Key UCAT Situational Judgement (SJT) Strategies: Identify Key Issues, Apply Logical Thinking & Make Decisions Under Pressure

What Is the UCAT Situational Judgement Test (SJT)?

The Situational Judgement Test (SJT) is the fifth and final section of the UK’s UCAT exam, designed to assess your ability to make sound judgements in real-life scenarios. In this section, you’ll be presented with hypothetical but realistic situations (often involving ethical or professional dilemmas) and asked to rate the appropriateness or importance of various actions. Unlike the other UCAT subtests (which are cognitive and academic), the SJT focuses on professionalism and ethics – essentially your emotional intelligence and integrity in a medical or dental context.

You have 69 questions to answer in 26 minutes, so while it’s not as calculation-heavy as other sections, time is still a factor. Most questions will ask you to rank responses by how appropriate or important they are. For example, you might rate an action as “Very Appropriate,” “Appropriate,” “Inappropriate,” or “Very Inappropriate.” There are also a few other formats: some questions ask you to select the most and least appropriate options from a short list, and a small number are simple “Appropriate” vs “Inappropriate” choices. All scenarios are relevant to situations aspiring medics or dentists might encounter – from clinical workplace dilemmas to general university or team-working situations – but no prior clinical knowledge is required beyond common sense and basic ethics. The SJT is not a test of medical facts; it’s about demonstrating that your judgment aligns with the core values expected of future doctors and dentists. In other words, it evaluates whether you can be trusted to behave professionally and ethically in training and practice.

Why Is the SJT Important for Medical and Dental Applicants?

The SJT isn’t just an abstract exercise – it carries significant weight in admissions. UK medical and dental schools receive your SJT score (expressed as a band from 1 to 4 rather than a numerical score). Band 1 is the highest (demonstrating excellent judgement closely aligned with the ideal responses), and Band 4 is the lowest. Most universities expect at least Band 2 or 3; in fact, many will not consider applicants who score Band 4. For example, Edinburgh Medical School explicitly states that an applicant with SJT Band 4 “will not be considered for entry, effectively making Band 4 an automatic rejection at that institution. Even more stringent, some highly competitive programmes (such as Manchester’s Medicine course) currently exclude applicants with Band 3 or 4, only considering those who scored Band 1 or 2. Clearly, doing well in this section can boost your chances of getting an interview offer, whereas a poor SJT performance can undermine an otherwise strong UCAT score.

Beyond admissions criteria, the SJT is important because it reflects qualities that medical and dental schools value in future professionals. Situational judgement tests are designed to see if you demonstrate ethics, empathy, teamwork, and integrity under pressure – qualities that are essential for safe and effective clinical practice. A great UCAT SJT score (e.g. Band 1 or 2) shows universities that your decision-making aligns with the General Medical Council (GMC) core values and that you understand what will be expected of you as a healthcare professional.

Ultimately, mastering the SJT means you’re not just aiming to score well on a test – you’re internalising the professional standards and decision-making framework that will guide you through medical or dental training and beyond.

With its importance established, let’s dive into key strategies and top techniques to excel in the SJT. These tips will help you efficiently identify the key issues in each scenario, apply logical answer strategies, and evaluate options as if you were under real-world clinical pressures. By following these strategies, you can approach the SJT with confidence and aim for the highest band possible. 🎯👩‍⚕️👨‍⚕️

🔴 Live UCAT Course – Limited Places Available

The UCAT is competitive — your preparation shouldn’t be.
Join our live, expert-led UCAT course and get real-time guidance to boost your score, build confidence, and secure medical or dental interviews.

Why students choose Blue Peanut:

• Live teaching with opportunities to ask questions
• UCAT-focused strategies that actually work
• Clear, step-by-step guidance for every UCAT section
• Built by doctors & admissions experts
• Trusted by students applying to top UK medical & dental schools

👉 Places on our live UCAT course are limited.
Book now to secure your spot and stay ahead of the competition.

🔥 Book Your Live UCAT Place Now →

🔗 https://bluepeanut.com/ukcat

1. Know the Official Guidelines (Start with the GMC and GDC)

One of the best foundations for tackling the SJT is to familiarise yourself with the professional guidelines that practising clinicians follow. The General Medical Council’s Good Medical Practice is an essential document that “sets out the principles, values, and standards of professional behaviour expected of all doctors”. The UCAT Consortium itself advises candidates to read the Good Medical Practice guide as part of SJT preparation. By reviewing this, you’ll get a clear idea of what constitutes professional behaviour in medicine. Key themes from Good Medical Practice include: always make patient care your first concern; work within your competence; communicate openly and honestly; respect patient autonomy and confidentiality; work effectively in teams; and act with integrity, especially when things go wrong. These principles are directly tested in SJT scenarios. If you know what the “ideal doctor” should do in a given situation (according to the GMC standards), you are far more likely to pick the answer that matches the experts’ judgement.

For dental applicants, the equivalent is the General Dental Council (GDC) guidance. The GDC’s Standards for the Dental Team outlines nine core principles for dental professionals (such as putting patients’ interests first, maintaining trust, and safeguarding confidentiality). It’s highly recommended that you familiarise yourself with the GDC standards as well – they are very much in line with the GMC’s principles. In fact, for situational judgement tests used in dental training, the advice is that GDC guidance is a key starting point. Aspiring dentists taking the UCAT will encounter many scenarios similar to those in medicine, and the same ethical rules apply. Whether it’s a question about a nurse breaching confidentiality or a dental colleague’s unprofessional behaviour, the underlying professional expectations (from the GMC or GDC) are the yardstick by which appropriateness is measured.

📖 Tip: It might help to make a brief list of the Good Medical Practice principles or the GDC principles and have those in mind as you practice SJT questions. Knowing these guidelines gives you an objective framework for evaluating each response option, rather than relying solely on gut feeling.

2. Understand the SJT Format and Scoring System

Before jumping into practice questions, make sure you understand how the SJT questions are structured and how your answers are scored. The SJT section consists of various question formats: the most common type presents a scenario with several possible actions, and you must rank each action based on appropriateness or importance. For instance, you might see a scenario followed by statements like “Report the incident to a supervisor” or “Ignore it and move on,” and you’ll need to rate each as “very appropriate,” “appropriate,” “inappropriate,” or “very inappropriate. Another question style gives you a short list of three actions and asks which would be the most appropriate and least appropriate responses – this is often a drag-and-drop format, but functionally it’s about identifying the best and worst options. Finally, a newer format simply asks you whether an action is “Appropriate or Inappropriate” (or similarly, “Important or Not important”) without gradations – these tend to be more straightforward.

Knowing the format is important because it informs your strategy. For ranking questions, you must consider all four options and differentiate between degrees of appropriateness, whereas for the pick-two style, you’re zeroing in on extremes. No matter the format, remember that partial credit is given for near-misses. The SJT is not all-or-nothing; if your answer is close to the correct answer, you still earn marks (though fewer). For example, if the model answer deems an action “Very Appropriate” and you rate it as “Appropriate, you’ll get some credit – whereas if you rated that action “Not appropriate at all,” you’d get zero. This means identifying the correct category (appropriate vs. inappropriate, important vs. not) is half the battle.

Always try to eliminate obviously wrong classifications first. If you can at least determine, say, that a response is generally a good idea versus a bad idea, you’ve narrowed it down to two options (e.g. “Appropriate” or “Very Appropriate”) and ensured partial marks even if you’re not spot on. There is no negative marking, so never leave a question blank – make an educated guess for every single item, as a guess in the right ballpark still earns points. And if you find yourself truly stuck between two adjacent ratings, don’t agonise too long (you can flag and come back if time permits). Often, spending too much time trying to decide between “Important” and “Very Important” isn’t worth it – it’s better to pick one and use your time to work through more questions.

Finally, be aware of the timing: you have 26 minutes for 69 questions, which averages roughly 22–23 seconds per question. The consensus is that SJT is less time-pressured than some other UCAT sections (like Quantitative Reasoning), because reading and judging don’t take as long as complex calculations. However, the real challenge is that the SJT comes at the very end of the exam when you might be mentally fatigued. So, practice keeping a good pace and maintaining focus through to the end (more on this later). Use the timed practice tests to get a feel for the rhythm – you might find you actually have a bit of time at the end of SJT to review flagged items if you stay efficient. Understanding the rules of the game – question types, scoring, and timing – will help you play it wisely and maximise your score. 🎮🕒

3. Identify the Key Issues in Each Scenario

When tackling any SJT question, your first task is to identify the key issue or conflict in the scenario. This is absolutely crucial – if you misunderstand what the core problem is, it’s easy to get the answers wrong. Read the scenario carefully (but quickly) and distil what’s truly at stake. A good approach is to break the scenario down into facts and implications. Ask yourself: “Who am I in this scenario, and what is my role?” (Are you a medical student, a qualified doctor, a dental student, an assistant, etc. Your level of responsibility will frame how you should act.) Next, “What exactly is the problem or ethical dilemma here?” It could be a patient safety issue, a breach of professionalism, a conflict of interest, a teamwork problem, or a problem related to dignity and respect. Identify if there’s an immediate risk (e.g. a patient might be harmed, or someone’s privacy is at risk) or if it’s more of a principle at stake (like honesty or fairness). Also, consider “Who are the stakeholders?” – in other words, who is affected by this situation? Often it’s the patient, possibly colleagues, maybe the institution or the public’s trust. Knowing who is involved will help you weigh the responses.

It can be helpful to jot down the key points from the scenario (mentally or on a whiteboard). For example, consider a practice scenario: “You are a medical student on the wards. A junior doctor you’re shadowing appears dishevelled and smells of alcohol before seeing a patient. You ask if he’s alright, but he brushes you off.”

The key points to note might be:

• (1) You are just a student (not in charge, but you do have a duty to speak up if concerned).

• (2) A doctor may be under the influence of alcohol (a serious professionalism and safety concern).

• (3) You attempted to address it directly and were ignored.

• (4) The doctor is about to see a patient imminently, raising urgency.

From these facts, you can deduce the core issue: it’s fundamentally a patient safety problem (an impaired doctor could harm a patient), intertwined with a professional duty to escalate concerns up the hierarchy. Almost every detail in a well-written SJT scenario is there for a reason – to clue you in to the right considerations. So, train yourself to find the signal in the noise. What must be addressed for a safe and ethical outcome? Is it that a patient might be in danger? Is someone’s confidentiality about to be breached? Is a colleague behaving inappropriately? Once you identify the central concern, you can test each answer option against it: Does this action solve or address the key issue? Or does it sidestep it (or worse, exacerbate it)?

Importantly, identify the question’s framing: sometimes the question asks for the appropriateness of your actions, other times it might ask what considerations are important. In a scenario, say, where a classmate cheats on a test, the core issues might be integrity and fairness – the question might ask how appropriate different responses are (like reporting them vs. ignoring them). If you know the main issue (integrity of exams), you’ll see why “ignore it” is inappropriate (it fails to uphold integrity) and why “report to a tutor” might be very appropriate (addresses the dishonesty). In summary, train yourself to quickly parse scenarios into who, what, and why: Who is involved, and what are their roles? What has gone wrong or could go wrong? Why does it matter – what principle or whose welfare is on the line? If you start every question with this kind of quick situational analysis, you’ll be in a strong position to judge the responses accurately. 🔍✨

4. Apply Core Ethical Principles in Your Decisions

The scenarios in the SJT often boil down to common ethical and professional principles. By knowing these principles, you can apply them to guide your judgment on any question. Four fundamental pillars of medical ethics are frequently relevant (often taught as the 4 pillars of ethics):

• Autonomy – respect a patient’s right to make their own decisions about their care.

• Beneficence – act in the patient’s best interests; do good and promote well-being.

• Non-Maleficence – “do no harm”; avoid causing unnecessary harm or risk to patients.

• Justice – treat people fairly and equitably, without discrimination.

Understanding these can help in many scenarios. For example, if a question involves treating patients who missed appointments, Justice would remind you to be fair and not show bias, while Autonomy means you shouldn’t make decisions for competent patients without their input. Meanwhile, Non-Maleficence and Beneficence together urge you to maximise benefit and minimise harm in any situation (e.g., if a colleague’s action might harm a patient, non-maleficence tells you that’s a serious problem).

Beyond the four pillars, certain professional values from guidelines like Good Medical Practice are practically SJT mantras. One is confidentiality: maintaining patient confidentiality is paramount except in very specific, serious situations. Never disclose patient information to someone who is not entitled to it, even if they are a colleague or a relative of the patient, unless you have the patient’s consent or an overriding legal reason. If an SJT answer choice has you sharing patient details inappropriately, it’s almost certainly wrong. As a rule, if an answer suggests breaching confidentiality, think very carefully about whether that’s ever justified – in most cases, it will be deemed inappropriate. Another key principle is informed consent: patients (or their guardians) should give informed consent for treatments. This means you must provide all relevant information and ensure the patient understands it before they agree. Thus, an answer that involves proceeding with a treatment or test without the patient’s consent or understanding is likely inappropriate, except perhaps in emergencies.

Honesty and integrity are also core: you should be honest with patients and colleagues. For instance, if something goes wrong (like a mistake is made), the ethical approach is to be open and truthful about it, not to cover it up. Similarly, cheating or dishonesty in a professional context is never acceptable – except that any suggestion of lying, falsifying records, or hiding important information is a red flag.

Teamwork and respect form another theme. The best responses often show respect for everyone involved (patients and colleagues alike) and a willingness to collaborate. Being respectful includes listening to others’ concerns and not jumping to blame without understanding. Transparency and accountability (owning up to mistakes) are virtues often rewarded in the SJT scoring. Additionally, keep in mind the importance of professional boundaries – e.g., avoiding inappropriate personalisation with patients and maintaining a professional tone even under stress.

In essence, the “ethical compass” you should use in SJT is aligned with what the GMC and GDC expect of professionals. If you ground your reasoning in these core principles – patient welfare, autonomy, honesty, integrity, fairness, confidentiality, teamwork – you will find that the correct answers usually reflect one or more of these values. It can help to explicitly think: “Which principle is at stake here?” If it’s a confidentiality scenario, the correct answers will uphold confidentiality. If it’s about a mistake, the right answer will likely involve honesty, rectifying the error (beneficence/non-maleficence), and perhaps apologising. By applying these principles consistently, you’ll develop an almost instinctual sense of which actions “feel right” for a doctor or dentist to do (even if they might be personally difficult). And that instinct is exactly what the SJT is designed to measure. ⚖️🩺

5. Know Your Role and Limitations (Adapt to the Scenario’s Perspective)

Always pay attention to what role you are assigned in the scenario – and understand what that role can and cannot do. The appropriateness of an action often hinges on whether it’s within your responsibility or authority, given your position. Many SJT scenarios place you as a medical student or a foundation year doctor, occasionally as a more senior doctor or a dental student, etc. Each role comes with certain expectations and limits: for instance, medical students are not licensed professionals, so you would not be the one to make final clinical decisions or independently prescribe treatments. If a scenario involves a student discovering an error, a highly appropriate action would be to inform a responsible supervisor or qualified staff member, rather than have the student try to fix everything alone. Similarly, a new junior doctor (FY1) is relatively low in the hierarchy and would be expected to seek guidance for tough decisions or escalate serious concerns to a senior colleague. On the other hand, if the scenario casts you as a senior doctor or team leader, then taking responsibility and decisive action becomes more appropriate, because it is your role to lead and manage issues. Always adapt your approach to the perspective of the person you’re role-playing. An action that would be inappropriate for a student (like performing a procedure or reprimanding a colleague publicly) might be more appropriate if you were the consultant in charge (though even consultants have protocols to follow).

Understanding your role goes hand in hand with knowing your own limits. A key rule in healthcare is: do not work beyond your competence. If you’re a trainee or in an unfamiliar situation, the safest and most appropriate actions often involve seeking help from a senior or someone more experienced. In fact, seeking advice when unsure is almost never a bad move – it’s “difficult to criticise” someone for asking for guidance or more information. The SJT reflect this: options that show you recognising your limits and calling on the appropriate support (like informing a supervisor, asking a colleague for advice, or referring a patient to someone with more expertise) are frequently the correct ones. By contrast, if you see an option where a junior person goes rogue, acts outside their competence, or bypasses the chain of command inappropriately, it’s likely to be wrong. For example, a scenario might involve a student noticing a potential error – the student’s job is not to independently overrule a qualified doctor or to alarm the patient; it’s to verify the issue and escalate to the doctor or a supervisor in a respectful manner. That demonstrates responsibility without overstepping.

Another aspect of the role is hierarchy and teamwork. Medicine and dentistry are team efforts, and there is a structure in place. If the scenario is about a colleague (perhaps a fellow student, a nurse, or a more junior doctor), consider what your relationship is to them. Are you in a position to address their behaviour directly? Often, the guidance is: deal with issues at the lowest appropriate level first, then escalate if needed. For instance, if a fellow student is slacking, you might first talk to them (peer-to-peer) rather than running straight to the dean. But if a serious issue involves patient safety (like a doctor acting unsafely), then as a student, you must inform a senior, because you’re not empowered to stop the behaviour on your own. Recognise also when an issue is above your pay grade – some problems require intervention by someone higher up (consultant, hospital management, university administration). Knowing the proper chain of command and following it is crucial. In the NHS, for example, it’s generally expected to report concerns to your immediate superior (e.g. FY1 reports to Registrar or Consultant; a student reports to their supervisor) rather than, say, going straight to the press or confronting a senior doctor in front of patients.

So, remember: in each scenario, adopt the mindset of the given role. Ask, “What would be expected of me in this position?” If you’re a student, it’s learning and asking; if you’re a junior, it’s following protocols and seeking seniors when needed; if you’re the senior, it’s taking responsibility and ensuring standards are met. And crucially, never do something in the scenario that a person in that role should not be doing. This includes not only clinical tasks but also professional etiquette – e.g., a student should not directly scold a consultant; that would be inappropriate. Recognising your role’s limits will help you eliminate answers that imply acting beyond your competence or authority. By staying within your remit and doing what you reasonably can in that role (and then involving the right people for what you can’t do), you’ll choose actions that are safe, professional, and aligned with how actual healthcare teams function. 🤝👥

6. Prioritise Patient Welfare and Safety Above All

A golden rule in all medical ethics (and SJTs) is that patient safety and welfare must come first. In any scenario where a patient’s well-being is at risk, the most appropriate actions will be those that protect the patient from harm and ensure they receive proper care. Conversely, actions that compromise patient safety – or delay addressing a serious risk – are usually very inappropriate. This might sound obvious, but under exam pressure, you might be tempted by answers that appease a colleague or avoid confrontation, etc. Always check yourself: does this action put the patient’s interests first? If not, it’s probably wrong. For example, if a scenario involves a doctor who is unfit to work (due to illness, intoxication, or stress), the priority is to prevent patient harm – usually this means ensuring the doctor does not treat patients until the issue is resolved and obtaining a capable replacement or assistance. The “patient-first” mindset would support immediately notifying a senior or removing the risk (even if it might upset the colleague), because safety trumps personal convenience or loyalty. An answer like “Trust that the doctor knows what he’s doing and let him continue” would fail the patient-first test (hence very inappropriate in that context). On the other hand, “Inform the consultant in charge about your concerns” directly addresses the safety issue (ensuring someone who can act is alerted) and is the kind of step that protects patients.

Patient welfare isn’t just about immediate physical safety; it includes their comfort, dignity, and overall well-being. For instance, if a question scenario involves an upset patient (say, unhappy with their treatment outcome), a patient-centred approach would be to show empathy, address their concerns, and, if possible, find a solution or offer support. An option that involves dismissing the patient’s feelings or ignoring their complaint would be inappropriate, as it would neglect the patient’s emotional well-being. Similarly, consider timeliness: if something needs to be done for a patient (such as an urgent test or pain relief), delaying it for non-essential reasons is not putting the patient first. In one example, a junior doctor forgets to send an urgent blood test and realises at the end of the day that the patient’s care could be compromised by the delay. The patient-first principle dictates that the doctor should address the oversight immediately (even if it means staying late or inconveniencing oneself) because the patient’s urgent need overrides the doctor’s personal plans. Any answer that suggests “leave it till tomorrow” or prioritising the doctor’s social engagement over the patient’s urgent test would clearly be wrong, as in medicine, patient safety comes above all else.

When multiple parties are involved (say, a conflict between what’s best for the patient and what a colleague wants), always side with the patient’s best interest in your decision-making. This might mean respectfully challenging a colleague’s decision if it seems unsafe, or speaking up even if it’s awkward. It might also mean breaking bad news or telling uncomfortable truths, because ultimately, patients deserve honesty (which is part of respecting their autonomy and dignity). Keep an eye out for “red flag” situations – anything illegal, unethical, or dangerous. The SJT will always consider it very inappropriate to engage in unlawful or clearly unsafe acts, even if someone might rationalise it as a “quick fix.” For example, stealing medication for a patient who can’t afford it – while compassionate in motive – is illegal and undermines trust, so it would be a big no. Or covering up an error to avoid blame – that might seem to protect you or a colleague, but it puts future patients at risk and erodes trust, so it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do.

In summary, use “Is this best for the patient?” as a litmus test for each option. The correct answers tend to be ones that resolve the issue in a way that safeguards patients’ health, safety, or rights. Actions that neglect, delay, or jeopardise patient care are usually bad choices. By internalising the principle of “The patient comes first,” you’ll find that many SJT questions become more straightforward: the morally and professionally right course of action almost always aligns with what would benefit or protect the patient most. 🟢 If it helps the patient (and is ethical), it’s likely a green-light action; 🔴 if it could harm or disadvantage the patient, it’s a red-flag action.

7. Use Logical Answer Techniques (Elimination & Partial Marking)

While understanding content is key, there are also test-taking techniques specific to SJT that can boost your score. One useful approach is to treat the answers as falling into two broad categories – essentially appropriate vs. inappropriate, or important vs. not important. Often, your first step should be to determine which side of the fence each response lies on. For instance, ask: “Is this action fundamentally a good idea or a bad idea in this scenario?” This can immediately eliminate two of the four options in a ranking question. Imagine the scenario: A colleague is rude to a patient. The options might range from apologising to the patient and reporting the incident (likely good actions) to doing nothing or joining in the rudeness (bad actions). Clearly, the “good” actions belong in the appropriate category and the “bad” ones in the inappropriate category. Once you bucket an option as generally appropriate (🟢) or inappropriate (🔴), you’ve already secured partial credit, even if you haven’t pinpointed the exact degree. After that, you can refine your judgement between, say, “appropriate” vs “very appropriate.” This elimination method is especially helpful if you’re unsure – it’s often easier to spot an obviously wrong or obviously right action and then narrow down.

Another technique: consider extremes vs moderation. In many dilemmas, extreme actions (e.g., firing someone on the spot for a minor mistake or, conversely, completely ignoring serious misconduct) are usually inappropriate. The best answers tend to be measured responses that address the issue without over- or under-reacting. So if one option looks too harsh and another looks too lenient, and a third is balanced, that balanced one might be the “Very appropriate”, whereas the extremes are less appropriate. Keep an eye out for knee-jerk reactions (like angrily confronting someone in public) – these often fall on the inappropriate side. The SJT favours approaches that show thoughtfulness, communication, and a focus on problem root causes rather than quick, emotional responses.

Use partial marks to your advantage: Since getting “close” still earns points, it’s beneficial to avoid any major misclassifications. For example, mistaking a good action for a bad one (or vice versa) is worse than mistaking a “very good” for a “moderately good” action. It’s a larger deviation from the expected judgment and will cost you full marks on that item. Thus, if you’re uncertain, err on the side of the correct half. Let’s say you can’t decide if something is “Appropriate” or “Very Appropriate”; you at least know it’s not inappropriate, so don’t put it in the wrong half by labelling it “Inappropriate.” Even guessing between adjacent ratings yields some points, but guessing the wrong polarity yields none. Remember the example: marking an important issue as “Important” instead of “Very important” will still net you credit, but calling it “Not important” when it was actually “Very important” is a big miss. So, play the odds in your favour by eliminating the half that you know is wrong.

Lastly, read all the options before deciding on the ranking. Sometimes one action might seem fine in isolation, but when you see the others, you realise one is even better, or one is clearly worse. It’s often easiest to identify the most appropriate and the least appropriate first. In ranking questions, find the option that you think is the absolute best thing to do – mark that as Very Appropriate (or Very Important). Then find the absolute worst or most unacceptable action – mark that as Very Inappropriate (or Not at all Important). Then you’ll typically have two left for the middle ratings. This approach mirrors the drag-and-drop style of questions, where you explicitly pick the most and least appropriate options. If you practice thinking that way, it becomes natural to sift out the extremes and then handle the middle ground. And if pressed for time, at minimum pick those extremes correctly; that way you secure some marks and reduce the chance of a major error. In summary, approach the answers logically: eliminate the obviously wrong, secure partial points, and then fine-tune the ranking through rational comparisons. It’s a bit like solving a puzzle – use logic to rule out bad pieces, and the picture of the correct answer will become clearer. 🧩✅

8. Manage Your Time – Don’t Rush, But Don’t Dither

Time management in the SJT is a balancing act. The good news is that many candidates find the timing manageable, since reading and judging don’t necessarily take as long as, say, complex calculations in Quantitative Reasoning. However, you have to be mindful that 69 questions in 26 minutes means you cannot afford to spend too long on any single scenario. Aim for roughly 20-25 seconds per question on average. Some questions you’ll answer in 10 seconds, especially those simple two-option ones. Others might involve a longer scenario with 4-5 questions attached, and you might spend a bit more time reading that scenario initially (but then you answer several questions about it, which is efficient).

Don’t rush reading the scenario. It’s tempting to skim the scenario text quickly because the clock is ticking, but misreading a key detail can lead to completely wrong answers. Take a calm, efficient approach: read for understanding, not for word-for-word details. Often, practising active reading – mentally summarising the scenario as you go – helps to catch the important points without rereading. If you’ve practised enough SJT questions, you’ll start recognising familiar patterns and key words that flag what the scenario is about (e.g., words like “confidential” or “unsafe” or “upset” immediately tell you which principle might be relevant). Train yourself to pick up on those signals so you can zero in on the issue quickly.

At the same time, avoid overthinking or second-guessing yourself excessively. It’s easy to fall into the trap of “But what if in this situation, maybe there’s some hidden context…?” Remember that SJT questions are designed to be answered with the information given; don’t invent wild assumptions beyond the scenario. Stick to the facts presented. If someone in the scenario is described as your friend, don’t assume they’ll keep a secret if the scenario didn’t state that – just use the info you have. Over-analysing can also eat up precious time. If you catch yourself spending more than, say, a minute on one scenario and its questions, and you’re still uncertain, it might be wise to mark your best guesses and move on, then return if time allows. It’s better to get through all questions (ensuring each has an answer) than to leave some unanswered because you spent too much time on a few tricky ones.

Use the flag function if the test software allows (UCAT does let you flag questions). If a particular question is taking too long or you’re really unsure between two ratings, flag it, move on, and come back later if you have time. Often, a later question or scenario might jog an idea that helps with an earlier one, or at least ensure you answered everything you could confidently answer first. Also, psychologically, you want to prevent a hard question from bogging you down – don’t let one sticky scenario derail your momentum. Keep moving and maintain your focus throughout. Bear in mind that the SJT is last, when you might be tired. Practice full-length mocks so you’re used to maintaining concentration for 2 hours and still have mental energy for the SJT at the end. It may help build stamina by occasionally doing practice sections back-to-back. During the real test, if you find yourself mentally exhausted by the time SJT arrives, take a deep breath in the one-minute instruction screen before SJT begins. Remind yourself that this section still matters a lot (some universities value it highly in the selection process), so it’s worth giving it your all. A short reset can refocus you.

Finally, keep a cool head with the timing – don’t let the clock intimidate you into making hasty errors. The scenarios do require careful thought, and often the difference between options is subtle wording. If you read too fast, you might miss a crucial “not” or a detail like “the patient’s sister is a doctor” (which could be relevant to confidentiality, for example). Stay methodical: read, identify the key issue, consider each option, and answer. You’ll likely find you have a bit of time left at the end of the SJT if you manage it well, which you can use to revisit flagged items. In short, pace yourself: not too slow to run out of time, but not so fast that you misinterpret scenarios. With practice, you’ll get the timing just right to finish comfortably, without rushing or dithering. ⏱️🔥

9. Practice, Reflect, and Learn the Common Themes

Like all UCAT sections, practice is indispensable for the SJT. The more scenarios you work through, the more you’ll start to notice recurring themes and patterns. Common themes include: dealing with an impaired colleague, handling confidential information requests, being pressured to break rules or behave unethically, working in a team with conflict, admitting to mistakes, managing difficult patients or colleagues, issues of consent, and maintaining professional boundaries (including social media conduct). By practising a wide range of questions, you’ll become familiar with how these themes are typically framed and what the expected “ideal” responses are. For example, after enough practice, you’ll know almost by instinct that any scenario about confidentiality will have the answer “don’t share without permission” as the most appropriate action, or that any scenario about someone not doing their share of work might involve first talking to them in private and understanding why (rather than immediately punishing them).

Use official question banks and reputable practice resources. The UCAT Consortium provides an official question bank and practice tests – these are great because they closely reflect the actual style. When you practice, don’t just mark your answers right or wrong – take time to read the explanations or reflect on why the correct answer is correct. This reflection phase is where you really learn the rationale behind each judgement. If you got something wrong, ask yourself: Which principle did I miss? What did I misinterpret in the scenario? Perhaps you didn’t notice that you were just a student in that scenario, or you underestimated the seriousness of something. As you correct those misunderstandings, you’ll improve not only your SJT performance but also your understanding of professional expectations.

A useful strategy while practising is to categorise questions by theme. For instance, gather all questions you attempt that are about “raising concerns about a colleague” and see what their answers have in common. You’ll likely find that open communication with the colleague first (if appropriate), then escalation to a senior if needed, is the pattern, and that you never ignore the issue. Another category might be “dealing with mistakes” – you’ll see patterns like: inform senior, be honest with patient, apologise if appropriate, learn from it, etc. By grouping them, you reinforce the general rules that apply across scenarios.

Some students even find it helpful to write out their own small scenarios or flashcards for tricky principles – for example, come up with a scenario that tests “informed consent” and then think of what the best responses would be. Teaching or explaining to a friend can also solidify your reasoning approach. The idea is to get so comfortable with these ethical situations that on test day, nothing feels truly unfamiliar. Even if the context is something you didn’t specifically see before (say a veterinary context or a workplace scenario outside hospital – yes, occasionally SJTs use non-medical analogies to test the same skills), you’ll recognise the underlying theme and know how to approach it.

Finally, keep practising under exam conditions as you get closer to the test date. Do timed sets of SJT questions and full mocks that include the SJT at the end. This builds your endurance and also calibrates your timing. Review not just the questions you got wrong, but also the ones you got right – ensure the reasoning was sound and perhaps just lucky. Over time, you’ll likely see your SJT performance stabilize into a high score range, giving you confidence. Remember, consistency is key: top performers aren’t simply lucky on test day; they have practised enough that their judgement calls are consistently aligned with the exam’s expectations. The SJT, perhaps more than other sections, can improve significantly with practice and reflection, because you’re effectively training your “ethical intuition” to mirror that of experienced professionals. So, practice widely and wisely – it will not only prepare you for the exam but also for the real ethical decisions you’ll face in your medical or dental career. 📚📝

10. Stay Calm and Objective Under Pressure

On the day of the exam and in each scenario, it’s crucial to maintain a calm, objective mindset. The SJT is literally about judgement under pressure – both the pressure of exam time and the pressure within the scenarios themselves (many scenarios involve some form of stress, conflict, or urgency). Emotion can cloud judgment, so the test rewards those who can keep a level head and think professionally. For example, some scenarios might be intentionally provoking – perhaps a patient is being very difficult, or a colleague is behaving outrageously. Your task is not respond emotionally or take things personally, but to think, “What is the professional way to handle this?” The best answers often show composure, empathy, and fairness, rather than anger, panic, or defensiveness. If a patient is rude, you remain polite. If a colleague unfairly accuses you, stay calm and address it through the proper channels, rather than snapping back. This demonstrates resilience and professionalism.

In terms of the exam scenario, by the time you reach the SJT, you might be tired or feeling anxious about how the earlier subtests went. It’s important to reset and refocus for the SJT – don’t let your mind spiral over any previous questions. Even if you think you struggled in another section, compartmentalise that and give SJT your full attention. It’s not uncommon to feel drained, but remind yourself: the SJT score still counts, and for some universities, it can make a big difference. Take a brief moment to close your eyes, inhale deeply, and exhale slowly before starting the SJT section. This can calm your nerves and sharpen your focus. Confidence is key – trust the preparation you’ve done. You’ve read the guidelines, practised scenarios, and learned from mistakes; now it’s about execution. If you remain calm, you’re less likely to misread scenarios and more likely to apply the principles you know.

Being objective also means basing your decisions on principles and facts, not personal biases or assumptions. In an SJT scenario, you should answer based on what a good doctor or dentist should do, not necessarily what you feel you would do if you were having a bad day. For instance, if the scenario is about treating a rude patient, personally, you might feel offended and want to respond curtly – but objectively, you know the professional expectation is to remain courteous and not let it affect the care. So you would judge that giving the patient attitude back is “very inappropriate,” even if human instinct might fantasise about it. In essence, keep your personal feelings separate from the scenario and ask, “What action leads to the most ethical, constructive outcome here?” Often, this means following policy or seeking help rather than going with your gut.

If a scenario triggers a strong reaction in you (e.g., a scenario dealing with cheating or discrimination), be mindful of that. The test is not about your personal opinion on an issue, but rather about how you handle it. Good judgment might sometimes mean acting against your natural inclination for the sake of professionalism. For example, if a close friend in the scenario asks you to break a rule, you might emotionally want to help them, but objectively, you know you must uphold the rules – the SJT expects you to do the latter. Detach yourself and think from a policy/guideline perspective in those moments.

Lastly, don’t panic if you encounter an unfamiliar scenario. The UCAT SJT occasionally throws in something odd to see how you apply principles generally. Stay cool and rely on first principles: patient safety, honesty, fairness, etc. Work through it methodically as you’ve practised. And overall, keep reminding yourself that you can do this. A calm mindset not only helps you choose the right answers, but it also prevents small mistakes. If you feel stress building (maybe you see the clock and have many questions left), take a quick breath, re-centre, and tackle the next question. You can always recover ground by moving a bit faster on easier questions, but you can’t fix a question you misread due to panic. So calmness actually saves time and points.

By staying composed and objective, you’ll handle scenarios just like a real professional would under real-world pressures – and that’s exactly what the examiners are looking for. You’ve got the knowledge and strategies; maintaining your cool will let them shine. 💪🧘‍♀️

By mastering these key strategies, you will be well-equipped to achieve a top SJT band in your UCAT. Remember that excelling in the Situational Judgement Test is not just about the exam – it’s about internalising the mindset of a responsible, ethical medical or dental professional. As you prepare, you’re effectively training yourself to think like a doctor or dentist, which will serve you well in interviews and, ultimately, in your future career. Stay focused, practice diligently, and approach each scenario with empathy, integrity, and logic. With these techniques and a calm confidence on test day, you’ll be ready to tackle any situation the SJT throws at you. Best of luck – go forth and ace that SJT! 🚀🌟

References and Further Reading

1. UCAT Consortium – Official Advice: Tips for the Situational Judgement Test. (UCAT preparation guidance encouraging candidates to read GMC’s Good Medical Practice and identify common themes via the question bank).

2. General Medical Council (GMC) – Good Medical Practice (2024): Overview of core principles and professional standards expected of doctors (e.g. prioritising patient care, honesty, working within competence).

3. University of Edinburgh Medical School – UCAT Requirements 2026 Entry: Official admissions policy stating that applicants scoring Band 4 in SJT will not be considered, and outlining how UCAT (including SJT band) is used in selection.

4. University of Manchester MBChB 2026 Entry – Admissions Information: Note that Manchester does not consider applicants who achieve SJT Band 3 or 4, reflecting the high importance of a top SJT band for certain medical schools.

5. The Dental Defence Union (DDU) – SJT Support for Dental Foundation Training: Q&A and tips emphasising familiarity with GDC principles, staying within competence, and seeking advice. Includes top tips applicable to UCAT SJT (e.g. don’t overthink, practice under exam conditions, know your limits and that asking for help is usually wise).

6. UCAT Consortium – Test Format and Scoring (Test Timings): Official breakdown of UCAT subtests, confirming 69 questions in 26 minutes for the Situational Judgement Test.