You clearly have not read my post.I have tried to stretch that every which way but i just don't quite get it:
versus
One of the few things we've got right. It's disappointing to see it being gradually undermined in recent years.I’ve looked at university entry systems in five or six countries over the years and the CAO is by far the best.
It’s cheap to run. The rules are clear. It’s almost incorruptible. It’s as fair as you can get.
How, exactly?It's disappointing to see it being gradually undermined in recent years.
Grade inflation and consequent increasing use of lottery to distribute places.How, exactly?
Plus pressure to move towards continuous assessment.Grade inflation and consequent increasing use of lottery to distribute places.
My point was that some people in senior positions often act unilaterally, without reference to agreed protocols. They assume they’ll get away with it and generally do.That's a more complex situation. There's an argument that what one person views as favourism is actually the head honcho trying to get the best people promoted. Networking and building relationships is a specific competency at higher levels. It occurs to some degree for every internal promotion competition in public or private sector.
That's not a defence of the practice- I've seen my share morons promoted way above their abilities. But I've no real doubt that the decision makers believed they deserved the promotions- if for no other reason than the fact that virtually nobody consciously decides to defecate in their own well....
It's a very poor process though. Open competitions are much harder to influence in such a fashion, but they're a relatively recent development at senior levels of the public sector.