[Breaking] "Lowest Scores Given to Eliminate Candidates"... Fallout from Industrial Safety Consultant Exam

원본보기 아이콘

Test-takers, who have suffered the most from the state-certified Industrial Safety Consultant (Construction Safety) exam due to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea's directive to use "absolute evaluation by group," have seen their future plans shattered after failing the exam en masse. Allegations of collusion between the association and the Service have surfaced, and it has been revealed that some candidates were intentionally given the lowest possible scores to eliminate them, prompting the situation to escalate toward an administrative appeal.

According to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea and other sources on December 4, the 15th state-certified Industrial Safety Consultant (Construction Safety) exam, recently administered by the Service, has become embroiled in controversy due to suspicions of collusion between the Korea Industrial Safety and Health Consultants Association and the Service.

In particular, the exam became controversial as interviewers were reportedly misunderstood by the Service as being required to conduct "relative evaluation by group," and there are suspicions that the scores of failing candidates were arbitrarily manipulated due to vague evaluation criteria.

◆ Intentional Lowest Scores to Eliminate Candidates... Administrative Appeal Expected

Some of the failed candidates are reportedly planning to file administrative appeals demanding the cancellation of their failed results.

Candidate A, for example, plans to file an administrative appeal based on: ▲allegations of collusion between the association and the Service, ▲testimony from actual interviewers, ▲scoring sheets suspected of score manipulation, and ▲the interview process itself.

An employee of the Service was found to have said, "We keep receiving complaints from the association about the high pass rate," and, "It seems the Service was swayed by requests to control the number of certifications issued."

Among the interviewers, most recognized the exam as a "relative evaluation by group" rather than an absolute evaluation. In practice, 7 to 9 candidates were interviewed per booth, with only 1 to 2 passing per group.

There is also ongoing controversy over one of A's scoring sheets, where a question received the lowest possible score. On Question 1 (Standard Steel Frame Safety Work Guidelines), A received 1.1 points from two interviewers and 0.3 points from one interviewer, totaling 2.5 out of 10.5 points. On Question 2 (Forklift Safety Devices), A scored 6.5 out of 10.5 points, and on Question 3 (Forklift Safety Devices), 6.5 out of 9 points, averaging 5.3 points and thus failing the exam. The passing score is 6 out of 10 points.

For the first and second questions, interviewers rated answers as Excellent (3.5 points), Very Good (2.7 points), Average (1.9 points), Simple (1.1 points), or Inadequate (0.3 points). The Inadequate score (0.3 points) is given when the candidate fails to provide any relevant answer to the question.

A stated, "There are eight standard safety work guidelines within the exam scope, and since the column and beam erection issue appeared in the second part, I thoroughly studied all relevant topics, especially those that had appeared in previous exams." He added, "Moreover, general safety measures are universally applied in construction, so I find it questionable that I received a score indicating I said nothing at all."

He continued, "The exam lasted 17 minutes, including a 2-minute extension beyond the standard 15 minutes. Giving the lowest score to a candidate who answered for about 6 minutes on Question 1 violates scoring regulations. If time was wasted on irrelevant answers, it constitutes intentional interference with the exam process." He also said, "Even my supervising professor told me after a provisional scoring that my answers were sufficient to pass."

One interviewer said, "If a candidate gives even a single relevant answer, we were instructed by the Service during pre-training that awarding a score of 'completely unaware' is a violation of regulations," and added, "It is inconceivable that a candidate who passed the first and second written exams would be unable to answer any question about relevant safety measures."

As a result, it appears that formal complaints from actual consultants will follow. One consultant said, "After A finished the interview, I spoke with him for about 10 minutes about the exam questions and his answers. As a certified Construction Safety Engineer and Industrial Safety Consultant, I believe his answers were sufficient to pass. He provided answers based on legal requirements and additional on-site measures, so he should have passed."

Another consultant said, "After hearing in detail how A answered after the exam, I expected him to pass. In particular, I knew he had prepared for the steel frame question in advance, and seeing how he matched the answers afterward, it is clear that being scored at the bottom indicates a serious error in the scoring process."

◆ Years of Effort and Future Plans Shattered

Due to this manipulation of the pass rate, candidates who spent years preparing have seen not only their efforts but also their future plans completely destroyed.

A learned about the certification two years ago and has devoted himself solely to preparing for the exam ever since. As related laws changed and technical guidance became mandatory, the certification emerged as a "blue ocean" opportunity.

Since the exam is held only once a year, he studied the same questions repeatedly for 14 hours every day, determined not to make a single mistake. His supervising professor, recognizing his dedication, even promised to help him establish a business foundation for "autonomous safety consulting."

A planned to obtain the Industrial Safety Consultant certification and work as a construction safety instructor at a major fire safety academy located in Seoul, Gwangju, and Daegu. He had also completed job preparations at two organizations, including a government-affiliated educational institution that had scouted him.

However, in September, the Service failed A, and his plans collapsed. A said, "The greatest fortune in my life was stolen by criminals. This was not just a simple failure; my entire life was at stake, and the Service's arbitrary adjustment of the pass rate was an act of violence."

Meanwhile, the Service is conducting an internal investigation regarding the collusion allegations with the association. Although the Service requested an investigation into an interviewer for violating confidentiality regarding the exam, this request was recently withdrawn.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.