The two strike fail rule

[HarleyDavidson]

You or the cup?

 

[danchoochoo]

I think its fair really. Safety first

 

[Withnailandi]

I think its fair really. Safety first

Don't think the tests are really all about safety to be honest. I think its more about seeing if the candidate is up for completing the course. Safety is drummed into you from day one of starting the job.

 

[dakta]

Well that's it, if it was more of a safety concern then i'd be more sympathetic with the rules (though I still wouldn't agree because I don't consider people's abilities (including suit-abilities for certain tasks) as a static property.)

I once found a document, and it went into quite some detail on the old testing process, i've been trying to dig it out but can't seem to find it because it was an enlightening thing to read - covering how taking the test once and failing it impacted the likelihood of future passes, what the tests were actually trying to measure etc.

It's probably on the interweb somewhere. It didn't convince me that banning applicants from applying was justified, even if it put an economic case against them.

I'd like to find it because I'd like to remind myself what the tests influence was on drivers beyond the training period.

 

[455driver]

Don't think the tests are really all about safety to be honest. I think its more about seeing if the candidate is up for completing the course. Safety is drummed into you from day one of starting the job.

Which is the correct answer.
The tests are the way they are to see how quickly you can understand and learn instructions, this is so you will be able to keep up in the classroom as they throw rules at you for 12 weeks.
If you cant get the tests right after 2 attempts then you wont be able to keep up in the classroom when you (attempt to) learn the rules.

 

[GB]

Its not an absolutely science though. We have had a couple of people sail through the testing but come unstuck either during the classroom or handling stages.

If the tests really are a case of you either have it or you don't then it would make sense to limit the number of times a candidate can take them. However I'm not sure the CBI/MMI should be included in the 2 strikes rule given that it is predominantly based on experience which can be gained in later life and also to an extent your performance on the day which can also be improved.

 

[notadriver]

Are you driving now GB?

 

[GB]

Only off network.

 

[DarloRich]

Whilst I agree the limit is sensible I do wonder how long it will take someone to challenge the decision legally. I wonder if it would stand up to legal scrutiny and current employment legislation......

 

[W230]

Whilst I agree the limit is sensible I do wonder how long it will take someone to challenge the decision legally. I wonder if it would stand up to legal scrutiny and current employment legislation......

Don't see why it wouldn't be seen as legal. You take the selection tests everyone gets the same attempt at them you pass or fail and go from there. No one is being shown any favours.

There seems to be some sort of suggestion sometimes in these threads that having failed the tests the candidate has been unfairly treated. Why? If you don't make the required grade then that's it.

What's the difference to the selection tests for the police service/fire service etc etc...

 

[notadriver]

Because train driving is easy - all they do is push a lever and they don't even have to steer

 

[E&W Lucas]

Whilst I agree the limit is sensible I do wonder how long it will take someone to challenge the decision legally. I wonder if it would stand up to legal scrutiny and current employment legislation......

It's been used for about 25 years, and has served the industry well. As fair and objective a selection process as I've been through anywhere. Carefully researched and designed aptitude tests, specific to the job role. I can't see what basis any challenge could be made on.

 

[dakta]

I don't know much about the police selection test, but if I wanted to be a copper and had direct experience of it, pass or fail there's a good chance I might feel the same.

That said, having cast a very brief (and I mean brief) look at the tests overview, most easy to research appears to be the scottish standard entrance test - it does actually at least attempt to take a look at a candidates ability to perform the role rather than make an economic case for whether they will learn 'fast enough' to be economically viable. Or at least the exams seem to be based around what sort of skills someone on the front line might need.

It seems you get another go at this one too.

You can read a little about it on the first page here: (you can even have a go)
http://www.tayside.police.uk/Downloads/hr+docs/specimen_sets.pdf

so, if asked what the difference is between my perceived unfairness of applying for train driving and applying for (im using the police force as the example of choice) - if as a budding police officer I can fail the tests for various reasons earlier in my life and find myself at a point where I can pass the tests but can no longer try, my answer is 'not much'.

That said, in the police test favour - the sort of questions it seems to be asking do seem to be in areas that can be improved, so an applicant does seem to be able to have a level of control over their performance. This element, as minor as it is, does seem to shout 'are you capable?' where the question asked on the train driving side seems to be 'are you viable?'.

Which for me is a decision that might have enough weight to knock you off the applicants list for a specific job opportunity, but shouldn't block you from being reassessed. I appreciate people might say 'the bottom line is you get two attempts ... xxyyzz' but it's an interesting discussion.

 

[455driver]

Whilst I agree the limit is sensible I do wonder how long it will take someone to challenge the decision legally. I wonder if it would stand up to legal scrutiny and current employment legislation......

My 21 year old son recently applied to the Royal Navy but was told he is permanently medically unfit due to being given 2 courses of steroids when he was born to help his lungs develop. Last year he did a marathon in under 4 hours, not bad for somebody who supposedly cant breath!

Is that fair?

 

[dakta]

On the face of it, I don't actually think it is.

Is there anything deeper that would or could affect his performance in the role?

I have flat feet, I've heard this could be an issue should I ever apply. I'm not interested in applying, is this true? I do long walks, cycling, rock climbing etc.

I actually think in my case it would be fair to say I'm not suitable, as I do have a lot of pain at times. (edit to clarify) - Though I don't think it should be a permanent declaration. In your sons case though, if he can do it, why can't he do it?

 

[455driver]

Absolutely nothing, he is as fit as a fiddle and grew normally after the 2 steroid doses when he was first born and has had no complications, no medication or any issues since, he did appeal but it didnt help.

 

[dakta]

I might go against the grain but I think he should be considered if that is what he wants to do.

ESPECIALLY if he is capable. The idea of assessments is to test capability. Banning from assessments is nonsensical.

 

[W230]

It didn't convince me that banning applicants from applying was justified, even if it put an economic case against them.

But it's not just an economic case. It's a suitability case.

I'd like to find it because I'd like to remind myself what the tests influence was on drivers beyond the training period.

At a guess, I would think the GB tests your ability to work at a repetitive task still having an attention to the details. Similar to driving.

I would suggest the mechanical test/DFFT is logic based - will help show the company where you can follow a logical methodology to fault find when you break down somewhere.

The structured interview will show how you are able to deal under pressure and what experience you have had working under these pressures (ie problem solving while out on your own)

The glop test I would suggest is also about retaining short term informqtion in your head. Maybe of use with temporary speed restrictions, safety critical information, signal aspects etc etc.

While a lot of it can be applied to the training process a lot of it is also relevant to doing the job in some way. And lets be clear - the reason they won't allow people to retake the tests after two failures is because the RSSB (I assume) research shows on the whole, people who fail to pass in two attempts are far more likely to struggle in the role. And people who retake the test numerous times are more likely to become familiar and learn how to do the tests rather than actually develop this part of their brain/personality.

Does this mean that everyone who fail the tests would fail to make the grade - of course not! It just provides a very good indication in an area where there is no shortage of candidates.

 

[dakta]

Does this mean that everyone who fail the tests would fail to make the grade - of course not!

You've identified the reason why I feel it's unfair.

I am not saying life is fair, but we do live in a world where we've changed things (even more unfairly so in some cases) to make sure people can't miss out on opportunities.

A good example for me is college, this is actually inverse of what i'm arguing but worth a mention - because I worked my socks off doing my IT course, and pretty much got it finished months early so I literally just come in to sign the register and doss about because I 'really had to attend'. I was pretty much left alone to do what I wanted but I did notice as the coursework deadline approached - those students you never saw because they had other things to do in the earlier parts of the year, still didn't come every day but they started getting dragged in. Teachers got a bit twitchy and started giving them a lot of, encouragement to do the work let's say. As things got even nearer to the deadline it became more intensive, and it ended up with the teacher virtually dictating an assignment because we knew they were never going to get through.

Now that's more 'chances' than I like, even for me - should they be allowed to fail? of course. What it has meant in my current field, which is reverse engineering software for engine management computers - on a paper point of view, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish me from this chap who frankly, couldn't be bothered. Well there is, there's just one grade between us.

I beleive in the above example he should have perhaps been thrown off the course. If he realised he was capable or had the motivation later in life, there is nothing preventing him from having another go. So there's no ethical or moral objections from me.

Now that's going too far the other way for me too, and it's an extreme example. I still don't see how railways is an exception to third chances and the like. Especially if people are accepting that suitable candidates could get banned.

 

[Clip]

You've identified the reason why I feel it's unfair.

So how can you guarantee that you would make the grade either though - and thats the point.

I feel that if you cant make the tests at 2 attempts then you will not make the grade either, no matter how good you think you are at train sims at home in your spare time

 

[dakta]

So how can you guarantee that you would make the grade either though - and thats the point.

I took the tests and passed, but to be honest once in the classroom I still think there's a small chance it could go either way

The point of the above statement is - I wouldn't set much store by my test pass in judging this.

It has been argued elsewhere if you aren't up to standard, you won't pass. No need to block attempts then.

Whilst having multiple attempts DOES increase the lilehood of passing, does that mean that they have cheated their way through perhaps, when say, the reactions expectations are the same? the concentration expectations is the same? how do you cheat such a thing? Is familiarity with the test procedure an unfair advantage?

People do say these core abilities are static, if that's the case then familiarity with the test can only serve to prepare you for demonstrating your abilities so shouldn't really be invalid after a few attempts.

Why are people even asking the question 'how do we think you'll do in the future' - it's because of costs of course, and you already know my opinion on that.

It's just my view but there you go.

 

[Clip]

Yes,

familiarisation of things like tests and constantly doing things over and over again does give an unfair advantage and could then lead to complacency when carrying out ones duties. I am no driver but I imagine that the tests are designed to erm, test this and by being familiar with this after doing them multiple times does not show that you can carry out said instructions because you have become too familiar with it.

I remember at school if we got in bother we had to write out this thing called an imposition. First few times I done it it took me ages in my spare time to read and copy out - the very thing it was meant to do so I got less time to go out and play. I ended up so familiar with them I would wake up 30 mins before normall and write it out from memory so I would have more spare time to myself.

Its not really the same thing but shows that aftert becoming to familiar with how something is you can do it off the top of your head and the main objective of doing them becomes obsolete and useless.

Life isnt fair at times but I know which way I would like the tests to be done on drivers and 2 strikes is that way.

 

[455driver]

So, all those who think the current way is unfair, what do you propose as an alternative which would be fairer but still whittle the numbers down?

 

[E&W Lucas]

I took the tests and passed, but to be honest once in the classroom I still think there's a small chance it could go either way

But are you actually doing the job yet?

 

[Withnailandi]

I found the guards ones just as difficult to be honest. The only upside is they were shorter.

 

[red2005]

You've identified the reason why I feel it's unfair.

I am not saying life is fair, but we do live in a world where we've changed things (even more unfairly so in some cases) to make sure people can't miss out on opportunities.

A good example for me is college, this is actually inverse of what i'm arguing but worth a mention - because I worked my socks off doing my IT course, and pretty much got it finished months early so I literally just come in to sign the register and doss about because I 'really had to attend'. I was pretty much left alone to do what I wanted but I did notice as the coursework deadline approached - those students you never saw because they had other things to do in the earlier parts of the year, still didn't come every day but they started getting dragged in. Teachers got a bit twitchy and started giving them a lot of, encouragement to do the work let's say. As things got even nearer to the deadline it became more intensive, and it ended up with the teacher virtually dictating an assignment because we knew they were never going to get through.

Now that's more 'chances' than I like, even for me - should they be allowed to fail? of course. What it has meant in my current field, which is reverse engineering software for engine management computers - on a paper point of view, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish me from this chap who frankly, couldn't be bothered. Well there is, there's just one grade between us.

I beleive in the above example he should have perhaps been thrown off the course. If he realised he was capable or had the motivation later in life, there is nothing preventing him from having another go. So there's no ethical or moral objections from me.

Now that's going too far the other way for me too, and it's an extreme example. I still don't see how railways is an exception to third chances and the like. Especially if people are accepting that suitable candidates could get banned.

yes but what happens when these people fail the 3rd time? do they then complain that 3 times isn't enough? do they still say it is unfair that there are limits on the amount of times these tests can be undertaken?

of course they are!.....these tests are not just there to whittle down numbers they are there as an aid to show the people that make the decision on who is going to have the MASSIVE responsibility of driving their trains who is most suitable for the training and the role itself!

this system ( 2 strikes) has been in for some time now and evidence has obviously proved that it works for them! the only fairness these companies have to show is that the people selected from applications to undertake assessments are all treated the same! which is exactly what they do! why should they be labelled unfair because that joe bloggs from down the road may need more than 2 attempts to pass the tests?

one failure is more than enough to realise where you have gone wrong and where next time you should maybe concentrate you're efforts or even realise if you are actually up to passing them next time! throughout my application I received no preferential treatment or extra tries so I don't see why anybody else should!...and I certainly didn't have the luxury of having failed twice and then being handed another 2 attempts because of a policy change.

there is more than enough material available to aid u with the tests! should people really need any more than 2 attempts?

 

[youngboy]

What about the thousands of people who have failed the assessment's under the two strikes and you're out rule, only to be allowed a reset to zero under the new assessment's.

Why let those people sit the assessment's again or has the bar dropped regarding train driver recruitment ??

 

[dakta]

But are you actually doing the job yet?

The answer is no, but I'll be honest that hasn't concerned me too much as...

The tests are a national standard, which everyone has to meet. They test innate ability, so there is no point in multiple attempts; you've either got it, or you haven't.

...the former describes me.

But what I will say is (and repeating what i've said earlier today), whether 'ive got it or i havent' I do not actually think the test result will really give me any real indication of how much i struggle in the classroom (which is where it is claimed the tests provide most information for, rather in the cab). Should that not be the case and the tests do have function beyond assessing trainability, and also be a measurement of ability to perform the actual role then I still don't really know how well I'll do. I think, as others have admitted possible, a two strike rule would be unfair because it could stop a competent driver from applying for a job.

yes but what happens when these people fail the 3rd time? do they then complain that 3 times isn't enough? do they still say it is unfair that there are limits on the amount of times these tests can be undertaken?

You won't like this, but of course.

My argument has been against banning people from being (re)assessed rather than trying to get people 'more goes'.

there is more than enough material available to aid u with the tests! should people really need any more than 2 attempts?

Should people need more than two attempts isn't the same question as should people have them if needed, ideally everyone would pass first time so this debate would never arise. However, since we haven't achieved perfection with the testing process, and that people can have poor days, good days, nerves, still a bit of growing up to do, or even just need a bit more life experience to give strong answers in the interview - I think it's unfair to block reassessments being made.

It's economically favorable to have it the way it is, but good drivers can be blocked, and i'm sorry to say whilst ever that's possible i'm going to consider the system a tad unfair.

(just waiting for someone to demand I solve the world's problems on the grounds that there's a lot of crap going on I don't agree with).

What about the thousands of people who have failed the assessment's under the two strikes and you're out rule, only to be allowed a reset to zero under the new assessment's.

I think it's a bit unfair on those who sit the new tests and fail twice, but I'm also pleased to hear that people who might have got a few more years under their belt, perhaps a bit more life experience etc can have a fresh attack. If it stands true that the test measures our innate abilities, then there will be no significant harm in letting them try. If a specific company does not want to fund people after x amount of tests, then they perhaps will not be selected, but they won't be blocked. Perhaps slightly unfair again but much improved. This would be on the same sort of level in my eyes as those companies that conduct additional tests.

Of course, that isn't how things stand but *shrugs*

I don't want to hijack the thread, but that's why I think how I do. It's a challenging opinion to put forward because some people hit you with 'you dont need more than two tests as you have it or you dont' where you also get hit with 'you shouldn't be given more than two chances because you'll get accustomed to it and the practice will help'. There's no real uniform argument to bite into.

I'm still trying to find that document because rather than argue the toss on a forum about it, I would prefer to just read into actually why it is the way it is and debate if needs be with that material.

 

[SPADTrap]

You have to remember what happens after assessments. You drive trains. Are you sure you want the assessments to be so relaxed? I get the impression the end game of being drivers has been forgotten here with all this "unfair" talk.

In my opinion one attempt would be unfair. Two? If you don't get it after the first then accept that's it. Knowing you may be on your last chance makes it real and serious rather than a university style "resit after resit".

Everyone can't have everything, I get that impression from society but it's fair as anyone can apply but it's down to the person to get the job.

 

[dakta]

I've no objections towards making them tougher!

In fact, make them rock solid if the role demands it, as long as you're allowed to attempt it whenever you apply.

Maybe the test should be disassosciated from the toc's a bit, but that's a separate debate.