Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,696 posts)
2. Not really. Kris' example makes his point.
Wed Apr 11, 2012, 01:40 PM
Apr 2012

It's a lousy point of course... but not for that reason.

He isn't saying that it was graded on a curve, he's implying that the company is whining that it should be graded on a curve. The constant lament of the sub-standard student. Of course this isn't true - since they failed the students involved and they have to wait until the next year to pass a new test.

The meat of the story doesn't give us enough to go on. Intructor turnover could mean insufficient training... but psycometrician turnover implies poor testing. Did the individuals not learn what they objectively should know in order to perform the job, or did the test not accurately assess whether or not they did?

The part I find most interesting is that the plants apparently write their own tests. I don't mean that as an accountability issue since the NRC has to review them... but even though each plant is to some extent unique, it's also true that there are many ways that they are the same. I would have assumed that the NRC would write the tests and there would be a section that was unique to a given unit/plant.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Did you ever take a cours...»Reply #2