I was going to stay out of this (let alone I don't have the time), but I want to correct some misnomers.
Anselm Lingnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On the other hand, frequent recertification does generate > money for the LPI, so must be a good thing. We're beating > Microsoft at their own game :^) No, that's quite _incorrect_. The "money maker" in the certification industry is either "pushing product" or, worse yet, "pushing training." The cost of development typically outweighs the revenues from certification fees alone. Many vendor certifications are about pushing product and many vendor-neutral certifications is about pushing training. LPI does _neither_. That makes LPI very unbiased. And given LPI's cash flow, they are _very_efficient_. That's a win-win for professionals and industry. Which is why I drum up the "value" of LPI. "G. Matthew Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll stay out of this, too. Except to say that I have heard > of people asking if they could recertify _every_ year. \ > No comment on those people, either ;) Matt brings up an excellent point. There are both trainers and professionals who justify both revenue and expenditures on yearly training and re-certification. I loathe the concept of certification for certification's sake, and it insults me as an engineer. I think (i.e., my opinion) LPI is trying to balance the "realities" of technology against those who thrive on the certification industry or marketing certified professionals. It says you must re-certify every 5 years, and recommends you re-certify every 2. In other words, "we know you're probably current within 5 years" but "if you maintain a set of certified Linux professionals, we don't think you need to re-certify them less than every 2 years." If there is one constant in this industry, it's that you will _never_ please everyone. But LPI comes close to trying to do so, and I wouldn't expect an organization run by and for Linux professionals to do anything different. "G. Matthew Rice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pretty much. There are a fwe cycles here. > 1. We rotate the exam content a couple of times a year. And that's the standard "exam bank defense." It's a good practice in general. Professors who use the same questions over and over don't offer quality examples. Professors that do rotate questions and generate new questions every few years are much better. It's the best you can do without moving to another format that takes far more investment and infrastructure to implement. Just look at the expense Red Hat goes through, and even it's format is not perfect and tends to be more focused and less broad. There is always a trade-off. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
