[lpi-discuss] Re: Principles for creation of exam objectives -- demonizing my "opinions" as "demands"

Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith at ieee.org
Thu Jul 21 10:09:14 EDT 2005


Torsten Scheck <torsten.scheck at gmx.de> wrote:
> There are many reasons why such modular exams cause problems:
> * high publishing costs
> * development of exam items, which might not be used often
> * difficult psychometric analysis

I would say "duplicate," not "difficult."  You basically do
psychometric analysis on _each_ section.  Because you're only
counting the "best" section.  _Nothing_ changes there.

And I said _only_ do it for things like MTA -- put 2-3
sets of questions in the _standard_ exam, and count _only_
the "best one."

I also said I assume this is _impossible_ with the current
Prometric/Vue options.  If it's not, I think it's worth
exploring for _specific_ topics where this is going to be an
increasing issue (e.g., MTAs).

> * confused candidates

What candidates aren't confused the first time?

Heck, after 8 vendors (6 with 4+ exams) at Prometric/Vue,
I've seen it all.  ;->

> * fragmented training material

Now hold on.  The training materials _only_ need to address
the *1* they are training you on.  That is _not_ an issue
here.  It actually adds flexibility/options to training,
and is more of an advantage IMHO.

> * unmanageable paper exams

I also disagree.  It's the age-old argument teachers have on
multiple choice v. rubrics.

> While I understand, that candidates prefer to choose exactly
> the applications they are already familiar with, I'm surprised
> by your demand for modules.

"demand" = "opinion" ???
How many times did I have to say "opinion" in my prior e-mail?

Dude, I explicitly appreciate the load and work that it takes
for LPI to publish exams.  That's why I repeatedly said that
I figured this was "impossible" for a variety of reasons.

Please don't "demonize" it as a "demand."  ;->

> Would you specialise on a certain choice as trainer?
> Or would you train all?

It's up to the trainer.

If the trainer is doing SuSE, probably Postfix.
If the trainer is doing Red Hat, either Postfix or Sendmail.
If the trainer is doing Debian, probably Exim (if it was the 3rd
tested).

> Just like in computer science, where you learn the basics using
> a certain programming language, LPI's e-mail basics should be
> learned using a certain MTA IMHO.

And I agree, to a point, at least on the "Knowledge" level of
Blooms.  But when you go past just "Knowledge" and get to the
"Task Oriented" nature of LPI's Psychometrics, things can get
mighty different.  ;->

As someone who had:  
- High School AP Computer Science with Pascal
- Computer Science Minor with Modula
- Electrical Engineering Major with Fortran 
- Computer Engineering Option with C/C++

There are some damn big differences at times.  ;->

Pascal/Modula, not much, C/C++ changes a good number
of things and Fortran is a total and "radical shift" in
application.

That's Sendmail/Postfix, Exim and QMail right there.

> Is this question (monolithic vs. modules) really this
> controversial. I really thought, I just summed up the
> general consense.

The problem is you took my statements and "demonized" them
as "modules."

Dude, I offered an "ideal opinion" as someone who as:  
A.  Taken over 40 exams via Prometric/Vue (all in 2002-2003)
B.  Taught primary education for 4 months, with 9 hours
into his MSEd. (Math)
C.  Has been a "closet contributor" of LPI

In fact, my "ideal opinion" was really more of "here would be one
way to do it, _if_possible_."

It was _never_ a "demand."  At most, I said "I'd argue" -- which
is _always_ based on "feasibility."  That's rule #1 for an
engineer.  ;->




-- 
Bryan J. Smith                 mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
Sent from Yahoo Mail (please excuse any missing headers)



More information about the lpi-discuss mailing list