It was made clear when I applied for a primary postgraduate certificate in education that I would have to pass two professional skills tests to be considered for a place.
These are taken at a nearby test centre, and that was where the first problem arose. The building has multiple uses, so I had to wait six weeks before I could take the tests.
There are two separate assessments: literacy and numeracy. As I expected, the literacy one - comprising spelling, grammar and punctuation - is challenging but also entirely necessary for a prospective teacher to pass.
However, the numeracy test - which includes a mental maths section in which questions must be answered within 18 seconds - is rather barbaric. I want to teach young children, not scholars with two PhDs to their names.
I could take as many practice tests as I desired, but tackling these could not be further from my mind at present, given the numerous essays and presentations I already have to complete and the dissertation I have to write for my degree.
I appreciate that these tests are a way to ensure that all individuals have an elementary understanding of key subjects. But with a minimum pass rate of 63 per cent and a charge of pound;20 per resit, the process is a stressful one.
In addition, if I don't pass the tests by the third attempt, I cannot take them again for another two years.
Considering that I have been a model student, achieving good grades throughout my education, is it really fair that one test could prevent me from becoming a teacher? And is it right to send the message to students that if you fail at something, you are punished and prevented from trying again?
I don't see why I need to have such a high level of numeracy to prove I can teach primary-level maths, and I fear that this test may prove a barrier for many, preventing great teachers from joining the profession.
Jaimee Baker is currently applying to start teacher training in the UK
Tell us what keeps you awake at night