"Association Told Us to Adjust Pass Rate"... National Certification Exam Turns into a Game of Chance

Pass Rate for Third Stage of Industrial Safety Instructor Exam Remains in the 20% Range
Suspicions of Collusion with Association Arise Over Abstract Interview Evaluation Criteria
Controversy Grows as Human Resources Development Service Discloses Sco

Controversy has arisen following allegations that the pass rate for a national professional qualification exam administered by the Human Resources Development Service of Korea was adjusted based on abstract evaluation criteria. Although the rules state that anyone scoring 6 points or more out of 10 should pass, the pass rate remained in the 20% range, raising suspicions of artificial manipulation.

Test-takers who failed the exam are questioning the fairness of the test, citing the "abstract evaluation rubric for the final exam" and "suspicions of collusion with the association." However, the Human Resources Development Service of Korea has shifted responsibility, stating that evaluation and scoring are up to the interviewers.

According to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea and other sources on November 14, the pass rate for the 15th National Professional Qualification Industrial Safety Instructor (Construction Safety) exam recently administered by the agency was only 22.3%.

The pass rate for the Industrial Safety Instructor qualification in the field of construction safety has been steadily declining. This qualification involves three stages, and the pass rate for the third stage by year was 41.6% in 2021, 33.6% in 2022, 31.5% in 2023, and 26.2% in 2024, showing a downward trend.

As the pass rate continues to drop, suspicions have been raised that industrial safety instructors may be intentionally adjusting the supply of the qualification due to intensifying competition.

According to data submitted by Assemblyman Lee Yongwoo of the National Assembly’s Climate, Energy, Environment and Labor Committee (Democratic Party of Korea, Incheon Seo-gu Eul) to the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, the grading criteria for each question in the third stage (final exam) of this round were ambiguous. This is because only an abstract evaluation rubric exists, where interviewers rate candidates’ answers as Excellent (3.5 points), Very Good (2.7 points), Average (1.9 points), Simple (1.1 points), or Insufficient (0.3 points).

The final exam for the instructor qualification is an oral interview that tests knowledge of prescribed industrial safety and health laws. Three interviewers form a single evaluation team to score the candidate’s oral responses. Thus, even though anyone scoring 6 points or more out of 10 should pass, suspicions have arisen that the interviewers were able to adjust scores at their discretion to control the number of successful candidates.

One unsuccessful candidate stated, "For the first and second stage exams, detailed evaluation items for each subject are disclosed, but for the third stage, the detailed evaluation items are not made public, so I asked the agency directly. When I checked the grading sheet disclosed by the agency, I saw that I received an 'Insufficient' (0.3 points) on the third question. To be rated 'Insufficient,' you would have to give a completely unrelated answer to a question about the relevant law."

The candidate continued, "When I asked the agency about the fairness of the exam, I was told, 'There have been continuous complaints from the Korea Industrial Safety Instructors Association about the high pass rate. We received a request to control the supply of the qualification, and it seems the agency was influenced by this.' The efforts of candidates who have invested years of time and money to pass this exam are being rendered meaningless."

Interviewer A, who participated in this exam, posted on their social media, "For this instructor interview, we decided to grade conservatively and considered adjusting the number of successful candidates." There were a total of 24 interviewers, including university professors, public institution employees, and industrial safety instructors.

Interviewer A wrote, "For this final interview, 7 to 9 candidates were interviewed per booth, and we intended to pass only 1 or 2 per group. The final score was determined by the average of the three interviewers’ scores, so there could be slight differences for each question depending on the individual judgment of each interviewer."

In a phone interview with The Asia Business Daily, Interviewer A explained, "Before the exam began, there was a meeting of interviewers, and the head of the department in charge of the qualification entered and said, 'There were complaints last year, so please do not ask additional questions.' Among the interviewers, there was discussion such as, 'If there are several candidates on the borderline, shouldn't we ask additional questions to distinguish them?' and 'Should we conduct the pass rate as in the previous round?'”

He added, "After hearing the interviewers’ conversation, the department head said, 'You may need to distinguish between candidates, so ask additional questions. However, let the interviewers in each booth decide the number of successful candidates.' Based on the earlier conversation, all the interviewers understood that they were supposed to conduct 'relative evaluation' among the candidates in each group. If the agency had clearly instructed us to use 'absolute evaluation,' the number of successful candidates would have doubled."

He continued, "The grading sheet was not provided individually for each candidate, but as a single sheet listing all candidates in the group, and we were given pencils and erasers, so it seemed natural to conduct relative evaluation by group. Later, when I checked the grading sheet disclosed by the agency to candidates, I was surprised to find that it was different from the one given to the interviewers, as it showed individual scores."

He also said, "For the agency to disclose the grading sheet to candidates and claim that the number of successful candidates is up to the interviewers undermines trust in the interviewers and shifts responsibility. The interviewers all met for the first time that day and did not know each other, and there was no benefit to be gained from the number of successful candidates. If the agency had clearly instructed us to use 'absolute evaluation,' this would not have happened."

In relation to this, the agency requested a police investigation on October 31 to verify the facts of the report.

An agency official stated, "As the matter is under police investigation, it is difficult to comment further."