|
[GH] From Mike Heritage :
I have kept out of this conversation because I am a very newly qualified Master but there have been one or two comments that have set me thinking. First off I see qualifying as a CCI as the first step on the ladder. I want to see obvious competence and thoughtful answers to questions. I don't want to hear what Joan, Lefty, Bill, Bruce, or even Mel, have said or written spouted back to me verbatim even though they may well have been the candidates study material. I would expect them to have sufficient knowledge of the mechanics that they can describe them in their own words and also sufficient that when probed they can work out acceptable answers.
As part of being signed off as a Master you have to lead a test. For me this was more nerve jangling than when I took my test. I had only been involved in two tests, both mine. To suddenly have to decide someone else's competence without having had the benefit of observing first is a tough call. It would be interesting to know how many CCI candidates have been passed or failed by first time MCI assessors. My guess is a majority of passes, who would want to fail their first CCI candidate? I agree with Paul that assessors should go through a process before being allowed to lead assessments.
Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mike,
Your message is particularly valuable because you are in the throes of becoming a competent examiner. This should thrust upon you a serious responsibility ... it's obvious that you knew that.
If ever tempted to pass a candidate whom you really think might not deserve certification, remember this. Your name will be on that certificate. Years ago, I recall a BOG who had passed a candidate. Others had observed this chap casting and teaching poorly. When asked about that, the BOG placed his head in his hands and said, "I'd do anything to get my name off that certificate !"
One important thing all good examiners have learned is the technique of not passing a candidate while at the same time providing guidance and instructive feedback in such a manner as to avoid losing the disappointed candidate from the system.
All candidates should realize that it is not a good idea to quote casting authors and fly fishing "Gurus" on an exam even though it is a good idea to be familiar and conversant with their techniques and opinions.
My preference is to have a new Master function as an observer on at leas one exam before acting as a lead examiner.
I, too, agree with Paul Arden that a more sophisticated approach to training new MCI's to be examiners is a good idea. I know some older MCI's would like to learn more about the techniques of the examination process.... particularly when they anticipate functioning as part of a Master Test team. If a well organized CE course is given on how to be a better examiner, as a BOG, I'd take it.
A well informed and seasoned examiner who has learned these techniques can be a joy to observe as he conducts an exam at either level. As I see it, he/she has developed the capacity relax the candidate and then bring out the very best a candidate has to offer.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|