Kurt
Mon Apr 18 02:11:03 CDT 2005
Yes, you are 100% correct and it was my interpretation of
your comments and my original posting that was flawed. I
apologize for my tone and my generic criticism. I did make
comments on the exam and I did e-mail the testing team. My
colleagues also filed complaints with the testing center,
VUE, and Microsoft. My postings here were a result of
frustrated attempts to get feedback. Shortly after posting
my messages here, I did receive some feedback from a
colleague at Microsoft.
Again, the way I phrased my criticism was too generic and
not focused. I should have directed my comments only at
the interface itself as being flawed. I am quite happy
with the program, its leadership, and certainly the
concept of hands-on components to the exam. I am just not
pleased with the fact that I was unable to complete
activities because the interface did not work like the
real operating system. Not only that, it was actually
impossible to complete some operations because buttons
that needed to work were not clickable. The flaw is in the
implementation only.
>-----Original Message-----
>Ah, that explains the problem...comprehension! My comment
was... "I haven't
>taken one of the new simulations, yet......I am pretty
certain that I won't
>like it either". There was no mention that I
didn't "intend" to take the
>test. I will take which ever test is provided when I need
to choose a new
>certification.
>
>I have no doubt this 1st iteration of an interactive test
may not be
>optimum, but that does not change the fact that
responding to candidate
>pressure, Microsoft has provided a simulation based
format. The only real
>"non" surprise is people like you are not satisfied with
the effort. Soingle
>chice, multiple choice, multiple choice with multiple
answers, drag and
>drop, calculations, scenerio suites...Microsoft has tried
to provide a large
>number of methods to make the test expereince fit any
number of testing
>methods, then people still complain. I don't see everyone
ever being
>satisfied. Cisco is always held up as example of how
things should be...yet,
>everytime MS raises the price of the exam the whining
starts. When MS raised
>the "bar" of the MCSE upgrade exam, the whining started.
>
>Again...either take the test or don't take the test. The
test is what it
>is. You have the opportunity to complain where it may do
some good ... to
>Microsoft. Novel idea, eh?
>
>Make use of the comment section at the end of the exam or
write directly to
>the training or education arm of MS. There must be a
bunch of constructive
>was to voice your opinion...why not try them, if that
fails, then start
>whining!
>
>"Kurt Hudson" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message
>news:0b0001c5424f$901e4680$a501280a@phx.gbl...
>> Your reply shows very little insight into the process or
>> the goal of certification. The fact of the matter is
that
>> there are far more accurate, sophisticated, and
veritable
>> methods that Microsoft could have used. Instead, they
>> chose to create what looks like flash animated screen
>> captures to test people. They own Virtual PC and they
have
>> an extensive Extranet that they could have used for
>> testing. Instead, they chose this terrible half-baked
>> interface to run exams. This doesn't test people's
ability
>> to perform any real tasks in the operating system.
>>
>> This is like me making a PowerPoint presentation and
>> asking you to prove to me (using PowerPoint) that you
know
>> how to configure Windows Server 2003. Seriously, that is
>> not much of an exaggeration. I KNOW they could have done
>> something far better.
>>
>> And, since you don't intend to take the exam, I guess
you
>> won't have to worry about the fact that you will be
>> spending your money hoping to get the test where the
>> simulation doesn't break on you. I think the people who
>> are spending that money would be more concerned about
it.
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>The overwhelming complaint for the greater part of the
>> last few years
>>>(especially since W2K3 arrived) has been a cry for
>> Simulation-type tests.
>>>Now that they are on line....as expected, there are
>> complaints about the new
>>>tests too.
>>>
>>>Let me be on of the first to congratulate Microsoft for
>> investing millions
>>>of dollars to prove that the test, it length, its
>> difficulty nor it's
>>>content...none are the problem. The real problem is
>> actually trying to have
>>>a standard of excellence that MUST be met. Way too often
>> the public, in
>>>general, has been deluded into thinking time equals
>> effort. Or that effort
>>>can substitute for results. Experience /= results nor
>> does time /=
>>>effort...they should, but they don't.
>>>
>>>The test is the test, pass it, fail it or don't take it.
>> Not everyone is
>>>ever going to be satisfied that it was done
>> right...Microsoft, the standard
>>>we love to hate.
>>>
>>>I haven't taken one of the new simulations, yet...and I
>> am pretty certain
>>>that I won't like it either, but if you want the cert;
>> then you have to pass
>>>the exam. I can deal with the bargain.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Kurt Hudson MCT MCSE (3.51 4 2000 2003:Security)"
>>><anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>news:0e8401c5413f$137e0c20$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>>>> This is what Microsoft advertises:
>>>> "Certification exams will now feature both traditional
>>>> test items and simulated work environments where
>>>> candidates will demonstrate their skills by performing
>>>> real-world IT tasks."
>>>>
>>>> The truth is that there is NOTHING real-world about
the
>>>> exam simuations. You don't get to demonstrate
anything.
>>>> The interface doesn't work like the operating system
and
>>>> certain tasks cannot even be completed because certain
>>>> buttons don't work.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, the exam simulations suck! I took 70-290
and
>>>> passed by a good margin. However, the exam simulations
>>>> still suck because they don't work at all like the
>>>> interface. As a matter of fact, I have read that they
>>>> actually grade you down (MCP Magazine, Michael
Domingo)
>> if
>>>> you take a different path than expected to complete
the
>>>> task. Rediculous! I tried to take some paths that were
>>>> more efficient than what was expected and they didn't
>> even
>>>> work. Then, I had to sit there figuring out what the
>> idiot
>>>> who programmed the simulation thought I should do.
These
>>>> simulations are for monkeys, not administrators. The
>>>> people who developed this MESS need to know they
screwed
>>>> up BIGTIME!
>>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
>
>.
>