Firebrand Training

[greenbrucelee]

Another idea occured to do with the students passing around BDs, maybe if the students were vetted better before being allowed to enrole then you would only have the tutor issue to deal with.

[GiddyG]

Originally Posted by greenbrucelee

Another idea occured to do with the students passing around BDs, maybe if the students were vetted better before being allowed to enrole then you would only have the tutor issue to deal with.

Not sure vetting would weed the badduns out; however, the tutor should be workng and talking with the students closely, and could hear/see something about BDs. First time he/she hears, he/she could warn the students as a whole, and have a quiet word with the individual concerned. Second time, the tutor could push it up to course admin to deal with.

[greenbrucelee]

Originally Posted by GiddyG

Not sure vetting would weed the badduns out; however, the tutor should be workng and talking with the students closely, and could hear/see something about BDs. First time he/she hears, he/she could warn the students as a whole, and have a quiet word with the individual concerned. Second time, the tutor could push it up to course admin to deal with.

good idea

[BosonMichael]

Originally Posted by Firebrand-Robert

The only exam preparation material used is that which is officially sanctioned by the vendors, ie MeasureUp, Transender and Self Test.

On a side note... Transcender isn't "officially sanctioned" by the vendors. That said, they are legitimate, as are the other two.

Originally Posted by Firebrand-Robert

If anyone would like to suggest what more we can do to stamp their use out totally I'd welcome hearing it.

Warn people about them in the first class... or before they take the first class. Braindumping is a cancer to the IT industry, and particularly to certifications.

The key is... you've GOT to get your instructors on board with the whole anti-braindump thing. You can't be looking over their shoulders 24/7. And if they're evaluated on the pass rate of those students they teach, then they're gonna be tempted to teach them the content of the test... complete with a wink and a nod, and sometimes away from the classroom.

If you want verification of what your instructors are doing... have a "spy" sit the class. If one isn't available, periodically give a student a financial incentive to tell you what training materials that their instructor suggested/provided.

[Firebrand-Robert]

Originally Posted by BosonMichael

Warn people about them in the first class... or before they take the first class. Braindumping is a cancer to the IT industry, and particularly to certifications.

We've debated this internally and at orientation on the Sunday night that all students attend they will reminded of their obligation and the potential consequences of using materials such as these. Our logistics documents that are sent out prior to attending will be updated to reflect this message as well. Lastly we are looking into the legallity of amending our T&C's to reflect this message.

Originally Posted by BosonMichael

The key is... you've GOT to get your instructors on board with the whole anti-braindump thing. You can't be looking over their shoulders 24/7. And if they're evaluated on the pass rate of those students they teach, then they're gonna be tempted to teach them the content of the test... complete with a wink and a nod, and sometimes away from the classroom.

Our instructors and all our operations staff are absolutely ALREADY on board. The discussions on this board are not what has "turned us on" to this issue, we are already aware of it and believed we dealt with it efectively already.

Some of the suggestions here will improve our handling of it but I do not want this subject to appear to be something we've "just" started dealing with in response to these postings.

[GiddyG]

Can I suggest that, if you don't already do so, you put links to Gertguard and the likes of MS and Cisco policy on use of BDs and what will happen if a student is found to have BDed, in the pre-course and in-course material.

In fact, you could also put a link on the course info for each course on your site to the appropriate policy from the likes of MS, Cisco, CompTIA... that way, the students have no excuse for Braindumping because you've hit them with it in several places.

[BosonMichael]

Originally Posted by Firebrand-Robert

Our instructors and all our operations staff are absolutely ALREADY on board. The discussions on this board are not what has "turned us on" to this issue, we are already aware of it and believed we dealt with it efectively already.

Some of the suggestions here will improve our handling of it but I do not want this subject to appear to be something we've "just" started dealing with in response to these postings.

I don't think anyone has implied that you're just now addressing the issue. The previous posts merely point out that there HAVE been braindumps at your center in the past.

I'm not just picking on Firebrand, and I'm not implying you've got a runaway problem there - in truth, braindumps exist at an overwhelming number of training centers, and I'd be pleasantly shocked if they were eliminated from even a single training center. Braindumps pass themselves off as legitimate study tools, and it is difficult for most people to know what's legit and what's not (thank goodness for CertGuard!). As long as you guys are aware of the issue (as you say you already are) and handling it effectively (as you say you already are), then I applaud your efforts.

[zebulebu]

Originally Posted by Firebrand-Robert

With respect to the comments by people about Firebrand using Braindumps I can categorically state that these are not allowed with a "nod and a wink" or any other form of blessing by "management".

Zebulebu states the course he was on he saw MCSE students passing round braindumps - I'd like to know the dates he was at our training centre so I can investigate which instructor was teaching the MCSE at the time.

It is company policy that the use of Braindumps (or test kings or any other material that serves the same purpose) by an instructor is totally forbidden.

If Firebrand ever had proof of any instructor distributing or encouraging the use of them they would be suspended immediately and fired pending the outcome of a formal investigation. This is a fact.

The only exam preparation material used is that which is officially sanctioned by the vendors, ie MeasureUp, Transender and Self Test.

Clearly a student can bring anything they like with them and use it without our knowledge. But if we are witness to this in or out of the classroom we escalate it internally and after attempting to educate the offending student as to the error of their ways reserve the right to ask the student to leave the training course.

Can we stop their use outright? I'd be pretty naive to state here that we can achieve this but we certainly try.

If anyone would like to suggest what more we can do to stamp their use out totally I'd welcome hearing it.

All this is all well and good - but you have focussed on the braindump issue - which isn't the main one as far as I'm concerned. You CAN'T prevent people from using braindumps - whenever there is an opportunity to cheat, there will ALWAYS be some people who choose to do so - either through misguidedness, lack of willingness to pay fees for resits or sheer laziness. What you CAN do is protect the industry as much as you are able - which leads me onto my main point -you still haven't answered anything related to my main beef - which is with the accelerated learning MCSE course you and other 'bootcamp' TPs provide. How do you propose to convince me that you do all you can to only take people who can legitimately pass the MCSE in 14 days?

When you implement a test that can't be braindumped, that is given to prospective candidates prior to being accepted on the course and is tough enough to weed out people who can only pass certification exams by memorising a set of answers to questions that they don't even understand, then I'll take the '14 day MCSE' you offer seriously. Until then, each and every time I do a CV sift and see a candidate with an MCSE obtained in such a manner their CV will go straight in the dusty bin. THAT is what is so damning about bootcamp TPs - not that they pay lip-service to banning the use of braindumps, not that they don't vet instructors carefully enough to ensure they don't either encourage or turn a blind eye to braindumping, and not the fact that they lie about expected salaries on offer once candidates have passed, but the fact that the only real pre-requisite for sitting an 'accelerated learning' bootcamp MCSE is a pulse and valid method of payment.

[Firebrand-Robert]

zebulebu,

If I understand your point of view you do not believe anyone needs any training to legitimately pass any MCP as they should already know it from their experience.

So regardless of the delivery mechanism any training method is flawed as I can "buy a book" read it and take the exam and be paper certified. This isn't a question of Firebrand/Bootcamps/Accelerated Learning/eLearning/other.

I can not see how I can resolve what any TP does and your position on training to achieve certification goals.

You and others repeatedly state that Firebrand will "accept a booking from someone with a pulse and valid method of payment."

I'll repeat again we DO NOT DO THIS. If we do then prove it to me and we will stamp it out.

Robert.

[Firebrand-Robert]

Originally Posted by zebulebu

When you implement a test that can't be braindumped, that is given to prospective candidates prior to being accepted on the course and is tough enough to weed out people who can only pass certification exams by memorising a set of answers to questions that they don't even understand, then I'll take the '14 day MCSE' you offer seriously.

On this point I'd also add as I'm sure is well understood by the readers of this board that many Microsoft Exams including simulations that require you to "answer" the question by perfoming the task.

Is this perfect? No, but it's getting there.

Microsoft is also progressing towards virtual server based questions where you actually use a server to answer the question and you are judged on the outcome and not the route you took to get there. In other words you really do it. Like taking a driving test by driving a car and not answering multiple choice questions.

Do you feel these are worthless additions to the testing arsenal in the pursuit of the nirvana that is "the perfect test"?

Robert.

[zebulebu]

Originally Posted by Firebrand-Robert

On this point I'd also add as I'm sure is well understood by the readers of this board that many Microsoft Exams including simulations that require you to "answer" the question by perfoming the task.

Is this perfect? No, but it's getting there.

Microsoft is also progressing towards virtual server based questions where you actually use a server to answer the question and you are judged on the outcome and not the route you took to get there. In other words you really do it. Like taking a driving test by driving a car and not answering multiple choice questions.

Do you feel these are worthless additions to the testing arsenal in the pursuit of the nirvana that is "the perfect test"?

Robert.

With the greatest of respect, what on Earth has this to do with the question I asked? Do I think its good that MS are starting to look seriously at implementing 'real' lab type questions for their certifications? Yes, of course I do.

Does that have any bearing on tests that YOU as a Training Provider could implement prior to accepting people on an MCSE course? It doesn't take a genius to figure out whether someone is a bull****ter or not. Five minutes with an instructor prior to being accepted on a course is more than enough time to know whether someone is ready to take an 'acclerated learning' MCSE. Stop trying to divert attention away from the main issue - which is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone who isn't already a competent, experienced engineer to pass 7 MCSE exams in 14 days.

[zebulebu]

Originally Posted by Firebrand-Robert

zebulebu,

If I understand your point of view you do not believe anyone needs any training to legitimately pass any MCP as they should already know it from their experience.

So regardless of the delivery mechanism any training method is flawed as I can "buy a book" read it and take the exam and be paper certified. This isn't a question of Firebrand/Bootcamps/Accelerated Learning/eLearning/other.

I can not see how I can resolve what any TP does and your position on training to achieve certification goals.

You and others repeatedly state that Firebrand will "accept a booking from someone with a pulse and valid method of payment."

I'll repeat again we DO NOT DO THIS. If we do then prove it to me and we will stamp it out.

Robert.

Once again, absolute, utter nonsense. Have you even READ what I posted, or did you just think that ignoring the salient point I raised and answering a completely different question would confuse me?

At NO point have I stated that no-one needs to pass an MCP because they already have the knowledge. Thats like saying I don;t believe in the inherent value of certifications at all - patent nonsense - if there weren't certifications, how would anyone know whether any potential candidate for a job had the skills required to do it?

What I, and most other people who care about the validity of their certifications ARE concerned about, is the devaluing of what should be the industry-standard blue riband certification for anyone working with Microsoft products by Training providers continually accepting people onto courses who can only possibly pass them by cheating. You have failed to address this issue by failing to state what vetting procedures you insist candidates undertake prior to attending the 'bootcamp' MCSE. Do you question them on their experience? Do you give them even a five minute interview where you have the opportunity to see whether their knoweldge of AD replication, IPSEC VPNs, PKI infrastructure, subnetting, DNS and network & directory services design is good enough to be confident that they could pass the more advanced MCSE exams?

Of course you don't - if you did, everyone knows you'd have about five candidates a month - and that just isn't a viable business model. Stop trying to justify the bootcamp MCSE, you can't possibly hope to defend your position with any integrity. Concentrate on the other courses you provide - which I have no problem with - and trying to stamp out cheating in those. That is something you CAN make a difference with. As far as a 14-day MCSE goes, you can't possibly stamp out cheating there, because, as I've already mentioned, you can count the number of candidates who could pass an MCSE in that space of time legitimately on the fingers of one knee.

[Firebrand-Robert]

Originally Posted by zebulebu

Once again, absolute, utter nonsense. Have you even READ what I posted, or did you just think that ignoring the salient point I raised and answering a completely different question would confuse me?

At NO point have I stated that no-one needs to pass an MCP because they already have the knowledge. Thats like saying I don;t believe in the inherent value of certifications at all - patent nonsense - if there weren't certifications, how would anyone know whether any potential candidate for a job had the skills required to do it?

Oh the irony.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

I said "If I understand your point of view you do not believe anyone needs any training to legitimately pass any MCP as they should already know it from their experience."

I didn't say anything about not needing to pass MCP's anywhere in my post.