> Anyway, »exam content details«? Sheesh. I don't think there is anything in Mr > Steudten's post that isn't also part of the published objectives.
Strictly speaking, he was discussing what was in his exam - albeit not in much detail. The published objectives cover what may be tested in an exam. Tom discussed what was actually on his exam. There is a distinct difference between discussing what is on an exam and what is in the published objectives. > It's not as if he had posted a brain-dump of his exam or anything. Indeed, in my opinion (not that it matters at all), the published objectives would give a student more of an idea of what to expect in an exam than Tom's very brief description of his own exam. In fact if Tom had looked at the published objectives, he perhaps would not have been so surprised by the content and nature of his exam. It appears to me that Scott Lamberton doesn't think that Tom did anything too terrible - or else why would he have quoted what Tom posted. I think the purpose of Scott's email was to remind people that there is a line and point out that Tom had crossed it (however marginally). Discussing what is in the published objectives is perfectly fine - discussing what is on an actual exam is not. _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
