is true that the larger multiples have a good success rate in registration examination passes, but whether this is due to their training courses or to other factors, such as the abilities or motivation of the graduates they recruit, is uncertain. Your correspondent makes a sound point in comparing the lot of pharmacists removed from the register for misconduct. And there is much to be said for admitting on to the register all successful candidates, no matter how many attempts they have made. No one could but feel for the graduate in this case, but it should be remembered that aspirants to some professions do not even receive one bite at the cherry. Consider the Bar. In England and Wales there are 12,000 students graduating with law degrees annually, plus another 2,000 postgraduates who take the one-year legal conversion course, but there are fewer than 1,500 places on Bar vocational courses (one year post-graduation courses costing £7,000). Of the 1,500 who complete the BVC, only 700 will be offered a pupillage (the unremunerated equivalent of our preregistration year). Of the 700 who finish their pupillage, roughly 50 per cent will be offered a tenancy at a set of chambers. It is for these disillusioned, debt-ridden students who have spent five years chasing an unobtainable dream that I feel sorry. Of course the legal profession has always been heavily oversubscribed, unlike pharmacy where demand for pharmacy graduates exceeds supply, and it is curious that our Council saw fit to discourage entrants to the register (although marginally) at a time when it must have known of the looming manpower shortage.
There is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, giving failing candidates a second chance to remedy their mistakes and, on the other hand, upholding the dignity and kudos of the registration examination itself. In striking this balance, I do not think a limit of three opportunities is unduly harsh.
John McDermott
Northampton