|
Walter & Group...
[GH] From Peter Morse :
Gary as this is a MCI discussion group I'm pretty sure most understand we are talking about the MCI exam, but what is the "Explain and demonstrate" section of the CCI exam if it isn't an oral exam?
To date has there been any litigation against the FFF because someone has failed an exam?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Michael Jones :
Gordy~
I have been on the edge of my seat to hear others jump in on this topic. Gary Eaton strums a perfect chord with me here: Inconsistency embellished by disagreement provides fertile cracks for discordant battle.
Now I will share: 13 years ago, I took my MCI exam in Somerset, New Jersey with two of Joan Wulff's instructors giving the exam. A few good questions into the exam, I found myself using the term 'casting arc' to describe the movement of the rod from the beginning to the end position of the casting stroke. OUCH, that term was totally unacceptable to both examiners. "An arc describes a non-linear path of the rod tip!" "No, I am describing the beginning and end positions of the rod for any given casting stroke". "AHHHHHHHH". We were in total disagreement, about rolling around on the floor. That was the beginning of the end of my exam.
In an interesting turn of events, Bruce Richards authored an informative article a few years later describing the casting stroke as an 'arc'. Following that, I have heard the term used frequently in many casting discussion circles in the FFF universe (in exactly the same context I used).
I believe that there was a distinct bias from the examiners at my only MCI exam, and this is only one example of what happened to me that day at the hands of those boys. After meeting with some other candidates that met these same examiners at MCI testing (following mine), the sentiment was the same: "I would have passed the exam, if it was actually an exam!" MCI testing means different things to different examiners, and I would not mind sending that attitude home to roost, and move forward with my career as a fly fishing professional. A comprehensive written exam would go a long way to remove this problem from the testing process.
Is passing the MCI exam an immediate qualifier for actually giving the exam?
In terms of this quote: " I am not sure how they will be able to perform in front of a group of students if they can not perform in front of the examiners."
I am happy to perform in front of the examiners in the same way I have performed in front of my students for the last 20 years, in a fully complimented setting, with flyrods....let's call it the oral/practical! You want to see 20 knots tied? Happy to share. Remember how we learn: 1. Auditory (listen/hear), 2. Kinesthetic (feel, touch), 3. Visual (observe, see). The present MCI oral mostly removes #2 & #3 from the average instructors day-to-day approach to successful & complete explanation, that is all!
Dave Diaz can & could teach Hellen Keller to cast by feel alone, no words spoken. That is a Master at work!
MJ
Michael & Group....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Michael.....
Your account parallels a few other horror stories I've been told about errant MCI exams ... so I know you are not alone. The MCI Testing Committee is fully aware of the problems of the past and is trying to make the new exam as fair as possible.
A long session is planned devoted to the MCI test for the Monday at the start of the Conclave in W. Yellowstone.
In order to improve the orals, efforts to train MCI examiners have been put forth. No longer is it OK for a new Master to immediately be able to join a Master exam team. At the very least they must witness exams before taking part as examiners. I'm confident that this program of actually qualifying examiners will be expanded way beyond this.
Questions such as the, "what am I thinking?" and other ambiguous ones should be avoided.
Despite all this, you and Gary are correct that an oral exam can never be as objective as a comprehensive written one. On the other hand, we also know that a written exam can be fraught with problems as well in this imperfect World. Written question on "casting arc", for example, could be just as problematical on a written test when we consider that many consider the an "arc" to be a segment of a circle rather than the angular change in the position of an object such as a fly rod, thus making the term "casting arc" a useful one yet a big of a misnomer....... etc., etc., etc. With fly casting mechanics we'll have engineers using different terms than physicists; neither speaking the same language as an expert fly caster who happens to be a writer or a poet.
At present, I'm serving on a testing committee which has devoted many months just trying to clarify and improve a written exam. It is amazing what goes in to that process !
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] From Guy Manning :
Gordy,
Just to toss in an example of what we go through in the exam committees, and for the benefit of the readers here, I would need the following clarified before we settled on wording.
Give 3 fly line core characteristics, and briefly explain how these affect a line's characteristics.
Are we being asked for 3 core (basic) characteristics of fly lines, or 3 characteristics of fly line cores? I can answer it either way, though I would consider this question verging into the realm of arcane knowledge if we are being asked about core materials. Also, the use of the word “characteristics” twice within the question leaves me questioning what the question is asking. For instance it could be interpreted as meaning, how does core material affect a lines core material?
Guy Manning
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] A short while ago, I was delighted to help mentor Mark Milkovich. Peter Lami joined in as we gave him a "mock" oral exam while pulling no punches. Not on his casting, but strictly on material for the oral part of the MCI exam. This is his assessment :
Gordy,
Both Dave Barron and Craig Buckbee make legitimate and not necessarily contradictory points.
Dave Barron commented: "I am not sure how they will be able to perform in front of a group of students if they cannot perform in front of the examiners". Dave didn’t suggest that a candidate was bound to perform poorly with students if they could not perform well with examiners. Instead he suggested that a candidate who could perform well with examiners was very likely to be able to perform well with students. Given some of the comments recently posted in our group I can see why examiners would much rather be safe than sorry in passing a candidate.
Craig Buckbee makes an equally good point: a group of examiners is VASTLY different than your typical Saturday morning group of Orvis 101 students. I suspect every MCI candidate would completely agree.
I’ve been on both sides of oral exams and I favor them. For the examiner they provide a second and immediate opportunity to either confirm or refute that the candidate has mastered an issue in question. For the candidate that second look might just as well provide an ideal opportunity to clarify an earlier misstatement as it might to confirm the candidate’s misunderstanding.
We candidates have the opportunity to read the comments by CBOGs posted in the study group, we can talk to people who have been tested by them and draw our own conclusions about what kind of examiner they might be. We can then to ask an individual governor to lead our exam.
As I learned when I visited you this spring Gordy, a mock oral exam can be “spiked” with the kind of “bust your chops” questions that you and Peter Lami provided for me. Had I thought of it I would have asked for “inquisition” like questions just to get the experience and to be better prepared for that eventuality in an actual exam. The mock exams can be conducted in a way which thoroughly prepare the candidate especially if the candidate asks the mock examiners to do so.
For candidates who have testing issues, I suggest they make the examiners aware of it.
Thanks Gordy,
Mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|