Jeremy et al: At the risk of restarting this thread I'm going to try and bring about some final "clarification".
Originally, the thread started on the issue of the print.css file on our website. As I responded this is something that is bundled with our CMS ezpublish and I'm having our IT staff look into it (patience please people do take summer holidays ;-) In the interim I suggested to use the print feature on the twiki. Somehow this has morphed into a discussion of what is the "definitive" objectives. The definitive objectives are what is published on the website in that they are static. The objectives on the twiki are a living document and subject to "clarification" (I'll have Matt explain that in detail in a subsequent post). Nevertheless, I take the objectives from the twiki and cut and paste them directly into the webstie. For example Matt has recently done an addendum to the twiki objectives. This results from people pointing out typos and sometimes even language that needs tightening. As of last week I took this material and put it on the website. Matt is being a little quixotic when he says anyone on the internet can change the twiki. Technically this is true, but this hasn't happened in 3 years and if it did we would know about it. The only people who do make changes on the twiki objectives are members of the examdev team. I think the difference here is to what Anselm alluded too: there is an "exact" knowledge of the objectives (which would possibly require knowing all the exam questions) and a "thorough" knowledge of the objectives. Matt and the examdev team need an exact knowledge--as they make up the questions. A candidate needs a thorough knowledge in order to pass the exams. Knowledge of the twiki objectives (which are subject to clarification) wouldn't give anyone an "advantage" over those who studied the website objectives--or vice versa. What is needed to pass the exams is a thorough knowledge not an exact knowledge. Again, I'll have Matt come on and explain why the twiki objectives are a living document where the objectives can be clarified but in the interim for those interested you may wish to review our entire exam development process at: http://www.lpi.org/index.php/eng/certification/exam_development_process thanks, scott Jeremy Hooks wrote: >> "Indeed knowledge of a more correct/complete version of the exam objectives >> would not be a fair advantage" > > All the objectives contain a 'partial list of list' of the files, > terms and utilities. > As I candidate I would prefer it if this list were complete. For > whatever reason > they use the term 'partial list', perhaps it is because they want to cover > them- > selves incase they missed something from the list or perhaps they want the > freedom to add stuff later - I don't know (I'm just a candidate). > > I did spotted on the wiki has items in it's partial lists which aren't > on the main > website e.g. for 204.2 in the wiki mentions hdparm and sdparm - whereas the > main website only mentions hdparm. Knowing that in itself isn't an unfair > advantage IMHO. However if I knew that the version in the wiki was more > correct then I would have a (very tiny) advantage over those who were using > the objectives on the main website. > >> If you phrase this slightly different to: >> "knowledge of the correct/complete exam objectives would not be a fair >> advantage" > > You can rephrase what I wrote if if you like, but then it won't be what I > wrote. > It may only be slightly rephrased, but the meaning is changed entirely. > _______________________________________________ > lpi-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss -- Scott Lamberton Director of Communications Linux Professional Institute http://www.lpi.org [email protected] +1-905-269-0862 _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
