[AI] Exam - writer guidelines

Kulkarni, Apoorv apoorvkulkarni at kpmg.com
Thu Sep 2 10:45:37 EDT 2010


Dear Kanchan Mam,
I second Rajesh sir's recommendations and am of an opinion that their
incorporation in the guidelines would be of immense benefit. In addition
to them, I would like to recommend the following provisions:
1. there should be no restriction on the writer being from the same
stream (arts, commerce or science) or taking the same course (CA, MBA,
BSC etc.) as the VI. In fact, if some how the guideline acknowledges the
benefits of having a writer from the same stream or course and is
expressly supportive of the same, the VI would have an important legal
document in their arsenal.
2. An expressed provision allowing a writer to be elder to the candidate
provided the writer is not eligible to take the same exam at the given
time would be helpful.
3. The guidelines may allow the school and colleges to allow  an over
qualified writer for internal exams only. To avoid a possibility of any
malpractice the school and college authorities may be advised to appoint
proper supervisors.
4. The examination authorities should be required to provide alternative
theory questions for questions like maps, graphs etc requiring use  of
eyesight. Further, the candidate should have an option to attempt either
of the alternatives and should be given full credit for the same.
5. The candidate should have a right to demand the question paper in an
accessible format like braille or enlarged font or, soft copy in format
of choice like Microsoft word etc. Also the candidate should have a
liberty to answer the questions in the way comfortable like self written
with the help of a reader, written with the help of a writer, written
with the help of compatible computers etc. Where a candidate wishes to
use a computer to answer the questions, it must be ensure that the
computer is able to host the necessary softwares, is not prone to
crashing or hanging and is of good speed. As many of us may have
softwares with a single machine license, the candidate should be allowed
to use his/her own machine like laptop or desktop. To avoid any
malpractice, the authorities should make appropriate arrangements for
supervision.
6. It would be great if the guidelines allow at least half of minute of
extra time for every 1 minute of the regular exam duration i.e. 50%
extra time. At a minimum, this should be implemented for practical
subjects like accounts. Very frankly, I think for practical subjects a
VI with severe disability should be allowed 2/3rds extra time i.e. 2
hours for a 3 hour paper as many of these exams certainly require the
same. Additionally, this would help in cases where the writer and the
candidate may for whatever reasons are actually meeting for the first
time in an exam hall and have never had an earlier opportunity of
practicing.
7. All exam authorities should be required to display the complete
writer guidelines. Preferably, the home page of the websites if any
should have a direct link with a standard nomenclature to the said
guidelines.
8. The permission for allowing a writer may be disclosed on website
along with the admission card for major exams like standard 10th, 12th,
graduation, CAT etc.
9. The authorities should be required to disclose the procedure for
requesting a change in writer along with the required documentation and
name and all contact details of the concerned person. Further, in cases
of major exams like the boards, graduation, CA MBA etc, there should be
at least two centrally designated authorities who may be approached in
case of any difficulty like harassment at the examination centre. Their
full contact details including mobile number and email id should be
disclosed on the websites of the examination authorities and should be
replicated in the permission letter.
10. The guidelines should clearly mandate that no authority can impose
additional restrictions than those envisaged in the said guidelines.
To conclude, I am of an opinion that supervision should be used as a
tool for preventing and detecting any malpractice. Needless or avoidable
restrictions should not be resorted to as an easy solution for the same.
Best Regards,
Apoorv Kulkarni
Mob: 9833423344

BSR allows reasonable personal use of the e-mail system. Views and opinions expressed in these communications do not necessarily represent those of BSR.


************************************************************************************************************************************************
DISCLAIMER
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted 
to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. 
Any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client engagement letter.



More information about the AccessIndia mailing list