Rising Star for the NYPD Sergeant, Lieutenant, and Captain Exam

PROTEST

J Man said
Dec 6, 2013

My first one, but after discussing this with multiple people it seems that we can focus on three components:

1. Questions which have no clear answer or multiple answers that are equal to each other - there seems to be several

2. Questions which may be valid factually but lack relevance to the position being tested....this is apparently harder to prove but there are many examples of this

3. Questions which have typos, mispellings, ommisions, or forms which have been corrupted...there are several.

I have spent some time compiling a list. Any suggestions please pm me.

Booking Fool said
Dec 6, 2013

#3 never flies unless it was a grammar question, which they did, of course, f*ck up. You'd think if you were writing a grammar question you'd double check that the "correct" answer is actually grammatically correct.

J Man said
Dec 6, 2013

I think the ommision of certain words, the specific typos, and the obvious corrupted dept form will be valid protests for this exam because it affected how the questions were answered

PatrolGuideismyBible said
Dec 7, 2013

Well there were two questions on the in-basket with NYS Penal Law/ Crime Reporting Reference Guide type conflicts. One I think was fair bc it could be nothing else so it could only be one answer that showed you a scratch 61 with the narrative, but the other I think can be fought for numerous reasons.

Basically without going into details, if you have an in-basket and it references or is related to another question you have to use or at least consider that fact pattern too when answering the question. By the letter of the law that is the NYS PL its one charge, but by the CRRG it could be something else. I don't recall the question locking you into solely the CRRG or the NYS PL or both, so I believe there is a conflict. The fact that the same complainant had multiple things happen to her in two questions can bump up the charge by PL standards, but CRRG conflicts with this. Why this was used in an inbasket makes no sense other than to trick you and the exam writers may have tricked themselves with their own stupidity.

As for the CIMS questions, I think most were fair, but a bit obscure. But one of them was vague in the wording and had two different CIMS actors with similar duties that both are involved in a particular duty. That might be worth fighting, have to see the wording again.

One of the grammar questions has a possible protest. It is amazing that on multiple exams now that these smarty pants that write these questions on grammar butcher grammar in the very questions they write??? At least 1 protest in grammar, but I thought the math was clean cut and fair unlike the 2011 Lt exam which didn't specify what exactly they wanted.

The admin guide question where a position had to be filled and someone had to be get the written confirmation of this could be a double answer too, but I have to look at the wording again to make sure.

Also in the 1978 Mayor's Executive Order procedure, does it not say that the procedure is to be tested on promotional exams? Why was it not on this one where it appears in the superlative that it IS to be tested on promotional exams, not on option, but specifically says so!!! I know thats a stretch, but I could have used that point! Cannot protest something that is not on there, but could we get a freebie that they failed in their responsibility to include that question? I know, not happening! For that matter, I don't recall a single LBB question either, which is BS. So Captains don't have to know court decisions that protect their subordinates from both civil and criminal liability? OK, I am just bitching now about lack of 1978 MEO and LBB's.

Its already been brought up on these boards before, but I will bring it up again. The two OO's, one by the admin guide should be expired and the other I think is close depending the date and if it is over a year old. so thats at least 1, possibly two protests right there.

Another in-basket question were 3 interrelated questions that involved this problem cop, once again without giving away the farm, there was a question that was vague in the fact pattern and maybe didn't give you enough to make a decsion. Depending on what the answer, I think it may be worth a look at a possible protest. This same cop also wanted your permission to do something in another question, which kind of had you interpret a procedure that cites specific examples of do's and don't's, but they tried to get creative in what he was doing, I think I got it right, but if I didn't, I am fighting it.

Also some of those questions that were similar in format to the Rising Star questions with like 5 statements and they want you to pick choices between a) statement 1 and 3 are correct, b) statement 2 and 4 are correct, etc. were really tough bc they may have changed the wording slightly on what is in the PG or made an incomplete statement that on its face is not necessarily wrong, but wants the "most correct"? Well then some of those can be interpreted to be their opinion on what is "most correct" then with so many variables in multiple statements that often had most or all statements looking correct, but perhaps deficient or worded slightly different, but not wrong.

RISING IDIOT said
Dec 8, 2013

Another in-basket question were 3 interrelated questions that involved this problem cop, once again without giving away the farm, there was a question that was vague in the fact pattern and maybe didn't give you enough to make a decsion. Depending on what the answer, I think it may be worth a look at a possible protest. This same cop also wanted your permission to do something in another question, which kind of had you interpret a procedure that cites specific examples of do's and don't's, but they tried to get creative in what he was doing, I think I got it right, but if I didn't, I am fighting it.

Again, without going into detail I will be protesting this one as well, specifically the one where he asked permission for something. You hit the nail on the head... The LAZY test writing that was exhibited on 11/23/13 resulted in the cute questions becoming a little too cute for their own good. In their feeble attempt to trick even the most hardcore studier, they've corrupted some questions and opened the door for protests. It wasn't enough for them that you knew this procedure inside and out, they had to paint a picture of some ridiculous, obscure situation with multiple possible answers depending on your interpretation of certain words.

I look forward to the protest but it will be tough. It will take everything I have to mark my exam, accept that the number is below a 70, and still sit there for four hours trying to write meaningful, articulable protests.

Lew Bookman said
Dec 8, 2013

Hasn't the test for all the people with accommodations been given? Cant we talk about questions openly yet?

RISING IDIOT said
Dec 8, 2013

Lew Bookman wrote:
Hasn't the test for all the people with accommodations been given? Cant we talk about questions openly yet?

Not sure Lew. There were some winners that popped up on our Lt list almost 6 months later. This answer, like everything else surrounding the administration of these tests is cloaked in mystery

J Man said
Dec 8, 2013

We had a total of eight protestable and with these new ones mentioned we could have over ten. I spoke to several of you this week and hope to speak to several more of you before the session. I say we protest everything....and I mean EVERYTHING. Words in questions which are abbreviated, slang police terms (uf 49), acromyms, words capitalized (eg COMPSTAT) for no reason. These terms don't adhere to English and accepted grammer standards

unborn said
Dec 8, 2013

The 2006 Ops Order is a definite protest. Operations Orders are clearly temporary in nature and are not meant to be "active" for 7 years. The time limit is upon conclusion of the event (for example, the OOs that announce range attendance), or 1 year.

As for the other Ops Order with the Citibikes, it is still active since it's under the 1 year mark. I don't plan on protesting it since I got it right, however if you got it wrong, you may want to point out that nowhere in the Notice of Exam for this test does it say Operations Orders are to be tested:

The test may include questions which require mastery of technical knowledge based on such materials as the
NYCPD Patrol Guide, Administrative Guide, Interim Orders, Legal Bureau Bulletins, New York State Penal Law,
Criminal Procedure Law, Family Court Act, and Mayor's Executive Order No. 16 of 1978, as amended, and may
address any of the following areas: Aided Cases; Accidents; Complaints; Summonses; Arrests; Prisoners; Property;
Court and Agency Appearances; Patrol Supervision; Special Patrol Operations; Disciplinary Matters; Personnel
Matters; Uniforms, Equipment and Department Property, in effect up to and including September15, 2013.

Yes, I know it's open ended since they wrote "may include" and only gave examples of testable materials, but it's worth a shot if you got it wrong.

Wannabecaptain said
Dec 8, 2013

unborn wrote:
The 2006 Ops Order is a definite protest. Operations Orders are clearly temporary in nature and are not meant to be "active" for 7 years. The time limit is upon conclusion of the event (for example, the OOs that announce range attendance), or 1 year.

As for the other Ops Order with the Citibikes, it is still active since it's under the 1 year mark. I don't plan on protesting it since I got it right, however if you got it wrong, you may want to point out that nowhere in the Notice of Exam for this test does it say Operations Orders are to be tested:

The test may include questions which require mastery of technical knowledge based on such materials as the
NYCPD Patrol Guide, Administrative Guide, Interim Orders, Legal Bureau Bulletins, New York State Penal Law,
Criminal Procedure Law, Family Court Act, and Mayor's Executive Order No. 16 of 1978, as amended, and may
address any of the following areas: Aided Cases; Accidents; Complaints; Summonses; Arrests; Prisoners; Property;
Court and Agency Appearances; Patrol Supervision; Special Patrol Operations; Disciplinary Matters; Personnel
Matters; Uniforms, Equipment and Department Property, in effect up to and including September15, 2013.

Yes, I know it's open ended since they wrote "may include" and only gave examples of testable materials, but it's worth a shot if you got it wrong.

Keep giving away questions unborn. It's the right thing to do.