Reilly vs. Glasgow Uni. 1995 (original) (raw)
Outer House of the Scottish Court of Session
REILLY vs. UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW
[1996] ELR 394
HEARING DATE 22 August 1995
Admissions - University admissions - R applied to University of Glasgow to study medicine - Application rejected - R sought judicial review of that decision - Alleged breach of natural justice - Alleged failure to advise of requirement of work experience - Requirement allegedly applied in practice
HEADNOTE
In the summer of 1994 R passed six Higher Examinations at A grade. He continued on in to the sixth form where he studied three 'A' levels. In October 1994 he applied to study medicine at a number of universities including the University of Glasgow. The undergraduate prospectus of the University of Glasgow provided a general explanation of the study of medicine and stated that, 'You may be called for interview and evidence will be sought that you have seriously considered the implications of a career in medicine and that you are sufficiently motivated as well as having the necessary intellectual ability'. The university attempted to make available to all prospective students a leaflet entitled 'The Study of Medicine'. This stated that:
'It is expected that applicants will have made some personal effort to acquaint themselves with the way of life a medical career offers, and will have come to a personal decision that they are suited to it. We encourage potential students to discuss their future with doctors and medical undergraduates and, if possible, to arrange a period of observation in a clinical setting, e.g. home for the elderly or handicapped children. It is imperative for applicants to remember that in applying to medicine that they are not just planning their next few years but are committing themselves to a long term goal and lifetime career.'
The university called R for interview. A very short interview was conducted by the associate dean for admissions of the medical faculty and an administrative assistant. The interview form included a heading 'Motivation towards a career in medicine' under which there were three subheadings, 'GP contact', 'Hospital contact' and 'Voluntary work'. There were further headings for communication skills, relationships with other people and general comments. In December 1994 R received a letter stating that his application for admission to the medical faculty had been refused. A letter to R in May 1995 stated that:
'The specific reason for rejection was your failure to express a strong personal enthusiasm for and a commitment to medicine, either in your written statement or in what you said at interview. This was reinforced by the fact that you had not made any independent effort to acquaint yourself with the way of life a medical career offers. This should have involved work shadowing in a general practice or in a hospital or voluntary work in a caring environment.'
R sought judicial review of that decision rejecting him. He submitted that the university had acted in a manner contrary to natural justice by failing to advise him, within the prospectus issued by it, that a prerequisite of entry to the faculty of medicine was the requirement to make independent effort to acquaint himself with the way of life offered by a career in medicine by work shadowing in a general practice, hospital, or by voluntary work in a caring environment. In short, a requirement for work experience.
Held
(1) On the evidence the associate dean for admissions had not applied and did not seek to apply any imperative requirement that a candidate should have had work experience. He did look for a commitment to medicine as a career and such commitment was frequently shown by undertaking such work experience. Possible candidates would be advised to obtain such experience.
(2) The circumstances of the treatment of the application, together with what was stated in the leaflet, and the terms of the proforma used to record the interview, did not provide an adequate basis for the inference that in practice a work experience requirement was being applied. The evidence from 1994 was that 6% of Scottish candidates who received an offer of a place, that is 17 candidates, did not have any work experience.
(3) There was clear evidence that the actual reason for the rejection of R was that he had failed to express any enthusiasm for medicine and that in the course of the interview the only point at which he had succeeded in expressing any enthusiasm was when reference was made to some work experience which he had had in an electronics firm.
COUNSEL
Margaret Hughes for the petitioner;
Neil Davidson QC for the respondent (University of Glasgow)
PANEL: Lord Coulsfield
JUDGMENT BY LORD COULSFIELD
The petitioner in this application for judicial review is a young man of 17 who, in the summer of 1994, sat six Higher examinations in which he obtained passes at A grade. He proceeded to a sixth year at school during which he studied three subjects at 'A' Level. In October 1994 he applied to be admitted to study medicine at a number of universities including the University of Glasgow. He was called by the respondents for interview on 7 December 1994. The interview was conducted by the Associate Dean for Admissions of the Medical Faculty, Mr Stuart MacPherson, and an Administrative Assistant, Miss Stewart. On 14 December 1994 the petitioner received a letter stating this his application for admission to the medical faculty at Glasgow had been rejected. He asked to be given reasons for the refusal and, after repeated requests, received a letter dated 2 May 1995 in which reasons were set out. The present application was lodged on 15 June 1995. It originally contained a number of grounds of challenge to the decision to reject his application but, after certain affidavits had been lodged by the respondents, the grounds of challenge were reduced to one, namely, that in refusing the application the respondents had:
'acted in a manner contrary to natural justice by failing to advise the petitioner within the prospectus issued by them, that a pre-requisite of entry to the Faculty of Medicine was the requirement to make independent effort to acquaint himself with the way of life offered by a career in medicine by work shadowing in a general practice, hospital, or by voluntary work in a caring environment.'
In argument, the requirement which the respondents were alleged to have imposed was, for brevity, referred to as a requirement for work experience. I heard a preliminary argument on the relevancy of this ground of challenge on 14 July 1995 but decided that the matter could not be dealt with without proof. After hearing evidence, at a further hearing on Tuesday, 22 August 1995, I refused the prayer of the petition.
The respondents publish an undergraduate prospectus which explains the requirements for admission to various faculties, including medicine. The section on the faculty of medicine begins with some general explanation of the study of medicine, and that part of the document concludes with the following passage:
'Training to be a doctor involves a prolonged period of study and, with the rate of development in the scientific and technological aspects increasing year by year, the University course is the start of a lifelong process of study and learning. For those with determination, perseverance and a sense of service, as well as the necessary intellectual capacity, medicine may be a very rewarding, if arduous discipline.'
The following section is headed 'Selection of Students' and states:
'The current demand for places considerably exceeds those available. It is therefore necessary to select from those who will have obtained the basic school qualifications described in the table on page 154. You may be called for interview and evidence will be sought that you have seriously considered the implications of a career in medicine and that you are sufficiently motivated as well as having the necessary intellectual ability.'
In the table referred to, the minimum entry requirement, in terms of Highers, is stated to be five passes, which must include certain prescribed subjects, four passes at grade A and one at grade B. In a column headed 'Comments' it is stated:
'SCE: A candidate's performance in fifth year is most important and only those who obtain at least AABBB in S5 will be considered from S6.'
The respondents also publish a leaflet entitled 'The Study of Medicine' which they attempt to make available to prospective students. The leaflet includes, under the heading 'Previous Experience', the following passage:
'It is expected that applicants will have made some personal effort to acquaint themselves with the way of life a medical career offers, and will have come to a personal decision that they are suited to it. We encourage potential students to discuss their future with doctors and medical undergraduates and, if possible, to arrange a period of observation in a clinical setting, e.g. home for the elderly or handicapped children. It is imperative for applicants to remember that in applying to medicine they are not just planning their next few years but are committing themselves to a long term goal and lifetime career.'
The petitioner was not, in fact, aware of the terms of that leaflet. He had, however, given careful consideration to the prospectus. His father and mother are both doctors and his sister is studying medicine. With his application form, he submitted a reference from his headmaster and a personal statement in which he said that, after considering various careers, he had decided to apply for medicine and gave reasons for doing so. He mentioned some experience in community care, including involvement in a fund-raising group, and involvement in looking after handicapped children at a party. He had not, however, undertaken any work experience along the lines referred to in the leaflet quoted above.
The respondents receive many more applications for admission to study medicine than there are places available. In 1994 there were around 800 applications for just over 200 places. As the prospectus, quoted above, shows, the respondents' policy in selecting those to be admitted is to take account of the extent to which a candidate has seriously considered, and can show a commitment to, a career in medicine. The material on which that can be judged consists of the candidate's reference and personal statement, together with the interviewers' assessment of his performance at interview. The time available at the interview is limited, interviews being scheduled to take place at 10-minute intervals. It is clear nevertheless that the interview is a critical stage in the selection procedure.
I think, therefore, that, before dealing with the evidence concerning the petitioner's interview, it is important to emphasise that this petition challenges the decision of the respondents on one ground only, namely, failure to comply with natural justice by failing to give notice that the respondents were applying a requirement of work experience. The court is not concerned with the question whether the respondents' policy in the selection of medical students is correct or reasonable, nor whether the decision to reject the petitioner was a sound or a wise one, nor even whether the interviewers' opinion of his performance at interview was reasonable or fair, so long as it was an opinion which they genuinely formed. The only question for the court is whether the ground of challenge focused on the petition is made out.
The petitioner's interview occupied a relatively short time. His own evidence and that of his mother, who had taken him to the university for the interview and waited for him there, indicated that it lasted in the region of 5 minutes. Mr MacPherson and Miss Stewart could not give any definite time since no times for the interviews were recorded. The petitioner clearly felt that some of the questions asked of him were unfair or indicated some confusion between him and another candidate, but these matters are not directly relevant to the only issue before the court. The respondents use a printed form to record the decision taken at an interview and the reasons for it. The form includes a number of headings relating to finance, health, references and academic ability. The information under some of these headings would be entered before the interview actually took place, from information available on the candidate's application form. The interview form includes a heading 'Motivation towards a career in medicine' under which there are three subheadings, 'GP contact', 'Hospital contact' and 'Voluntary work'.
There are further headings for communication skills, relationships with other people and general comments. In the petitioner's case, the record was kept by Miss Stewart, who wrote opposite the words 'GP contact' the comment 'none - never been in surgery'. Against 'hospital contact', she wrote 'none - not since two'. The petitioner maintained that these entries did not correctly record his position, but the correctness of the record is not directly relevant to the present issue. Under 'Voluntary work' she wrote 'none' and below that heading she wrote 'medicine is a fairly recent decision, lots of family contact'. The petitioner's communication skills and relationships with other people were assessed as average and under the general comments headings Miss Stewart wrote 'Generally uninspiring. No good reason for medicine. Wants to do physics'. The decision to reject the petitioner is then noted, and, in a paragraph headed 'Decision clinched by', Miss Stewart wrote 'Entirely unconvincing - has done nothing outwith family and friends to research medicine. Very poor communicator. Only showed enthusiasm over physics/electronics'.
The letter which eventually gave reasons for the rejection was dated 2 May 1995. In it, Mr MacPherson pointed out that admission was not based on academic ability alone and that, while they had great respect for the petitioner's academic achievements the decision to reject was based on other grounds. The letter stated, inter alia:
'The specific reason for rejection was your failure to express a strong personal enthusiasm for and a commitment to medicine, either in your written statement or in what you said at interview. This was reinforced by the fact that you had not made any independent effort to acquaint yourself with the way of life a medical career offers. This should have involved work shadowing in a general practice or a hospital or voluntary work in a caring environment.'
At the proof, the petitioner and his mother gave evidence and the petitioner also called Mr MacPherson and Miss Stewart as witnesses. The respondents called Professor Ian Percy Robb, who is a member of the respondents' admission committee and has conducted selection interviews in the past but did not conduct any interviews in 1994. Mr MacPherson, Miss Stewart and Professor Robb all denied that work experience was a prerequisite of entry, as the petitioner alleges. The petitioner and his mother were not, of course, in a position to provide direct evidence that any such prerequisite did exist or was applied. The question therefore came to be whether the petitioner could point to facts and circumstances, including the terms of the documents which I have quoted, the conduct of the interview in his own case and the explanations given by Mr MacPherson, Professor Robb, and, to a lesser extent, Miss Stewart as indicating that, whether consciously and deliberately or not, what the respondents were doing amounted to the imposition of a positive requirement for work experience, which had not been disclosed in the prospectus.
That question can, in my view, be answered quite briefly. I had no hesitation in accepting Mr MacPherson's evidence that he did not apply or seek to apply any imperative requirement that a candidate should have had work experience. He made it clear, in his evidence, that he did look for evidence of a commitment to medicine as a career and that such commitment was frequently shown by undertaking work experience. Indeed, if asked to advise possible candidates, he would have suggested that they should obtain such experience. Professor Robb would have given similar advice, and he drew attention to the importance of such experience from the candidate's own point of view, as enabling the candidate to test his or her own commitment and reaction to the realities of professional life.
It was not, I think, suggested on behalf of the petitioner that, in expressing these views, either Mr MacPherson or Professor Robb was not being sincere and truthful. The argument rather took the form that the circumstances of the treatment of the application, together with what was stated in the leaflet and the terms of the proforma used to record the interview yielded the inference that in practice the requirement alleged was being applied. In my view, the circumstances referred to do not provide an adequate basis for any such inference.
The witnesses recognised that work experience was or might be an important factor and was something which was often found and that is, I think, sufficient to explain the way in which the proforma is made up. Again, I do not think that either the terms of the leaflet or those of the letter of rejection are inconsistent with the approach explained by Mr MacPherson and Professor Robb. There is evidence, which does enter into the assessment of this case, that there are a number, admittedly fairly small but not insignificant, of candidates who are admitted without having any work experience. In 1994 6% of Scottish candidates who received an offer of place, that is 17 candidates, did not have any work experience. Finally, both Mr MacPherson and Miss Stewart gave clear evidence of what the actual reason for the rejection of the petitioner was. They both took the view that he had failed to express any enthusiasm for medicine and that in the course of the interview the only point at which he had succeeded in expressing any enthusiasm was when reference was made to some work experience which he had had in an electronics firm. This experience had been undertaken before his decision to make application for admission to the study of medicine. There were some minor discrepancies between the evidence of Mr MacPherson and that of Miss Stewart, and there were also points of difference between their recollection of the interview and that of the petitioner. I do not, however, regard these differences or discrepancies as important and I entirely accepted that in giving the account which they did of their reaction to the petitioner as a candidate they were expressing the view which they had formed at the time.
As I have indicated, the question for me is not whether the decision to reject the petitioner's application was right or wrong. The only question is whether the petitioner has succeeded in establishing the case made in the petition. In all the circumstances, I came to the clear view that he had failed to do so.
DISPOSITION
Judgment accordingly.
SOLICITORS:
Macbeth Currie & Co for the applicant;
Dundas & Wilson, CS for the respondent
CLICK TO GO/RETURN TO:
THE HISTORY OF AKME AND OF THIS WEBSITE,
THE OXBRIDGE COLLEGE ACCOUNTS: INDEX AND EXPLANATION
THE SURPRISING TRUTH ABOUT OUP'S 'CHARITABLE STATUS'
THE AKME OXFORD CUTTINGS LIBRARY,
THE AKME LITERARY LAW LIBRARY,
e-mail: akme@btinternet.com