David,
You paint a worrying picture. It's bad enough that business studies is seen
as an iffy alternative to more traditional qualifications; but when we seem
able to call into question our ultimate quality controllers, what price
business studies then?
At my current place of work, and this is confidential information even
though 262 people will receive it!, we have a boss who is incapable of
leading his team. However, his senior managers are relatively well empowered
and carry him through his problems. In the final analysis, the outcomes we
are looking for are achieved. However, along the way, we have interference
from a boss who feels he knows all of the answers, disaffected people, a
large number of workarounds ... essentially this means a lot of effort
redirected and wasted. My solution to this problem, and next week we will do
this, is to face the problem head on and have a no holds barred/without
prejudice meeting during which we all have our say, we devise and develop a
strategy that we are all happy with. More importantly, however, we come up
with a strategy that works and take it from there.
The key to the solution I'm discussing here is that mature people get
together KNOWING that a problem exists. Furthermore, there is a clear
willingness to resolve the problem; and no one will be victimised for making
their opinions known; and for offering solutions that another member of a
team didn't think of first.
To your matter in hand, I have noticed from time to time that there are
holes in the business studies system (as there are in all equivalent
systems) but why should that stop at an e-mail message to this group pouring
out a tale of woe? It shouldn't. Assuming everything you have said is true
(and I have to take this view since you have only presented hearsay
evidence: this is not a criticism of you or your stories, of course) there
is cause for concern. The examiners under the cosh may now be aware that
they have made a few mistakes and that something needs to be corrected ...
let them be mature enough to want to correct the problems properly.
Let us all be reassured that any student who takes any exam is treated
fairly. On the face of your evidence, I wouldn't be confident that a
candidate who defined overheads correctly, rather than the examiner's
definition you mentioned in your initial posting, would be adequately
rewarded by the examiner.
Whatever happened to quality control? I assumed that examination procedures
would guard against such gaffs: after all, not all examiners in all meetings
can agree with an incorrect definition, can they? If I said X and many
people in a large group said Y, I would check myself, wouldn't you? Just in
case! I have an example that I think you are aware of, David. Last year,
someone on Chris Sivewright's discussion list questioned the difference
between full and absorption costing ... I answered that they are the
synonymous. The questioner came back at me and quoted a source or two that
contradicted my view. I KNEW I was right but felt that the questioner and
all other discussants who don't know me from Adam needed reassurance and I
did some digging. I found some interesting things, sent some e-mails to
places in the UK and the USA. I even received a telephone call by one
paranoid accountant from Scotland following one of my queries ... in the
end, my answer stood and we were all reassured. However, I felt the best
policy was to check.
A portion of humble pie never really hurt anyone. We need a satisfactory
resolution to matters like this. I'd be interested to hear of any progress
you make.
By the way, as far as the overheads question is concerned, let me take issue
with your definition. You said:
"... electricity can vary with output and would be treated as a
semi-variable ..."
If a cost varies with output, it can't be semi variable: it must be
variable! What you mean is that the cost of electricity is made up of a
fixed element and a variable element ... so it is a semi variable cost.
Best wishes
Duncan Williamson
I have deleted prior postings on this thread to save disk space.
|