RE: Oops....Re: Re: Quality of Cisco exams [7:38063]
Oh goodie, another gripe about Cisco exams thread! I'll wade in on this
one ;-)
I have only done one Cisco exam recently - BSCI at networkers last week.
Since it was a freebie, I wasn't taking it too seriously. The exam topics
were as per the exam outline - OSPF, EIGRP, IS-IS, BGP, and some general
routing stuff (VLSM, redistribution, blah blah - this is straight out of
the exam outline so I don't consider I'm breaking NDA). Now, I work with
OSPF all the time, so I was reasonably confident there (although there are
certainly features of OSPF that I've never had cause to use so don't know
well), and ditto the general routing stuff. EIGRP I studied for the ACRC
exam two years ago, and have never actually used (and I didn't get around
to revising my notes). IS-IS? I read half of the chapter in Doyle, ran
out of time, and skimmed the rest. BGP? I'm maybe a third of the way
through Halabi, and hadn't picked it up for the six weeks before the exam
(holidays were wonderful, thanks ;-).
Did I expect to pass? Heck no. With no practical experience of 60% of
the main exam topics, and barely any study, I don't think I should have
been able to pass. But I did. Not with a great score, but comfortably.
The majority of the questions were at a level of very basic understanding.
Several, while not exact repeat questions, tested the same knowledge.
Interestingly enough, I was speaking to a local Cisco SE about it, and he
admitted that several other people had said the same thing to him at
Networkers - they had gone to an "intro to technology xyz" session, sat
the "xyz" exam, and passed.
At risk of being labelled an old curmudgeon who hankers for the good old
days, I studied extensively for the ACRC exam, had practical experience of
more of the exam topics, and got a massive two points more on my ACRC exam
than I did on my BSCI. OK, I have two years more experience now (but not
in most of the BSCI topics), and more accumulated groupstudy reading time
(some of it's probably sunk in subconciously), but I still reckon the ACRC
was a lot harder.
I'm glad I passed my ACRC two years ago - I'm not so glad I passed BSCI. I
would like the Cisco exams to demonstrate that somebody who passes the
exam has a good knowledge of the details of the subject matter, not just
an understanding of basic concepts (although that's important too), and I
don't think I have a good knowledge of all of the BSCI subject matter.
JMcL
Oh, Priscilla... PHB = Pointy Haired Boss, from Dilbert.
- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 14/03/2002 11:41 am -
"John Allhiser"
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
14/03/2002 10:04 am
Please respond to "John Allhiser"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject:RE: OopsRe: Re: Quality of Cisco exams [7:38063]
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 .02 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: OopsRe: 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 t
Re: Oops....Re: Re: Quality of Cisco exams [7:38063]
>PHB level?? I'm curious what that means. ;-) Actually, now that I think of it, there are two meanings of relevance: Dilbertian: Pointy-Haired Boss Traffic Engineering: Per-Hop Behavior > >I think the process at Cisco has degenerated even beyond what you describe. >It's not just that instructional designers (IDs) rather than subject matter >experts (SMEs) write the questions and answers. The new breed of IDs also >seem to have limited experience with logic, rational thinking, and the >English language. :-) Ah. The question is: did their parents raise them according to the doctrine of Doctor Spock or Mister Spock? > >Test-writing is very difficult. Sylvan Prometric actually offers classes in >it. When I was involved in the now-defunct CNX program, we took classes in >how to write tests before we were allowed to write any questions. > >There are some advantages for the test-taker if a test is written by an >inexperienced test writer: > >1) If an answer such as "none of the above" or "all of the above" occurs >rarely, it's probably the right answer when it does occur. Newbies forget >to ever make those the wrong answer. ;-) > >2) The right answer is often the longest. Test writers spend more time >writing the right answer. If the tests were in the IETF, it might be the opposite. People like Bill Simpson and Tony Li love "yes" or "no," although Bill is apt to go on into an incredibly baroque flame. > >3) The right answer is the one least likely to have a typo. Test writers do >more checking and editing on the right answer. > >4) Double negatives occur more often in the wrong answers. Test writers >really struggle with the wrong answers and often have to make them wrong by >making them negative, even though the question might have already been >negative. > >5) When in doubt, the right answer is probably C. ;-) I wonder how much that varies by the writer? I have noticed a tendency, when I write questions, to tend to make B the correct answer and make a conscious effort to avoid it. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38164&t=38063 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Oops....Re: Re: Quality of Cisco exams [7:38063]
PHB level?? I'm curious what that means. ;-) I think the process at Cisco has degenerated even beyond what you describe. It's not just that instructional designers (IDs) rather than subject matter experts (SMEs) write the questions and answers. The new breed of IDs also seem to have limited experience with logic, rational thinking, and the English language. :-) In another thread we talked about junior CCIEs (code word for low-paid CCIEs). I think Cisco is hiring junior IDs maybe. Test-writing is very difficult. Sylvan Prometric actually offers classes in it. When I was involved in the now-defunct CNX program, we took classes in how to write tests before we were allowed to write any questions. There are some advantages for the test-taker if a test is written by an inexperienced test writer: 1) If an answer such as "none of the above" or "all of the above" occurs rarely, it's probably the right answer when it does occur. Newbies forget to ever make those the wrong answer. ;-) 2) The right answer is often the longest. Test writers spend more time writing the right answer. 3) The right answer is the one least likely to have a typo. Test writers do more checking and editing on the right answer. 4) Double negatives occur more often in the wrong answers. Test writers really struggle with the wrong answers and often have to make them wrong by making them negative, even though the question might have already been negative. 5) When in doubt, the right answer is probably C. ;-) Priscilla At 05:02 PM 3/13/02, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >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 Priscilla Oppenheimer http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=38154&t=38063 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Oops....Re: Re: Quality of Cisco exams [7:38063]
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 .02 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]
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=38130&t=38063 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
