(28-03-2017, 11:44 AM)Jerry1237 Wrote: So, could part of the feedback be careful consideration of who is considered suitable for mentorship then? Agree with the committee a 100% pass rate is unacceptable and a to return to a norm is good but not what was aimed for and the non-pass rates seem to high still!
Should we encourage the language thing to be put to bed or at least to be formally reviewed/ratified? Based on the review comments I see, those who struggle do so at the most basic levels; lack of domain knowledge, reading the questions, sufficient preparation etc. A certain SW UK based group is a, and not the only, good example of what is needed to pass and what structured application does to candidates.
I think you are right, but in reality any of us who are approached have a difficult balancing act to perform. One of the candidates I sponsored last year failed one of the two modules; the one that he came to me quite last minute to support instead of one we had been covering in the Study Group. He had a rational argument that it was far better matched to his experience and indeed I am sure that starting in June that he COULD have got to the state that he would have achieved a good pass. However I was not "on his case" since he is relatively senior and had decided to plough his own furrow separately to the group I was leading. Probably distracted by work, probably over confident; certainly had the knowledge and experience but had not got himself exam ready. Not really my fault, but still feel disappointed particularly because I had felt I had had "a gun at the head" needing to sign the form more or less there and then. I had got him to attempt 3 questions over night and they were rather marginal, but having gone over them with him I felt that he'd got the message. Obviously I was wrong.
A lot of those who are approached to sponsor will really not know what is expected and so are less likely to decline. Even I am likely to be in an awkward position this year as a number of my candidates are a bit "left field"- experienced yes, but not in mainstream signal engineering. It's good they want to do the exam, it would be good in a "broad church" to get them into the fold, but asking me in APRIL to make a judgement whether, having started to study in January that they are likely to make the grade in October just isn't reasonable. In August I'd probably have a far better idea of their rate of progress.
Similarly the two Indians. It makes total sense for them to try the exam again this year; whilst they are in the UK they have a better chance- more support, less travel time commuting, more spare time and less family responsibilities, so very logical to attempt in 2017 before they return home. However I have little time to judge whether they'll be able to pass this year; the "safe" decision for me would be decline to do so as they are "high risk", but is that the right decision in the circumstances?
For some, language is most certainly part of the issue. It cannot help when trying to get the nuances of the question. It is not always the technical words that cause people to flounder. It also limits how readily they can assimilate information from reference material. Having to make an effort to interpret many words, construe a sentence means that it is very difficult to maintain an overview of the question as a whole. They see the individual trees, but not the wood.