Actually, most of this is part of the looming membership program. The only topic not addressed is whether going through the PDU system (esp. the work experience part) should confer an additional credential beyond just the proof-by-exam credentialing.
I was going to wait for the dust to settle on the first part before bringing this up but... I think it's worth exploring on it's own merit. Plus, it sidesteps the perennial "my test methodology is better than yours" argument and puts it in a larger perspective. It seems like knowledge + simulations + quality work experience is the trifecta. --matt On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, 16:33 Bryan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
