PSNI Recruitment - Stage 2 - The Assessment Centre

wanadrum wrote: »

I would have thought it may be more fair if each person did 1 roleplay with each set of assessors.

Wha? Each one I Did was with different people marking...

I went into the same room each time and the only thing that changed was the actor.....

wanadrum wrote: »

I went into the same room each time and the only thing that changed was the actor.....

Open to correction...it was the actor...duh!!

[Deleted User]

wanadrum wrote: »

Deloitte or PSNI can do what ever they like with you during the process - you have no real comeback - for example last year when the IST pass mark was lowered I was not called to assessment centre with a mark of 55 - I simply recieved the initial letter stating that I failed and the pass mark was 56.

It got lowered last year?? I missed out by one mark too but never heard of that...I know there was rumours this year that they lowered it but we never heard anything much about that apart from 1 person on here saying they got a letter saying so. How did you hear they lowered it last year?

Gotta say I agree with you on the whole receiving vetting forms thing. I always worry about important things getting lost in the post and whatnot anyways but now I actually am beggining to think that something is wrong with my postman...there's a couple of unrelated things I've been waiting on recently that should definatetly have made it through my door by now but theres no sign of any of them... can't help but think a bag of post has gone walkies, possibly containing vetting forms also, or maybe I'm just not getting them at all :rolleyes:

And I don't understand either why they can't give you your score with your initial pass/fail letter, I can't think of any possible disadvantage in doing so...maybe it's another secret resilience test :P

dm25

it was def lowered this year. i got a letter to say i failed this year (by one mark) then a letter a week later to say they were taking everyone with my pass mark.

I was told by a couple of people on this forum that last year the pass mark started at 56 and was then lowered to 55. I got 55 and just the original fail letter. I have no other evidence to support this other than what people have said on this forum.

wanadrum wrote: »

I was quite surprised that at the assessment centre all of the roleplays were marked by the same assessors - I would have thought it may be more fair if each person did 1 roleplay with each set of assessors.

I believe the thinking behind this is that the assessors are able to make a better overall assessment of you - personally I prefer it that way.

Yeah - I can see that argument too, but what if you got the tighter of the 3 sets of assessors?

gigity gigity

Evening all! Did none of you have independant assessors in with yous?

Also I had different people for my situational interview than for my role plays. I would also hazzard a guess and say that someone else marks your written part. So all in all you will be tested on each competency twice and both will be marked by different people.

[Deleted User]

wanadrum wrote: »

Yeah - I can see that argument too, but what if you got the tighter of the 3 sets of assessors?

...or the tighter set of roleplay actors? We just have to believe that they are all as well trained as we're told and if they are then it should'nt really matter what set of either you get. Having said that, at mine from the the general chat after coming out of the roleplays it sounded like one group inparticular had a really tough time with one of the roleplays compared to mine or the other group. Obviously I don't know exactly how they responded to get such reactions out of the actor, but it definately sounded like I got a lamb and they got a lion... or they could have just said something competely d1ck-ish to him

And no independant assessor at mine anyways!

I found it alot fairer system of interveiwing then that of AGS. I think the roleplays are much more relevant.

What is AGS?

I found the roleplays to feel very false - a lot of my friends who are serving officers laughed with me about them and said they don't think they are relevant compared to the real job.

I think roleplays are a good nough idea, but I think that some other elements of the process should be reinstated, namely fitness and weapons familiarisation of some sort.

When I said fair earlier I was meaning that all applicants should be given the same contact details etc at the same time - rather than having everyone in limbo.

wanadrum wrote: »

What is AGS?

I found the roleplays to feel very false - a lot of my friends who are serving officers laughed with me about them and said they don't think they are relevant compared to the real job.

I think roleplays are a good nough idea, but I think that some other elements of the process should be reinstated, namely fitness and weapons familiarisation of some sort.

When I said fair earlier I was meaning that all applicants should be given the same contact details etc at the same time - rather than having everyone in limbo.

AGS = An Garda Siochana ( translates literally as ' The Guardians of the Peace ' )

While a fitness aspect should be intoduced surely a weapons familiarisation would favour those from a military background and arguably disadvantage one part of the community over another ?

[Deleted User]

wanadrum wrote: »

What is AGS?

I found the roleplays to feel very false - a lot of my friends who are serving officers laughed with me about them and said they don't think they are relevant compared to the real job.

I think roleplays are a good nough idea, but I think that some other elements of the process should be reinstated, namely fitness and weapons familiarisation of some sort.

When I said fair earlier I was meaning that all applicants should be given the same contact details etc at the same time - rather than having everyone in limbo.

I think the roleplays are quite good...even thought they may not be directly linked to the job, in that you're not likely going to see those scenarios on the street, they still test you on skills that you will need to be dealing with the general public and all the random sh*t they will be throwing at you and you will have to sort out with little or no notice. IMO it's all the same thing, just different circumstances, transferable skills and all that...

I agree fitness should be tested, rather than basically if you look fit your good, but anything to do with weapons, no. On another note, the fact that there is no personal interview involved almost disgusts me! I cannot get my head around why they would not see it as important to have it as one of the last steps. But, thats a whole other thread for another day!

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree fitness should be tested, rather than basically if you look fit your good, but anything to do with weapons, no. On another note, the fact that there is no personal interview involved almost disgusts me! I cannot get my head around why they would not see it as important to have it as one of the last steps. But, thats a whole other thread for another day!

I agree that an interview of some sort would be an idea - we all had a laugh at the recent post explaining the top 10 reasons people quit on day 1 but truth is that after laughing I was disgusted that these morons got through this process and possibly cost someone who really wanted the job their big chance.
Surely an interview or even written test could weed these imbeciles out ?

'' I didn't know the P.S.N.I. worked shifts , I didn't realise I have to carry a gun ''...........come on ffs !

What PSNI recruitment disadvantage on section of the community over another? No way.....

Can of worms there.....

I meant a familiarisation only, rather than a test though - same as assessing your other skills surely no?

I completely agree with the interview - that would be a great way to find out about why people have applied, what makes them 'tick' and rule out some of the wasters who aren't really that interested in the job.

That's one thing we all agree on then.

I've heard of so many people who have wasted a place and a lot of training costs by dropping out during training, on being posted to an area they did not wish to work in, failing the fitness (then re-applying, getting in again and failing on fitness again), etc. etc.

Why doe the process allow these people to get through?

thebakerboy

Totally agree I was surprised to find out there was no interview at the end of the process.

But then the weeks of training could be seen as a constant interview, you meet with your instructors and I would think they are monitoring everything and decide at some point if your up to scratch. Maybe I'm wrong about that, feel free to correct me.

As for the role plays section, it is better to have the same people marking you as they can see if your nerves disappear as you go on. I know I was unsettled in my first role play but settled right down as it finished and all nerves were gone by the third. I'm sure they take note of this.

The actors being harder than others on you, I think maybe untrue. They would all be told to respond in certain ways to your attitude and mood. Could just be some people just reacted wrong and didn't keep the situation under control.

Surely by the time you get a place at GV it's a bit late for it to be treated as an interview?

Yes, if someone is found not to be up to the job during GV they should be given the heave-ho, but from some of the stories I've heard, a lot of people waste a space at GV whoch is very unfair - I've even heard of it being used as a summer job and just a means of paying of student loans etc. Madness!

wanadrum wrote: »

I've even heard of it being used as a summer job and just a means of paying of student loans etc. Madness!

That's life fortunately

thebakerboy

True wanadrum, but the job could be seen as not really yours until you get out of probation. You can be "kicked out" if you don't perform.

I know that you get paid and all but that is why they have the loop hole of probation.

I agree it's madness and frustrating to think people use it as a means to sort out their finances or pass a bit of time, when there are people like yourself and myself who want the job as a career or vocation.

But as shampon says, "that's life". Think of it this way, it's just another thing to test your resolve.

gazzabelfast

there used to be an interview stage back in the early campaigns.

gazzabelfast wrote: »

there used to be an interview stage back in the early campaigns.

Thats correct , there was also a fitness test.

I've heard that to join the R.U.C. was something like 4 or 5 interviews !

gazzabelfast

when my da joined the RUC his hearing test involved walking into a room and have a man whispering to him from the other side lol

I know thebakerboy, but it's still a bit late in that these people have wasted several places, don't forget the PSNI can't just replace a drop out or someone who is kicked out, the have to go through the whole selection process - costs a fortune to get someone through GV, so they should try a bit harder to weed out the wasters before giving them a place.

Gee-22

beca wrote: »

well rumour had it that 2000 were through to AC (maybe more when the pass mark was dropped) maths:

12 per AC x 2 AC's per day = 24
24 x 5 days a week = 120
120 x 9 weeks = 1080
1080 x 2 venues per day =2160

then do that all again with an average of 3 no shows per AC = 1620

and rough figure for merit list is 1200/1300 allows for those that didnt pass the AC by deloittes pass mark

Not everyone turned up for their AC. Only 8 out of 12 turned up when i was doing mine.

Just a question. Has anyone heard of anybody failing the AC this year. Everyone ive known who has done it this year passed. Seems there is a high pass rate for this campaign.