Uniform Standard of judging the results of Examination.

That in the opinion of the Council the proposed numerical method of estimating the results of Examination is neither required nor desirable in the Examinations of the College.

The uniform Standard of judging the results of Examination. In several of the Reports, viz., on the Society of Apothecaries, London, on the College of Surgeons, England, and on the University of Aberdeen, reference is made by the Visitors to the advantage of some uniform standard. There may be difficulties in framing one which is free from objection; but there is no doubt that even an imperfect rule is better than none at all, and the Committee decided by a large majority that such a standard is desirable.

In making the following suggestions on such a standard, the Committee regard them as merely the means of eliciting the opinions of the Licensing Bodies on a matter of great importance. In placing a scheme before them, and entering into some detail, the Committee do so merely as a basis for discussion, and in the hope that it will lead, eventually, to a common action on the part of all the Licensing Bodies.

The numerical method of estimating the results of an Examination is the most accurate, and the most free from objections; it is now employed in all the Government Competitive Examinations, and is also used by the majority of the Medical Licensing Bodies. The mode of using it, however, is different in each case; but, as the principle has been admitted by so many Licensing Bodies, it is believed that they will raise no objection to making such alterations as may render the results of the Examinations comparable. Those Licensing Bodies which use such expressions as good, moderate, bad, or optime, satis, bene, &c., not resting on a numerical basis, will, we conceive, have no difficulty in fixing a corresponding numerical value.

The method usually followed when a numerical standard is used, is to assign to each subject a certain number of marks, which represents the total number which a candidate can gain in that subject if he answers the questions as perfectly as possible in the time.

But there are advantages in another plan-viz., fixing the number of marks according to the time during which the Examination is carried on, so that the total number of marks indicates at once the length of time the candidate is under examination, as well as the character of the answers.

The advantage of this, for the purpose of the Medical Council, will be best seen by an example.

Supposing the first plan to be adopted, and on the subject of Surgery, for example, a total of 1000 marks is allowed by all the Licensing Bodies, no comparison is still possible between the results; for one body may give the whole 1000 marks to an oral Examination only; another may distribute them among a written, an oral, and a practical Examination. In the record, however, as presented to the Medical Council, the candidates from each body may appear to have gained an equal number of marks, although the Examinations have been widely different in severity.

This is avoided by the system of marks for time.

Supposing 100 marks are given for every hour of written Examination in Surgery, 200 for every hour (or in proportion for less periods) of oral, and 200 for every hour of practical Examination; the numerical record of such Examination will at once show the nature of the Examination, and its different parts will be comparable with each other, no matter what the respective arrangements of the two Licensing Bodies may be.

For example, one Licensing Body may choose to give on a particular subject three hours of written, and fifteen minutes of oral Examination, The records of its marks would show 300 for the former and 50 for the latter. Another body might give two hours' written, fifteen minutes' oral, and half an hour's practical Examination, the marks being 200, 50, and 100 marks, or the same as in the former case, only differently distributed. The parts of the two Examinations are then comparable.

The plan will in fact be found to show not only the standard of proficiency, but the differences of the Examinations; and it has the advantage of not fettering too much the opinions and methods of Examination of the different Licensing Bodies.

The number of marks to be assigned to a particular time is a matter of importance. They should not be too few, or the wide difference of different candidates will not be properly indicated; they should not be too many, or they become unwieldy.

The written Examination also ought to have fewer marks assigned to it, in a given time, than the oral and the practical. The Committee believe that the best plan will be to assign 100 marks per hour for the written Examination on every subject, leaving it to the Examiners to fix the number of hours and the number of questions in the hour, and the marks to be given to each question, it being understood that the whole 100 marks must be assigned between the questions, or be given to one question, if there be only one in the hour.

In the oral and in the practical Examination double the number should be given, or 200 per hour. Thus, if a candidate is under examination for fifteen minutes, he could gain 50 marks as the maximum; if for thirty minutes, he could gain 100. The Committee believe this may afford an approximate expression of the numerical relation between the respective tests of the written and oral methods.

The Committee would recommend, in the event of a numerical plan being approved of, that each Licensing Body should keep a book with the marks properly arranged in a form such as the following, in which three subjects only are introduced as an illustration:

This record would show at once both the kind of subjects and the time occupied in each.

With regard to the minimum per centage of marks qualifying for the Licence, whatever numerical method may be adopted, the Committee consider it desirable to ascertain the opinion of the Licensing Bodies.

It may be objected to the plan now submitted for consideration, that different Examiners will assign different values to answers. This objection is inseparable from the system of Examinations, and applies to all modes of expressing results. But the mere fact of an Examiner having to keep a fixed numerical value before him, will be found to be of the greatest use to himself, and after practice, it will be found that the opinions of good Examiners are singularly accordant. If also, in all cases, two Examiners examine every candidate, and come to independent conclusions before final judgment, the system will soon be found to work with accuracy, and to afford trustworthy results.

The Choice of Examiners.

In

There is a very great diversity in the mode in which the Examiners are selected by the different Licensing Bodies. Sometimes they are persons unconnected with the Licensing Body, but chosen by it to serve for a specified time, from one to five years. In other cases, the Professors of a University either examine alone or with the assistance of Examiners who are not Professors. other instances again a Corporation appoints Examiners from its own body, and those serve for various periods. There is, in fact, a great diversity in the modes of appointment, and the Examiners of different bodies are necessarily persons of very varying capacity and experience. To attempt an alteration in one body without altering all would be invidious, and the Committee refrain from offering any suggestion to any particular Corporation. But the Committee believe that, when practicable, the following points should be attended to in the selection of Examiners: