NIE Training - 2-Day Crammer Course for NIE exams

Myth, Rumour and Barrack-room Advice

When it comes to National Investigators' Examination (NIE), you will not find it difficult to obtain a mass of opinion and advice about the examination and the study/revision process. Some of this guidance will be provided by reputable sources and will no doubt be accurate and reliable; I do not doubt the quality of this information. However, there are an increasing number of individuals (both in and outside of the police) offering advice on the NIE when they know little or nothing about it. The fact that some of these individuals have taken and passed the NIE means absolutely nothing at all; merely because you pass a test does not make you a subject matter expert! The fact that much of this so called 'advice' is proffered by ill-informed barrack-room examiners who have little or no real knowledge on the subject does not prevent it from seriously damaging a candidates prospects of success, sometimes irreparably. This section will debunk such advice and dispel some common examination myth and rumour.

	Myth "The first few questions are always fairly simple…just to ease you in to the exam".
The first point to make is that a question is only easy if you know the answer. Whilst it is true that some questions are easier to answer than others (examiners know which questions fall into this category from the statistical data obtained in test situations), it is also true that these questions will be randomly interspersed amongst other mid-range and harder questions to answer within the examination. Candidates will definitely not find five or six 'easy rides' presented to them at the outset of an examination as the NIE is a rigorous test of candidates' law knowledge and the process is anything but friendly. A candidate who believes this myth is going to have their morale severely damaged within the first 10 minutes of the examination - an experience they may not be able to recover from.

	Myth - "The pass mark changes every year".
The pass mark for the NIE is currently set at 55% (55.71% to be precise). This was changed from the 'old' pass mark of 48.57% from the November 2010 examination onwards - this was the first time the mark had ever been changed in nearly 10 years.

	Barrack-room advice - "You can spot a verification question a mile away…they are always on 'new' law".
This dire advice is, unfortunately, very common. It is important for candidates to note that verification questions can be asked on any area of law within the syllabus. As an NPIA trained question writer I could, today, write a brand new question for a NIE relating to an offence of s. 47 assault contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - not exactly 'new' law is it?

	Myth - "You can only pass the examination by scoring 55% in each of the four syllabus areas (Evidence, Property Offences, Assaults etc. and Sexual Offences)."
In the NIE a candidate obtains a mark based on their overall performance when answering the 70 counting questions (remember there are 10 verification questions to discount). This mark is converted into a % and provides a 'pass' or 'fail'. It does not matter how a candidate scores in respect of a particular syllabus area although it is likely that a particularly poor performance in a major area will have a detrimental effect on the prospects for overall success. However, the fact remains that it is possible to get every question wrong in some areas and still pass.

	Barrack-room advice - "Practical experience is the key to success".
Practical experiences can support a candidate but only to a minor degree. The NIE is a law theory examination and not a test of an individuals applied ability as a police officer. To begin with, the NIE syllabus and examination questions are so widely based as to make it utterly impossible for any police officer to have practical experiences of all the subject matter covered - so the reality of the situation is that real life familiarity will only assist candidates to attempt to answer a small to medium proportion of questions at best. What is more, questions based on even the more common offences e.g. theft, will tend not to focus on the routine day-to-day circumstances that practical experience has taught the candidate how to deal with. Instead, a candidate is much more likely to face a question asking them to consider the intricacies of the principles laid down in R v Ghosh in relation to dishonesty. It is doubtful whether practical experience would provide the answer to such a question. This is why candidates who trust in real life experiences to get them through the examinations invariably find success a difficult if not impossible task to achieve.

	Myth - "The examination is split into four specific sections in the order of the Manuals: an 'Evidence' section, a 'Property' section, an 'Assaults' section and a 'Sexual Offences' section".
Questions in the examinations are placed in a particular order but that order is one that ensures a candidate will not answer 6 or 7 Property questions in a row much less 15 to 20 in a row. Candidates may find that 3 or 4 questions on a particular manual area are asked in succession but this will not be the norm for the whole examination paper. A mix of subject questions throughout the course of an examination provides all candidates with an equal chance to illustrate their knowledge across the broad spectrum of the syllabus. If the exam were constructed so that all 'Evidence' questions were asked at the beginning of the examination and all 'Property' questions at the end, this would provide an advantage to candidates whose knowledge of 'Evidence' was of a good standard and a disadvantage to those whose knowledge of 'Property' was of a good standard.

	Barrack-Room Advice - "The best place to concentrate on is 'Evidence' as there are more questions on that than anything else".
The reason this poor quality advice is often believed is that it has an element of the truth about it - 'Evidence' IS the most questioned area of the syllabus. On average there are approximately 32 questions asked on this section of the manual but this has dropped to 28 in the last four examinations. This makes the above statement very convincing until you actually start to think about it after properly analysing the construction of the average NIE. One of the reasons the 'Evidence' section has so many questions asked on it is that it is the largest section of the manual. 'Property Offences', 'Assaults etc' and 'Sexual Offences', when combined, are half the combined total of 'Evidence' and will be responsible for the other 38 to 42 questions (the majority) in the examination. So a combined section that is half the size of 'Evidence' is worth far more in overall marks. 'Evidence' is important but the other areas of the syllabus are more important as they will get you more marks.

	Myth - "Two of the options in a multiple-choice question are always a joke".
Then what is the point of including them if they are so obviously wrong and nobody is going to pick them? If this were actually correct then every question would effectively present a candidate with a 50:50 chance of guessing the right answer. As a consequence even the worst prepared candidate should, statistically, get half of the examination questions correct and obtain a mark of 50%. This would mean that the average NIE candidate would pass the exam simply by turning up at the examination venue without having carried out any study at all! Why then, do so many people fail the examinations? One reason, amongst many, is that the options in a multiple-choice question are not 'a joke'. This is because NPIA questions genuinely present candidates with a true and difficult choice. In addition, there is the verification process to consider. Apart from testing the validity of questions, verification questions ensure that the options presented to candidates, whilst false, provide a realistic alternative to the correct answer. The life-force of this myth has much to do with the fact that some candidates practice on substandard multiple-choice questions whose authors have little regard for the quality of the questions as long as they are selling a product.

If such myth, rumour and advice, as above, are left unchecked then it is easy to see how candidates can be led astray by the badly informed advisor. I hope that this article has served to somewhat redress the balance in favour of accurate and sound advice based on facts and not guesswork.

Should you have any queries about the article or wish me to advise on something you have heard about the NIE, please contact me on checkmatetrain@aol.com

Paul Connor.

www.checkmatetraining.co.uk
Tel: 01827 874600