e-petition

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.

I give up!!! READ IT ALL!!!! You are taking individual pionts again!!!

Im not sure if you are just trying to have a laugh with me, because my point about the law and TP's is spelled out in black and white above.

Can you not read the word "STARTING POINT"!!!!!

Is this your method at getting rid of someone who doesnt agree with you?, that is, making their head explode in dissbelief?

Im going to have to go back and make sure That the post you cant understand wasnt actualy a dream!

 

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.

OK, lets go back to the beginning.

Your problem is that you believe there are companies out there making money by underhand means.

Whatever system is put in place to regulate these companies, you are faced with two opposing forces:

1. The company. This company likes making money and has a team of people that they will dedicate to finding out how to stay in business. They will find a way to beat the system.

2. The regulator. This will be an under-funded burocratic organization with more TPs to police than they can handle. They will do a half-arsed job and probably side with the TP rather than go to the trouble of investigating them.

Unfortunately, to varying degrees, this is the state of the system.

 

Calm down a sec mate.

No one here is going to be right or wrong about this issue.

We are all adults and we are having a debate based on our views and experiences.

This thread will not put the world to rights - and if someone just picks up on a single idea or thought, it's OK to express this.

Don't let it frustrate you.

The object of this isn't to come up with a 'winner' - it's about sharing views.

If we all felt the same, what would be the point?

 

I read the entirety of your post. It's not a starting point at ALL. It would have a negative effect, short term, long term, however you want to look at it. You wouldn't start with it, you wouldn't end with it, you wouldn't do it in the middle. It shouldn't be done at ALL. Stats... do... not... indicate... dodgy... providers.... not as a starting point, not as an ending point. Your starting point would ruin the training industry. Period.

I get your point about "law" and TPs. The law simply can't use these stats to catch shady providers... not even as a starting point.

 

They have however already taken steps to start this trend, with simulators representing actual systems much like Cisco did back in the late 90s

the CCIE and MCA are both far more rigorous in their testing criteria, which at least helps keep the top of the market relatively genuine

It's understandable that to do it on the lower end certs would be somewhat expensive

a CCIE exam costs 1500 USD last time I checked
and there are about 20'000 worldwide

there are hundreds of thousands of CCNAs
god knows how many A+ certified folks

and just as many techies who have no certs and still do a bloody good job!

I suppose this is the best MS and the like can do for their middle tier certs, and its a lot better than it was in the NT4 days

 

Please, please tell me where i said that "the LAW WOULD USE THESE STATS". Was it at the start....the middle....or the end of my post???

Can you find something in my post that said something like "some form of monitoring could be used, along with the stats, to asses the legality of the training methods used".

Maybe you are catching one of my posts that follow on from an earlier one.

 

I agree that they've taken a good first step, but it's a small one. They're flawed because nothing on the screen works except the right answer... all a test taker has to do is click around till something works.

I would guess that, in time, Microsoft will begin offering simulations using Virtual PC environments. That'd be a great step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, in their Webcast, Microsoft seems to think that simulations will completely eliminate braindumping. In fact, that's not the case. All a braindumper has to do is say, "Be sure to study how to add a user to a group, cause that will be one of your simulations". Cheaters need only know how to do those tasks and nothing more, and they'll pass. Studying to the exam will always inflate test scores.

 

All from the same post, nothing edited:

 

And I Quote myself

and now I quote you.

What I am saying here (and this will be the last time, my patience has left the building), is that if the TP is "breaking the law" then the police should intervene.

I said nothing about the "law using the stats", that is why i suggested the use of things like "spot-checks" etc (not by the police, before you bring it up) and other mechanisms that could be used to asses a TP's methods). The police would intervene after being informed (by a body that performs the checks of the TP's legality of methods). Statistics has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROCESS.

If this system were put into place, then I submit that (as long as the system worked efficiently) the use of stats (remember, I didn't qualify EXACTLY what stats, this would be the focus of informed research), would indeed act as an indicator as to the QUALITY (NOT HONESTY) of the TP.

Without this separation of LEGALITY and QUALITY, then I agree that no amount of stats publishing would act as an indicator as to the QUALITY of a TP.

I don't mind if somebodies point is different to mine, but we cannot continue this debate (Michael) if you don't actually understand the point I am making. I'm not saying this is "your" fault, but we DO seem to be talking at cross purposes. Its a shame really, because I'm sure that Everyone agrees that a method is needed both to get rid of the bad TP's, and to make sure there is information available on the Honest TP's so that individuals can make an INFORMED choice.

 

Braindumping is unethical and it violates the non-disclosure agreement you sign when sitting an exam.

But illegal? Not really - and I'm sure that the Police would have absolutely no interest in the matter.

Likewise, even the exam sponsor is fairly powerless. Even if they discovered that a TP was using braindumps, there's not a lot they can do about the TP - unless they are a partner etc.

The only action they can take is against the persons who created and used the material. And how the hell do they find that out?

What if a freelance trainer recommended braindumps to his students without the knowledge of the TP?

MCTs have their own performance targets to meet, so it doesn't necessarily follow that the TP is completely to blame.

 

BosonMichael/StuPeas -This is one of those sticking points (I think) where playing a game around hypotheticals might help. So...

I know this is La-La land, and isn't a real place, but suppose we lived in a world where all training companies were absolutely committed to doing good, effective training. There is no cheating and no brain-dumps. Each training company uses different ways of training, charges different amounts, but they all offer courses based on recognised certification, so it is possible to do a sensible comparison. And they all strive to do exactly what they said they would do. No lies. No ifs. No buts...

In this almost perfect world, would Pass/Fail/Not completed statistics be useful for working out which company is best at the job? If not, why not?

I was going to post something completely different - a couple of questions I don't have a clear answer to that I was hoping someone might be able to answer...

1. Do we have a clear working definition of 'Brain-dumping' we all agree on? It sounds simple enough, but I'm not convinced we all have the same thing in mind (I was wondering about a particular software package that does exam preparation and is offered by some companies as part of their training. Maybe it depends on the stage in the traing at which it is offered?)...

2. If we were to guess at the percentage of TPs we think are using braindumps and not doing the training properly, what figure would we come up with?

3. What are the main differences between a 'good' TP and a 'bad' one?

Or is this an even bigger can of worms?

 

Surely it isn't beyond Microsoft's wit to perform a click count?

 

Not necessarily. Students in one area might not be as well-educated, and thus, not able to take in the material as well. One training company might charge less (perhaps a great deal less), and as a result, get students who are not as financially well off, perhaps having to work rather than spend that time studying... or, perhaps, students who pay less money might just give up more readily if they didn't lose as much money on the training course - it's a lot easier to walk away from a course you spent $500 on than a course you spent $5000 on.

That said, if the TPs were next door to each other, in similar buildings, with similar students in similar situations, and the same prices, yes, you could compare by pass/fail statistics (assuming that those statistics are available).

Braindumps are collections of test questions from the live exam. There is no other definition.

I don't know for sure, but from what I've seen out there, if the true answer were revealed, the answer would surprise many of you. Some schools and instructors use them and don't even know they're using them. Those that do use them knowingly are doing so because those braindumps enable their students to pass. They think that if their students pass, they'll be happy with the training they received, and will shell out more money to take more classes at that center.

Depends on who you ask. Some people WANT braindumps to be able to pass, and they'd think that TPs who provide braindumps are GOOD.

In my opinion, a bad TP:
1) Uses braindumps to enable their students to pass
2) Makes promises and guarantees of jobs where no real, guaranteed job offer awaits
3) Makes claims of salaries you can expect if you get certified (even if you have no "real" experience)... basically, claiming that certification is your "golden ticket" into IT
4) Tells prospective students that they MUST take a course in order to get certified
5) Hires unqualified instructors who have no business teaching anyone, anywhere
6) Recruits prospective students for classes/certifications they shouldn't be taking at this stage of their career, just to fill seats and/or make money (somewhat related to #3)
7) Uses sub-standard training materials and/or equipment
8 ) Focuses solely on getting the student to sign the contract rather than teaching the material to the student.

I'm quite sure there's more that aren't coming to mind at the moment. Those were just the first few off the top of my head. Some are relatively minor, and some are pretty major.

 

Click counts don't necessarily indicate whether a person knows how to do something or not. Microsoft would be hard-pressed to defend marking an item wrong if the candidate performed the task correctly (if it were even able to be discovered how Microsoft scored a particular item)... especially since Microsoft doesn't ask in their scenarios, "Perform this task in 12 clicks or less".

Of course, they COULD be doing that now... you never know.

 

Hmm my TP was anti-braindump and to be honest i didn't even know what a braindump was when i started. It took about 2 days before one of the other students started passing TK braindumps around the class to all the students, without the instructors knowledge. So these damn things can infiltrate even a well meaning TP.

 

Yup.

 

Ok.. can we please bring this thread to a close now too? - as it is already well past it's sell by date

Thanks,

Pete

 

Bluerinse - Please don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing with you. If you want the thread closed, that's your perogative, (and I might be on my own here) but...

...it doesn't feel 'finished' in any sort of sense. I think there might be some interesting ideas and perspectives still to come. Closing this thread will (in my opinion) shut things down rather than foster any sort of understanding. But I can understand you not wanting it to remain at the top of the list and/or taking up so much space...

I just think it's a shame...

 

Fair enough, then. Shall we call it 'Unresolved'?