Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Cheating in Garnerville: A shameful disgrace (***Read Mod note in first post!***)

13»

Comments



  • bubblypop wrote: »
    OK, seems ridiculous that they would just give out the same exam to two different sets of candidates, sitting the exam at different times though?

    Yeah I know.

    I'm don't know if they were the same exams, someone who has been through Ganerville could probably provide more info on this.

    If it was the same exam I think the PSNI expect students not to discuss exam questions which in theory should have prevented other students knowing the questions.

    Or they use the same exam for the resit.

    Exams have a very small bank of questions so theres every possibility that the same questions will pop up twice in a resit.




  • Exams have a very small bank of questions so theres every possibility that the same questions will pop up twice in a resit.

    How?
    Surely there's any amount of questions that can be asked on any amount of subjects?
    I'm finding it hard to understand.
    If trainers actually use the same exam papers over & over again, then I'm not seeing cheating. If trainers were telling the candidates which questions were to come up, then maybe a bit more understandable , but neither case really means candidates were cheating surely?




  • bubblypop wrote: »
    Exams have a very small bank of questions so theres every possibility that the same questions will pop up twice in a resit.

    How?
    Surely there's any amount of questions that can be asked on any amount of subjects?
    I'm finding it hard to understand.
    If trainers actually use the same exam papers over & over again, then I'm not seeing cheating. If trainers were telling the candidates which questions were to come up, then maybe a bit more understandable , but neither case really means candidates were cheating surely?

    Nobody is told what questions are upcoming. The students, as far as i've heard so far, all entered the exam with the intent to memorise a question each, before making said "cheat sheet" afterwards with the intention of giving this to squadmates who failed and had to re-sit the exam or maybe to squads below them as Shield claimed.

    Exam questions are written by the trainers over the years, the questions are then validated and placed into the bank of questions for that exam topic, whilst there could be always be more, there isn't. Thats just the way it is. It doesn't mean every exam is the same, it just means that exams will have questions in more than one version of them. I for one think every exam should contain different questions - eradicating this problem.




  • Nobody is told what questions are upcoming. The students, as far as i've heard so far, all entered the exam with the intent to memorise a question each, before making said "cheat sheet" afterwards with the intention of giving this to squadmates who failed and had to re-sit the exam or maybe to squads below them as Shield claimed.

    Exam questions are written by the trainers over the years, the questions are then validated and placed into the bank of questions for that exam topic, whilst there could be always be more, there isn't. Thats just the way it is. It doesn't mean every exam is the same, it just means that exams will have questions in more than one version of them. I for one think every exam should contain different questions - eradicating this problem.

    Yea, that's ridiculous.
    I find it hard how anyone could call this cheating .
    I have studied past papers for different exams, I have seen duplicate or very similar questions arise. I would have studied them.
    I fail to see how this has become such a big issue.




  • Nobody is told what questions are upcoming. The students, as far as i've heard so far, all entered the exam with the intent to memorise a question each, before making said "cheat sheet" afterwards with the intention of giving this to squadmates who failed and had to re-sit the exam or maybe to squads below them as Shield claimed.

    Exam questions are written by the trainers over the years, the questions are then validated and placed into the bank of questions for that exam topic, whilst there could be always be more, there isn't. Thats just the way it is. It doesn't mean every exam is the same, it just means that exams will have questions in more than one version of them. I for one think every exam should contain different questions - eradicating this problem.

    Do students receive past papers in order to prepare? I would have assumed that they would be expected to learn all material and then be randomly tested on certain areas.

    Do you know if the resit exam is the same exact questions or do they select a different set of similar questions?


  • Advertisement


  • Nobody is told what questions are upcoming. The students, as far as i've heard so far, all entered the exam with the intent to memorise a question each, before making said "cheat sheet" afterwards with the intention of giving this to squadmates who failed and had to re-sit the exam or maybe to squads below them as Shield claimed.

    Exam questions are written by the trainers over the years, the questions are then validated and placed into the bank of questions for that exam topic, whilst there could be always be more, there isn't. Thats just the way it is. It doesn't mean every exam is the same, it just means that exams will have questions in more than one version of them. I for one think every exam should contain different questions - eradicating this problem.

    Do students receive past papers in order to prepare? I would have assumed that they would be expected to learn all material and then be randomly tested on certain areas.

    Do you know if the resit exam is the same exact questions or do they select a different set of similar questions?

    No, you are expected to know the topic enough, no test or past papers, no hint of what questions will come up. If you resit the exam then you will probably see some of the same questions again, just because there isn't a huge number of questions. You still need to know the subject enough though because the new questions could still throw you.




  • bubblypop wrote: »
    Yea, that's ridiculous.
    I find it hard how anyone could call this cheating .
    I have studied past papers for different exams, I have seen duplicate or very similar questions arise. I would have studied them.
    I fail to see how this has become such a big issue.

    The way in which the students approached this may not be seen as cheating in another institution such as school or uni but if the PSNI do not approve of such methods then that should be adhered to.

    Any exams or assessment I have taken in the past have always come with the warning not to share information regarding the questions with anyone else. If I went against this is I would surely expect to be reprimanded for such an act.

    The difference is that in this instance these guys are part of an organisation that puts alot of stock in honesty and integrity and therefore their actions are subject to a higher level scrutiny in line with this.




  • No, you are expected to know the topic enough, no test or past papers, no hint of what questions will come up. If you resit the exam then you will probably see some of the same questions again, just because there isn't a huge number of questions. You still need to know the subject enough though because the new questions could still throw you.

    Thank you, see I think that is were my issue with this incident arises.

    Any student who did not partake in the 'cheating' would have been putting the extra effort in to fill the knowledge gaps they had, whereas the students who used the 'cheat sheet' seemingly did so to have a better understanding of what questions would be asked, focus their study on certain areas, avoid putting the effort in and improve their chances of passing the resit.




  • No, you are expected to know the topic enough, no test or past papers, no hint of what questions will come up. If you resit the exam then you will probably see some of the same questions again, just because there isn't a huge number of questions. You still need to know the subject enough though because the new questions could still throw you.

    Thank you, see I think that is were my issue with this incident arises.

    Any student who did not partake in the 'cheating' would have been putting the extra effort in to fill the knowledge gaps they had, whereas the students who used the 'cheat sheet' seemingly did so to have a better understanding of what questions would be asked, focus their study on certain areas, avoid putting the effort in and improve their chances of passing the resit.

    It's not really anything to do with some putting in extra effort. These guys created the "cheat sheet" in order to pass a resit exam if they failed, probably with the intention that it would help them easily revise. Naturally some people don't need to revise as much as others so there will always be the element of people not looking as if they're putting in as much effort. For all intents and purpose it seems as if they were trying to streamline some revision.

    In terms of completing the cheat sheet it breaches the student code of ethics and the confidentiality agreement every student officer signs - that is why they are being disciplined




  • It's not really anything to do with some putting in extra effort. These guys created the "cheat sheet" in order to pass a resit exam if they failed, probably with the intention that it would help them easily revise. Naturally some people don't need to revise as much as others so there will always be the element of people not looking as if they're putting in as much effort. For all intents and purpose it seems as if they were trying to streamline some revision.

    In terms of completing the cheat sheet it breaches the student code of ethics and the confidentiality agreement every student officer signs - that is why they are being disciplined

    Ahhh I get you now, that makes sense. I was of the understanding the use of the cheat sheet was what they were being punished for, not the creation of it.

    To me that would be a breach of the confidentiality agreement and not necessarily cheating, is it because they distributed the sheet that it's being referred to as cheating? Or because they collated the questions asked rather than just the topics they covered?


  • Advertisement


  • It's not really anything to do with some putting in extra effort. These guys created the "cheat sheet" in order to pass a resit exam if they failed, probably with the intention that it would help them easily revise. Naturally some people don't need to revise as much as others so there will always be the element of people not looking as if they're putting in as much effort. For all intents and purpose it seems as if they were trying to streamline some revision.

    In terms of completing the cheat sheet it breaches the student code of ethics and the confidentiality agreement every student officer signs - that is why they are being disciplined

    Ahhh I get you now, that makes sense. I was of the understanding the use of the cheat sheet was what they were being punished for, not the creation of it.

    To me that would be a breach of the confidentiality agreement and not necessarily cheating, is it because they distributed the sheet that it's being referred to as cheating? Or because they collated the questions asked rather than just the topics they covered?

    I honestly don't know. The first I heard of the distribution of the sheet was from Shield, to be honest I will wait to hear that in an official statement from the CC before passing judgement on it. Either way, even the creation of the sheet is a breach as you are specifically told that exam content is not to be discussed.




  • So are you saying that training staff are to be implicated in this somehow?
    They're not implicated at all. I just know that a number of the training staff were aware that this was going on, and not just with these squads either.
    I hope you have evidence of this (and have reported it) otherwise thats a pretty damaging claim to make as a serving officer.
    I didn't make the claim as a serving officer. Nothing I say on here is said in the capacity of a serving officer. The fact that I happen to work as a police officer is completely irrelevant. Just like you, I'm allowed to post my views on here, and it's my informed opinion that a certain number of the training staff (at the very least, two) knew that this was going on.




  • Shield wrote: »
    So are you saying that training staff are to be implicated in this somehow?
    They're not implicated at all. I just know that a number of the training staff were aware that this was going on, and not just with these squads either.
    I hope you have evidence of this (and have reported it) otherwise thats a pretty damaging claim to make as a serving officer.
    I didn't make the claim as a serving officer. Nothing I say on here is said in the capacity of a serving officer. The fact that I happen to work as a police officer is completely irrelevant. Just like you, I'm allowed to post my views on here, and it's my informed opinion that a certain number of the training staff (at the very least, two) knew that this was going on.

    Regardless, you are serving police officer posting on a publicly viewable forum. Your opinions and views still have an effect on the PSNI and their image. Because you work as a police officer, you will be aware that the service puts great importance in the way you conduct yourself on and off duty - people will take what you post on here as gospel because of your position and you should be careful of what you're writing seeing as information you are publishing hasn't appeared in the public domain yet (that I'm aware of).

    knowing that staff were aware of this happening previously make that member of staff just as untrustworthy as you are saying these students are, so i hope that you will be passing their information onto the relevant officer investigating.




  • Your opinions and views still have an effect on the PSNI and their image.
    No, they don't. Not even in the slightest. No idea where you're pulling that from.
    ...people will take what you post on here as gospel because of your position and you should be careful of what you're writing
    OR, people will take what I'm saying with a grain of sand. It depends on the people. I'm always careful of what I write on here. It would be careless of me to suggest particular groups of training staff, periods in time when this was casually admitted, names, etc. You don't really think some of them didn't know about this? I mean, come on, really?
    knowing that staff were aware of this happening previously make that member of staff just as untrustworthy as you are
    Calling my trustworthiness into question is, at best, ill-informed. I'm running this forum for 10 years now, and in that time, I've been trusted by literally hundreds of people. It's something I pride myself on, and I feel it's disingenuous of you to suggest I'm not trustworthy simply because you don't like or agree with what I'm saying.
    i hope that you will be passing their information onto the relevant officer investigating.
    Thanks for giving me the option that you want me to take, and no alternative. I'd love to sit down with you some day over a beer about this. I don't enjoy taking anyone's posts apart, and because this is hardly the way we talk to each other in work, I'll end by saying I still respect your opinion, no matter how much we disagree.




  • Shield wrote: »
    Your opinions and views still have an effect on the PSNI and their image.
    No, they don't. Not even in the slightest. No idea where you're pulling that from.
    ...people will take what you post on here as gospel because of your position and you should be careful of what you're writing
    OR, people will take what I'm saying with a grain of sand. It depends on the people. I'm always careful of what I write on here. It would be careless of me to suggest particular groups of training staff, periods in time when this was casually admitted, names, etc. You don't really think some of them didn't know about this? I mean, come on, really?
    knowing that staff were aware of this happening previously make that member of staff just as untrustworthy as you are
    Calling my trustworthiness into question is, at best, ill-informed. I'm running this forum for 10 years now, and in that time, I've been trusted by literally hundreds of people. It's something I pride myself on, and I feel it's disingenuous of you to suggest I'm not trustworthy simply because you don't like or agree with what I'm saying.
    i hope that you will be passing their information onto the relevant officer investigating.
    Thanks for giving me the option that you want me to take, and no alternative. I'd love to sit down with you some day over a beer about this. I don't enjoy taking anyone's posts apart, and because this is hardly the way we talk to each other in work, I'll end by saying I still respect your opinion, no matter how much we disagree.

    You seem to be taking this very personally, maybe its just the way you're writing. Still, i need to clarify some of what you've posted as the way you've read it clearly isn't as intended.

    1 - as a serving police officer your views and opinions have an effect on peoples perception of the PSNI and their reputation. You represent the force, on and off duty. The things you do and say in public impact partially on the PSNI. This is taught to you throughout Garnerville. Our 6 colleagues arrested in Portstewart the other day will no doubt be an example of this, even if it is more extreme. Its naive to think you can do and say as you please as a police officer and it wouldn't fall back on the PSNI.

    2 - people will not take what you say with a grain of sand. They will be looking up to you respecting the help you have put on offer. They have no reason not to believe what you post. Yes it would be very careless of you to name names on the boards. Im not for one suggesting you do so. Ofcourse trainers are aware of whats happened which is why intakes have been strictly told it is prohibited. You made it sound as if trainers knew it was actively going on and decided to ignore it. In which case, i hope that as you know more details you would be sharing this with the relevant people to ensure it stops.

    3 - this one is a case of you not reading what was written correctly. I never called you untrustworthy and never insinuated such. My post stated "knowing that staff were aware of this happening previously make that member of staff just as untrustworthy as you are saying these students are" - i wanted to point this out especially because I really did not call you untrustworthy and have obviously benefited myself from the help and advice you have offered on the boards.

    [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In terms of reporting said trainers that you say knew about this happening, how could you not? Why would you not? To me, thats just adding to the 'collusion'. The trainers, if implicated the way you suggested, have just as much to answer for as their student counterparts. If you can so easily call the student officers to justice and question their intentions in their career then the trainers involved should also be made to account for their part in this.[/font]




  • Some follow up on this.

    This is a PDF of questions and answers to the Chief Con from Policing Board. A question was asked about this cheating business. (Page 37)

    https://t.co/Wc817BKlDr

    78 officers received a written warning. Of those 22 have already graduated and 56 are still in training. They also received an integrity and ethical standards discussion from an ACC.

    I read that as they got off scot free; a written warning and a telling off. The punishment did not fit the 'crime'. I think they should have been put put and billed for training to date. Or at the very least a monetary fine and an extension of their probationary period. Especially as their behaviour has now affected all those in this campaign.

    Surely the 'punishment' should act as deterrent to any future occurrences.




  • Spotted this today in Bel Tel.

    Basically saying those involved 'may' not be hired after their two year probation period.

    Doubt that will ever happen. Obviously a soundbite to keep those on the Policing Board happy.

    http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/cheating-police-students-in-northern-ireland-could-be-shown-door-35030934.html




  • Homer01 wrote: »
    Spotted this today in Bel Tel.

    Basically saying those involved 'may' not be hired after their two year probation period.

    Doubt that will ever happen. Obviously a soundbite to keep those on the Policing Board happy.

    http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/cheating-police-students-in-northern-ireland-could-be-shown-door-35030934.html

    Not even a remote chance that a probationer who completes the two years satisfactorily will be dismissed on the strength of those written warnings alone.

    I would assume that what is meant by this is that it's simply something else that can be taken into consideration and used to justify dismissing an officer who has been vastly underperforming anyway.




  • Not even a remote chance that a probationer who completes the two years satisfactorily will be dismissed on the strength of those written warnings alone.

    I would assume that what is meant by this is that it's simply something else that can be taken into consideration and used to justify dismissing an officer who has been vastly underperforming anyway.

    IF (big if) they wanted a reason to get rid of one of these lot then it's sitting ready to go.

    Not the best to start to their new career choice.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement