Most future medical practitioners perceive the situational judgement aspect of admissions tests, particularly the UCAT, as fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty. Unlike the cognitive parts, which only assess knowledge and analytical skills by asking questions that have no right or wrong answers, the Situational Judgement Tests (SJTs) will place candidates in ethical dilemmas, moral dilemmas, and complex interpersonal situations, all under a limited time constraint.
In this blog, let’s look at the real expectations of medical schools of applicants in this area, and how this expectation changed over this year.
Knowing the Latest 2025 UCAT Changes
This year has seen a radical change in the UCAT. The removal of the Abstract Reasoning section has shifted the focus and weighting to the other subtests: verbal reasoning, decision-making, quantitative reasoning, and, naturally, the Situational Judgement Test (SJT). In 2025, the section will have 69 items in various scenarios, and all must be answered in 26 minutes. The SJT has not changed in form, notwithstanding the radical changes in other areas – and its value in selection is immense.
What Actually Is Situational Judgement?
Situational judgement is not an examination of medical knowledge or technical skills. Rather, it is created to investigate the values, ethical reasoning, interpersonal awareness, and professional judgement of an applicant under stressful situations. The applicants are given vignettes, which reflect real-life situations that a medical student or junior doctor may find themselves in: a patient who divulges sensitive information, a colleague with inappropriate behaviour, or an ethical dilemma that occurs in acute care. Every situation is succeeded by a series of choices, where the candidates have to choose the most appropriate course of action or to evaluate the suitability of all possible answers.
In contrast with cognitive subtests, SJT tests procedural knowledge, i.e., how an individual is supposed to behave in practice, not what he or she knows in theory. This differentiation is crucial in the area of medical admissions, where medicine is not only a matter of knowledge but also action, decision-making, and human interaction.
What Are Medical Schools Really Looking For?
Medical schools are looking after those who will be ethical, empathetic communicators, work effectively within a team, and remain strong during difficult situations. The Situational Judgement Test (SJT) is consistent with the models of medical professionalism, including good medical practices and the rules of the General Medical Council, which focus on such qualities as integrity, respect, collaboration, and being alert to professional misconduct.
Admission committees have acknowledged that medical knowledge cannot be enough to provide effective and safe care to patients. SJTs are used to help determine applicants whose moral compass, professional maturity, or ability to work as a team are questionable in high-stakes medical environments. As an example, a propensity to neglect confidentiality, sabotage other employees, or lack self-awareness in SJT responses may have a negative impact on admissions.
Demystifying the Scoring System
The reality of the SJT scoring is subtle. Instead of marks or grades, applicants receive bands with a scale of Band 1 (highest) to Band 4 (lowest). Band 1 is associated with high-quality professional judgement, and Band 4 implies that there are a large number of concerns regarding suitability.
As opposed to cognitive sections (where scores are purely numerical and scaled), SJT responses are awarded full marks based on a perfect match to the model answer – a consensus of panels of experienced clinicians. Responses that are deemed to be close to correct receive a partial mark. This system encourages critical interpretation of professional boundaries and good judgement, as opposed to memorisation. Bands are considered differently by medical schools: some will dismiss Band 4 applicants automatically, whereas others will accord more weight to high Band 1/2 scores during shortlisting for interviews.
What SJTs Actually Assess Beyond Memorisation
A common misconception is that memorising can lead to success in the SJT. In practice, the analysis is based on medical ethics, values, communication skills, teamwork, and self-reflection. Efficient applicants do not simply read textbook principles; they are able to implement frameworks and Good Medical Practice as required by the GMC and NHS values that apply to clinical situations. This involves being able to balance patient preferences and clinical realities, constructively resolve conflict, and be benevolent even in the face of pressure.
Ethical Principles Underpinning SJT
Medical ethics plays a central role in situational judgement. Key points include:
1. Autonomy: honouring patients’ decisions, ensuring confidentiality, and obtaining informed consent.
2. Beneficence & Non-maleficence: The most important thing is to benefit the patient and not provide inconvenience to them.
3. Justice: Equity regarding the distribution of resources and practising non-discrimination.
4. Professionalism & Duty: Being honest, humble, accountable, and working as a group.
It is often the case that the applicants are faced with situations which demand them to strike a balance between two competing values, like the obligation to protect a vulnerable patient versus the obligation to uphold the trust of the team, or the obligation to report misconduct versus the obligation to maintain harmony. Rather than strictly adhering to rules, the most efficient strategies consider consequences, consult other colleagues, and adopt a humane perspective.
A New Approach: Frameworks Over Factual Recall
The top candidates do not memorise information but instead use well-organised systems to make decisions. A commonly used model is:
- Collect all the information: Do not do anything without knowing the whole picture.
- Determine stakeholders: Who is impacted, and who ought to be?
- Be ethical: Balance autonomy, beneficence, justice, and professionalism.
- Review the policies and seniors’ advice: This is when in doubt.
- Be impactful and responsive: Focus on patient safety and wellbeing.
By developing this framework, the candidates are confident in solving new situations. The recent studies also emphasise the need to reflect on old behaviours, learn lessons, and stay modest, which are the main aspects of lifelong medical professionalism.
Why SJT Matters More Than Ever
The Situational Judgement Test has been widely used after the elimination of Abstract Reasoning in 2025; however, the purpose of the test has not changed. SJTs help medical schools to select candidates who not only perform well but also perform well in demanding clinical settings, establish strong connections with patients and their peers and colleagues, and maintain the trust placed in the profession.
Potential candidates are not to take the SJT as an effortless test but as a test of the values they have developed, thus guaranteeing genuine and efficient performance. Their preparatory programme should be based on involvement in various situations, a profound consideration of medical ethics, and a sense of humility and empathy.
Conclusion
Effective navigation of situational judgement will mean going beyond mere exam techniques to be able to demonstrate ethical behaviour and professionalism in every decision. RAAKMEDICS supports the development of the reflective and resilient mindsets required in modern medicine by providing personalised resources, expert advice, and scenario-based coaching to future medical students. In a world of constantly shifting demands, achievement in the SJT is not only a statement of knowledge but also of character and even humanity.
