Re: RFC: a new try for an official community approved certification

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 11:09, Charly <carlbsb(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I would like to start by stating that I don't believe in certifications. I
> mean, they are good guides for people who want to start studying and enter
> the niche the certification is testing, but they don't measure knowledge.
> They measure how much content one is able to memorize, which is by no
> means, knowledge.
>

Given my comments below, I'm starting to have some serious doubts about the
utility of this. On one hand in an ideal world people would actually learn
what is required and the test would require some level of competency. On
the other hand most of the answers are available with some google searches
and it will be nearly impossible to stop people from using it to pass the
test. If enough people do this the certification proves nothing.

>
> That said, I like the process @James described. For written tests, just
> give the candidates 1k questions book and randomly pick XX number of
> questions. If they get it right, they at least went to the book and have a
> good memory. If they fail, try again.
>
Pretty hard to not use the internet to grok the answers which essentially
makes this an open book test.

>
> IMHO, if we really want to attempt to test knowledge, then we need to
> think of having simulated "challenges" to be solved. And it doesn't matter
> if the user has or not access to the internet, if they can ask or not for
> help. If they are able to solve, and explain the reasons they solved the
> problem, then they have shown they acquired the needed knowledge for that
> level of certificate.
>
> Agreed this would prove knowledge, much harder to implement though.

Adding my 2cents

Dave

> Those are my 2¢
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 11:41, James Keener <jim(at)jimkeener(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I don't really have any business being in this discussion, but I figured
>> I'd toss this in anyway. I realize it's not in-line with what many of you
>> are thinking, but it may be a good example to follow if we align
>> expectations with what it provides. Also, apologies if this has come up;
>> I've been trying to follow but there have been a lot of messages.
>>
>> In the US, to get an Amerature Radio license you have to study the
>> requisite material, which includes the exam questions and answers. The exam
>> is administered by anyone who has passed the VE (Volunteer Examiner) exam
>> and is 2nd or 3rd level. There are currently 3 license levels: Technician,
>> General, and Extra. Each one has more in-depth question, but all of the
>> questions and answers for all levels are public. The exam taken is a
>> randomized subset of those questions. (I believe it's something like 10%? I
>> could be wrong without looking it up.)
>>
>> As for mechanics of administering the exam, at least three VEs need to be
>> present who are not related to you and who are of the level you're testing
>> for or higher. Due to Covid, remote exams are now allowed/more common, but
>> are done with webcam on during the exam so the VE can watch.
>>
>> While this is obviously easy to game, the expectation is that if you
>> passed the exam, even if you only studied the questions and answers, you'd
>> have the basic amount of knowledge needed to operate at the license level
>> you passed with.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:26 AM Robert Bernier <robert7390(at)comcast(dot)net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> I still have bad memories when we tried this the last time some 15 years
>>> ago.
>>>
>>> Let's do this in small steps:
>>> - Create a mail list just for this thread
>>> - Instead of creating an approved certification how's about developing
>>> an RFC of sorts outlining expected competencies for various classifications
>>> of knowledge (that should be real fun) is expected to carry out certain
>>> tasks. Then, after there's some sort of agreement in the community.
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>>
>>> Robert Bernier
>>> robert(dot)bernier(at)percona(dot)com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> *Charly Batista*
> *Shanghai, China*
> *carlbsb(at)gmail(dot)com <carlbsb(at)gmail(dot)com> *
> *https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlybatista/
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlybatista/>*
>
> *Linux user #391083*
>
>
> *“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples
> then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and
> I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two
> ideas." George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)*
>