Specialists often disagree about a particular diagnosis. Asked to assess the same symptoms, half a dozen doctors can offer half a dozen different views. Indeed, unanimity about a condition can be a sign of its severity. So when 86 eminent medical minds meet as one, the rest of us should take note. The patient in this case is the body of eager medical students leaving university and college each year. The symptoms are the anger, bitterness and growing disillusionment they feel towards their chosen profession even before taking their first steps. The diagnosis is overwhelming: the new way in which students are assessed for their suitability as junior doctors mocks their potential, wastes money and jeopardises healthcare.

The letter we carry today from professors of medicine is prompted by changes introduced by the Department of Health. Still in its infancy, the Modernising Medical Careers initiative was designed in part to ensure that junior doctors improved their patient skills. Before taking the next step up the ladder, they would have to show that they could work in a team and communicate effectively and sympathetically with patients as well as deploying good clinical judgment. The idea was to emphasise practicality as well as academic achievement. The old boy network, which could encourage arrogant and aloof consultants, was to be dismantled. The aim was laudable. But the method behind the system is madness.

Instead of being selected by traditional interview, after submitting the usual application and CV, the 6,000 or so would-be doctors each year are merely required to fill in an online form. This has produced two problems. The form runs to five pages of A4, though the part in which the students can go through their paces is limited to less than a page and a half. They have 150 words in which to de-monstrate “teamwork” and another 150 to highlight their “leadership ” abilities. The very idea that such qualities can be judged by written words alone is laughable. A cricket selector would not pick a prospect on the basis of a printed recommendation about ability to bowl a mean googly. How can adjudicators possibly hope to assess individuals’ character and potential without coming face to face with them? The second problem is the mirror image of the first. So long as adjudicators are selecting blind, students can massage their answers and attempt to manipulate the system. For instance, applicants simply have to tick a box stating that their spoken English is good enough to communicate with patients and colleagues on medical issues. There will doubtless be plenty of help offered to those looking for the right buzzwords to impress judges.

These shortcomings have, predict-ably enough, thrown up horror stories on the ground. Bright and well- qualified applicants are finding themselves without a berth. At the same time, hospitals have reported a worrying number of trainees turning up for duty with an inadequate command of English or with substandard skills. It requires some £250,000 to train a junior doctor, yet, in some cases, hospitals that are already financially stretched are having to send staff on retraining courses while paying locums to provide cover. Modern technology has provided medicine with previously unimaginable advances. But a health service without the human touch is no service worth the name.