Improving LPI certifications [was Re:A round of applause for Emma Jane Hogbin...]

[Zbigniew Koziol]

Lennart Sorensen wrote:

>On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 03:54:38PM -0400, G. Matthew Rice wrote:
>  
>
>>lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
>>    
>>
>>>I wrote the 101 test at RWL last year, because it was only $20 and I was
>>>curious what it was like.
>>>
>>>Overall I was disappointed.  I had hoped for something better than the
>>>other certifications I ahve seen, but unfortunately it too had questions
>>>that were invalid, or which had either no correct anwer or more than one
>>>correct answer.  Some questions make assumptions that are not universally
>>>valid across linux distributions.  Some I would consider totally irrelevant
>>>to the topic of the exam.
>>>      
>>>
>>They are updating the exams again.  If you want to help improve them, now is
>>the chance to volunteer.
>>    
>>
>
>I am willing to comment on validity of questions.  I already did that
>once for Brainbench a few years ago.  They even paid me a bit for it,
>although I would not consider that a requirement given LPI doesn't seem
>to be doing this to become rich.
>  
>
Good idea. I personally do not care about getting any certificates. And 
am certainly not as good on Linux as Lennard and many others around 
(though, this is not neccessarily a bad thing in this case). I would not 
mind as well to provide my opinion on quality of exams, within of course 
my time-availibility for doing such things. So, organizers may ask me 
for opinion as well.

zb.

>Lennart Sorensen
>  
>
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml