RobC wrote:akirk wrote:Horse wrote:And there's the problem - at these rarified "I know it when I see it" levels, how do you identify and quantify differences?
Isn't it similar to musicians (as an example) - it is relatively easy to test at grades 1-8 / diplomas / etc. - you either know your scales or you don't...
beyond that there is a whole progression of ability that becomes increasingly more competent and increasingly more difficult to assess...
you then get to the point of trying to compare Freddie Mercury with Pavarotti - both singers, or Keith Moon with Evelyn Glennie (they can both hit a drum)
possibly the more difficult it is to objectively assess, the more you 'know it when you see it' and the less it matters as the level is so good!
I am sure it is not a complete / direct analogy with driving, but I do feel that there are similarities...
Alasdair
Hi Alasdair
I agree that higher levels are more difficult to assess. If you take the IAM test with a 90% pass rate its not going to be difficult to assess a pass or fail. But if you have a level that only 10% achieve then you must have objective marking criteria which can quite easily be defined but is probably less easily interpreted by those who make the judgement.
I don't think we can compare Freddie Mercury and Pavrotti subjectively, not because their level is so good, but because their styles are so different so you would have to compare them objectively by criteria.
A subjective decision who was the best of the two could be down to personal taste or simply not having the knowledge or skills for example to assess opera singing.
Then again passing an objective test all depends on the criteria chosen. A driver who has never passed a test who can drive around Bombay unscathed in rush hour may have far more advanced skills to some than a Rospa gold driver
Rob
Hi Rob, I think that there is a logic disconnect here - you seem to feel that a 90% pass rate indicates a low level of acheivement / not being objectively marked - you can't conclude that without understanding the candidates' ability - it is more likely that it is simply that they are well prepared and ready for the exam - a test is simply an observation to formalise the understanding of where someone is / their level - ideally if tthe teaching / preparation is good and the candidates capable you would expect a 100% pass rate - if elsewhere you have only a 10% pass rate then that suggests the possibility that candidates are not ready / not capable / not prepared...
also, I think it is important to realise that ROSPA Gold, while indicative of good driving is not the most advanced / does not suggest that top level of driving - there are levels of driving so far beyond that most candidates for the Gold wouldn't even begin to imagine tthe possibility... and to suggest that only testing objectively is to miss out on so much...
we all know that an 18 year old with a customer service NVQ is not as capable / qualified as their manager who has spent 30 years in the job and knows evey nuance of how to deal with customers - yet in your philosophy he would be more capable - this is a very weird way of thinking and sadly indicative of so much today where the ability to 'prove' ability on paper is considered more important by some than actually being able to do it...
so yes, ROSPA Gold is good - but you need to open your eyes to what starts where it finishes - I understand that corporates like the sound of ROSPA Gold / the retesting is no doubt good / a piece of paper allows them to CYA - but to suggest that it is the pinnacle of AD simply because it is objectively tested / and then retested is of course not accurate - come and join my new qualification - I will objectively test your ability to drive in xyz manner and I will insist on a retest every year - it must therefore be better than the ROSPA Gold / very advanced
of course we know that is silly, so is the lack of acceptance of abilities beyond those that can be tested objectively...
Pavarotti and Mercury are good examples - you try testing either objectively, there isn't an appropriate music qualification - yet they are clearly way beyond the ability of someone with grade 8 singing - in every discipline, PhD work is not and can not be tested simply objectively - it is peer assessed and tested against other known levels to judge - so with driving, there comes a point where a driver can't simply be assessed against a set of objectives -but must be peer assessed - their driving is too good for the objective tests...
We shouldn't see that as a threat to ROSPA Gold drivers - it isn't, it should be inspirational, the Gold is a high level of driver and a stage on a journey which has even more to offer...
Alasdair