[lpi-discuss] ALL READ--VERY IMPORTANT: Re: LPI 2 books
jeremyhooks at googlemail.com
Thu Apr 9 07:28:23 EDT 2009
> Anyway, »exam content details«? Sheesh. I don't think there is anything in Mr
> Steudten's post that isn't also part of the published objectives.
Strictly speaking, he was discussing what was in his exam - albeit not
in much detail.
The published objectives cover what may be tested in an exam. Tom
discussed what was
actually on his exam. There is a distinct difference between
discussing what is on an
exam and what is in the published objectives.
> It's not as if he had posted a brain-dump of his exam or anything.
Indeed, in my opinion (not that it matters at all), the published
objectives would give
a student more of an idea of what to expect in an exam than Tom's very brief
description of his own exam. In fact if Tom had looked at the published
objectives, he perhaps would not have been so surprised by the content
of his exam.
It appears to me that Scott Lamberton doesn't think that Tom did anything too
terrible - or else why would he have quoted what Tom posted. I think
of Scott's email was to remind people that there is a line and point
out that Tom
had crossed it (however marginally). Discussing what is in the
is perfectly fine - discussing what is on an actual exam is not.
More information about the lpi-discuss