|
Walter & Group...
[GH] From Michael Jones :
To answer Guy Manning's question, I intended: 3 fly line 'core' (the middle of the line) characteristics. The most obvious to me would be: Strength, Stretch, Stiffness. We can all take a stab at explaining these characteristics, or maybe other examples would be good answers as well.
Gordy, it blows some wind into my FFF sails to know that the MCI examiners are being qualified, and that the exam questions are being scrutinized. That makes me feel a lot better about what happened to me 13 years ago. Thank you for sharing that.
MJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Michael :
Training and qualifying examiners does have a long way to go, but that is the present thrust. We'll be hearing more about that in the near future.
Some of the problems of the past have been blunted if not solved by adherence to the Testing Protocols and the Candidate's Bill of Rights. We didn't have those back when you were tested.
Floyd Franke and I wrote the Bill of Rights soon after one MCI candidate had issued a grievance which was judged to have merit. This was heeded and he was granted a new exam which he passed with flying colors.
Examiners have also been asked to make and keep notes during and immediately following each exam. These are to be maintained for review. Some exams have observers who don't participate in the actual exam process.
Does all this provide a perfect system of checks and balances ? We cannot pretend that it does .... but I feel it is a step in the right direction.
During deliberations by the testing committees, the question of fairness to the candidate(s) comes up on an almost daily basis. This is why so much attention is being paid to making the expectations as clear as possible. It is also why for each MCI examination team, there is now a lead examiner who is experienced and expected to be a steward of protocol during the orals.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Sobering thoughts from Gary Eaton (I placed his quotations in italics):
"[GH] From Peter Morse :
Gary as this is a MCI discussion group I'm pretty sure most understand we are talking about the MCI exam, but what is the "Explain and demonstrate" section of the CCI exam if it isn't an oral exam?"
I accept that the E & D is a performance exam - there is an oral presentation portion and a performance component. Knowledge base may certainly be established within a written format prior to this time-consuming and expensive (in volunteer hours terms) portion.
"To date has there been any litigation against the FFF because someone has failed an exam?"
I see this as a wrong-headed approach. - After-the-fact, the FFF will likely be bankrupt merely from the costs of mounting a defense in a U. S. court - especially if a group of passing and/or failed candidates were to enjoin a class-action. Should a formal settlement be prescribed, the victorious complainants could, theoretically, "own" the FFF. (Perceived damages could include loss-of-business, discrimination, unfair competitive practices, emotional pain and suffering, ADA violations, gender bias, etc)
I spoke with a person interested in exactly such a strategy about three years ago. If that individual had more financial resources, I believe his resolve would have taken him this route. When will the program encounter a person of considerable financial means or an army of litigators within their own firm to prosecute just such a battle? Given the "suit happy" trends in society, one might consider it inevitable. So, defensive construct seems prudent and comparatively low-cost. I might be reassured by the report of a highly-qualified legal advisor putting their malpractice insurance on-the-line to write a risk-management strategy or authoritatively advise that there is no such risk.
In a theoretical discussion with a retired CBOG, I proposed the idea of the CICP incorporating as a separate entity to shield itself from the vagaries of a turf battle should the FFF become insolvent. After a couple of days of thinking, they replied to me asserting that the concept probably would be a very good idea. The goal would be to allow the CICP to continue operating without interruption.
Better safe than sorry,
GE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Dave Barron clarifies his position :
Gordy
I seems that I stirred up a small hornets nest with me comment "I am not sure how they will be able to perform in front of a group of students if they can not perform in front of the examiners."
I was not suggesting that they could not teach but what I was saying is that if a candidate can stand up to an oral exam , I would have all the confidence in the world that they will make great teachers. My feeling about the oral exam is that it gives the examiners a chance to fully understand what the candidate knows and understands.
During the oral a candidate has a chance to explain his/her thinking on a subject. If I do not agree with an answer to one of my questions I will ask for a clarification, and give them time to defend their answer, now if they can defend what they answer and explain their thinking I will accept their answer and if I still do not agree I will explain my thinking and move on (by the way one answer will not cause you to fail). With a written test if the candidate gets the wrong answer they can not defend their thinking and they are marked wrong with not chance to defend themselves.
Now for Mr. Jones experience taking his MCI 13 years ago and his problem with the understanding of arc, 13 years ago I would have agreed with him, but times have changed and we all have a better understanding of casting mechanics. I do not know who examined Mr. Jones and I really do not care but I would be willing to bet that they are not still doing exams. The program has come a long way in the past 13 years and it is only getting better. I have been examining for over 12 years and have examined with many governors and MCIs and in all that time I have never given a test that all the examiners have not agreed on the out come of the test. I find that all of the examiners I have tested with want the candidate to pass but unfortunately not all are ready to move on to the next level.
Dave
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Jerry Puckett :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Jim Gill,
Gordy, I'm following these threads with great interest - it is a subject I have long pondered over - not sure if I'm coming to a conclusion yet so I'll keep my mind open for a while longer.
Regards, Jim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Jim,
A timely comment ! Along with all this discussion, I find myself getting a better idea of each side of the equation. I join you in trying to keep an open mind. Those on either side have made some valid points.
I thought back to the days of my old college debating team..... and asked myself, could I debate either side effectively ?
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Elie Beerten comes in with a novel approach to consider :
Hi Gordy,
My wife is a teacher for almost 30 years and is standing everyday in front of an audience. So, I think she knows how to teach. But every evening she still extracts some decent time to prepare the lessons for the next day. She never relies on an automatic pilot. “Preparation” is also keyword which I often see coming back in the study group.
To comeback to the discussion about written or oral examinations: I think there is an in between which suits both parties during the oral testing and that is to add time for preparation.
Why not give the questions written down on a paper just before the oral examination and give the candidate an hour or more to prepare himself. After this hour you start the oral examination. I think it can be a benefit for both parties, candidate and examiner. The first is having some time to review the questions on a relaxed way and write down short answers, make some drawings and formulate keywords for long answers. This piece of paper can be used by the candidate as a backup during the oral examination.
The examiners can do the same exercise when the choose the questions and define the answers they would like to hear from the candidate. This will put the examiners on the same line and help them to do an objective evaluation. Afterwards this piece of paper (or both papers) can be used for a feedback to the candidate.
Actually kind this of approach is already in use for the practical test. Of each test it is described what is expected and how it is evaluated by the examiners.
It is up to skills of the examiners to ask the right additional questions to guide the candidate to the answers they would like to hear.
Regards,
Elie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|