Sander van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sure I've failed". His - IMHO correct - remark: Why should I know the
> difference between blah -d and blah -D if in the real world I would do
> blah --help to find out how it works and use the command appropriately
> within 30 seconds? I couldn't agree to him more, especially after
> listening to some examples about the questions that these people have
> had. Please allow me to elaborate a little.
I couldn't agree more. To a point. However, if an examinee has to look up
the -l optoin to ls or the -z or -c option to tar, that person doesn't have
enough real experience. And that _will_ be reflected in their score.
That said, LPI tries to avoid testing obscure options to commands.
> "hands on" certifications seem to make so much more sense these days.
> Take the Novell CLP/CLE or the Red Hat RHCE exams, these measure real
> working knowledge of real working systems.
This is an old argument. There are pros and cons to both types of
exams. I won't go into this because it's all in the archives :)
> I know, this isn't possible because we (LPI) want to be able to take exams
> everywhere, even if no infrastructure is available, and do it for a
> reasonable price as well. So that's a dead end.
I like the idea of a hands-on exam. If, for no other reason than to say,
'ha! We got one. Now shut up!'. ;) It would also be fun.
I wouldn't say that it's ruled out forever. Just for the foreseeable future.
> Any alternative that would work? Well, maybe there is. Has anyone of you
> ever taken a Microsoft test? In their more advanced tests, they have
> scenario's and try to measure real world knowledge. For example: let's
> say we want to make a question in which we want to measure knowledge of
> the tar command. You can go two directions:
>
> I know, asking questions in this way makes LPI 1 easier compared to what
> it is now.
Not necessarily. This is where the psychometrics come in. If it turns out
that writing questions in this manner (and there are numerous ones like this,
especially in LPIC-3 ;)) makes them, overall, easier, it just means that the
exam taker will have to get more questions correct in order to pass. Or we
use more of the hard questions on the exam.
Hmm, perhaps I should start doing a talk on the psychometric process at
conferences. A lot of people probably have no idea what is involved.
> This adds to the thought that Matt has had recently, that maybe the level
> should be somewhat lower.
Oh, I think that you misunderstood my intent on removing/adding some content
to the LPIC-1 exams. I want to remove some of the 'admin' content and move
it to LPIC-2 and to add more content that is useful for ALL Linux
professionals on the LPIC-1 level. Regardless of a person's main use of
Linux; ubergeek, developer, admin, dba. I think that LPIC-1 should be a
starting point for a number of streams/specialties. Not just an 'admin'
cert.
> If we *really* want to make LPIC-1 a junior level admin certification, we
> shouldn't ask about options no one ever uses, we should ask about things
> that are used in real life. Small scenario questions are so much more real.
Sander, if there is a question on the exam that asks about an option that is
rarely used, please send me this information privately and I'll look into it.
Keep in mind that one person's 'rarely used' may be someone else's 'often
used'. We get that opinion just regularly such as 'why do you both with
Debian package questions? The real world only uses RedHat.' Seriously, we
get that a lot.
> To finish this, a fact that shocked me. Just to do a self test, I did
> some of those preparations that you can find on the internet myself. I'm
> not new to Linux, I'm using it since 1993 and I hold all relevant Linux
> certifications and passed LPIC-1 a long time ago. Also I'm a trainer,
> preparing junior admins for their jobs as a Linux admin at least a week
> a month, doing that for more than seven years now. Guess what my results
> were? Yes, I failed. Either I must be a very stupid person / drank to
> much beer the evening before, or something really is wrong.
Can you point out the ones that you tried? I have seen some that completely
miss the spirit of what LPI is trying to test. They do go for the esoterica.
PS - If anyone's been waiting for me to respond to my previous e-mails, I
will RSN. I've just been swamped with other work.
Regards,
--
g. matthew rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> starnix care, toronto, ontario, ca
phone: 647.722.5301 x242 gpg id: EF9AAD20
http://www.starnix.com professional linux services & products
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
