Can a family member RYA examiner give me qualifications?

[laika]

It proves the point that examiners can qualify candidates if they know them

It proves a point nobody asked about how the military do something and doesn't seem relevant to the question the OP asked about the RYA. You said you've done courses (presumably signing off the course completion certificate at the end) for family members which *should* equate to the statement "there's no such rule for course completion certificates because I checked before doing this very thing". However your responses seem to be saying that you don't understand why any such rule would exist for any certification. Finestgreen observed in post #35 that YM examiners may not examine personal friends so clearly the RYA do have some such rules. Yes I do realise the rules around issuing of course completion certificates may very well be different / less rigorous but the OP was not clear which "qualifications" were being discussed. Are you saying post #35 is wrong, that family members don't fall into the category of "personal friends", or did you assume that the OP was only referring to course completion certificates which you know for sure there's no conflict of interest rules around?

 

[RunAgroundHard]

But isn't most of this done through a hierarchical structure. At least in my day it was. And potentially fighting alongside someone there was a vested interest in making sure those who were passed reached the required standard.

By that premise you believe MCA COC examiners for RYA YMC and YMO don't have a vested interest, and therefore will pass a family member, even if they are not up to the required standard. I think your assertion that examiners are not professional and do not care about the quality of the pass, even if they were family, unsubstantiated. My experience of many, over the years, is that they know their beans, are very professional towards their responsibilities. You dont have to have fear of dying alongside your colleagues to be professional.

 

[Never Grumble]

By that premise you believe MCA COC examiners for RYA YMC and YMO don't have a vested interest, and therefore will pass a family member, even if they are not up to the required standard. I think your assertion that examiners are not professional and do not care about the quality of the pass, even if they were family, unsubstantiated. My experience of many, over the years, is that they know their beans, are very professional towards their responsibilities. You dont have to have fear of dying alongside your colleagues to be professional.

You clearly failed to read my previous comments on this thread.

 

[ylop]

In my service career I routinely sat examination boards for promotion or qualifying in various watchkeeping positions. And as examiner on boards for candidates as my career progressed. Clearly, those testing the candidate knew them, often very well. This had no influence whatsoever on the pass or fail decision.

I’d contest that:

1. a “board” where someone is assessed by a panel of people is not equivalent to a single examiner testing a single candidate where nobody else sees how good or bad the candidate is.
2. a structure where the candidate will continue to be observed by others actually doing the job and a feedback loop (formal or informal) exists for “how the hell did Jimmy ever pass, he can’t tell a cardinal mark from a special mark” is far more conducive to examiners both being rigorous and wanting to be seen to be rigorous
3. I’d be surprised if the modern military allowed family members on boards? It’s certainly not an organisation immune to suggestions of nepotism or “the right tie” or unconscious bias holding back others.

to be clear, I’m not suggesting examiners ARE intentionally varying standards for those they know or are related to, or that they would be incapable of holding them to the same standard but that examiners are likely to want to avoid any suggestion of bias and so (as the RYA rules someone posted above suggest) would not examine someone where there is a potential perceived conflict.

I don’t understand why you would not see that other might perceive a conflict for say a sibling or parent/child assessing you for something, and that the professionalism of examiners would always prevail. That professionalism is exactly what should mean they recuse themselves even when they believe they could be unbiased but the reasonable observer might doubt the impartiality.

 

[capnsensible]

I’d contest that:

1. a “board” where someone is assessed by a panel of people is not equivalent to a single examiner testing a single candidate where nobody else sees how good or bad the candidate is.
2. a structure where the candidate will continue to be observed by others actually doing the job and a feedback loop (formal or informal) exists for “how the hell did Jimmy ever pass, he can’t tell a cardinal mark from a special mark” is far more conducive to examiners both being rigorous and wanting to be seen to be rigorous
3. I’d be surprised if the modern military allowed family members on boards? It’s certainly not an organisation immune to suggestions of nepotism or “the right tie” or unconscious bias holding back others.

to be clear, I’m not suggesting examiners ARE intentionally varying standards for those they know or are related to, or that they would be incapable of holding them to the same standard but that examiners are likely to want to avoid any suggestion of bias and so (as the RYA rules someone posted above suggest) would not examine someone where there is a potential perceived conflict.

I don’t understand why you would not see that other might perceive a conflict for say a sibling or parent/child assessing you for something, and that the professionalism of examiners would always prevail. That professionalism is exactly what should mean they recuse themselves even when they believe they could be unbiased but the reasonable observer might doubt the impartiality.

Mebbe I'm biased having spent the last couple of decades prepping scores of people for their exams, booking the examiners, staffing the yachts and everything else associated with the scheme.

Too much insider knowledge hasclearly led me astray......

 

[Biggles Wader]

Mebbe I'm biased having spent the last couple of decades prepping scores of people for their exams, booking the examiners, staffing the yachts and everything else associated with the scheme.

Too much insider knowledge hasclearly led me astray......

Id like to think you are right but I have spent a lifetime observing people and their behaviour in a more general sense and Im with ylop on this. Human nature will trump any organisation and its rules and culture in the end.

 

[capnsensible]

You may be a king or a little road sweeper, but I'll always find a way to teach yer.

For exams and assessments, it's not who you are that matters, but what you can or can't do....does.

I'm so happy to have spent a lifetime sheltered from the swamp of corruption that others think is normal.