Chris my fathers dyslexic. There is not a more competent construction operative out there. It seems that exams, tests etc. are the current culture. It's a shame because the construction industry is rapidly losing this experience and skills that this generation posesses. It appears that construction has gone acedemic.

Brett, Alex, I'm not saying there should be exams for anything and everything but asking if you take an exam should it be a pass to be considered successful, or can a fail be acceptable.

Brett, I too have a certain dyslexia and have to find ways of answering exam questions rather than learning the subject inside out. I only recognised it through my son who has the same issues as me - he has been diagnosed where I never was. It didn't exist when I was younger.

I am better at the NVQ route, perhaps your father could consider that instead of exam courses. I know there are construction NVQ's and it can be done through the CSCS scheme.

Now back to my original question re exams.

Chris, Exams are to demonstrate that the work covered during the course has been understood and retained for the long term. The assumption is that you are acquiring the core skills for the purpose of being able to be effective in that area. They do not, despite what society perceives, measure competence. Therefore it is possible to fail an exam and still be competent; maybe not as competent as you would be if you passed but nonetheless competent. This may be especially so if the level of exam is lower than other relevant qualifications.
The pass/fail bridge applies is some circumstances where perhaps it is a licensed or regulated situation. In such cases you are qualified and thereby authorised to start or continue to use the knowledge and understanding gained. For example you can drive a car after passing your driving exam but are you a competent driver?
If we look at societal expectations however we have a different perspective. Now society wants proof of competence and the easy way to do that is to produce the bits of accredited paper that society recognises as proving qualification. Thus qualification somehow gets mixed up with competence.
If we take the case of Fire Safety, there is no legal requirement to sit the NEBOSH Fire Cert. Thus one can be qualified and competent by other means than sitting that exam but might choose to do so anyway and fail. What does that actually mean in respect of competence? I venture to say very little in many cases but perhaps much in others.
If on the other hand one had no other relevant qualification....?

I trust that has muddied the waters sufficiently to spark further debate

p48

quote=ITER]what does IOSH do for me - answer - very little

Good point! I failed my driving test due to nerves, I think many peolpe do, does that make me a bad driver????

There is a current trend in a particular Government Department that I work with to demonstrate your competence by being a 'Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person'. It was recognised that some form of benchmark is needed and a combination of both qualification and experience could meet this - just one does not make you competent.

Competence is of course subjective and - has been mentioned before - can only really be tested in a court of law, but sometimes you need to have a benchmark, otherwise you can have any old person setting up a H&S consultancy. Oh, wait.......

The driving test is a good example of it being necessary to pass. if you don't then you don't get the licence and should not drive.

Someone I know failed the theory test by one mark. He had to sit the test again.

I know someone else who took a maths test yesterday, he had to score 15 out of 15 to get an interview. He failed, got 13 right - did not get the interview. (Not an OK you only just failed so we'll let you go to the next stage?)

The question I ask is about the worth of an exam as, if pass you pass, if fail you should not be considered as passed.

Those people that take an exam to prove competent or because it is required to have that qualification, and they then fail the exams but decide they are competent should not be accepted as competent in that area.

There are many competent health and safety people out there that branch out into new areas believing they can because they can, without considering there may be additional requirements.

If there is no need to take the exam don't, because if you do take it and then fail your competence in that area must be in doubt.

as people have noted..an exam is only testing your ability to retain knowledge...i couldnt quote lots of legislation (the same as many others)..but i know how and where to find out ..get advise and build the systems and proccesses... while teaching ..there were lots of very competent,well educated eloquent people on various courses....that failed exams.... i have attended various courses myself with people..who are extremely competent but when it came to producing the goods for exams .....failed ..horses for courses there are other ways to prove competence as well as sitting and passing exams

Claire L.
I said "They do not, despite what society perceives, measure competence."
I think this means that we agree in principle?

However, the fact remains that when challenged about competence by society there is an increasing expectation that an accredited qualification, at whatever level, underpins that competence. Therefore, if you have failed an exam, society may well perceive you to be less competent than one who passed. Whether you are adequately is a different question.
I fully agree that competence is demonstrated and can be proven in many ways other than by simply passing exams.

p48

Claire,

I disagree that exams just ask people to regurgitate stuff they have learned by rote; it depends very much on the exam. I'm going through a diploma in risk management, for example, and all the examiners have made it very clear that what they are examining is understanding and application, of which learning may be a necessary precondition, but is only a part. I have in all the exams so far used examples and principles which haven't been part of the core learning, but since I seem to be doing OK I assume I have been credited for them. It's also clear that there's no right answer, any argument which makes sense and keeps within the parameters of the subject is acceptable. So not like NEBOSH at all,

John

Indeed it is, but as I said:

some adjustment must be made if possible, but concession is not acceptable

Thus, those wth poor communication skills, for whatever reason must demonstrate the correct answer somehow, with adjustment of the examination process if that is reasonable. However, the concession to those same people, that because of their communication problems they might be excused a written examination or have the bar lowered is not, in my opinion, acceptable.

Translation to the 'real world' where communication skills are an essential part of safe working cannot be overlooked just to help some achieve a nice shiny certificate when they cant perform safely outside the examination hall.

GarethS

You don't need to be a member of IOSH, to get advice off this forum - its free!

So length of membership is irrelevant

Competence is gained from learning and we learn in all manner of ways, from our personal experience – what worked and what didn’t work. Did doing that hurt me in some way? (as children usually, so ‘I won’t do that again’), but some skills have to be taught and to ensure an understanding of what was taught, we need to test that understanding.

Testing isn’t just written examinations (as has been said previously) it can be by observing someone undertaking a task, or by making a presentation to a peer review group and responding orally to their questions, or a formal written examination, and more. All of these have their place and serve essentially the same purpose – to identify the level of knowledge a person has of any particular subject area.

So yes – examinations do serve a purpose and have value in my view.

hmmm that doesn't make sense but I am sure you know what I mean :)

Failed and never resat - vs failed and passed later....