When it comes to Ospre Part I 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, I am increasingly concerned by the rising number of candidates I speak with who have been given some of the most appalling advice one could ever hear of in respect of the Ospre examinations. 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 Ospre Part I 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.
	Rumour - "The pass mark is going up". Myth - "The pass mark changes every year".
No it is not and no it does not! There are no plans, at present, to raise or lower the pass mark. The pass mark for the Sergeants' examination is set at 55%; the pass mark for the Inspectors' examination is set at 65% and that has been the case for several 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 an Ospre Part I examination relating to an offence of s. 47 assault contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - not exactly 'new' law is it? Do not think that specific examinations have their own particular verification process - a question of law is a question of law no matter what rank or position you hold.
	Myth - "You can only pass the examination by scoring 55% / 65% in each of the four syllabus areas (Crime, Evidence & Procedure, Road Policing and General Police Duties)."
In the Sergeants' or Inspectors' examination a candidate obtains a mark based on their overall performance when answering the 140 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. For example, a 2007 Inspectors' candidate could have answered every Evidence & Procedure question incorrectly (there were only 25 Evidence & Procedure questions) and still have passed.
	Barrack-room advice - "Practical experience is the key to success".
Practical experiences can support a candidate but only to a minor degree. Part I is a law theory examination and not a test of an individuals applied ability as a police officer. To begin with, the Ospre 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: a 'Crime' section, an 'Evidence & Procedure' section, a 'Road Policing' section and a 'General Police Duties' 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 General Police Duties questions in a row much less 35 to 45 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 'Crime' questions were asked at the beginning of the examination and all 'General Police Duties' questions at the end, this would provide an advantage to candidates whose knowledge of 'Crime' was of a good standard and a disadvantage to those whose knowledge of 'General Police Duties' was of a good standard.
	Barrack-Room Advice - "The best way to approach the examination is to read through all the questions before you begin answering them".
This has to be the most ludicrous advice I have ever heard - the problem is that somebody took it. Reading an examination paper is appropriate to essay style questions but should never be carried out when sitting a multiple-choice examination. NPIA research shows that it takes the average person ninety minutes just to read a 150 question paper - and what good would it accomplish? Ninety minutes down the line a candidate would be lucky if they could remember the facts of question 149 let alone question 1. Begin answering questions immediately.
	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 although a candidate would have to work to obtain the extra 5% for the Sergeants' pass mark or 15% for Inspectors' pass mark, a pass should nevertheless be within the relatively easy reach of 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 Ospre Part I examinations, please contact me on checkmatetrain@aol.com

Paul Connor.

Real Knowledge - Real Experience - Real Credibility - Real Results