Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

number of examination papers set by the English Civil Service Commission. Many reflections have been suggested by them, but in this place I desire to mention one in particular. Applicants are not allowed to bring into the examination room their hats, umbrellas, wraps, etc., but leave them in a room provided for the purpose. It is greatly to be desired that some such arrangement should be made here. The disposal of such belongings is difficult in many cases, and in a large examination, particularly in cold or wet weather, is a serious problem. Provision, not entirely satisfactory in any case, may be made in small examinations, by using the ante-room to the physical examination-room. Suggestion has been made that attachments might be made to the desks, similar to those in use in some of the theatres. But there are difficulties.

The attachment can not be placed in front of the desk, for that would interfere with the occupant of the chair in front; it can hardly be placed at the side of the desk, for that would interfere with the free passage of the aisles, necessary for expedition on the part of the Examiners. The only place left is underneath the desks, and that would certainly incommode the competitors. What is needed is a coat-room, which I trust may at some time be granted.

-

The Commission may recall two recent instances, one in the Police Board, and one in the Federal Civil Service Commission's examination, where scandals arose from suspicions to say no more that candidates had access to the examination papers before the day of examination. Whether these suspicions were well founded or not, there clearly was a possibility of their correctness from the fact that the papers were printed, before the examination day, in offices not under the direct and exclusive control of the respective Examining Boards. As doubts have been, at times, expressed, as to whether there might not be a possibility of the same sort in connection with other examinations, it may be proper to explain our method. Examination papers are prepared, either by the Chief Examiner or by such member of the Examining

Board or when necessary

by such outside expert as the Chief Examiner selects. In the last two cases the papers are submitted to the Chief Examiner for approval. Usually the papers are submitted very shortly before the examination; in the case of papers prepared by members of the Board, generally the day before examination. When approved they are placed, sealed, in the office safe and kept there until the morning of the examination. On that morning they are handed to the Chief Examiner's stenographer who sits in his room and by him typewritten on a waxed stencil sheet, and are then mimeographed by the office boy, who does his work in the Board room and almost invariably in the immediate presence of an Examiner. It thus usually happens that while the competitors are engaged on one paper, the printing of the succeeding papers is still going on.

This seems a sufficient safeguard against the illegal obtaining of examination questions. It is possible only in case of corrupt action on part of an Examiner. It need hardly be said that it would be impossible to prevent a corrupt Examiner from corrupt practices. There are, however, some drawbacks to this system, though they are not very serious. The chief one is the inferior appearance and distinctness of mimeograph copies. A printed paper, if one does not go into its antecedents, is in every way preferable, and particularly so in the mathematical papers, where the mimeograph sometimes produces figures that are not clearly decipherable. Another drawback is the lack, in the ordinary typewriting machine, of certain signs, found in every printing office, often used or desirable, in examination papers. In such cases the blanks have to be filled in by hand, a serious matter in a large examination. But by constant care, increased experience and, I may add, increased interest and pride on the part of the typewriter and office boy, these drawbacks have been reduced to a minimum. The ideal method would be, of course, to have the papers printed in a room under the direct and exclusive control of the Examining Board. But we must evidently wait for that ideal.

es

A very simple change in the order of giving out papers pecially in examinations where technical knowledge is necessary — has, it is thought, further tended to prevent any possible collusion between candidates. The old way was to give the simpler papers, arithmetic, experience, etc., first, and the really important paper last. This order is now reversed. The candidates are now set to work at practically the same time on the paper of most importance. This method has a doubly beneficial effect. It prevents the rapid workers from assisting their weaker brethren (during the necessary absences from the room) and it also weeds out more rapidly the incompetents a number of whom always seem to apply for whatever position. This change was made in consequence of a suggestion from Mr. Howland.

A new system of marking has been adopted, especially with reference to technical and general papers. The old way, in most cases, was to set opposite the answer of each question the rating of each Examiner. The second Examiner, therefore, might be easily, and was almost necessarily, influenced by the view of his predecessor. For all such papers we now have a separate marking sheet for each Examiner, on which are given the markings of each question, while the total alone appears on the candidate's papers. These marking sheets are preserved and form part of the record of the examination. It may be added that this method involves some additional work— usually falling upon the Chief Examiner when appeals for rerating are made by dissatisfied candidates. But I believe it to be an improvement and have heard no expression of a desire to return to the old way.

The matter of appeals for rerating, just spoken of, has assumed considerable proportions of late. Under Rule 12, governing the conduct of examinations, candidates are allowed, after personal inspection of their papers, and upon specifying their grounds of complaint, to appeal for a rerating to the Chief Examiner. Advantage has been taken of this privilege to a somewhat surprising extent, and notably so by candidates whether for original ap

pointment or for promotion—for positions in Schedule C. The number of appeals has so increased, that apart from the additional occupation thus imposed, I have felt it desirable, so far as possible, to give the original rating of papers to other members of the Examining Board, in order that I might not appear to be sitting as trial and appellate judge in the same cases. Appeals in Schedules D and E to some extent must, with our present means, be considered by the original Examiners. But these, as well as the others, are always considered in a liberal spirit. While no record has been kept, the number of appeals which have appeared to be based on just grounds bears a very small proportion to the total number. Of the numerous appeals which have been considered by me from markings of other Examiners, I have found very few instances indeed where I thought it proper to change the original ratings.

Increased care has been given to the investigation as to character. In the case of positions where character is of prime importance, or whereas in the case of Building Inspectors - incumbents are peculiarly liable to be subjected to temptation, inasmuch as their work is necessarily done without the direct supervision of their official superiors, we are not satisfied with the "Certifier's Statement" required from all vouchers for applicants, but the Character Examiner is also called upon to make direct, personal inquiry. So, too, in the frequent cases where candidates acknowledge arrest, or dismissal by previous employers, the Character Examiner makes similar investigation. In cases of dismissal from City Departments, we are supposed to have a record upon which to base conclusions. But we have not yet arrived at the point when dismissal from public employment is presumptive evidence of a candidate's unsuitability, and the difficulty in such cases is further complicated by the too amiable practice in some departments of allowing an unsatisfactory employe to resign in order to save the Head of the Department the disagreeable necessity of dismissing him. Such cases impose upon the Examining Board an unpleasant responsibility not properly belonging to it. When the Character Examiner's re

port raises a doubt, a copy of the report is sent to each member of the Examining Board, and upon their verdict the applicant is either accepted, rejected, or his name — in case he has already passed the examination is withheld from the eligible list. During the year sixteen candidates have so been refused, and the action of the Examining Board has been reversed in but three instances, in each case upon evidence submitted after that upon which the Examining Board based its decision.

Attention is called to the last report of Mr. Fowler, Chief Examiner of the State Civil Service Commission (p. 23), in which, after referring to and explaining our method of character examination, he says: "Although this system is probably not perfect, it is the best I have been able to discover in use, and undoubtedly does succeed in throwing out the greater number of the candidates whose previous record shows them to be unfit for the public service; and this method, in connection with the rule allowing a name to be stricken from the eligible list for after-discovered defects of character, would seem to come as near a satisfactory solution of this problem as can be obtained at present."

In order to guard as far as possible against personation in examinations a careful comparison of the statements, handwriting, signatures, etc., of the candidate's application and preliminary sheet is made after each examination. Whenever there is the slightest ground for suspicion - which has been the case in very few instances further investigation is made. In a few instances candidates have been rejected for filling in vouchers' names themselves. I believe that in nearly every one of these cases the irregularity was due to ignorance, but it was thought best to enforce the rule strictly in the matter, while not refusing the same applicant a chance to file a new application where it appeared that there was no intention to deceive.

There have been a few meetings of the Examining Board, but not so many as in 1896. The reasons for this are two: 1. The policy of the Board having been fairly well determined in 1896,

« AnteriorContinuar »