Failed 294

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

So right about now I'm thinking it was just (bad) luck of the draw and I could probably take it again Monday without any review and pass. But I'm a little p1ssed off too, as the official MS training kit didn't cover everything I needed to know. And the same thing happened to me with 290; the training kit has you practice over and over again one way, then the simulation won't let you do it that way. Three ways to accomplish the task and the only one that the sim allows is the one the book neglected to mention. I skipped one of the three simulations entirely out of disgust. It wouldn't even let me start mmc from the run menu item. Grrr...

Anywho, it was close:

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

thats a shame Crito. But you did only just fail, if you take it again, theres a good chance you will pass (brush up on a few of the areas mentiond first though). did you sign up for second shot with this?

 

Well, without breaking any NDA agreements, here's a hint for future victims, er, I mean test takers: if there's an optional tool or utility the training kit barely mentions, that's what you'll be forced to use in the simulation. For 290 you even had to download it from MS' website because it doesn't come with the product you're being tested on.

 

nope

 

time to sign up before the next attempt then.

 

I like the idea of performance-based exams but despise Microsoft's simulations. A better model is how RHCE works: you get a real server and it doesn't matter how you accomplish the goal. You can either do the job or you can't. That's all that matters.

With MS a competent person might not be able to complete a simulation because it uses an optional tool they're not familiar with or, conversely, an incompetent person might be able to figure out the simulation just because the options available to them are limited (i.e., just keep clicking stuff until you find something that works.)

 

That sucks just to fail slightly, I remember the PDI+ exam I took (I know its not the same level) but I only failed by 10.

I am sure you'll do better next time, have you got a 2nd shot voucher?

 

Best of luck on your next attempt!

Word of warning... you might want to remove your name, candidate ID, and registration number... that information can be used to steal your Prometric identity.

 

I did notice they no longer use my SSN# as the candidate ID...

 

Sorry to hear it.
If you're going to take it on Monday again, why not review the material again? It would be a shame to come just as close and not be successful twice.

Best of luck...

 

You are correct. Doesn't stop them from calling Prometric up and changing your info because they have your registration number and candidate ID number.

 

Yeah, if I hadn't gotten so p1ssed off and skipped one sim entirely probably would have passed this time around.

In any case, I'm going to review some things I was fuzzy on regardless... not just to pass the exam, but because I might need that info in the real world someday.

 

Well it just goes to show how tricky Microsoft exams can be, and this post should act as a warning to people considering going down the MCSE track. If a very experienced, highly certified, total geek like Crito can fail an exam, the chances of an unexperienced person without a passion for all things IT, passing exams like this is slim.

Let this be an eye opener for newbies into this field. It is not *easy*.

Crito, bad luck mate, i know it sucks to fail, especially when you think it was the format of the questions that hurt you and not a lack of knowledge. I'm sure you'll be triumphant next time round

 

It's my first fail in the MCSE track, so I guess I had one coming. I'm sure once my bruised ego heals I'll be ready for another crack at it. ops

I was weak in a few areas too -- need to brush up on replace/merge loopback setting, for example -- but like I said before, the very first sim p1ssed me off so badly by forcing me to use an optional tool I don't like and never use in the real world that I just couldn't really focus on the rest of the exam. The exact same thing happened to me with 290, so I don't think it's a fluke. The sims are just poorly designed IMHO.

 

Yeah, I was expecting the last one to be trouble.

I think sometimes people mistake bad questions for hard questions though.

 

Well, I'm taking it again Monday @ 10 AM. So off to Borders I go for espresso and review.

No partying for me this weekend.

 

I kind of agree with that. The sims are a good idea, they prove you can make real life changes to achieve a specific goal, to delegate control over an OU or any number of things I have encountered in my 290, 291 and 293 exams. The problem is, as per earlier comments, you are not presented with a full operating system, just a flash based simulation. It looks like the real thing, but you can only click on certain things, and have to take the ‘correct’ route to make the required changes. The beauty of Windows is there are at least 3 ways to do everything, except in exam sims... I like the sims, they should stay, but should be upgraded to a full OS where you really can use real world skills to complete the task.

 

I always found this to be a bonus. If it's a sim about something that I just don't know about, I can usually work out what to do simply by clicking on everything, seeing whats open and just working out what to do from there.

 

Problem is, that doesn't make for a challenging sim... you simply need to click until you find the only "clickable" path. That doesn't go very far in determining whether someone is truly capable of performing the task.

Thus, I agree with Crito that the sims are poorly developed.