[lpi-discuss] Certification based on pratice exams
moraesab at gmail.com
Mon Feb 28 19:28:21 EST 2011
I've aprecciate you considerations about costs and exam logistic, but I fee
that a pracital could complement the theorical using a oriented case study
like implementing correct linux services with security. It's importante to
know situations where apply the skills, though work expierence is for that,
It would be nice the Linux community have a vendor neutral certification
based on this.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Anselm Lingnau <
anselm.lingnau at linupfront.de> wrote:
> Allysson .\\oraes wrote:
> > is there some plans to LPI release a new certification level based on
> > pratice exames (like RHCE) maintaining the currents?
> > What would be the implications? It would be nice to prove theoretical
> > skills.
> (I'm not at all sure whether I have understood the question, but here goes
> The party line is that practical exams (as used by Red Hat or Novell) lack
> psychometric theory that is behind LPI's existing multiple-choice exams.
> Instead, they are based on a warm fuzzy feeling that somebody who can do
> on a computer in a more-or-less contrived exam situation will also be able
> do XYZ (and, presumably, related things) on a computer in the wild. We
> want to certify people based on warm fuzzy feelings.¹
> In addition, one might argue from a pragmatic point of view that practical
> exams are more difficult to deploy since they need a more elaborate
> infrastructure than the current LPI exams. This will result in higher exam
> prices and make the exams less accessible – it is unclear whether practical
> exams could be offered through Prometric/VUE and at major Linux events
> LPI currently offers paper-based exams), and LPI isn't really in a position
> create and maintain its own infrastructure for the practical exams, such
> they are available nearly anywhere in the world like the current exams are.
> The idea of offering optional practical exams *alongside* the existing
> seems interesting at first glance, but conflicts with the basic stipulation
> that the existing exams already tell us everything one needs to know about
> candidate's qualifications. (If that wasn't the case, the current LPI exam
> process would be flawed, and we obviously can't have that, so there we
> If we do accept that stipulation, having a separate optional practical exam
> would be a waste of effort, since it would not signify anything other than
> that somebody who has passed the practical exam was able to afford the time
> and money to go through with it.
> Anselm (not speaking for the LPI nor Linup Front GmbH, of course).
> 1. If one was feeling snarky one could point out that psychometrics isn't
> most exact of sciences, either, but that is neither here nor there.
> Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- &
> anselm.lingnau at linupfront.de, +49(0)6151-9067-103, Fax -299,
> Linup Front GmbH, Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt, Germany
> Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705), Geschäftsführer: Oliver Michel
> lpi-discuss mailing list
> lpi-discuss at lpi.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the lpi-discuss