On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Kevin Wigle wrote:
> I wasn't aware that an extended exam was anymore different than "normal"
> exams except you get more time.
>
> If this truly is the only difference I'm not sure what your point is. If
> you, a good English speaker can do the test in 1 hour, then - you're done.
> Doesn't matter if the exam has allotted 2 hours or 3 hours, you're done in
> 1.
Picture the following aborted recruiter interview:
Me: "I'm a CCNP and CCDP..."
Recruiter: (interrupts me) "You passed the extended exams, not the
standard ones. You're not a true CCNP and CCDP. You won't do. Good bye."
(OK, this is slightly exaggerated, but it should give you the gist.)
> I don't think too many people from the US/Canada are going to hop a plane
to
> get that extra 30 minutes test time. Perhaps someone in Brittain would
take
> the train to France? that would probably bump the effective price up a
bit.
Well, now that you mention it... A Briton would have to hop onto a train
or plane to Brussels to take the CCIE lab. So would a German, a Greek,
or a Spaniard. I don't remember anything in the CCIE lab blueprint that
mentioned granting an extra 2 hours, or half-day, or whatever, to
candidates who don't speak natively whatever language(s) the lab
documents are written in and or the lab proctors speak or mangle. That
sounds inconsistent with the stated goals, esp. when the CCIE written
*has* the extension.
> I agree with your point #1 and with that a candidate should be able to
elect
> to take a non-extended exam. However, a problem could present itself later
> if a candidate failed the exam and then complained he didn't understand the
> consequences of not taking an extended exam! :-) I don't think that Vue
or
> Prometric want to be responsible for having to first judge the English
> proficiency of a candidate.
Amusingly, at least one Prometric testing center in Paris also offers an
ESL proficiency exam. But you're right, they shouldn't have to. However,
there are ways around this, such as letting you (the candidate) take the
exam again for free, perhaps limiting that to cases where you appear to
be in good faith and or didn't fail the exam abismally (which could be
decided by the number of correct answers to questions you had time to
answer before the ax felt). Also, the policy is cisco's, and my email
was addressed to cisco.
> Your point #2 probably wasn't thought of in that way because that would be
> politcally incorrect and nobody wants that :-)
OK, so I'm blunt and unsubtle. :-) I'm curious, though: what would be a
newspeak way of stating it without making it meaningless?
> Your point #3 would require in my opinion that the option to accept/deny
the
> extended exam would have to be asked in the candidate's native language.
> Now imagine how interesting that could get...................
I must have a pedestrian imagination, because all solutions to that that
I could think of are uninteresting.
- If registering online: IMHO, someone who could navigate the test
center's web pages should be able to understand a warning, or a
mention, in plain English right at the point the option is offered.
- If registering in person or on the phone: you would presumably speak
to someone (an administrative assistant or receptionist, perhaps) who
speaks the same language as you.
> Unless the exam content is easier somehow, I think you're over-reacting a
> little bit. I would just accept the time and probably never use it (I
> hope).
And I may well end up doing that myself. Indeed, I did in the past. But
who said I can't try to change that policy and or get a good rant out of
it at the same time? 'Sides which, I have to live up to my reputation as
a loudmouth and a curmudgeon, don't I? :-)
> Kevin Wigle
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ElephantChild"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:32 AM
> Subject: Semi-RANT: extended exams [7:7871]
>
> > This is a copy of a message I sent to cisco training about hidden
> > dangers of extended exams. Thoughtful comments and answering rants are
> > equally welcome. No flames, please.
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: ElephantChild
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:51:08 +0200 (CEST)
> > Subject: CSIDS 2.0 beta: can I have the unextended version?
> >
> > On June 1st, I registered to take 9E1-572, the CSIDS 2.0 beta. I'm
> > scheduled to take it on June 14 at a VUE testing center in France. The
> > confirmation message I received stated that the test time was extended
> > by 30 minutes to accomodate me as a "non-native English speaker living
> > in (a) non-English-speaking country", when I didn't request any such
> > accomodation. That, IMO, carries 3 disturbing assumptions:
> >
> > 1- That no native English speaker would live outside an English-speaking
> > country.
> >
> > 2- That ESL fluency is somehow inferior to native fluency, and not
> > enough to handle technical material on a subject I should know well
> > at the same rate as a native speaker would, or at a rate close enough
> > not to need extra time.
> >
> > 3- That I want the extension at all.
> >
> > I raised that issue with VUE, and I was eventually told that I needed to
> > get approval from cisco training before VUE, or anyone, would let me
> > take the unextended version.
> >
> > If you follow discussions among cisco certified professionals, you
> > probably noticed that a recurring theme is the perception that making
> > any certification too easy lowers the worth of all certifications for
> > those who hold them, are preparing for them, or are contemplating
> > passing them.
> >
> > Granted, some candidates, maybe most of them, know the subject well
> > enough, but have trouble with English and need the extra time to
> > understand the questions and the possible answers. For them, the extra
> > time may help keep the exam more or less as difficult as the unextended
> > exam is for a candidate fluent in English. However, for a fluent English
> > speaker (whether native or not), that's not needed, and forcing me to
> > take an extended version when I don't need it is lowering its worth for
> > all candidates worldwide.
> >
> > This strikes me as especially important for a beta exam, as you're still
> > trying to set the difficulty and evaluate individual questions for
> > clarity, accuracy, and relevance. I'm not sure how many worldwide will
> > be taking that exam, and what share of them got the extended version. It
> > seems to me, though, that the less unsure you are how much of the score
> > comes from domain knowledge and how much from English fluency (or the
> > lack of either), the better for the released exam.
> >
> > I respectfully request that you make extended exams an option, available
> > to the candidates who request them, and not force them on candidates who
> > neither want nor need them. I also request that you let candidates
> > registered for the beta who didn't take it already choose which version
> > they want to take, and inform them quickly if you decide to grant my
> > request.
> >
> > Thanks for listening.
--
"Someone approached me and asked me to teach a javascript course. I was
about to decline, saying that my complete ignorance of the subject made
me unsuitable, then I thought again, that maybe it doesn't, as driving
people away from it is a desirable outcome." --Me
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=8139&t=7871
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
