2396 failure rate


The Level 4 Design Erection and Verification results were abysmal. 170 candidates sat the exam and around 106 failed. I had eight candidates, all passed bar one. You can imagine how he is feeling. He is a very capable guy in a supervisory role for a company specialising in the installation of industrial control systems. He comes from a solid electrical installation background. He has just emailed me seeking feedback as to why he might have failed. Unfortunately I cannot do that as I don’t know the questions he was asked, they are a closely guarded secret in City and Guilds. The Chief Examiners Report is of little use as it does not reveal the questions posed in the exam.  Its  a little bit like a restaurant critic assessing  a meal but not saying what was ordered! 
I am an advocate of encouraging lads to go beyond the normal level three, it’s good for them and for our industry. However, if City and Guilds are not prepared to provide example questions with exemplar answers, how in heavens name can tutors provide well-founded feedback to encourage lads to have another go!

Parents
  • Congratulations for your candidates. 87.5% success is pretty remarkable given the overall figures.

    The argument against lack of feedback is that an exam is summative rather than formative.

    You may think the pass rate is bad, but the old primary FRCS rate was 15% (with adjustments for good and bad cohorts) which controlled entry into the profession. Retakes were limited only by finances. By contrast, the "Perisher" assessment for would-be RN submarine commanding officers had (as I understand it) a 10% pass rate with no retakes.

    Life is tough, and competitive!

    Instead of feedback to your unsuccessful candidate, I'd look at exam technique. It is all too easy for the mind to go to jelly. I had that in an OU engineering exam last year. It was entirely unexpected and naturally, as soon as I had submitted my paper (remotely) I could solve the problem.

    Frankly, I don't have a solution, but just because you lost today does not mean that you will not win tomorrow. Elite sportsmen (and sportswomen) must have a means of coping with losing.

Reply
  • Congratulations for your candidates. 87.5% success is pretty remarkable given the overall figures.

    The argument against lack of feedback is that an exam is summative rather than formative.

    You may think the pass rate is bad, but the old primary FRCS rate was 15% (with adjustments for good and bad cohorts) which controlled entry into the profession. Retakes were limited only by finances. By contrast, the "Perisher" assessment for would-be RN submarine commanding officers had (as I understand it) a 10% pass rate with no retakes.

    Life is tough, and competitive!

    Instead of feedback to your unsuccessful candidate, I'd look at exam technique. It is all too easy for the mind to go to jelly. I had that in an OU engineering exam last year. It was entirely unexpected and naturally, as soon as I had submitted my paper (remotely) I could solve the problem.

    Frankly, I don't have a solution, but just because you lost today does not mean that you will not win tomorrow. Elite sportsmen (and sportswomen) must have a means of coping with losing.

Children
No Data