> In the end, my opinion is that courseware that is certified to prepare 
> a student for a certification test should cover all the material that 
> will be on that test. At the very least, an overview of the material 
> (vi, in this case) should be in the course. My $.02.

I see your point...but I don't agree with it.

There is room for more than one type of course out there.  Ours is very
much a Linux *administration* course - not a Linux *use* course.  (We'll
add the latter as well, eventually).  We assume that our students have a
basic knowledge of how to get around in the system.  As a result, I am
convinced that our course will cover most of the Level II objectives, once
they exist.  Our students have been pleased with this approach.

Obviously we're not targeting the "straight out of Novell" market.  It does
not seem that we should have to "dumb down" the course for that crowd
(which is not dumb, BTW, they just have a different background) to get
certification for our courseware.

Being able to list things like:

        - ability to set environment variables
        - familiarity with vi

as prerequisites works just fine for us.  That is exactly what we do now.  

However, when you get into certification of courseware, that's a slippery
idea.  Joe's Linux Garage has a *very* thin course book - it seems that the
entire set of Level I objectives is a prerequisite!  Does Joe get
certified?  Clearly it can't be quite so easy.  

Perhaps it's necessary to say that at least 90% of the objectives must be
covered directly in the course, and some sort of convincing muttering must
exist for the rest.


Jonathan Corbet, Eklektix, Inc.

This message was sent by the linux-cert-corprel mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to