Actually, Microsoft has been using the adaptive tests for quite some time.
I went through the MCSE program somewhere around 1999-2000, not sure
exactly
when, but they had the adaptive tests at the time.
Unless what they are calling adaptive has changed, this doesn't address
the
problem. It just means that you can finish the test quicker if you do
well
answering the questions. So, the number of questions on the exam is not
fixed. Not much else is different.
"CertGuard" <newsgroups@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:131ps565b6i434b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You're right, and I absolutely agree that braindumps will not be
resolved
> until the tests themselves become more comprehensive. If you're not
> already aware, Microsoft has been using adaptive exams for a couple
years
> now. I haven't taken one myself, but there are many people here that
have.
> Maybe one of them can throw in their 2c about the adaptive exams.
>
> Educating people about the dangers of using braindumps is only one
aspect
> that CertGuard is exploring. It's the whole "Arrest the 'Johns', to
> prevent the prostitutes from working" theory. We know it isn't 100%
> effective, but while we work on other methods of preventing cheating,
> we're trying to get the word out to as many people as possible that
using
> braindumps is wrong.
>
> You've got a great idea about the exams being 'open book'. Although it
> would need a lot of refining, that is one possibility that, I too feel,
> should be looked into. I remember taking college exams, and the toughest
> exams were always the open book exams, because if you had to search for
> the information on even 25% of the questions, you were going to fail the
> exam. Knowing the answers was always the best method of passing the
exams,
> but you're never going to remember everything, and therefore, having the
> resources by your side is equally as im****tant.
>
> Thanks for your comments Jim, why don't you (and your high horse) come
on
> over to the CertGuard Forums?! We can always use a little opposition and
> fresh ideas.
>
> Again, thanks
>
>
> --
> CertGuard
> Get the new 'No Braindump' CertGear
> http://www.cafepress.com/certguard
>
>
>
>
> "Scooby" <mmscooby1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:37XSh.1764$3P3.1238@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "CertGuard" <CertGuard - The Stronghold for Excellence in IT
>> Certification> wrote in message
>> news:131mvok52rdbt0e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Well, here it is...Part deux!
>>>
>>> The cheating industry that is devaluing IT certification - part two
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/13646
>>>
>>>
>>> These are the other links I posted from the Part 1 post, in case ya
>>> missed 'em. ;-)
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/subnets/cisco/
>>>
>>> This is part 1 of the article:
>>> http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/13341
>>>
>>
>>
>> While I agree with you on concept about cheating hurting the
>> certification industry, I don't believe that is the real problem. You
>> could almost consider some of the ciscopress material as braindumps,
>> since it is meant to help you pass an exam. In the end, you aren't
that
>> much closer to understanding the material, you just have learned enough
>> to pass the test.
>>
>> Back in the early 90's, I started my networking career by going to
>> cl***** to get my Novell CNE. When I got all done, I was certified,
but
>> I would have been scared to death to take over someone's Novell
network,
>> even though I knew enough to pass the tests. This was long before the
>> days of readily available braindumps. Also, I've hired contractors
with
>> certifications that didn't understand what they were doing - again
before
>> the days of braindumps.
>>
>> I think the real focus should be towards the tests themselves. I say
>> make these tests really hard, and open book/open resource. Then,
>> braindumps become useless. You would need to really understand what
you
>> are doing to pass the test. Also, real life is open book. I use
>> resources all the time to complete my work. All good engineers know
how
>> to be resourceful, not just apply what is in the memory banks. That is
>> really what needs to be tested.
>>
>> Now, I understand that this would make testing more expensive, but I am
>> all for that. Personally, I despise paying $125 for a certification
test
>> that really isn't testing my ability to do the job. I'd be much more
>> happy paying $500 for a more comprehensive open book test. And, I
firmly
>> believe that a certification received from that type of testing would
be
>> much more valued than today's paper certs.
>>
>> I think Cisco has it right with their CCIE lab tests, although I do
think
>> it should be a litte more open resource. Extremely comprehensive,
>> proctored and no way are you getting out of there with brain dumps.
I'm
>> not saying every test should be quite this comprehensive, as the CCIE
>> tests are really expensive and long (a full day). But, I think this is
a
>> good model that should be built on for the other tests.
>>
>> So, in summary, I think the focus here is in the wrong place. You
aren't
>> going to stop the brain dumps from happening. Try changing the testing
>> industry to give us tests worth a certification.
>>
>> <Jim now gets down off his high horse>
>>
>> Just MHO,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
|
