Hi Fabian, My thinking is that we should stay with our existing LPIC architecture without something new such as 101+102 combined. The most effective way of increasing re-certified professionals is reduction of exam fees for to be re-certified exam takers. The following are the reasons.
1) Translation cost and time: If we introduce something new just for re-certification purpose, then we will end up having more exam(s), which will cost us more money to make a new exam error free in non English languages. It is safe to assume that more than 90% of LPIC exam takers are in non English speaking countries. ( I am talking about "LPIC" only.) Therefore, translation issue needs to be considered very carefully. We have now 7 exams within LPIC architecture. Even now, it is quite costly to translate all of these exams from English to non English languages in an error free manner. We need to debug from not only grammar point of view but also from technical point of view. Even if an English version is 100% error free, which is not necessary the case, it does not mean that a translated version can become error free even if we use a professional translation company. Just like many highly rated computer translation software can not produce 100% error free translation, even a highly rated translation company can not produce 100% error free exams. Therefore, LPI-Japan has been debugging output of a translation company "multiple times" both using our internal people and outside people who used to work for LPI-Japan and who can keep confidential nature of our exams. I hate to see a situation where we have more exams within LPIC structure because of the reasons I indicated above. 2) Cost of promotion and navigation of our customers. If we introduce, for a example, 101+102 new exam just for re-certification purpose, it will cost us a lot of money to navigate our customers to follow a new path. When I say our customers, I mean not only exam takers but also textbook publishers and our LATPs. The following Amazon-Japan site shows more than 20 LPIC preparation text books in Japanese. http://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?__mk_ja_JP=%E3%82%AB%E3%82%BF%E3%82%AB%E3%83%8A&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=LPIC We have more than 50 LPIC LATPs in Japan. We can not align these publishers and schools to something new such as 101+102. Even if 101+102 is identical to a combination of 101 and 102, still we have to promote the new exam. The cover of text books and course description of our LATPs have to reflect the new path, which is again costly and time consuming. When Japanese customers take LPIC, they go through LPI-Japan web site and go to VUE site. If we introduce a new exam like 101+102, then we have to make sure that all "to be re-certified" customers have to be navigated to take 101+102 exam without taking 101 and 102 independently. This navigation has to be 100% error free, which is not so easy in a country like Japan where we have more than 64,000 Level 1 certified professionals. If this navigation is not done in error free manner then it will become a nightmare. I feel it is not worth to spend money and time to undertake such operation. In summary, I think reduction of exam fees is the most effective way to increase re-certification rates and also to minimize logistical operational costs associated with the re-certification activities. In our business, development of our exams is certainly a quite important part of our value chain. At the same time, we need to understand that driving our MAs and customers ( including our partners such as book publishers and LATPs) in a way we want requires more people and more money than exam development. I hope this helps. Regards, Gen On 2016/02/11 19:03, Fabian Thorns wrote: > Hey Marcel, > > you mention an interesting and important topic. Re-Certification is something > we are thinking a lot about these days. A combined 101+102 exam with all > their objectives would however not help here since it would be the same > amount of work for preparation. To encourage people to re-certify we should > think about ways that make people extend their knowledge and professional > skills instead of just repeating what they've already done. Ideas and > suggestions are highly welcome :-) > > Fabian > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Marcel Henselin <mar...@henselin.de > <mailto:mar...@henselin.de>> wrote: > > Hey guys > > Long time that I sent a reply but now I have to. > > For returning candidates it is an absolutely pain in the a situation that > when your level 2 expires one has to do all four exams again. > > I totally agree that over the time topics and techniques change. > > But nevertheless there should be a kind of 101/102 returning exam. > > Greetings > Marcel > > Von meinem Sony Xperia™-Smartphone gesendet > > > > ---- Fabian Thorns schrieb ---- > > > We could just let people take 102+102 in one sitting, but it could get > complicated to grant them more than 90 minutes, at least in an exam lab at > events. Despite that, there are people doing exactly that, but I wouldn't > recommend it in general. There should be no time preasure in the exams. > > And yes, such a 103 would cause more confusion than it helps. > > Fabian > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:38 AM, G. Matthew Rice <m...@starnix.com > <mailto:m...@starnix.com>> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Fabian Thorns <ftho...@lpi.org > <mailto:ftho...@lpi.org>> wrote: > > right now we only offer two exams, 101and 102 to get the LPIC-1 > cert. There are however no constraint when one can take them, so nothing > prevents a candidate from just doing them. At events we see people doing > their whole LPIC-1 in one day, the same could be done in the test centers. > Given to the current amount of knowledge tested in LPIC-1 I guess most > candidates prefer the split into two exams so even when they do them in one > strike they can have a short break. > > > Someone did mention this very idea at Scale. I don't see any reason > to not offer a "103" (ie. 101+102 in one sitting). The only problem would be > potential confusion for people. > > Regards, > --matt > > > -- > G. Matthew Rice <m...@starnix.com <mailto:m...@starnix.com>> > gpg id: 0x17CF9077 > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-discuss mailing list > lpi-discuss@lpi.org <mailto:lpi-discuss@lpi.org> > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-discuss mailing list > lpi-discuss@lpi.org <mailto:lpi-discuss@lpi.org> > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-discuss mailing list > lpi-discuss@lpi.org > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss > _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list lpi-discuss@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
