On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But I think that we, as the certification authority, should provide a
> standard for judging whether certificates are "fresh" or not. After all,
>[...]
> Perhaps a rule like this would work: A new version of each exam will be
> published every 2 years or sooner if justified for major changes in Linux.
> When a new test is released, certificate-holders have 1 year to pass the
> new version before their certificate lapses. This would seem appropriate
> for the L1 tests. For the higher level tests, we might allow more time,
> like 2 or 3 years.
Wow, great minds (?) do think alike (I note that Scott and I have very
similar ideas about revision based on security and content).
I like your proposal. I was thinking that we could make the
recertification advisory. That is, passing the test would allow you to
list yourself as having passed the test on a certain date. We would
publicly state that we think certification stales after... whatever, two
years. And leave it up to the test-taker and employer.
BTW, how does the employer verify that a given individual is truly
certified? Will there be a web page with an alphabetized list of
certified individuals or a number they can call or something? If so, then
recertification is really a matter of how long we keep them on such a
list.
> If there is serious criticism about LPI using renewals as an undue
> source of income, we could offer renewal tests at a discount.
It is my strong impression that LPI is oriented to offering the exams for
as little as they possibly can. I'm not privy to details but I fear that
if the price doesn't include some significant profit (above LPI's cost in
administering and scoring the exam), then there will not be sufficient
funds to maintain the exam. So I think "LPI cash cow" is a three-term
oxymoron. I think that a commercial exam of comparable quality would cost
much, much more than LPI will turn out. Of course, this is just my
impression from scattered comments, LPI doesn't have a price yet(?)
Anyway, I think cash "cow" picture might be apt for MS or Novell... But
as far as I can tell, the ones making the money are (1) testing outfits
like Sylvan and VUE and (2) trainers. I don't think test publishers are
making excessive amounts of money.
The reason they insist on recertification is that (1) the reality of
testing is that you need to maintain exams or they lose their value. So
you need a steady cash flow and for many specialized niches there aren't
enough test-takers to get by on virgin certifiers. You could make the
tests very very expensive, make them very hard so that people have to pay
a few times to pass, or make people retake them. That may rub some of you
the wrong way, I'm not putting any candy-coating on it, that's just how
test publishing works.
And (2) the second reason is that certifying bodies see their role
primarily as protective (protecting the public against, say, ignorant
doctors prone to malpractice or drivers who have become bad drivers
through age or injury). As such, they look at their three choices above,
reject the first two as dumb, and see GREAT VALUE in the third.
So anyway, I'm running off but from my perspective in the industry, I
think recertification, either voluntarily or because LPI mandates it,
is inevitable for business, scientific, and PR reasons.
-Alan
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
