Walter & Group.........
From Walter Simberski :-
Gordy,
I'm glad Guy brought it up since (in my mind) I seem to be the
one asking most of the questions and making most of
the comments about the
new exam format.
I have to agree with Guy. This part of the test seems to
have been watered down. Irregardless of target size there is
now one
task where there were previously two. Is this an oversight or is it intentional?
I want to see the test made
better in terms of being better understood and
thus more consistent, not made easier.
On the related discussion about
the examiners being allowed to ask virtually question on the exam - I thought
that was
the purpose of the exam - to determine the candidates depth of
knowledge. I think there are some standard questions
that should be asked on
the exam but after the preliminary rounds I expect to get into some pretty
esoteric areas. The
exam is just as much a learning experience as a chance to
demonstrate one's knowledge. It might seem unfair that a candidate
who is
especially strong in mechanics may be asked very few questions about mechanics
but that's life. In addition, if
that is the only area the candidate knows
anything about then they need to put in more time in preparation. I would hope
that
not knowing the difference between a Texas rig and Carolina rig isn't
going to result in a candidate being rejected but it
should be up the
examiner if they want to go there not that this question must be avoided because
it's not a term we
use in
flyfishing.
Cheers
Walter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Walter....
I was on the CCI Testing Committee, not the MCI Testing Committee .... so I don't know what the reasons for setting up task 11 that way. I saw no reason to object to that, however.
As I review my testing experience, I note that most candidates who did well on the accuracy task using the method of casting with the rod tip over the casting shoulder also did well when casting over the opposite shoulder with the exception that some didn't do as well when casting over the opposite shoulder to the distance target (55').
That was usually because of the use of too short a stroke .....often with trying to do it casting "cross body" instead of "cross head" or with the use of other stroke lengthing methods. ("Lean back", "lay back", drifting, etc. ) The short stroke often resulted in inappropriate use of power and poor control.
I suppose the chance of flunking the accuracy event the way it is set up for the new exam is a bit greater than it would have been with the present exam. Whether or not that fact is counterbalanced by making the diameter of the 55' target 48" instead of 30", I simply don't know.
Since you are a mathematician, I suspect you would be more comfortable with a strict numerical way of grading the exam. That would require some sort of point system with each task "weighted".
Re: your comment on the fairness to the candidate who knows a great deal about casting mechanics......
Most exam teams try to give fair weight, if not strictly the equal, to the five basic topics. As you know, these are: CASTING, FLY FISHING, EQUIPMENT, TEACHING and ETHICS.
Most examiners take the position that while a rough percentage of success is needed to pass, that this is subordinate to the impression that the candidate makes on the exam team as to whether or not he/she is a well informed and effective master level instructor. I, for one, look at that as the "bottom line".
We have failed more than one candidate who did every casting task well and answered most of the questions on the oral satisfactorily when we came to the conclusion that the teaching and communication skills were sorely lacking. WHY ?
Because our very mission, as I look at the casting certification program, is to certify instructors who are effective TEACHERS. Our Master instructors should be at the top of the heap in that department.
Gordy