CPC

CPC

< Back to Passenger Transport

P2 Paper - December 2018

Mike Grant
Mike Grant
Posts: 142

I am shocked that the pass mark was set at 33 when I consider the exam to be fundamentally flawed.

The operator in the scenario holds a national O-licence yet engages in international work.  That must confuse!

The analysis expected in Q4c is nonsense - making 5% of the available marks unattainable.  I have previously made the point that savings through interworking are only practical when routes share a common headway (or multiple thereof in some situations).  Just how can services with 20 minute and 35 minute frequencies interwork?

If the paper had been released sooner these issues could have been pointed out, but unless the examiners are prepared to review the circumstances, it now seems an appeal is the only realistic option for candidates scoring between 27 and 32 marks.

Mike Grant

Replies

Mike Grant
Mike Grant
Posts: 142

Again, to update for anyone with an interest in this topic, I have been told today that OCR does not accept that this examination was flawed.

I continue to challenge their required answer to Q4c and despite my request, they have been unable to justify their position.

Given the confusion over the O-licence status and 5% of the 60 marks being inaccessible in my view, I cannot see how the pass mark could be reasonably set at 33.

I have asked that the paper be remarked in the light of these issues.

Mike Grant

 

Mike Grant
Mike Grant
Posts: 142

Just to update on this, it should also be noted that the financial standing requirement specified in the CER in Q5 is wrong.

I am told by OCR that my comments will be processed as a complaint.  For the moment, I think candidates would be wise to "sit tight" and await developments rather than commit to an appeal.

Mike Grant