Microsoft Supports Test Piracy

New to the MCSE process but old to the Test Development Process, this is my
theory.

Microsoft states: "The Exam Development Process
To ensure the validity and reliability of our certification exams, Microsoft
adheres to a rigorous exam-development process, consisting of eight mandatory
phases: "

Phase 2: Objective Domain Definition
"The results of the job analysis provide the framework used to develop
objectives. "

Phase 3:
"The actual exam items are written according to the prioritized objectives."

Phase 4: Item Development
"A pool of items is developed to measure the blueprinted objective domain."

Now if these statements are true, how can non-obective based questions
appear on the exams?

I'd like to point directly at the 70-290 & 70-291 exams. Both of these
exams had numerous questions that did not pertain to the stated "objective
domain".

Is it possible that Microsoft is getting a kick-back from some of the
brain-dumpers or Test Pirates?

Is it ethical for Microsoft to publically state it's policies and then not
abid by them?

Is this possibly false and misleading actions?

Is this possibly FRAUD?

The following was sent to me by a CTEC owner;

"Never in our experience have we seen such a disconnect between the exams
(only 70-290 and 70-291) and the curriculum. For these two exams, our
teaching strategy had to change. We now try as best we can to prep the
students for the test; as opposed to concentrating on developing a skill set
that would enable a student to apply the most widely used aspects of MS
technologies in the real world."

"Make no mistake; Microsoft has had negative feedback from CTEC’s throughout
the country. I have spoken with MCT’s from all over who agree that there is a
problem. Microsoft is well aware of this condition."

" ... don’t spend another minute talking to Microsoft about this. You will
not receive an explanation from Microsoft; they will only waste your time. My
best advice is to let my months of effort to resolve these same issues
suffice. Advise your friends that these two exams will contain questions
outside of the scope of the objective domain. The continuance of that
unwritten policy will have the effect of increasing test revenue to Microsoft
and controlling the growth rate of MCSA’s. I think both of these effects are
desirable by Microsoft and that is why this problem persists."

I think that Microsoft is slow wrapped around the axle trying to be the Test
Pirates that they are in fact pushing honest individuals that are trying to
learn and get certified to turn to the Pirates.

Oh and by the way, when I sent in a challege Michelle B. replied,

"The fact that a particular question appeared on the exam cannot be
challenged in itself."

This inspite of the fact that I can prove that the quest was a 70-291
objective and it was on the 70-70-290 test and visa-versa.

=?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=

Couple spelling errors please forgive me, Guess I should have done this in
Word and ran spell check.

.... Microsoft is slow wrapped around the axle ... should have been ...
Microsoft is so wrapped around the axle ...

and

prove that the quest was a 70-291 ... should have been ... prove that the
question was a 70-291 ...

Thanks all,

dz

"dz" wrote:

> New to the MCSE process but old to the Test Development Process, this is my
> theory.
>
> Microsoft states: "The Exam Development Process
> To ensure the validity and reliability of our certification exams, Microsoft
> adheres to a rigorous exam-development process, consisting of eight mandatory
> phases: "
>
> Phase 2: Objective Domain Definition
> "The results of the job analysis provide the framework used to develop
> objectives. "
>
> Phase 3:
> "The actual exam items are written according to the prioritized objectives."
>
> Phase 4: Item Development
> "A pool of items is developed to measure the blueprinted objective domain."
>
> Now if these statements are true, how can non-obective based questions
> appear on the exams?
>
> I'd like to point directly at the 70-290 & 70-291 exams. Both of these
> exams had numerous questions that did not pertain to the stated "objective
> domain".
>
> Is it possible that Microsoft is getting a kick-back from some of the
> brain-dumpers or Test Pirates?
>
> Is it ethical for Microsoft to publically state it's policies and then not
> abid by them?
>
> Is this possibly false and misleading actions?
>
> Is this possibly FRAUD?
>
> The following was sent to me by a CTEC owner;
>
> "Never in our experience have we seen such a disconnect between the exams
> (only 70-290 and 70-291) and the curriculum. For these two exams, our
> teaching strategy had to change. We now try as best we can to prep the
> students for the test; as opposed to concentrating on developing a skill set
> that would enable a student to apply the most widely used aspects of MS
> technologies in the real world."
>
> "Make no mistake; Microsoft has had negative feedback from CTEC’s throughout
> the country. I have spoken with MCT’s from all over who agree that there is a
> problem. Microsoft is well aware of this condition."
>
> " ... don’t spend another minute talking to Microsoft about this. You will
> not receive an explanation from Microsoft; they will only waste your time. My
> best advice is to let my months of effort to resolve these same issues
> suffice. Advise your friends that these two exams will contain questions
> outside of the scope of the objective domain. The continuance of that
> unwritten policy will have the effect of increasing test revenue to Microsoft
> and controlling the growth rate of MCSA’s. I think both of these effects are
> desirable by Microsoft and that is why this problem persists."
>
> I think that Microsoft is slow wrapped around the axle trying to be the Test
> Pirates that they are in fact pushing honest individuals that are trying to
> learn and get certified to turn to the Pirates.
>
> Oh and by the way, when I sent in a challege Michelle B. replied,
>
> "The fact that a particular question appeared on the exam cannot be
> challenged in itself."
>
> This inspite of the fact that I can prove that the quest was a 70-291
> objective and it was on the 70-70-290 test and visa-versa.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

=?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=

circa Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:29:02 -0700, in
microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=
() said,
> I'd like to point directly at the 70-290 & 70-291 exams. Both of these
> exams had numerous questions that did not pertain to the stated "objective
> domain".
>
>
Perhaps you should check out what an objective domain is.

Laura
--
Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes.
-Oscar Wilde

Laura A. Robinson

Laura darling, excellent retort, you really put me in my place.

If Microsoft hadn’t defined their Development Process as well as they have I
just might have to pull out my copies of Handbook for Developing
Competency-Based Testing Programs by William E. Blank or possibly Preparing
Instructional Objectives by Robert F. Mager. But it’s easier to read
Microsoft’s own words at
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mc...es/examdev.asp.

And to look at the specific objective domain for 70-290 Microsoft has done
an equally excellent job at
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/exams/70-290.asp.

I also like the job that Microsoft did with the objective domain 70-291 at
http://www.microsoft.com/learning/exams/70-291.asp.

What you are missing darling is that when you are taking an exam that is
based on the 70-290 objective domain and your given an exam question that
asks if the sky is blue the question is an invalid question. It is not part
of the STATED OBJECTIVE DOMAIN. The question may be grammatically well
written, knowledge level appropriate, contain 2 wrong answers, 1 distracter
answer, and 1 correct answer; but it is still an invalid question based on
the subject matter that is suppose to be evaluated by the exam.

This is simply a case of ethics. I guess you don't get it.



"Laura A. Robinson" wrote:

> circa Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:29:02 -0700, in
> microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=
> () said,
> > I'd like to point directly at the 70-290 & 70-291 exams. Both of these
> > exams had numerous questions that did not pertain to the stated "objective
> > domain".
> >
> >
> Perhaps you should check out what an objective domain is.
>
> Laura
> --
> Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes.
> -Oscar Wilde
>

=?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=

"=?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=" <> prattled ceaslessly in
news:5B5EB278-D2E2-400F-97F0-:

> Laura darling, excellent retort, you really put me in my place.
>
> If Microsoft hadn’t defined their Development Process as well as
> they have I just might have to pull out my copies of Handbook for
> Developing Competency-Based Testing Programs by William E. Blank or
> possibly Preparing Instructional Objectives by Robert F. Mager. But
> it’s easier to read Microsoft’s own words at
> http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mc...es/examdev.asp.
>
> And to look at the specific objective domain for 70-290 Microsoft has
> done an equally excellent job at
> http://www.microsoft.com/learning/exams/70-290.asp.
>
> I also like the job that Microsoft did with the objective domain
> 70-291 at http://www.microsoft.com/learning/exams/70-291.asp.
>
> What you are missing darling is that when you are taking an exam that
> is based on the 70-290 objective domain and your given an exam
> question that asks if the sky is blue the question is an invalid
> question. It is not part of the STATED OBJECTIVE DOMAIN. The
> question may be grammatically well written, knowledge level
> appropriate, contain 2 wrong answers, 1 distracter answer, and 1
> correct answer; but it is still an invalid question based on the
> subject matter that is suppose to be evaluated by the exam.
>
> This is simply a case of ethics. I guess you don't get it.
>
>
>
> "Laura A. Robinson" wrote:
>
>> circa Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:29:02 -0700, in
>> microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=
>> () said,
>> > I'd like to point directly at the 70-290 & 70-291 exams. Both of
>> > these exams had numerous questions that did not pertain to the
>> > stated "objective domain".
>> >
>> >
>> Perhaps you should check out what an objective domain is.
>>
>> Laura
>> --
>> Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes.
>> -Oscar Wilde
>>

Rowdy, I think we're going to need a lot more popcorn.

--
Catwalker
aka Pu$$y Feet
BS, MCP

"If you think I'm hostile now, wait 'til you see me tonight."

catwalker63

circa Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:27:14 -0700, in
microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=
() said,
> Laura darling, excellent retort, you really put me in my place.

First, don't call me "darling"; it makes you appear to be a
misogynist with an inferiority complex. Then again, you likely are.
>
> If Microsoft hadn’t defined their Development Process as well as they have I
> just might have to pull out my copies of Handbook for Developing
> Competency-Based Testing Programs by William E. Blank or possibly Preparing
> Instructional Objectives by Robert F. Mager.

Perhaps you should, as you've clearly not read them.

> But it’s easier to read
> Microsoft’s own words at
> http://www.microsoft.com/learning/mc...es/examdev.asp.
>
> And to look at the specific objective domain for 70-290 Microsoft has done
> an equally excellent job at
> http://www.microsoft.com/learning/exams/70-290.asp.
>
> I also like the job that Microsoft did with the objective domain 70-291 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/learning/exams/70-291.asp.
>
> What you are missing darling is that when you are taking an exam that is
> based on the 70-290 objective domain and your given an exam question that
> asks if the sky is blue the question is an invalid question. It is not part
> of the STATED OBJECTIVE DOMAIN.

And what you're missing, you hostile nutcase, is that you're tossing
out a pile of insinuation without a single example to back whatever
your supposed point is. Got an issue? Bring it up with Microsoft,
rather than posting it in a certification newsgroup.

> The question may be grammatically well
> written, knowledge level appropriate, contain 2 wrong answers, 1 distracter
> answer, and 1 correct answer; but it is still an invalid question based on
> the subject matter that is suppose to be evaluated by the exam.

See above.

>
> This is simply a case of ethics. I guess you don't get it.

This is simply a case of some anonymous schmuck making some sort of
obtuse, veiled accusation that makes no sense whatsoever and thinking
that he's actually coherent. Get help.

Laura
>
>
>
> "Laura A. Robinson" wrote:
>
> > circa Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:29:02 -0700, in
> > microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, =?Utf-8?B?ZHo=?=
> > () said,
> > > I'd like to point directly at the 70-290 & 70-291 exams. Both of these
> > > exams had numerous questions that did not pertain to the stated "objective
> > > domain".
> > >
> > >
> > Perhaps you should check out what an objective domain is.
> >
> > Laura
> > --
> > Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes.
> > -Oscar Wilde
> >
>

--
Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes.
-Oscar Wilde

Laura A. Robinson

In microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, catwalker63 climbed on a soapbox &
opined:

> Rowdy, I think we're going to need a lot more popcorn.
>

And beer.

JaR

JaR

In microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, Laura A. Robinson climbed on a
soapbox & opined:
>
> This is simply a case of some anonymous schmuck making some sort of
> obtuse, veiled accusation that makes no sense whatsoever and thinking
> that he's actually coherent. Get help.

*Golf clap*

JaR

JaR

JaR <> prattled ceaslessly in
news:Xns9562EDE584563plentespamsuxsofthom@207.46.2 48.16:

> In microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, Laura A. Robinson climbed on a
> soapbox & opined:
>>
>> This is simply a case of some anonymous schmuck making some sort of
>> obtuse, veiled accusation that makes no sense whatsoever and thinking
>> that he's actually coherent. Get help.
>
> *Golf clap*
>
> JaR
>

Someone get me a guiness. I don't wanna miss anything.

--
Catwalker
aka Pu$$y Feet
BS, MCP

"If you think I'm hostile now, wait 'til you see me tonight."

catwalker63

"Laura A. Robinson" <> wrote
> And what you're missing, you hostile nutcase, is that you're tossing
> out a pile of insinuation without a single example to back whatever
> your supposed point is. Got an issue? Bring it up with Microsoft,
> rather than posting it in a certification newsgroup.

D'oh! It appears I missed all the fun. And I just picked up another
scarborough sixpack.

T-Bone