23-06-2008, 10:11 PM
Nurton Wrote:[I'll leave you with this fact... from the start of the Module 3 exams to 1.5 hours later, at no point did I stop to think (not great exam technique, but I had no choice!). Every second I was writing something, yet I still came nowhere close to completing all the parts required of me. To be honest this was a symptom of most modules but Mod 3 is by far the worst.
I'd be interested to see if anybody else found the same as me!
A few briefish (!) comments:
1. Thanks for your views and also as a model re bio completion; photo as well, there is a first. Thanks also for sharing details of your experience which I think is pretty typical.
2. I am too old to have experience of the modular exam- but both the morning and afternnon paper were mad rushes in my day.
3. It does seem strange that whilst signal engineering is all about getting absolutely right a relatively limited content whereas the exam seems to be quantity over quality.
4. I do accept that some form of speed pressure is useful to distinguish between those who really know and those who are less robust- I just think that it has gone too far.
5. There is obviously the pragmatic consideration that the entire exam should be achievable at one sitting (individual's travelling / accomodation expenses / envigulators giving up their time, companies lending their offices etc) and there is also only so much examination time that a candidate can take in a day (and to me we are already at or beyond that). What can be cut? [One issue I have with mod 1 is that there should be three rather than only two questions; if a candidate has failed to appreciate the full significance of one question and therefore has chosen it, they are almost certain fo fail unless their one remaining question scored exceptionally well- other modules give better chance of passing having made one poor question choice].
6. Until last year's exam review I was giving advice to students to do the most complicated point, one example of main / Warning / Call-on / Shunt and then look at the time and prioritise the remaining Control Tables to demonstate as much "different" as possible - indeed if necessary to miss out the basics and concentrate on the "frills". My logic was as yours; once the candidate has demonstrated they can do a certain activity consistently, why give more marks for showing more of the same. However I picked up exactly what you say- the way the mark the papers do attempt all the CTs, put something in every box that needs it but don't waste time trying to ensure that you get all the route locking since on a marks per minute basis once you have got half of them for an element then time to move on. As a Principles tester this seems CRAZY to me but that seems to be the marking system, so you'd be stupid not to exploit it.
7. BTW I wouldn't have expected that you'd lose marks for a preset shunt on aspect sequence chart. NR practice is certainly not to show it at all; I regard as an aspect level (R change to Y) as opposed to aspect sequence (better aspect) control. IRSE examiners make it clear that do not need to show PL aspects and GPL signals.
8. I certainly have difficulty doing any of the IRSE modules in the time allowed. I think part of it is the more you know the longer it takes you to think through possible issues; to an extent it is easier to concentrate on the bare essentials when you have more limited experience. That is not to say that I don't think I could do enough to pass or get a better mark (after all you only need 50% to pass) in the time, but in an industry when you generally attempt to do a 100% job then settling for 70% seems wrong- also if I am to use my output to help others then it better be more than just over 50% right! Not sure I agree that mod 3 is by far the worst; probably I find that CTs are relatively quick because of years as a Principles tester I am just so much more used to undertaking the activity; relates to item 4 and the argument that time pressure is the way in the exam to demonstrate level of competence by placing the system under pressure- a bit like an endurance test at or beyond limits of specification for a piece of equipment to see if it can stand it.
8. I very much agree that it has to be "start to stop producing output without too much stop to think". There is an argument for re-thinking the exam and indeed this would make an interesting new topic area.
9. For now though the exam is what it is (and has been for a long time); students need to get to grips with this and PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. ....It has to be admitted that far too much is "exam technique" rather than "signalling knowledge / aptitude" and this does enable some to pass the exam with almost too much ease and others to struggle and repeatedly fail. I think that many who fail only have themselves to blame, but there is a percentage for which the exam does not give a fair reflection of their abilities; it is too biased to "academics"- I say this as a graduate of the University of Oxford.
Not so brief after all, but think we are in broad agreement; BTW you weren't the candidate of the 2005 mod 2 whose Australian paper is being used as an example answer in the IRSE study materials are you?
regards,
PJW