Exam 70-271

Discussion in 'MCDST' started by Sultan, Jan 7, 2008.

  1. Sultan

    Sultan Guest

    What is the total exam duration for 70-271, and how much
    percentage is require to pass the exam....If any one can tell me..
    Thanks
    Sultan, Jan 7, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sultan

    Bikeryamaha Guest

    Hi 70% is pass mark duration is 2Hrs
    --
    Brian


    "Sultan" wrote:

    > What is the total exam duration for 70-271, and how much
    > percentage is require to pass the exam....If any one can tell me..
    > Thanks
    Bikeryamaha, Jan 7, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sultan

    John R Guest

    "Bikeryamaha" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi 70% is pass mark duration is 2Hrs
    > --
    > Brian
    >
    >
    > "Sultan" wrote:
    >
    >> What is the total exam duration for 70-271, and how much
    >> percentage is require to pass the exam....If any one can tell me..
    >> Thanks


    Well, that is what is speculated. Microsoft publishes the fact that each
    test is scored separately, and then that score is converted into Microsoft's
    standard scale where 700 or better is passing. However, the minimum and/or
    maximum amount that you can score is not published, or how the tests are
    scored. For example, it is not known if you can get partial credit for
    partially completing a question, etc. etc. There are also beta questions in
    some exams whose purpose is not necessarily known, but supposedly do not
    count towards your final score. The only thing that Microsoft says is that
    you need 700 or better on your score, that's it.

    John R
    John R, Jan 7, 2008
    #3
  4. Sultan

    Pincopallino Guest

    "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:...
    >
    > "Bikeryamaha" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi 70% is pass mark duration is 2Hrs
    >> --
    >> Brian
    >>
    >>
    >> "Sultan" wrote:
    >>
    >>> What is the total exam duration for 70-271, and how much
    >>> percentage is require to pass the exam....If any one can tell me..
    >>> Thanks

    >
    > Well, that is what is speculated. Microsoft publishes the fact that each
    > test is scored separately, and then that score is converted into
    > Microsoft's standard scale where 700 or better is passing. However, the
    > minimum and/or maximum amount that you can score is not published, or how
    > the tests are scored. For example, it is not known if you can get partial
    > credit for partially completing a question, etc. etc. There are also beta
    > questions in some exams whose purpose is not necessarily known, but
    > supposedly do not count towards your final score. The only thing that
    > Microsoft says is that you need 700 or better on your score, that's it.



    Right but absolutely ridiculous. I've passed (and failed) many exams in my
    life but for no one the pass/fail criteria and exact programs are completely
    unknown and impossible to check, verify and challenge.
    Pincopallino, Jan 7, 2008
    #4
  5. Sultan

    John R Guest

    "Pincopallino" <> wrote in message
    news:flubcb$o3f$...
    >
    > Right but absolutely ridiculous. I've passed (and failed) many exams in
    > my life but for no one the pass/fail criteria and exact programs are
    > completely unknown and impossible to check, verify and challenge.
    >


    I think the "impossible to check, verify and challenge" was what they were
    going for. Given the volume of tests taken each day, the strong opinion of
    a lot of people, the varying skill levels of the test proctors, etc etc, the
    last thing Microsoft wanted on their hands was a giant urination contest,
    especially between the proctors and the candidates. As "ridiculous" as it
    seems, I can only imagine what it would be like otherwise.

    John R
    John R, Jan 8, 2008
    #5
  6. Sultan

    John R Guest

    "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Pincopallino" <> wrote in message
    > news:flubcb$o3f$...
    >>
    >> Right but absolutely ridiculous. I've passed (and failed) many exams in
    >> my life but for no one the pass/fail criteria and exact programs are
    >> completely unknown and impossible to check, verify and challenge.
    >>

    >
    > I think the "impossible to check, verify and challenge" was what they were
    > going for. Given the volume of tests taken each day, the strong opinion
    > of a lot of people, the varying skill levels of the test proctors, etc
    > etc, the last thing Microsoft wanted on their hands was a giant urination
    > contest, especially between the proctors and the candidates. As
    > "ridiculous" as it seems, I can only imagine what it would be like
    > otherwise.
    >


    Just as a follow up, I am a volunteer examiner for US Amateur Radio license
    tests. We are instructed as well to only inform the candidate of pass/fail.
    We are not allowed to review the tests with the candidiates, or even tell
    them a score. In fact, they get no official feedback at all other than
    pass/fail. At least with Microsoft, you get that summary that shows how you
    did relative to each major test objective.

    John R
    John R, Jan 8, 2008
    #6
  7. Sultan

    Pincopallino Guest


    > Just as a follow up, I am a volunteer examiner for US Amateur Radio
    > license
    > tests. We are instructed as well to only inform the candidate of
    > pass/fail. We are not allowed to review the tests with the candidiates, or
    > even tell them a score. In fact, they get no official feedback at all
    > other than pass/fail. At least with Microsoft, you get that summary that
    > shows how you did relative to each major test objective.


    Obviously I'm not saying that MS exams are the only ones with no challenge
    possibility. I'm just saying that the vast majority of exams allows
    candidates to check and possibly challenge the result. Besides, as I've
    already said, I do believe that at least for Italian laws this is not a
    legitimate (and thus is an invalid) contractual clause because there is no
    means for the candidate to verify if the other part has actually complied
    with the obligations of the contract (i.e. has honestly, faultlessly and
    fairly evalued the candidate's knowledge).
    Pincopallino, Jan 9, 2008
    #7
  8. Sultan

    John R Guest

    "Pincopallino" <> wrote in message
    news:fm198o$33d$...
    >
    > Obviously I'm not saying that MS exams are the only ones with no challenge
    > possibility. I'm just saying that the vast majority of exams allows
    > candidates to check and possibly challenge the result. Besides, as I've
    > already said, I do believe that at least for Italian laws this is not a
    > legitimate (and thus is an invalid) contractual clause because there is no
    > means for the candidate to verify if the other part has actually complied
    > with the obligations of the contract (i.e. has honestly, faultlessly and
    > fairly evalued the candidate's knowledge).
    >
    >


    I'm sorry, but where did you sign a contract with Microsoft? Certification
    is a private agreement between you and Microsoft. If you don't agree to the
    terms of certification, nobody is forcing you to pursue it. Your boss may
    ask you to obtain certifications, but you are also certainly free to go work
    at McDonalds where you won't be asked to obtain certifications. Microsoft
    is free to change the terms of it's certifications at any time, and you are
    free to accept those terms, or to move on with life.

    Please don't go down this "legal" road, it's been hashed out here
    ad-nausium.

    John R
    John R, Jan 9, 2008
    #8
  9. "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> wrote in message
    news:#:

    > "Pincopallino" <> wrote in message
    > news:fm198o$33d$...
    > >
    > > Obviously I'm not saying that MS exams are the only ones with no challenge
    > > possibility. I'm just saying that the vast majority of exams allows
    > > candidates to check and possibly challenge the result. Besides, as I've
    > > already said, I do believe that at least for Italian laws this is not a
    > > legitimate (and thus is an invalid) contractual clause because there is no
    > > means for the candidate to verify if the other part has actually complied
    > > with the obligations of the contract (i.e. has honestly, faultlessly and
    > > fairly evalued the candidate's knowledge).
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I'm sorry, but where did you sign a contract with Microsoft? Certification
    > is a private agreement between you and Microsoft. If you don't agree to the
    > terms of certification, nobody is forcing you to pursue it. Your boss may
    > ask you to obtain certifications, but you are also certainly free to go work
    > at McDonalds where you won't be asked to obtain certifications. Microsoft
    > is free to change the terms of it's certifications at any time, and you are
    > free to accept those terms, or to move on with life.
    >
    > Please don't go down this "legal" road, it's been hashed out here
    > ad-nausium.
    >
    > John R


    I found that if one knows the material and has experience with the
    tested technology, one's probable chances of passing said exam increase
    tremendously. I'm just say...

    --
    Michael D. Alligood, MCITP, MCTS, MCSA, MCDST
    The I.T. Classroom - http://www.theitclassroom.com/
    CertGuard, Inc. - http://www.certguard.com/
    Microsoft Exam Security Newsgroup -
    microsoft.public.certification.exam.security
    Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard, Inc.], Jan 9, 2008
    #9
  10. Sultan

    Pincopallino Guest

    "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news:%...
    >
    > "Pincopallino" <> wrote in message
    > news:fm198o$33d$...
    >>
    >> Obviously I'm not saying that MS exams are the only ones with no
    >> challenge possibility. I'm just saying that the vast majority of exams
    >> allows candidates to check and possibly challenge the result. Besides, as
    >> I've already said, I do believe that at least for Italian laws this is
    >> not a legitimate (and thus is an invalid) contractual clause because
    >> there is no means for the candidate to verify if the other part has
    >> actually complied with the obligations of the contract (i.e. has
    >> honestly, faultlessly and fairly evalued the candidate's knowledge).
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I'm sorry, but where did you sign a contract with Microsoft?


    Just before starting the exam.


    > Certification is a private agreement between you and Microsoft.


    i.e. a contract.


    > Your boss may ask you to obtain certifications, but you are also certainly
    > free to go work at McDonalds where you won't be asked to obtain
    > certifications.


    Do you have also a serious argument besides this one?


    > Please don't go down this "legal" road, it's been hashed out here
    > ad-nausium.


    "ad nauseam".
    Why I shouldn't ? It's not because MS is MS that an illegal policy becomes
    legal. Please note that I'm referring to Italian (and, I suspect, European)
    law.
    Pincopallino, Jan 9, 2008
    #10
  11. Sultan

    John R Guest

    "Pincopallino" <> wrote in message
    news:fm3gem$jup$...
    >
    > "John R" <jsr^^^813@zoom^^^internet.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
    > news:%...
    >>


    >> I'm sorry, but where did you sign a contract with Microsoft?

    >
    > Just before starting the exam.
    >

    No, you agreed to an agreement.

    >
    >> Certification is a private agreement between you and Microsoft.

    >
    > i.e. a contract.
    >

    You still don't read too good.

    >
    >> Your boss may ask you to obtain certifications, but you are also
    >> certainly free to go work at McDonalds where you won't be asked to obtain
    >> certifications.

    >
    > Do you have also a serious argument besides this one?
    >


    That wasn't an argument, that was a supporting point to "nobody is forcing
    you to acquire certification". Oh, I forgot, you don't read too good.

    >
    >> Please don't go down this "legal" road, it's been hashed out here
    >> ad-nausium.

    >
    > "ad nauseam".
    > Why I shouldn't ? It's not because MS is MS that an illegal policy becomes
    > legal. Please note that I'm referring to Italian (and, I suspect,
    > European) law.


    Because it is not a valid discussion. You are comparing contracts with
    private agreements. They are not the same thing. I guess you are too
    concerned with spelling to concentrate on the points being made.

    But, go ahead and sue Microsoft on that basis. See how far you get and let
    us know. OK?

    This thread was started by a someone asking a question that I answered. I
    will not continue to try to teach you the difference between a private
    agreement and a contract. I am done with this thread.

    John R
    John R, Jan 10, 2008
    #11
  12. Sultan

    Pincopallino Guest

    >>> I'm sorry, but where did you sign a contract with Microsoft?
    >>
    >> Just before starting the exam.
    >>

    > No, you agreed to an agreement.


    You should try to take a few law classes before trying to "teach" (LOL) law
    to someone.

    For the laws of many (probably most) European countries if I pay a sum of
    money to obtain from someone (MS) something (an exam and then a
    certification) we (MS and me) are acting according to a *contract* and this
    even if there is nothing written, which is not our case.


    >> Do you have also a serious argument besides this one?
    >>

    >
    > That wasn't an argument,


    Aha! I guessed it!
    Pincopallino, Jan 10, 2008
    #12
  13. Sultan

    John R Guest

    "Pincopallino" <> wrote in message
    news:fm66tv$f3g$...
    >>>> I'm sorry, but where did you sign a contract with Microsoft?
    >>>
    >>> Just before starting the exam.
    >>>

    >> No, you agreed to an agreement.

    >
    > You should try to take a few law classes before trying to "teach" (LOL)
    > law
    > to someone.
    >


    I didn't imply that I was teaching you. But let's assume for the moment
    that it is a contract. It really doesn't matter if it is or isn't, but for
    your argument, we will assume it is.

    > For the laws of many (probably most) European countries if I pay a sum of
    > money to obtain from someone (MS) something (an exam and then a
    > certification) we (MS and me) are acting according to a *contract* and
    > this
    > even if there is nothing written, which is not our case.
    >


    The agreement that you agreed to states that in Section 11, subpart a, "This
    Agreement shall in all respects be controlled by the laws of the State of
    Washinton. You hereby consent to jurisdiction and venue..."

    So, you have already agreed to what laws will actually apply. Why then are
    you now going on about the laws in the EU? Did you not understand at the
    time that you agreed to the laws in the state of Washington or did you not
    actually read the agreement (because we've already determined that you don't
    read too good). Now, it is possible that I am wrong and that candidates in
    EU countries received a different agreement than I did, and that Microsoft
    has agreed to jurisdiction for those candidates elsewhere, but I doubt it.
    Even if they did, you obviously didn't read it or your would be saying "For
    the laws of Sweeden" or "For the laws of Italy", which you didn't say.

    Further, Section 3, subpart A states... "To obtain certification in any of
    the applicable MCP Designations, you must have sucessfully complied with the
    initial certification requirements for that Designation."

    Hmmmm, I wonder what those could be. Those terms and requirements that you,
    by the way, have already agreed to prior to taking the test.

    >
    >>> Do you have also a serious argument besides this one?
    >>>

    >>
    >> That wasn't an argument,

    >
    > Aha! I guessed it!
    >


    Funny how you left out the rest of that sentence. It kind of points out
    that you only read what you want to read.

    So, you have agreed with everything including being bound by the terms of
    program, and after the terms didn't work out for you, now you want to go to
    court and try to twist the words and remove what you don't like in order to
    possibly change the outcome in your favor.

    Well, had you actually had the experience and the training to pass the test
    (as Michael pointed out), then none of this would have been questioned.
    Since you went ahead anyway and tried, now you want someone like a
    government to hand it to you since you didn't even bother to read anything,
    but blindly agreed so that you could take the test.

    I clearly see where you are coming from.

    John R
    John R, Jan 11, 2008
    #13
  14. Sultan

    Pincopallino Guest


    > The agreement that you agreed to states that in Section 11, subpart a,
    > "This
    > Agreement shall in all respects be controlled by the laws of the State of
    > Washinton. You hereby consent to jurisdiction and venue..."


    Wrong. I signed another agreement in Italian and I don't recall it mentioned
    anything about the jurisdiction.

    > Even if they did, you obviously didn't read it or your would be saying
    > "For the laws of Sweeden" or "For the laws of Italy", which you didn't
    > say.


    Jurisdiction does not have to be specifyied in a contract. By default,
    according to Italian law, is Italian law.

    >>> That wasn't an argument,

    >>
    >> Aha! I guessed it!
    >>

    >
    > Funny how you left out the rest of that sentence. It kind of points out
    > that you only read what you want to read.


    It simply points out I have less time to waste than you seem to believe.


    > I clearly see where you are coming from.


    Really? From where?
    Pincopallino, Jan 11, 2008
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. xakeP

    has anyone taken 71-271 exam yet?

    xakeP, Nov 9, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    549
    Don't You Wish
    Nov 9, 2003
  2. MCSE World

    OT: MCDST Exam 70-271 Review

    MCSE World, Nov 10, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,121
    MCSE World
    Nov 11, 2003
  3. =?Utf-8?B?YWpheg==?=

    70-271 exam

    =?Utf-8?B?YWpheg==?=, Mar 19, 2007, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    493
    =?Utf-8?B?YWpheg==?=
    Mar 21, 2007
  4. StealthZ
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    832
    Michael D. Alligood [CertGuard]
    Jun 6, 2007
  5. samnachilomo
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,402
    samnachilomo
    Mar 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page