Hi  Alexandru,

About re-certification, important thing is promotion of one level higher exams 
to "to be re-certified" professionals.
For Level 1 certified professionals, promote Level 2 exam rather than Level 1 
exams.
For those who have Level 2 certification, we should promote Level 3XXX.
The following site shows series of posters which LPI-Japan developed.
If you click the extreme right poster of the first row, you will see our Level 
3 poster.
https://www.lpi.or.jp/poster/index.php
As you can see, we positioned Level 3 as a VIP certification to drive all exam 
takers to take Level 3.
We promote Level 304 as a certification for cloud professionals. Again, if you 
click the extreme left poster
of the second row, you will see how we promoted Level 304.
I feel that this kind of promotion is quite important to move our exam takers 
up to 304.

Regards,

Gen



On 2016/02/11 19:36, Alexandru Ionica wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would be curios to see some stats regarding the percentage of certification 
> owners who re-certify.
> With so many vendors and certifications, unless you hold certifications from 
> only one of them, then it becomes highly improbable that one has the time to 
> re-certify.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Fabian Thorns <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>             On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Fabian Thorns <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>      
>                    gpg id: 0x17CF9077
> 
>             _______________________________________________
>             lpi-discuss mailing list
>             [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>             http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
> 
> 
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         lpi-discuss mailing list
>         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>         http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     lpi-discuss mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lpi-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
> 
_______________________________________________
lpi-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss

Reply via email to