You mean like verified experience and CE (Continuing Education) credits, like some certification programs and licenses?
Again, man-hours cost to review, even if only a subset done at random. Suggest and plan and it will be looked at. :) - bjs -- Sent from my Essential PH-1, please excuse any typos Bryan J Smith - http://linkedin.com/in/bjsmith On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 14:38 BHL <[email protected]> wrote: > What about the number of hours you worked in Linux [to be checked by a > LPIC-2 or LPIC-3] (Like IIBA/PMI certs)? > > > Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email. > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Friday, April 19, 2019 5:01 AM, Bryan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > You mean like articles on how psychometrics and other things are used in > LPI's approach, followed by blog articles and testimonies? :) > > Let's face it, LPI has all that information, and more out there. But LPI > does not have marketing dollars. LPI relies heavily on word-of-mouth. > > This too has been to a pulp over decades. :) > > - bjs > > > -- > Sent from my Essential PH-1, please excuse any typos > Bryan J Smith - http://linkedin.com/in/bjsmith > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 04:55 Stephan Wenderlich <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Instead of discussing this topic again and again, LPI should do its >> homework and take care about a serious cert guide which is accurate and >> well designed. >> >> On 19.04.19 11:33, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> > On 2019/04/19 10:04, Simone Piccardi wrote: >> >> Il 16/04/19 14:45, Mark Clarke ha scritto: >> >>> I would suggest that its not an either or approach. We could have a >> >>> part that is multiple choice and a practical part. The practical >> >>> part doesn't have to be under exam conditions. It could be a task >> >>> like write a bash script that does x or some other assignemtn. The >> >>> student is given 2 days to do the task and submit the >> >>> script/assignement and the testing can be automated. >> >>> >> >> And how do you avoid having the student getting "help" from a friend? >> > >> > >> > That's an excellent point. >> > >> > Another is how will an automated tester account for every variation >> > that the candidate might have or do? Perhaps a candidate might >> > validate an IP Address (sensible) and naturally uses Python with >> > netaddr. Automated testing is likely to fail and the assignment, >> > whilst correct, is marked wrong. Now manual intervention is needed and >> > that means salaries. The cost of an exam just multiplies many times. >> > >> > I've stayed out of this current discussion as it rears it's head every >> > few years and never goes anywhere. Such discussions are tiring. >> > >> > Someone earlier mentioned the perception that hands-on testing is >> > better. I very much agree that it is a perception. It might not be true. >> > >> > So what is hands-on testing good for? It's great for testing if a >> > candidate can perform a series of predetermined steps in response to a >> > given situation to produce a determined result. Hence why we test >> > student pilots with it. And electricians, scuba divers and almost >> > every action a sailor will do on the job (when sailors can't pass >> > these tests, other sailors die). >> > >> > It's why RedHat, Cisco and SuSE use practical tests - those distros >> > provide specific tools to do specific functions and the candidate can >> > rely on the tools to be present and work correctly. To do task X on >> > RHEL regarding selinux, RHEL provides a tool, and it will be present >> > on the test machine. The candidate is required to show they can drive >> > the tool to produce the result RedHat demonstrated in the course. >> > >> > In truth, this has very little to do with results, it has everything >> > to do with the tool and how it is used, and the result is a >> > side-effect. RedHat never puts anything in their low and mid level >> > exams that is not covered in sufficient detail in their course >> > materials, to do so would be very unfair. You can't expect someone to >> > perform a task they were not taught how to do. >> > >> > If we look at LPI's mission, we see that it is to a large degree >> > exactly opposite to the above. LPI is not about RHEL tools, it is >> > about the candidate proving they understand Linux systems within the >> > scope of the level tested. Because the scope is not bound to a >> > specific distro or release, testing has to be done on a somewhat >> > abstract, conceptual level. There is nothing wrong with measuring the >> > extent of conceptual knowledge and this is what LPI does. >> > >> > Testing conceptual knowledge is not inherently better or worse than >> > practical testing, they are simply different. Both have their place >> > and they are answers to different questions about candidates and >> > should not be conflated. >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> lpi-examdev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev >> > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-examdev mailing list > [email protected] > https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
