[lpi-discuss] New article on one candidate's experience
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Mon Oct 31 15:10:22 EST 2005
Tabatha Marshall <tabatha.marshall at lpi.org> wrote:
> Bryan, it's awesome that we have folks like you to champion
> our programs. You point out important factors above, not
> the least of which is how public our objectives are.
> I wonder if more knowledge about our psychometric processes
> would shed some light on how the exam data is analyzed and
> what that means to a candidate who has written the exam.
The psychometrics clearly come out in the LPI exams versus
most of the Citrix, CIW (yes, I know, he's on this list ;-),
CompTIA, Microsoft, Sun and even non-simulation portions of
the Cisco Associate/Professional exams.
Now Novell has done a bit better, but they have the funds to
have more advanced testing that LPI cannot. And the only
reason Cisco exams aren't in the toilet IMHO is because they
have those 2-3 simulations (otherwise, I think LPI does a
better job in the multiple choice/fill-in questions).
Microsoft has stated they've switched to more "performance"
testing, but they said that before (and I took those with
much laughter ;-).
In fact, if there was only 1 exam this guy found to be in
error on the 101, then that's a good sign. ;->
> Do you (all, collectively) think this is something that
> needs to be talked about more? This is what makes us
> different than Red Hat's hands-on approach, and maybe it's
> not very widely understood.
Yes, I very much do. The "vendor neutral" aspect is nice,
but it would help far more to market 1) the exam development
and 2) the "we don't offer training, so no conflict of
interest" aspects even more.
Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org | (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers)
More information about the lpi-discuss