RealJohn wrote: » You might be right, but even if that’s the logic, €6 per script is huge. They can’t have thought it needed to be that high.
rainbowtrout wrote: » You’d have got it if you were getting mileage and overnights horsing up and down to athlone for 2-3 day conference. My guess is that it’s not going to. cost the SEC any more than it would to pay examiners in a regular year. Given the sh*tshow with predicted grades last year, it’s easier to incentivise examiners to mark and get it over the line rather than lose experience and have serious fall out down the line
RealJohn wrote: » I know that but it was similar, not the same. In 2019, you had a threshold to meet before you got it and it was only on the extra, which makes sense. I’m not sure I believe the SEC are being that generous either - I doubt they’re short of examiners in most subjects, given that the people who usually only get JC are almost all free. I hope you’re right, because I’ll be happy to get it, but an extra €6 per script is huge. That’s more than you get for some entire scripts at JC. It’s hard to imagine how they’d justify that extra outlay to the people who’ll have signed off on it. “You know the way we’re saving loads of money by not having any junior cycle exams? What do you think about giving most of that saving to leaving cert examiners as a thank you? We’ll get half of it back in tax anyway.” I don’t buy it. Still hope you’re right though, obviously.
RealJohn wrote: » I’ll believe it when I see it. It makes no sense (and that wasn’t how it worked last time).
deiseindublin wrote: » I'd presume they were finding it hard to convince people to correct, or maybe they're afraid in case correctors never come back again if they took 2 years off. Have to say, I'd be tempted to not bother correcting after being off last summer. It's basically €6 extra a scripts, so prob. €3 extra take home per paper. A nice sum if one got the regular number of scripts.
Random sample wrote: » We had something similar in 2019 when people agreed to take extra papers as an incentive to take them.
ccazza wrote: » It is right. It’s to make up for the fact you won’t have as many papers to correct as usual.
RealJohn wrote: » There’s no way that can be right. Why would you get paid extra for doing what you’re contracted to do?
am_zarathustra wrote: » It says "at a rate of 150 euros per 25 scripts satisfactorily marked and will be paid on a pro rata basis for lower or higher amounts of scripts" I'm not 100% on if that means all scripts or above or below the usual amount. Hopefully its on all scripts.
deiseindublin wrote: » My understanding of the €150 fee is that it is per 25 scripts, nothing to do with regular amounts other years.
RealJohn wrote: » I presume there’s nothing urgent in it, no? I’m away at the moment and won’t be home for about a week and a half so I have no idea if mine has turned up or not.
ccazza wrote: » Letter with dates of conference arrived today. Also a commitment to pay within 18 working days on receipt of the claim form which is to be sent straight to the financials section.
mtoutlemonde wrote: » Students have weeks of dry runs in the weeks up to orals. There were three definite topics that had to be asked so that would have been practiced over and over. No different this year to any other only the teacher did the interview.
deiseindublin wrote: » There were definitely schools that didn't stick with the instructions, for lots of reasons. I heard of at least two schools that did a 'dry run' with each student first, and then did the exact same oral again with the same student but recorded that one. Very unfair on schools and students that followed the guidelines.
Treppen wrote: » I'm not 100% au fait with the issue. But is it possible that teachers purposefully omitted questions? I was reading on another forum where a student said That sounds like it's open to abuse.
Random sample wrote: » It sounds like they expected to be kept informed though, when their part in it was over. The document came 3 days before the Easter holidays, but the exams didn’t have to be carried out straight away. I just didn’t find the details hard to understand, or the interview difficult to carry out. I am an experienced examiner and I just can’t see what could have been put in a webinar that wasn’t in the document. Examiner training is all about application of marks, there’s no time spent explaining how to ask the questions or on the format, aside from the allocation of marks. I regularly see complaints from teachers about being infantilised at cpd, we can’t have it both ways.
" i was sitting my leaving this year and our teachers told us about it, we were told to silently gesture to the examiner ie point to paper with question that they've missed if we noticed anything missed out…"
