Just asking, but if you did the large game qualification in your original DSC1 does that mean yu can give it a miss in DSC2?
David.
No of course not. DSC2 requires you to cull a deer, stalked on foot not from a high seat, then demonstrate to the AW a full gralloch and carcase examination, all the lymph nodes examined, and other aspects, yourself, without prompting. It is a practical demonstration of your actual prowess. And if you don't already have the trained hunter qualification it qualifies you for that.
It is IMO of far greater value than the theoretical paper examination that is still part of todays DSC! but which no longer gets you a trained hunter number, as it used to do in the past (I have the old "blue" DSC1 which did get me my trained hunter status), but in isolation gives no practical exposure to actually doing it. Nowadays it seems that there are other routes to trained hunter status, e.g. Lantra awards, but I have no knowledge of what these courses cover, nor if there is any practical exposure, even if only a demonstration by an instructor on an actual carcase.
The results are checked by the examining body. I don#t suppose anybody has got their O or A level results on the day!
David.
Quite. When I did mine our instructor did check our multiple choice papers afterwards and let us know whether he thought we had succeeded, and what our marks were, but made it clear that they were to be sent away for independent marking before we would get the result back. the same also applied to the shooting test, where our target inserts were also sent off for independent marking as well. Some were certainly told when they had failed, but nobody was categorically told that they had passed, on the day.
Marking of multiple choice exam papers is not as simplistic as it might seem, there are methods used nowadays to detect e.g. cheating, collusion, "teaching for the test" rather than imparting knowledge etc. The papers are printed on the day of the test, and the selected questions and tick boxes re-arranged each time.
Personally I have doubts about some of the online courses which seem almost to be "teaching to pass the test" I studied the training manual intensely for several weeks until I was pretty sure of what the correct answers to the question bank were (and even stuff not in the question bank), and most importantly, why. Not by repeatedly guessing and re-trying until I could do it by rote using an online system.
TBH the only aspect that I was not so confident of was the photo recognition test, all sexes, ages and, seasons of the year and different surroundings, with which I had very little experience, having only shot four fallow, one roe, half a dozen muntjac by then, and always had known what species were likely on those outings. And of course the seasonal conditions and likely state of the quarry, pelage, antler growth etc. But thanks to our excellent tuition only dropped one mark on that. And one in the multiple choice papers.
But I was prepared, as best I could, prior to attending the training, so I think got far more out of it than some others who had clearly not done so, didn't even seem to know their way around the training manual, but seemed to expect it all to be taught on the course. I came prepared with post-it notes on some pages where I wanted clarification about some of the questions that were still puzzling me, which the instructor clarified for us all. They didn't do so well, most did poorly, some failed. A couple took that badly, despite being offered a chance to re-sit their failed papers the next day, refused the offer and went home in a huff. Probably realising that they still might fail again the next day, rather than spend the evening doing intensive revision.
This is not like O or A levels where you get a grade, it is pass or fail. And to be of value, some will fail, otherwise it would just be an attendance course.