how often would you get your questions rejected or asked for re-wording or improvements?
I'm just wondering if the system fails by trusting and respecting authors too much? For example - does the reviewer look at the question from a hygienic point of view, to make sure it represents the LO, it has all the right attachments, there are no spelling errors - or - would they also complain if the question is badly worded or there is more than one correct answer? In other words, are tech reviewers competent in the subject they are reviewing?
I appreciate your positive opinion of the people involved but somehow these rubbish questions still get through and lately - in huge numbers (reportedly). I simply don't believe enough is being done to produce good quality exams. More importantly, we know that there have been lots of complaints and comments logged to CAA, but their lack of action is raising concerns.
I don't buy the EASA argument, somehow the guys here doing their ATPL's with IAA don't see any issues, one or two odd questions, but nothing like I saw in the UK. No complains from my Dutch or Latvian friends also doing exams with their respective authorities. If it's supposed to be the same QB, how come the feedback is so different? If this keeps up, I don't see how UK training providers will be able to attract further business from EU. I think its in your and Alex's best interest to put the pressure on authorities to meet the quality standards that this industry demands