Gordy - my thoughts as
someone who will have to take the "new" test. I know that you are doing the
best to provide updates and
may not have all of the information but since you opened the box...
"No fly lines will be allowed which are
marked in any way which would assist in judging distance. (Ok, for
example, to have a mark at the back of the head ..... but not distance
markers.)"
Not sure I like this one. If this was strictly an accuracy test then
I would agree wholeheartedly but the accuracy cast is only one element
of a much more diverse test.
I mark my lines as a reference for daily practice sessions. I know a lot
of people who do. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find a way
to gain an edge for the accuracy tests but it really is the
last thing on my mind and I'm also sure it would be obvious if I was doing
this during
the test. I do mark my line specifically for the distance cast so that I
am sure I've pulled enough line off the reel for the task (for obvious
reasons) and not much more as the excess can get caught up in grass,
underfoot, etc. I hope this isn't considered a way of judging
distance. I think a better way to do this would be to allow a maximum of
one or two marks within in the range of the accuracy tests (20 - 50 feet)
plus any additional marks that are well outside of that range.
I think if I was looking for some way to judge
the distance I would just count the number of strips of line I pulled off the
reel in preparation
for the test. I happen to know from
practice that three strips of line for me is consistently equal to
10 feet of line to within a few inches. I hope
we aren't going to take that bit of knowledge and
now insist that we start with less than 15 feet of line off the reel and with
fly in hand for
each and every target. I could also put tiny
invisible knicks or bumps on the line so I could feel the distance with
my line hand - in my opinion
that would make it a lot easier to
judge distance than trying to spot the visible marks on my line while I'm
concentrating on the target and the line is
waving back and forth like crazy.
I also have to say that I resent the implication that I would cheat
on any part of the test. Unfortunately, I know some people are going
to cheat. The ones that do are going to find ways that aren't
obvious to spot. Making life more difficult for everybody else as a
result
is not what I would consider the right approach.
This was debated at length before the decision was made.
My own, personal, feeling is that it would be difficult to view the target and
the marks on the line in the first place as well as the fact that most
candidates wouldn't even think of cheating that way. As you point out,
in any event it would be obvious to the examiners. Consensus was,
however, that the lines for the actual exam may not be marked in a way
which could assist in judging distance.
We have witnessed CCI candidates placing the fly on the first
target, then picking up and making the cast. Of course, that can't
be done on the MCCI exam anyway, since the fly must be held in hand at the
start. G.
"Another is change in the accuracy events, and
is (as I see it) easier on the candidate than before, because the task
description is more clear."
A clearer description doesn't necessarily make the task easier. As I
understand the description you've given I will be required to hit
all three
targets in three successive casts. If I miss one of the targets I start
over again. I can have up to 2 misses. A third miss would mean that I
failed
the task. I think that in the past the test was interpreted by most
people as having 3 tries at each target and if/when I hit the target I
move on to
the next target. I could have up to 6 misses. A seventh miss would mean
that I failed the task. I think that, mentally and physically, the new and
improved description is making the task much harder.
Mathematically, it does appear that you are correct in that it
is harder. I think it is easier on the candidate, however, to know
more exactly what is required. Good point
! G.
I also remember from our discussions that the
mend task will allow the examiner to request that mends be made to the left or
right at the
examiner's discretion. Also that mends may
be required at 40 feet.
As I go back
to my scribble notes, I see that you are correct about
that.
Let me add,
that although not specifically stated, the mends must be large
enough that there is no question about it. (A 12" mend at the target
simply not big enough. A 6' mend is greater than
needed.)
G.
"A candidate may be asked to do one or a number of
casting tasks not specified on the exam. As with those
cited, above, he/she cannot be flunked on any such task not actually
listed."
I'm sure how that would be enforced. An examiner could say that they
considered the extra tasks as part of the non-performance part of
the examination and that they felt the candidate did not demonstrate
sufficient knowledge when asked to perform the task. An example could
be to ask the candidate to perform a slack line curve cast. If
the candidate didn't know how to do this then perhaps their casting
knowledge
isn't up to expectations?
It can work both ways. Remember: On this exam there
is no numerical scoring system. In the, "end", the examiners must be
convinced that the candidate's performance on both parts of the exam indicates
that he/she would be a high quality, well informed Master level
instructor. G.
Also, are candidates informed of their
"rights" prior to the test? If an examiner is getting overly zealous
does the candidate have any recourse?
I hate to ask that particular question because it
could open up a real can of worms and make a difficult task even more
difficult for
the examiners but if a candidate does feel they
are being unfairly treated during the test they
should have idea of what, if anything, they can do
about it either during the test or
afterwards.
I also understood from discussions that nobody
would be failed for not being able to cast with the non-dominant hand. Perhaps
I misunderstood
because it seems to me there wouldn't be much
reason to include a task that doesn't affect the outcome of the
test.
I know of other types of certification (not
casting related) where new or modified questions are added to a test but are
not counted as
part of the individual's score. The results of
the question are monitored to see how well candidates do on the question. If a
majority of
people are unable to answer the question then
thought is given to how the question is worded or if it is indeed within the
expected body of
knowledge. If the question is a problem due to
ambiguity it is reworded. If the question is outside of the expected body of
knowledge then
either the expected body of knowledge (such as
study materials, etc.) may have to be expanded or the question may just be
dropped.
Candidates are informed before the test that such
questions may be part of the test but they are not informed which questions
they are.
Maybe the non-dominant hand task falls into that category?
For now it won't affect an individual's test results but in the future, once
the
testing committee is satisfied that the
task is reasonable and well understood, it will be included?
Another good question. I think it
will ..... but this will be up to the MCCI exam Committee subject to approval
by the Board in the future. That's how some of these things have
developed in the past.
G.
Cheers
Walter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:42
PM
Subject: Changes to the MCCI exam
Walter & Group.....
Gordy,
Interesting to hear we are anticipating casting with the non-dominant
hand in 14 weeks. We all want to be prepared to pass.
Could you reveal all other test changes to be expected and when they
are to go into effect?
Thanks,
Gary Eaton
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Gary ... A timely question !
I understand the specifics of the new exam are to be
coming out on the FFF website very soon. They won't be going into
effect until January. Since the changes are not sweepingly
different, the CBOG felt that this was plenty of time for candidates to
finish preparations.
Don't let the task of casting with the non-dominent
hand throw you. It entails simple basic straight line overhead short
distance casts with decent loop formation. Hauling will not be
necessary. You will remember that it was with this in mind that I held
message sessions on how to teach ones self to do this a couple of months
ago.
The idea is that it would be best for
a Master or CBOG to know how to do this to make it easier to
teach students who have a primary casting arm different from their
instructor. (Of course, there are other ways of doing this, but this one
places another in what should be a full bag of teaching tricks.)
As soon as I got wind that this would be discussed
and likely passed, I started teaching myself to do it and found it easily
accomplished to this basic level within a half dozen sessions. Our
CBOG's will all do this as we will not ask our candidates to do anything we
cannot do. I'm working to improve my opposite hand hauling technique
at this point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In lieu of the previous task of making a tailing loop
on the back cast, the candidate will be asked to make tailing loops on the
forward cast in three different ways. Examples:-
1.) A tail made by shortening the stroke and rod arc
with creep.
2.) A tail made by making a cast without creep, but
with a stroke and rod arc too short for the length of line
carried.
3.) A tail made with no creep and the stroke
length and rod arc correct for the amount of line carried, using
inappropriate application of power.
(Personal hint: All 3 of these actually result
in a concave rod tip path made by different casting scenarios each of which
leads to inappropriate use of power with acceleration during the stroke
which cannot be maintained .)
The examiners cannot flunk a candidate if asked to do
two extra tasks, but might well look favorably on the overall performance if
asked and then accomplished well. These might be:
1.) Making a tail on the back cast.
2.) Making a tail on the forward cast by casting with
less than 180 degrees between the back cast and the forward cast with the
rod plane unchanged (ie. high back cast followed by a high or
horizontal trajectory forward cast.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another is change in the accuracy events, and
is (as I see it) easier on the candidate than before, because the task
description is more clear.
I don't have the exact wording before me, but my
recollection is that the target distances will not be changed from the 30',
40' & 55' targets.
The task will start with the candidate holding the
fly in hand. No fly lines will be allowed which are marked
in any way which would assist in judging distance. (Ok, for example,
to have a mark at the back of the head ..... but not distance
markers.)
While allowences may be made for windy conditions, I
recall that the fly must land within a circle the diameter of which is
30".
The first cast will be to the middle target
(40'). The fly is then to be picked up and presented to the 30'
target, then, finally, to the 55' target.
Three chances are to be allowed for the entire
sequence.
I honestly cannot remember if the diameter of the 55'
target will be greater. I know that was discussed.
I recall that this must also be done with the rod tip
over the opposite shoulder.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A candidate may be asked to do one or a number of
casting tasks not specified on the exam. As with those
cited, above, he/she cannot be flunked on any such task not actually
listed.
AT THIS POINT I'LL ASK DUSTY SPRAGUE TO
COMMENT AND CORRECT ANY INACCURACIES IN MY TEXT. AS YOU MAY KNOW, HE
IS CHAIRMAN OF THE MCCI TESTING COMMITTEE.
Gordy