New exam / Candidate advice

Walter & Group........

One of our MCCI candidates has asked whether the fact that he'd never done any salt water skiff fishing would be held against him even though he had learned to perform the required salt water "quick cast".

This question speaks to the phylosophy behind the exam as well as an understanding of what we expect in a Master.

My answer, below:

 

 

It should NOT be held against you.  Many Masters have never even been on the deck of a flats skiff.

 

The idea is to have you be familiar with the casting mechanics and the fishing principles and tackle involved.

 

 

                                                             WHY? 

 

 

So that you could teach it to one of your students who requests advice before going on a trip where it would be used.  That's what a Master is...... someone with intimate knowledge of the fly fishing which he does most as well as a basic knowledge of all fly fishing ... an instructor to whom other instructors can turn for advice.  One who will not know all the answers, but who knows where and how to find them.

 

By the same token, I would not expect an MCCI candidate to know the intricacies of Spey casting if I knew he'd never been in a fishing situation where this was used. ....... only the very basics and principles.  The exam requires explanation and demonstrations of single Spey and Double Spey casts and the knowledge as to when to use them with respect to river bank and wind.  I wouldn't ask things like the details of Spey lines, The Peri-poke, the snap-T or even variations of the snake roll.

 

If I examine a candidate who does almost all of his fishing in salt water, I'll still expect him to know the basics of stream fishing and the casts which this venue demands.....  but not the fine details which would probably be known only to one who has spent many hours and years on the trout stream.  I wouldn't, for example, expect this candidate to know the details of the life cycles of stream insect life or the details of "high-sticking" techniques for nymph fishing in pocket water.

 

WE TRY TO KEEP IT AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE.

 

Gordy

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Lefty's new book, from Michael Jones  :-

 

Gordy:

It comes with a lot of enthusiasm to tell you that I have this book, signed and endorsed.  So far, I fully agree with everything you said here, and look forward to sharing his themes and strategies with the group in the future.

Michael

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

From Walter Simberski. My brief comments in bold blue italics     G. :-

 

Gordy,

 

First of all, congratulations to all the people who have worked so hard on the new test format. I know it's been

a huge struggle at times but I see a lot of improvement. I especially like the clearly defined expectations and

pass/fail criteria as these will tell me what to look for while I am preparing for the test.

 

For some reason I still have concerns about the idea that someone could or would cheat on the accuracy casts.

I'm not sure why it bothers me so much. Perhaps it's the challenge of trying to eliminate cheating or perhaps

I just find the idea of cheating to be offensive.

 

I have no problem with visibly marked lines being banned for the test but I think it's only a partial solution. I personally

find that something I can feel on the line (perhaps a bit of mono nail knotted to the line) is much more useful

for judging distance than visible marks on the line and I doubt the examiners would know it was there.

 

I guess it's fortunate for potential candidates that I'm not the one setting the test requirements because I

would have the examiners move the targets up to 2 feet from the designated distances and to do this

repositioning when the candidate isn't looking so that the candidate has no idea of the actual distance to

the targets. This would mean that the farthest target, for example, could be anywhere between 53 and 57 feet.

 

Another option would be to have an examiner test cast the candidate's equipment prior to the test to ensure there are

no visual or tactile indicators on the line but this could lead to potential issues if a rod or line was damaged during

this examination.

 

Anyway - enough blathering on my part.

 

Questions:

 

Task 11 includes casting over both shoulders so even if I never hit one target while casting

over either shoulder this counts as a single failed task? In the current version of the test I believe that

this would be two failed tasks...

 

I interpret this the same way.  More difficult than previously ?   Yes.     G.

 

Will the same standards and procedures be applied to the accuracy casts on the CCI exam? I have students

working towards their CCIs and want to make sure we have a clear understanding.

 

This will be up to the CCI Testing Committee and then the CBOG.  Might occur in the future, but not at present.     G.

 

We discussed this before as well but I'm not sure how it would be viewed - can the candidate ask to

change the order of some of the tasks?

 

Not stated.  That will be between the candidate and the examiners.  Having said that, the examiners may (and sometimes do) change the order of the tasks . 

 

As I think you know, sometimes the examiners will give the oral exam and the casting portion of the exam together.  That is usually up to the lead examiner.   A good MCCI candidate is CONFIDENT and ready for ANYTHING. 

 

Once really ready, I'd like him/hr to go into the exam with this attitude:  BRING IT ON.  I'M READY !  

 

I think it was Ken Cole who had an epiphany when he said,  "You are not ready when you THINK you are ready..... You are ready when you KNOW you are.    G.

 

Thanks

 

Walter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~