Over-zealous Examiners

[vader]

Just wanted to know how common it is for the examiners of the skills tests to be so irrational and over-zealous. <BR><BR>Both my Units 1 & 2 skills tests were returned (to be resit in part) as one or two intial entries were made incorrectly which had a snowball effect as they went through the process of being entered on to the ledgers. Shouldn't the examiners show some initiative and count these as one mistake instead of marking wrong every entry the one mistake has an impact on. I appreciate in a real-life scenario the consequences could be great but as these are tests of knowledge and ability as long as we complete all other tasks correctly allowing for the bad data isn't this OK?<BR><BR>The thing that really got my goat was the following example. I was required to check a credit note over (received from a supplier) and if anything was wrong make notes regarding it and not enter it to the purchases day book. I decided there may be a problem as the supplier had offered a trade discount on an invoice in this month and as there was no mention of this on the credit note may be this needed verification to stop further problems down the line. As this did not agree with the examiners answer book he wrote &quot;You are going in to too much detail. This credit note is correct&quot;. STOP. I've just finished Unit 5 which says always go for prudence. The examiner must have agreed I was correct if his argument was &quot;too much detail&quot; so why could s/he not just say, &quot;The answer doesn't match mine, but he has a valid point?&quot; instead of marking it wrong and every other entry this had an impact on?<BR><BR>Does anybody else want to vent their anger/share their woes?<BR><BR>Oh, and how likely is it I could appeal (and is it worth the effort)?

[LK]

I know how you feel. I sat a four hour devolved assessment during the technician level and had a slight lapse of concentration which resulted in the wrong figure being keyed into my calculator. The only error in the devolved assessment was this, but apparently it was in an area where no errors were allowed. <BR><BR>Although my assessement was 99% correct, I was judged not to be competent until a verbal question was answered (which went along the lines of &quot;Oops, I made an mistake there&quot;).<BR><BR>At the time I was bemused and a bit cross but now I think its quite funny.

[GeraldVinten]

Certainly in a university accountancy qualification one mistake would be counted as one mistake, despite the sometimes serious knock-on effect. Vocational qualifications may well be a different kettle of fish, whereby one is judged competent or not. This does seem particularly unfortunate where there is simply a keying in mistake, and given that all of us are likely to make anything up to one per cent error, especially in repetitive tasks. This sort of experience is like a 'rite de passage', so look forward to getting matters right, qualifying and then the world will be your oyster. <BR><BR>Best wishes for the future<BR><BR>gerald vinten

[sheffsal]

I was under the impression that arithmetical errors would not be penalised all the way through the paper - I would jump up and down about this a bit, I'm sure this is not the way these things should be marked.

[vader]

Thanks guys,<BR><BR>Feel much better now knowing they weren't picking me on me.