Band 2 what do we do?

buckinit

Why not? The only valid reason for nobody in band 2 getting a chance this year would be down to ALL 5,000 candidates in band 1 to ace the second assessment and everyone who made it through to sit the assessment.
Of course, those at the end closer to band 3 will more than likely not be considered for this current drive, but would be for the next one be it this coming December or early next year.
As stated in the e-mail those successful candidates got, anyone who doesn't meet the criteria in any part of the application process will be removed from the current drive for trainees. Unless we're dealing with flawless individuals, some of those within the second band will be seen to, naturally.

thekopend

All they have to do is pass the next assessments and they will be ahead of us by merit. I would expect 3000 at leased to make it through the next aptitudes, blatantly obvious that they will get 300 from batch one, how the hell do you expect people from batch 2/3 to be through the process in time for this year if we are not even doing the tests! They will get enough for this year and next year no bother, your in denial. If they thought they wouldn't get enough from 5000 people for this year then batch one would be bigger. Nonsense

buckinit

First of all, I'm one of the lucky ones who have been placed in band 1. I felt the test last week went fine, obviously that bit tougher but any who.
As the testing period comes closer to the interview/evaluation process, the assessments will naturally become more challenging in order to narrow down the percentage of people who make it through. The fairest way to do this is to take the average of what people got in the given assessment and draw a line were those who scored below would be out of the recruitment drive. This then leaves those further successful candidates to progress on leaving the standard for the next round even higher and so on. Do you agree?

thekopend

What ever way it works I'd put money that they will get at leased 300+ from band one

D Trent

buckinit wrote: »

First of all, I'm one of the lucky ones who have been placed in band 1. I felt the test last week went fine, obviously that bit tougher but any who.
As the testing period comes closer to the interview/evaluation process, the assessments will naturally become more challenging in order to narrow down the percentage of people who make it through. The fairest way to do this is to take the average of what people got in the given assessment and draw a line were those who scored below would be out of the recruitment drive. This then leaves those further successful candidates to progress on leaving the standard for the next round even higher and so on. Do you agree?

Yeah the standard gets higher but your chances get higher aswell if you succeed to nxt round, less competition

redout

To see more than 4,700 fall by the wayside is wishful thinking in my opinion. No doubt a percentage will fall for a raft of various reasons. Some will not make it to stage 3 or 4. A lot will fail to impress at interview (majority who get one will not be successful), some will not meet the educational requirements, fail fitness test, fail medical or fail the background check etc but asking for circa 94% of those who got into band 1 to fail is far fetched.

buckinit

redout wrote: »

To see more than 4,700 fall by the wayside is wishful thinking in my opinion. No doubt a percentage will fall for a raft of various reasons. Some will not make it to stage 3 or 4. A lot will fail to impress at interview (majority who get one will not be successful), some will not meet the educational requirements, fail fitness test, fail medical or fail the background check etc but asking for circa 94% of those who got into band 1 to fail is far fetched.

Of course, the fail rate amongst those in band 1 will most likely be closer to the 300 mark you have mentioned as opposed to the 94%. My point stating that there WILL be openings for some people in band 2 to come forward and take the tests this year.

Chem Lord

mycro89 wrote: »

Here is a link to what was said in relation to the bands


http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-02-19a.410&s=garda+recruitment

Am I interpreting Alan Shatter's response wrong or is he clearly saying that Bands 2 and 3 WILL progress to stage two at some point in this recruitment drive?

thekopend

buckinit wrote: »

Of course, the fail rate amongst those in band 1 will most likely be closer to the 300 mark you have mentioned as opposed to the 94%. My point stating that there WILL be openings for some people in band 2 to come forward and take the tests this year.

You don't understand, band 2 won't get a look in until band 1 is completely exhausted e.g eliminated or recruited. It not a case that for every person eliminated in band 1 a person from band 2 comes forward. If they think band 1
Will not cover next year they may bring forward band 2 for testing at the end of this year to be ready for next year.

buckinit

thekopend wrote: »

You don't understand, band 2 won't get a look in until band 1 is completely exhausted e.g eliminated or recruited. It not a case that for every person eliminated in band 1 a person from band 2 comes forward. If they think band 1
Will not cover next year they may bring forward band 2 for testing at the end of this year to be ready for next year.

I understand that anyone who fails to progress in the next few stages of the recruitment process will be out of this drive.

Let's say they have their optimum number of people who pass the most recent test, i'm going to say 2,500 as an example. The supervised test then narrows it down 1,000 whereby anyone successful will go onto the interview/evaluation process. For whatever reason, maybe 100 odd of those do not fit the criteria for getting through (criminal offense, etc.). For the rest, they may not like the persona, attitude or whatever "flaws" the employer may pick up in the interview and screening process and therefore eliminate them further. Taking all else into consideration they could be left with just 500 candidates in the last stage of the assessment process.

Depending on the employer's requirements, 500 people for 300 positions may/may not be adequate, where they could gain access to others willing to do the job by dipping into that pool of applicants. This is where they introduce people from other bands.

On the other hand, they could just take the short cut of going ahead and using a small no. of people for the 300 positions making it almost guaranteed for those in the final stages of the assessment to gain access to the Garda Trainee Course.

thekopend

Something along those lines but there won't be a drop from 2,500 to 1,000 after the supervised tests, the purpose of this test is just to clarify people's results, in my opinion there will be no cutting of applicants at this test, only the people who have a major discrepancy. Maybe 300 for augments sake. So put 2,200 forward to interview in your equation and see what you end up with, over twice as many as you predicted.

buckinit

thekopend wrote: »

Something along those lines but there won't be a drop from 2,500 to 1,000 after the supervised tests, the purpose of this test is just to clarify people's results, in my opinion there will be no cutting of applicants at this test, only the people who have a major discrepancy. Maybe 300 for augments sake. So put 2,200 forward to interview in your equation and see what you end up with, over twice as many as you predicted.

It started as 25,000 to 12,000 ultimately to 5,000.

If this pattern continues it'll be 2500 from the most recent test and then 1,250 from the following test.

You believe there will be no cutting of candidates in the third test or supervised test?

That'd be interesting, but I can't see its purpose even if its used solely to highlight those who may of breeched the rules in the previous two assessments to get them to the given stage.

Tommy_utd16

Bands 2 and 3 best chance of progressing is, if more gardai are needed to be recruited over the next 3 years ie a larger panel is required. This would be great news for all candidates.

redout

buckinit wrote: »

It started as 25,000 to 12,000 ultimately to 5,000.

If this pattern continues it'll be 2500 from the most recent test and then 1,250 from the following test.

You believe there will be no cutting of candidates in the third test or supervised test?

That'd be interesting, but I can't see its purpose even if its used solely to highlight those who may of breeched the rules in the previous two assessments to get them to the given stage.

Why would you continuously cull 50% of those who scored higher? It only then opens it up to a band of lower scoring individuals which seems daft.

mycro89

redout wrote: »

Why would you continuously cull 50% of those who scored higher? It only then opens it up to a band of lower scoring individuals which seems daft.

So you think you are above others "lower scoring individuals" ?

Andrea345

Chem Lord wrote: »

Am I interpreting Alan Shatter's response wrong or is he clearly saying that Bands 2 and 3 WILL progress to stage two at some point in this recruitment drive?

To be honest that is what I thought and that's not just me being biased however the PAS information sounds like we might never get called. Who really knows at this stage.

buckinit

redout wrote: »

Why would you continuously cull 50% of those who scored higher? It only then opens it up to a band of lower scoring individuals which seems daft.

I'd imagine they're cutting the numbers vastly as at the moment, 5,000 people is too much to interview. Unfortunately, like myself who was lucky enough to get into band 1, if I fail to meet the required score in the present stage, I'm out of this drive, according to the e-mail that was sent around. I've also seen a link to Shatter mentioning something along those lines.

This would then opening it up to people in bands lower than the top scoring one, but at the end of the day, they still passed the first assessment and have the right to be tested.

It seems band one are giving first choice to prove themselves in the recruitment process, then two and then three.

Andrea345

mycro89 wrote: »

So you think you are above others "lower scoring individuals" ?

In my opinion it was one test and people do have the potential to do better in a second test. We have people on here saying practice is key to stage two and people bettering their scores with practice. Some people wont some people will. Maybe some were having an off day.

redout

mycro89 wrote: »

So you think you are above others "lower scoring individuals" ?

For the purposes of the recruitment campaign if you scored in band 1 then it would follow that you would be above those who placed in bands 2 and 3 would it not?

Andrea345

redout wrote: »

For the purposes of the recruitment campaign if you scored in band 1 then it would follow that you would be above those who placed in bands 2 and 3 would it not?

I don't think it's as clear cut as that as the people in band one that scored higher in the first stage than the lower end of band one could be knocked out so you could assume that the people in Band two could potentially over take the band one scores in the next stage. Yes they are superior in terms of getting the chance to progress but I wouldn't go as far to say from the one test that they are more intelligent as a garda if that is what you are implying. There might be some confusion in how people are taking you up.

redout

Andrea345 wrote: »

I don't think it's as clear cut as that as the people in band one that scored higher in the first stage than the lower end of band one could be knocked out so you could assume that the people in Band two could potentially over take the band one scores in the next stage. Yes they are superior in terms of getting the chance to progress but I wouldn't go as far to say from the one test that they are more intelligent as a garda if that is what you are implying. There might be some confusion in how people are taking you up.

Though possible it is highly unlikely. If you scored high in band 1 for stage 1 then it would logically follow you will more than likely do so again in the next stage. The tests in stage 2 were not drastically different from stage 1. The odd few will make gains and losses but in general I reckon most will score roughly the same. I don't believe that they would necessarily make more intelligent Gardai. All the aptitude test does is tell you who is good at them and unfortunately some are better than others. In know way take that to mean they would make better Gardai. Some of histories most famous serial killers, nutjobs etc. have been tested/certified geniuses. I believe that many fine individuals will miss out on the opportunity to become a Garda because of the method of recruiting. Someone who is good at aptitude tests could just as easily have no people skills whatsoever and make a low calibre garda.

Andrea345

Oh look we don't know how the system works and what the results of the next stage will be. Band one deserved their shot first and only those who fail to reach the pass mark will be cut same with band two so they are all in the same boat. If those in band two reach the pass mark then they deserve to be there too. My heads spinning thinking about it at this late night.

redout

Andrea345 wrote: »

Edit. So with your reasoning.. that the lower scoring might make better AGS then why would it be daft to let the lower scoring have a chance. We all passed at the end of the day and the bands are there because they had too many applicants to choose from and they have to narrow it down some way.

Everybody should get a chance but in order. The recruitment campaign is run by virtue of a merit list as stated in the booklet. It makes no sense to drastically cull higher scoring applicants just so as to afford those from bands 2 and 3 an opportunity to be recruited in this initial intake. To go to 2,500 and then 1,250 come interview stage like that previous poster implied would be drastic and leave no alternative but to utilise those from bands 2 (almost certainly) immediately. You have to take into consideration that there are another two intakes which need to be filled from the 12,000 who made it through stage 1. There will absolutely be individuals from outside band 1 who will be recruited over the 3 intakes.

Andrea345

redout wrote: »

Everybody should get a chance but in order. The recruitment campaign is run by virtue of a merit list as stated in the booklet. It makes no sense to drastically cull higher scoring applicants just so as to afford those from bands 2 and 3 an opportunity to be recruited in this initial intake. To go to 2,500 and then 1,250 come interview stage like that previous poster implied would be drastic and leave no alternative but to utilise those from bands 2 (almost certainly) immediately. You have to take into consideration that there are another two intakes which need to be filled from the 12,000 who made it through stage 1. There will absolutely be individuals from outside band 1 who will be recruited over the 3 intakes.

Indeed. They will have to cover themselves for dropouts and fails in interviews etc. They won't leave themselves short that is for sure. It's going to be interesting to see how it's all going to work out. I still don't agree that people can't perform considerably better second time round though.

thekopend

There is a high standard expected at every stage of the process, band 1 were top of that standard at stage one fair play to them,which gives them the chance first but, they will have to reach the high standard at 4 other consecutive stages too and that is why I feel the numbers will be cut quickly (maybe not as quickly as other say I admit but band 2 maybe 3 are needed). People say why cull the top candidates(daft thing to say if you ask me) ye are only the top at stage one and you will have to be of high quality at every other stage too, if not you will be cut! Believe it or not. No matter how high your aptitude is. Like it or lump it. Ye could easily do crap at interview ect. Then when numbers dissipate band 2 will be brought forward in their turn because they have met the accepted standard at stage one, and some of these could do brilliant in every other stage, some won't. I get the feeling that some people on band one think they are the s**t compared to band 2/3, well ye are not! The best possible recruits will be brought forward by working through the pack. That is why the didn't just say top 6 or7 k progress rest don't. They know there is top gardai from 1 to 12,000 and they intend to find them! The cream will rise to the top. Good luck ye are up for slaughter first, we can learn from ye. Rant over

mycro89

It would appear that band 2 will get a look in, but when is the question. I guess more will be known after the stage 2 results have been released, we should get a better indication then.


Also the subsequent bands have one thousand less the whole time, there has to be some logic behind this, they could have split it even with 3 bands of 4,000 but they didn't???

Faith and Justice

redout wrote: »

Why would you continuously cull 50% of those who scored higher? It only then opens it up to a band of lower scoring individuals which seems daft.

They scored higher in an unsupervised exam.

It was culled by 50% already.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was culled again. They need to cut numbers

mycro89

Personally, I can see band 2 being called when they reach a certain level within band 1, the numbers have to be cut and those that think they have a place based on their performance at stage 1 I feel could be in for some fall in the coming weeks......

Anyone else of the same opinion ?

redout

Andrea345 wrote: »

Indeed. They will have to cover themselves for dropouts and fails in interviews etc. They won't leave themselves short that is for sure. It's going to be interesting to see how it's all going to work out. I still don't agree that people can't perform considerably better second time round though.

I never said they cant. In fact, I stated that a few would do better as well as worse, but that in general, the majority would score roughly the same.

thekopend wrote: »

There is a high standard expected at every stage of the process, band 1 were top of that standard at stage one fair play to them,which gives them the chance first but, they will have to reach the high standard at 4 other consecutive stages too and that is why I feel the numbers will be cut quickly (maybe not as quickly as other say I admit but band 2 maybe 3 are needed). People say why cull the top candidates(daft thing to say if you ask me) ye are only the top at stage one and you will have to be of high quality at every other stage too, if not you will be cut! Believe it or not. No matter how high your aptitude is. Like it or lump it. Ye could easily do crap at interview ect. Then when numbers dissipate band 2 will be brought forward in their turn because they have met the accepted standard at stage one, and some of these could do brilliant in every other stage, some won't. I get the feeling that some people on band one think they are the s**t compared to band 2/3, well ye are not! The best possible recruits will be brought forward by working through the pack. That is why the didn't just say top 6 or7 k progress rest don't. They know there is top gardai from 1 to 12,000 and they intend to find them! The cream will rise to the top. Good luck ye are up for slaughter first, we can learn from ye. Rant over

I highly doubt we will see band 3 being called in this initial intake. Similar goes for band 2. As I said previously, the 12,000 have to cover the 3 intakes of recruits. To dip into band 3 in the initial intake wouldn’t be logical. They would need to start another recruitment campaign in that case. This will not happen as they have already stated that the 12,000 from bands 1 thru 3 will cover all the intakes.

You appear to have a chip on your shoulder over those who will get the opportunity first. If that is the case then I suggest that those people should have put in a greater deal of effort or at least be cognizant of the fact that there will always be those who are naturally gifted at these types of tests and as a consequence be at an advantage. I certainly would not consider them to be the norm. The campaign is being run on an order of merit system. This was made clear at the outset so “like it or lump it” as you said. The fact is, according to the rules of the campaign, those who placed in band 1 will have the opportunity to be recruited first and deservedly so. That does not necessarily make them the most suitable candidates but they deserve their opportunity nonetheless. Also, I don't agree with your assertion that the best possible recruits will be brought through because the simple fact is that 3 intakes of between 250/300 people will be met before all 12,000 get a full opportunity. Yes, I believe that there are people who would make better recruits than those who scored highest in the aptitude tests. I said as much yesterday.

slingerz

At the end of the day it was up to those in Band 1 to make the most of their opportunity. The got this opportunity by scoring higher than those in band 2. Fair play to them. Those in band 2 are at the mercy of those in power and indeed those in band 2 on how they prepare and complete the resulting stages.

Band 2 need to sit tight and hope it works out for them when/if they get theyre opportunity, just like everyone else in this competition

thekopend

redout wrote: »

I never said they cant. In fact, I stated that a few would do better as well as worse, but that in general, the majority would score roughly the same.



I highly doubt we will see band 3 being called in this initial intake. Similar goes for band 2. As I said previously, the 12,000 have to cover the 3 intakes of recruits. To dip into band 3 in the initial intake wouldn’t be logical. They would need to start another recruitment campaign in that case. This will not happen as they have already stated that the 12,000 from bands 1 thru 3 will cover all the intakes.

You appear to have a chip on your shoulder over those who will get the opportunity first. If that is the case then I suggest that those people should have put in a greater deal of effort or at least be cognizant of the fact that there will always be those who are naturally gifted at these types of tests and as a consequence be at an advantage. I certainly would not consider them to be the norm. The campaign is being run on an order of merit system. This was made clear at the outset so “like it or lump it” as you said. The fact is, according to the rules of the campaign, those who placed in band 1 will have the opportunity to be recruited first and deservedly so. That does not necessarily make them the most suitable candidates but they deserve their opportunity nonetheless. Also, I don't agree with your assertion that the best possible recruits will be brought through because the simple fact is that 3 intakes of between 250/300 people will be met before all 12,000 get a full opportunity. Yes, I believe that there are people who would make better recruits than those who scored highest in the aptitude tests. I said as much yesterday.

Just for the record I don't think band two will be needed for 2 years and i said that in previous posts. Not a hope will be used this year but it will be used and that was my point

Archer3083

I think the people in Band 2 and Band 3 still have a chance. I don't know how much of a chance, but as long as they're still in the process they have a chance. Otherwise they would have been eliminated like the other 12,000.

mycro89

Does anyone know if they formed bands in the past for other recruitment processes within the public and what happened to the bands that would have been formed after stage 1 in other campaigns

Archer3083

mycro89 wrote: »

Does anyone know if they formed bands in the past for other recruitment processes within the public and what happened to the bands that would have been formed after stage 1 in other campaigns

I don't think so. I found an information booklet for recruitment back in 2008. And it said nothing about bands. There were only 3 stages in 2008, so that's changed.

mycro89

Archer3083 wrote: »

I don't think so. I found an information booklet for recruitment back in 2008. And it said nothing about bands. There were only 3 stages in 2008, so that's changed.

Oh sorry, I should have stated for other positions that public jobs recruit for

Archer3083

mycro89 wrote: »

Oh sorry, I should have stated for other positions that public jobs recruit for

No hassle. That booklet for 2008 is bit of date to say the least. It talked about periodic recruitment cycles being held in any given year. Long gone are the days when they recruit more than once a year. It seems this time, it will be one recruitment campaign for 3 years.

mycro89

Archer3083 wrote: »

No hassle. That booklet for 2008 is bit of date to say the least. It talked about periodic recruitment cycles being held in any given year. Long gone are the days when they recruit more than once a year. It seems this time, it will be one recruitment campaign for 3 years.

That's it, but how many progress is the million dollar question

Archer3083

I think the most optimistic outlook will be that 900 will be required over the next 3 years. Of course this number is subject to change. An upturn in the economy might allow for larger numbers. More guards retiring could also increase numbers. However, the reverse is true. And also, for those in Band 2 an Band 3. 900 jobs from 12,000 left in the process does give people in Band 2 and Band 3 a chance of progressing over the 3 year period.

I'm thinking that the majority of recruits will be deployed in the main urban centres like Dublin, Limerick or Cork for the first few years. I could be wrong, it's only my guess work. If that does happen, it will be more difficult to get by on the reduced wages without rent allowance now. I'm not complaining. I'd snap anyone's hand off to get into AGS, but just making the point that it will be more difficult in the first few years. I'm single at least which is a help but would fear for someone who has a family and who may have to have a second apartment or so on.

buckinit

There has been mention of 900 positions over the next 3 years, 2014, 15 and 16.

This will most certainly see everyone from band 1 to band 3 giving an opportunity to progress forward. This would only be the case if the 900 positions are based under the one/current recruitment drive as opposed to three separate ones. If so, anyone who doesn't make the trainee course will have to re-apply.

Archer3083

buckinit wrote: »

There has been mention of 900 positions over the next 3 years, 2014, 15 and 16.

This will most certainly see everyone from band 1 to band 3 giving an opportunity to progress forward. This would only be the case if the 900 positions are based under the one/current recruitment drive as opposed to three separate ones. If so, anyone who doesn't make the trainee course will have to re-apply.

From what's been said on boards it looks like this recruitment drive will be used for the next 3 years. Sure that could easily change. Govt aren't exactly reliable

KERSPLAT!

buckinit wrote: »

There has been mention of 900 positions over the next 3 years, 2014, 15 and 16.

This will most certainly see everyone from band 1 to band 3 giving an opportunity to progress forward. This would only be the case if the 900 positions are based under the one/current recruitment drive as opposed to three separate ones. If so, anyone who doesn't make the trainee course will have to re-apply.

Why certainly? There are 5k already through. They may need a few from Band 2 but I really can't see them going anywhere near as far as Band 3

Archer3083

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Why certainly? There are 5k already through. They may need a few from Band 2 but I really can't see them going anywhere near as far as Band 3

I don't know whether to agree or disagree about Band 3 being used, but what I would say is that people in Band 2 and Band 3 should stay positive and optimistic until they know for sure what's going to happen.

buckinit

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Why certainly? There are 5k already through. They may need a few from Band 2 but I really can't see them going anywhere near as far as Band 3

Over the next two years they'll get a look, provided the 900 positions are under the one recruitment drive.

KERSPLAT!

buckinit wrote: »

Over the next two years they'll get a look, provided the 900 positions are under the one recruitment drive.

Why? 900 could easily be picked from the remaining 5k. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm arguing with your certainty that they will be called when in truth, no one knows what's going to happen

mycro89

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Why? 900 could easily be picked from the remaining 5k. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm arguing with your certainty that they will be called when in truth, no one knows what's going to happen

Just adding that you seem dead cert that it is band 1 and band 1 only, and seem to have the attitude f&€k the rest of ye!!

Apologies if this offends anyone, I mean not to, just saying it as I see it!!

KERSPLAT!

mycro89 wrote: »

Just adding that you seem dead cert that it is band 1 and band 1 only, and seem to have the attitude f&€k the rest of ye!!

Apologies if this offends anyone, I mean not to, just saying it as I see it!!

Certainly not, I believe some from Band 2 will be called, maybe not this year but over the 3 years I think they will.

My issue is people saying certainly, definitely, etc. None of us know what's going to happen. It's all opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs but there shouldn't be anyone saying certainly or definitely because nothing is certain or definite yet.

mycro89

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Certainly not, I believe some from Band 2 will be called, maybe not this year but over the 3 years I think they will.

My issue is people saying certainly, definitely, etc. None of us know what's going to happen. It's all opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs but there shouldn't be anyone saying certainly or definitely because nothing is certain or definite yet.

Cool, I understand you now !

And let's agree, that the only certainty that we know is that band 1 is progressing for now and the other bands are still in the running for now and that there is the POSSIBILITY of progressing, I'm going hiring a fortune teller, who is with me

buckinit

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

Certainly not, I believe some from Band 2 will be called, maybe not this year but over the 3 years I think they will.

My issue is people saying certainly, definitely, etc. None of us know what's going to happen. It's all opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs but there shouldn't be anyone saying certainly or definitely because nothing is certain or definite yet.

I believe the bands are put there for the reason I had in my last post, they'll be used for the next 600 odd positions in the Garda Trainee course.

Otherwise, the use of the bands would certainly be a waste of 7,000 people's time.

Would you agree?

Rothmans

buckinit wrote: »

I believe the bands are put there for the reason I had in my last post, they'll be used for the next 600 odd positions in the Garda Trainee course.

Otherwise, the use of the bands would certainly be a waste of 7,000 people's time.

Would you agree?

No, because that makes absolutely no sense. That would go against the order of merit.

It would essentially be awarding positions in a reverse order of merit:

i.e. Band 1: 300/5000 = 6% chance of success per candidate.
Band 2: 300/4000 = 7.5% chance of success per candidate.
Band 3: 300/3000 = 10% chance of success per candidate.

That argument is basically saying, the worst you came in order of merit, the greater chance of getting a position. That would be nonsensical tbh.

2wsxcde3

I think alot of people in band 1 are in for a little bit of a shock when they get their results in 2/3 weeks time . And then the big argument will start, that those in band 1 who failed should still be given priority over those in band 2 :rolleyes:.