Stephen Holcomb
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:35:37 -0700
Greetings, This issue likely has previously been addressed, but is the testing format "written" only or are practical tests an integral component? I am asking this as someone who would like to see a robust credential emerge from this process. I recently completed Red Hat's RHCE course/exam and was pleasantly surprised at the level or rigor that I encountered. This is true especially when compared with the other written test based credentials that I hold (perhaps save Cisco). Also, if there is an informational document that I can review to become more informed of progress/consensus and decision points thus far, I would appreciate a reference to the document so I can make more informed commentary. Stephen Holcomb ~ RHCE (in progress), CCNA, MCSE, MCT, CNA, A+, Net+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 602.541.0463 ----- Original Message ----- From: Jared Buckley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 8:49 AM Subject: Re: Revised: A Proposed Concensus for Recertification and Renewal > Ok, I've taken a few days to digest the feedback on the second round of > concensus building. I'm glad we were able to get some wall-flowers to > participate! ;) I'll tackle the issue of recertification in a second, > but before we do that I'd like to move that we accept the second > concensus point on exam renewal. > > The only critical reply that I saw was Alan's. Alan, I think your > points are valid, but I don't think they fall outside the wording of the > second concensus point. All the concensus point requires is that update > at least once every two years. From Scott's emails, it sounded like > revising at least every two years would be a minimal psychometric > technical requirement. There's nothing prohibiting more frequent > revisions however. Alan if you or anyone else has further discussion on > this one, then let's branch it off into a seperate email. Otherwise I > say let's accept it as originally written. > > So, onto the topic of recertification. I was glad to see some strong > opinions on this topic because it's definitely an issue we'll encounter > down the road; better to settle it now. Let's chalk up the second > revision of the recert concensus point to a _looong_ week on my part and > try something a little more in line with the feedback I've seen: > > --------- > > Recertification: > > LPI will not require certificate holders to renew or recertify. LPI > will provide to third parties, at the certificate holder's request, > information pertaining to the history of test(s) passed, the date the > test(s) were passed, and the revision date/level(s) of the passed > test(s). In providing this information, LPI reserves the right to > indicate the current revision level of any or all of the test(s) passed > by the certificate holder and to issue public advisories concerning > changes in the content or objectives of the test(s). > > --------- > > Basically, what we're trying to do here is strike a balance between > protecting the long term viability of LPI while delivering real value to > the certificate holder. As I see it, we're trying to create a policy > that: > > o Minimizes LPI's Liability -- People that we say are certified > really can do the things outlined in the objectives. > o Maximizes the Value of the Certificate -- Part of which > includes not allowing the value to be diluted by continuing > innovations in the industry. (Several people pointed out that > basic *nix hasn't changed in more than 20 years. This is true > but keep in mind at higher levels we're going to be > certifing content with a shorter shelf life. ) > o Recognizes that Unused Knowledge Fades -- Yes, it's the > employer's job to realize that someone with a 3 year old cert > who hasn't touched a computer since, is probably not the > best candidate. OTOH, since we're not requiring recert we do > need some way to protect ourselves against lawsuits (however > frivolous they may be) from clueless consumers of our product. > (product = certificate holders) > o Recognizes that Even Current Practitioners' Knowledge Looses > Value Over Time -- Let's face it, even someone working w/Linux > every day isn't likely to use 100% of the skills they > certified on a regular basis. Even then, there's always the > problem with current practitioners sticking to legacy > solutions to problems. (How many people do you know who still > refuse to use anything but vi?) Its real effect may be > small but it does get back to the credibility issue. > o Provides Reassurance to _All_ of LPI's Consumers -- Consumers > of LPI's end product (certified Linux professionals) must have > the confidence in the system (a prerequisite) but must also > find it easier to utilize than the alternatives. (Other certs, > doing it themselves, outsourcing to a recruiting agency, etc.) > The harder we make it for the consumer to rely on LPI as a > tool, the less likely we make it that we're going to succeed. > My point being, the more work we make an employer do to > determine the value of the certificate, the less attractive > the whole process becomes. > > At the same time, we need a system that doesn't unduly burden > the certificate holders (also consumers) with needless > recertification costs (time and money) or devalue their > skills based simply on the time elasped since they last > certified (which has been pointed out can be a bad > predictor of ability.). > > > So let's hear what you think. > > Jared > > Jared Buckley wrote: > > > > Here's draft number two of the concensus: > > > > Recertification: > > > > LPI will not require certificate holders to renew or recertify. LPI > > will keep records of the test(s) passed and the revision date/level(s) > > of the passed test(s). LPI reserves the right to expire (cease to > > recognize) specific certifications that are more than two years old. > > > > Exam Renewal Consensus: > > > > LPI will revise the content of its exams in order to provide for new > > material, test validity, security, and to incorporate feedback from > > experience as deemed necessary, but not less frequently than every two > > years. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe: > > echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe: > echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________ This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]