Hi Howard, I'm glad to see gettlabs.com is up and running -- I will definitely peruse it tonight.
Preface: I used to teach technology courses at a 4 yr college. The courses more or less coincided with certifications. Why get certified? For some with no experience, it's their introduction to the technology. For those with experience it can be a baseline determining where they stand. One thing I always told my students: "Don't cheat yourself." Don't study for the test. Study to master the subject. Testing and certification are merely mile markers if you do it this way. I've seen many posts recently on the new test format, the quality of the tests, and whether the certs really even matter. One can only write so much into a test question, and some only learn enough just to answer that question That's why the CCIE lab is still where the rubber hits the road. The quality of the tests are fine. The ideal situation is for the questions to improve as feedback is provided by the test takers, and the questions are evolved by the test creators. My .000002 cents worth. (not an argument - just another view) John Allhiser -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Howard C. Berkowitz Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 4:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Oops....Re: Re: Quality of Cisco exams [7:38063] I'll admit the quality of Cisco tests (other than perhaps the CCIE Written) leaves a good deal to be desired. But unless things have radically changed, this is, in part, a result of the process used to create them, and the fact that "instructional design professionals" are in charge. When I knew definitely how tests were written, what happened is that a completed (perhaps beta) course was sent to a generally non-technical instructional designer who was a specialist in writing test questions. The good news is that all the questions and answers came from the course materials; the bad news is that all the questions and answers came from the test materials. If the course was obsolete or wrong, the test writer wasn't qualified to recognize the problem and fix it, or realize that a question would be ambiguous to someone in the field. Now, don't get me wrong. Instructional design is a legitimate discipline and I use principles from it in developing lots of my material. But when instructional designers rise to the PHB level, and see themselves as managing what they sniff at as "SME's" -- Subject Matter Experts -- the process loses quality. Instructional designers and technical experts that respect each other and work together effectively are not from the world of Dilbert. It isn't easy to write good questions. We've found that's one of the toughest skills for CertificationZone writers, given that as well as asking a good set of choices, the question writer also needs to write a technically accurate and succinct explanation. -- "What Problem are you trying to solve?" ***send Cisco questions to the list, so all can benefit -- not directly to me*** **************************************************************************** **** Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief Technology Officer, GettLab/Gett Communications http://www.gettlabs.com Technical Director, CertificationZone.com http://www.certificationzone.com "retired" Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (CID) #93005 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38153&t=38063 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
