Alasdair, thanks for the correction, yes, I did misread it due to too rapid a scan while traveling. I take all of your points fully, and I do very much agree with you - in fact it was my first reaction that, whilst the system isn't perfect (we'd need 3 hour interviews to ensure it approached perfect) I don't believe it lets us down too often. As you say, without a doubt there are some slip through who somehow don't get picked up and so get registration when perhaps they shouldn't have, but that there are also instances of the opposite, though they may not be equal due to a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt. Also, I do feel that PRA's are a massive part of the answer to that, so if a PRA has done their job well, this should reduce the likelihood of an undeserved unfavorable outcome, so is another reason the numbers on this side are not equal to the opposite case. Add the quality control applied post-interview and the appeals process, this should really hammer such instances down to a bare minimum. But those who don't consult a PRA are always going to be at greater risk of an undeserved negative outcome. It would be good to gain a confirmation of what we both believe though, si the straw poll could still be highly worth doing and I take your point about who should be polled, including agreeing that it shouldn't include PRI's. As I've said in a further reply to Ian, the one thing I've already seen in my as yet limited interviews, the biggest danger area I see at interview is the input from referees. We really are heavily reliant on it to confirm authenticity and validity of actual performance, yet they often don't really understand the criteria against which their reference is supposed to a cover, or they are not as impartial as we would like, or both, as I said in that reply, we can uncover some of that in interview, but we are no match for an individual who can blatantly overclaim on the B competencies, claiming to have been responsible for innovation when in fact they have only followed direction, if the referee, especially the employer, endorses it, and the candidate has that ability to look you straight in the eye while maintaing a blatant lie, there is little we can do to filter that out.
Alasdair, thanks for the correction, yes, I did misread it due to too rapid a scan while traveling. I take all of your points fully, and I do very much agree with you - in fact it was my first reaction that, whilst the system isn't perfect (we'd need 3 hour interviews to ensure it approached perfect) I don't believe it lets us down too often. As you say, without a doubt there are some slip through who somehow don't get picked up and so get registration when perhaps they shouldn't have, but that there are also instances of the opposite, though they may not be equal due to a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt. Also, I do feel that PRA's are a massive part of the answer to that, so if a PRA has done their job well, this should reduce the likelihood of an undeserved unfavorable outcome, so is another reason the numbers on this side are not equal to the opposite case. Add the quality control applied post-interview and the appeals process, this should really hammer such instances down to a bare minimum. But those who don't consult a PRA are always going to be at greater risk of an undeserved negative outcome. It would be good to gain a confirmation of what we both believe though, si the straw poll could still be highly worth doing and I take your point about who should be polled, including agreeing that it shouldn't include PRI's. As I've said in a further reply to Ian, the one thing I've already seen in my as yet limited interviews, the biggest danger area I see at interview is the input from referees. We really are heavily reliant on it to confirm authenticity and validity of actual performance, yet they often don't really understand the criteria against which their reference is supposed to a cover, or they are not as impartial as we would like, or both, as I said in that reply, we can uncover some of that in interview, but we are no match for an individual who can blatantly overclaim on the B competencies, claiming to have been responsible for innovation when in fact they have only followed direction, if the referee, especially the employer, endorses it, and the candidate has that ability to look you straight in the eye while maintaing a blatant lie, there is little we can do to filter that out.
