In a general system as practised in any university at random, the following features ensure that fairplay is not dismissed while a student is being evaluated, by any reason of prejudice or favoritism
Processes which ensure that prejudices and favoritism of the Examiner towards any candidate do not have a room to become active :--
1) The rules of the examination provide for a specially coded hall-ticket number to every candidate. This ensures that each candidate's identity is concealed so to prevent prejudices of the Examiner to become active.
2) Candidate are told not to reveal their identity in any form on the answer sheet. It enhances the above process.
3) The answer-sheets are given secondary coding, preferably by OMR computer. This puts a double-lock on the identity information, such that the Examiner has no means to detect the identity or even the hall ticket information.
Processes which ensure that the Examiners are not inclined to fail the candidates for monetary gains of incentive income through answer sheet evaluation
4) Different universities and different school boards follow different system to achieve this. It remains imperative on every institution that their teachers themselves do not suffer from lethargy of answer sheet evaluation, or that they do not turn their sincere duty into a source of income.
a) Some boards/university provide guidelines on how many marks should be deductible for reason such as poor handwriting, spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, untidy work, et al.
b) A sample evaluation is done for some answer sheets by group of senior teachers who are later to be made incharge Examiner. They mark the Value points for the subjective answers, and the junior Examiners mark or evaluate the answers based on the presence of these value points.
c) An auditor Examiner does audit of the random samples from the lot so to ensure that lethargy of the Examiners body does not impact the fate of the students.
5) As a double safeguard, many boards and university provide for system of re-evaluation and re-verification, so that the candidate is satisfied to his heart regarding not being given a fair treatment. Towards this, candidates have scope to seek a photocopy of his evaluated answer sheet. This is one very critical measure, which rules out almost all the claims of an unfair treatment.
Students are often times very sensitive people. A slight mistake , no matter on whose account, often leads to morbid outcome as suicide. Dropping out from the college is another such outcome of concern for any welfare state.
However, the authorities within Shipping Administration seem terribly incompetent in regard to their decision-making vis-a-vis burdens of a welfare state. Indeed , they seem to judge the weight of welfare activities higher on the sides which are otherwise seen as antagonist to public welfare policies. Within the candidate evaluation and exam quality management, they have created system (ISSUANCE OF SEA TIME LETTER BY SHIPPING COMPANY) which are completely deprived of the above mentioned features of a fair evaluation system. That is, it is possible to do a career damaging evaluation based on a few loose elements of learning, and with full scope of prejudices/favoritism to work, and without giving any room for second appeal such as re-evaluation or re-verification.
More importantly, the authorities are repeatedly failing to see the exploitative nature of this system within the seaboard labour environment, despite recurring complains and appeals.
Incidentally, there is already another method in place and in practice as well which sufficiently fills up for whatever objective the shipping administration calls as the reason for adopting the exploitative exam quality management system. It is therefore intriguing as to what is causing this system to be in place despite so many wrongs in it. Historical insight of the advent of seatime letter issuance system reveals that it has emerged due to flaws in the judicially sound decision making. The original purpose was restricted to securing the Evidencing chain-link. The so-called secondary purpose of exam quality management is an ex-post-facto explanation of a mistaken decision where no one within the administration had sound knowledge as to what is wrong if a shipping company is refusing seatime letter as a revengeful action to a bona fide seaboard employee.
The authentic system which fills up for the exam quality management is as follows--- The shipping companies have regularly raised objections on the quality of seafarers coming out from the shipping competency exams. To answer to their sorrows, the shipping administration has adopted a system wherein they regularly invite the representative of shipping companies to oral examination process. Oral Examination is later step in the examination system, which has safeguards against unfair evaluation albeit slightly loose. Almost no candidate is known to have lost career or even to suffer long term or short term exploitative work conditions on board ships due to the participation of their company representative. More over, the panel allocation is done at random, and many more uncontrolled ,unregulated factors work which keep all the parties convinced about there being no unfair play .
In the light of this measure, the 'seatime letter issuance' mechanism for exam quality management remains a burden and perhaps an evidence of judicial incompetence of the people in authority. Many of the people within the shipping administration are arriving from work background of private shipping companies wherein "sacking" is a culture. In a "sacking" episode, the labour laws are regularly and without slightest consciousness, violated; hence there is a culture of lacking awareness on the labour laws front.
In the days of yore, the recruitment to any profession was either through a familial transmission of the skill and knowledge, or through patronage (power to appoint someone directly, likely by nepotism and favoritism). Shortcoming realized in that system lead to the evolution of the STRUCTURED LEARNING system. In Structured Learning system, candidate is evaluated on factual grounds as "whether he has acquired the learning of the task by doing it hands-on : Yes/no" , instead of being evaluated on subjective ground as " peer is satisfied or unsatisfied as to his learning?". In a structured learning system, the subjective evaluation of candidate is filled up by the written examination process which has abovementioned features of safeguarding against prejudices and favoritism.
All types of skill learning should always be proven on whether someone can do the task or not, and not whether someone else is satisfied or dissatisfied by him doing the task in a certain way .
Indeed, the shipping authorities should have realized that their actions have an effect of undoing the structured learning system as well, which they themselves keep commending all the while.