Walter & Group.........
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Questions and comments from Walter Simberski on the new additions to the MCCI
exam, my answers in his text.
Remember...... the final draft of the now version of the MCCI test has
not yet come out on the FFF Website. My answers are based on
my own reflections following detailed
discussions at the CBOG meeting at which some of you were present. At present,
I'm doing the best I can from memory to help prepare canditates.
Some of this information may need tweaking or modification once the formal test
is available to all of us. :-
Gordy - my thoughts as
someone who will have to take the "new" test. I know that you are doing the
best to provide updates and
may not have all of the information but since you opened the box...
"No fly lines will be allowed which are
marked in any way which would assist in judging distance. (Ok, for
example, to have a mark at the back of the head ..... but not distance
markers.)"
Not sure I like this one. If this was strictly an accuracy test then
I would agree wholeheartedly but the accuracy cast is only one element
of a much more diverse test.
I mark my lines as a reference for daily practice sessions. I know a lot
of people who do. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could find a way
to gain an edge for the accuracy tests but it really is the
last thing on my mind and I'm also sure it would be obvious if I was doing
this during
the test. I do mark my line specifically for the distance cast so that I
am sure I've pulled enough line off the reel for the task (for obvious
reasons) and not much more as the excess can get caught up in grass,
underfoot, etc. I hope this isn't considered a way of judging
distance. I think a better way to do this would be to allow a maximum of
one or two marks within in the range of the accuracy tests (20 - 50 feet)
plus any additional marks that are well outside of that range.
I think if I was looking for some way to judge
the distance I would just count the number of strips of line I pulled off the
reel in preparation
for the test. I happen to know from
practice that three strips of line for me is consistently equal to
10 feet of line to within a few inches. I hope
we aren't going to take that bit of knowledge and
now insist that we start with less than 15 feet of line off the reel and with
fly in hand for
each and every target. I could also put tiny
invisible knicks or bumps on the line so I could feel the distance with
my line hand - in my opinion
that would make it a lot easier to
judge distance than trying to spot the visible marks on my line while I'm
concentrating on the target and the line is
waving back and forth like crazy.
I also have to say that I resent the implication that I would cheat
on any part of the test. Unfortunately, I know some people are going
to cheat. The ones that do are going to find ways that aren't
obvious to spot. Making life more difficult for everybody else as a
result
is not what I would consider the right approach.
This was debated at length before the decision was made.
My own, personal, feeling is that it would be difficult to view the target and
the marks on the line in the first place as well as the fact that most
candidates wouldn't even think of cheating that way. As you point out,
in any event it would be obvious to the examiners. Consensus was,
however, that the lines for the actual exam may not be marked in a way
which could assist in judging distance.
We have witnessed CCI candidates placing the fly on the first
target, then picking up and making the cast. Of course, that can't
be done on the MCCI exam anyway, since the fly must be held in hand at the
start. G.
"Another is change in the accuracy events, and
is (as I see it) easier on the candidate than before, because the task
description is more clear."
A clearer description doesn't necessarily make the task easier. As I
understand the description you've given I will be required to hit
all three
targets in three successive casts. If I miss one of the targets I start
over again. I can have up to 2 misses. A third miss would mean that I
failed
the task. I think that in the past the test was interpreted by most
people as having 3 tries at each target and if/when I hit the target I
move on to
the next target. I could have up to 6 misses. A seventh miss would mean
that I failed the task. I think that, mentally and physically, the new and
improved description is making the task much harder.
Mathematically, it does appear that you are correct in that it
is harder. I think it is easier on the candidate, however, to know
more exactly what is required. Good point
! G.
I also remember from our discussions that the
mend task will allow the examiner to request that mends be made to the left or
right at the
examiner's discretion. Also that mends may
be required at 40 feet.
As I go back
to my scribble notes, I see that you are correct about
that.
Let me add,
that although not specifically stated, the mends must be large
enough that there is no question about it. (A 12" mend at the target
simply not big enough. A 6' mend is greater than
needed.)
G.
"A candidate may be asked to do one or a number of
casting tasks not specified on the exam. As with those
cited, above, he/she cannot be flunked on any such task not actually
listed."
I'm sure how that would be enforced. An examiner could say that they
considered the extra tasks as part of the non-performance part of
the examination and that they felt the candidate did not demonstrate
sufficient knowledge when asked to perform the task. An example could
be to ask the candidate to perform a slack line curve cast. If
the candidate didn't know how to do this then perhaps their casting
knowledge
isn't up to expectations?
It can work both ways. Remember: On this exam there
is no numerical scoring system. In the, "end", the examiners must be
convinced that the candidate's performance on both parts of the exam indicates
that he/she would be a high quality, well informed Master level
instructor. G.
Also, are candidates informed of their
"rights" prior to the test? If an examiner is getting overly zealous
does the candidate have any recourse?
Let me refer you to
the, CANDIDATE'S BILL OF RIGHTS. This was carefully drafted and
approved.
Rarely, has there been
a grievance registered. As I recall, each time this has resulted in a
re-examination following review of the issues.
G.
As examiners, we want
the candidate to pass and take it very seriously when that doesn't
happen. I'm comfortable with saying that this is the feeling of each
member of the CBOG. G.
I hate to ask that particular question because it
could open up a real can of worms and make a difficult task even more
difficult for
the examiners but if a candidate does feel they
are being unfairly treated during the test they
should have idea of what, if anything, they can do
about it either during the test or
afterwards.
I also understood from discussions that nobody
would be failed for not being able to cast with the non-dominant hand. Perhaps
I misunderstood
because it seems to me there wouldn't be much
reason to include a task that doesn't affect the outcome of the
test.
That is my
understanding, too. Having said that, however, I think that it may
well be a formal part of the exam requiring passing at some time in the
future. Up to the MCCI Committee and ratification by the
CBOG. G.
I know of other types of certification (not
casting related) where new or modified questions are added to a test but are
not counted as
part of the individual's score. The results of
the question are monitored to see how well candidates do on the question. If a
majority of
people are unable to answer the question then
thought is given to how the question is worded or if it is indeed within the
expected body of
knowledge. If the question is a problem due to
ambiguity it is reworded. If the question is outside of the expected body of
knowledge then
either the expected body of knowledge (such as
study materials, etc.) may have to be expanded or the question may just be
dropped.
Candidates are informed before the test that such
questions may be part of the test but they are not informed which questions
they are.
Maybe the non-dominant hand task falls into that category?
For now it won't affect an individual's test results but in the future, once
the
testing committee is satisfied that the
task is reasonable and well understood, it will be included?
Another good question. I think it
will ..... but this will be up to the MCCI exam Committee subject to approval
by the Board in the future. That's how some of these things have
developed in the past.
G.
Cheers
Walter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Chris Dore:
will existing MCCI's be retested to ensure they are up to par with these
new changes?
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris:
This is still in debate. Seems to me that while no ruling exists,
that this may turn out to be a matter of CONTINUED EDUCATION on a
voluntary basis.
Here is how it might work: I, for example, would
be very embarrassed if I couldn't perform every single one of the tasks
required on the exam. For that reason, I'd be certain to keep up with it
on a voluntary basis. If there is something I can't achieve, I'll have
one of the other Masters or CBOG's teach me. One of the wonderful things
about our, "community" of Masters is that we are often teaching one another
when we cast, teach or fish together.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From
Ally Gowans:
Hi
Gordy,
I’m off to do some
fishing classes in Ireland for 10
days or so. Thanks for the Masters update. A classic tailing loop method for
beginners is pushing the hand forward whilst the rod point is
high.
Best
wishes,
Ally
Gowans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Ally..... Yes. That is Lefty Kreh's
contention. Some didn't agree that this was commonly
seen with student casting, so it wasn't included on the exam
protocol. This despite the fact that it will generate a tail or a
collision between the line and the rod tip. (Years ago, that was the
first oral question that was asked of me on the MCCI exam.)
Most examiners won't pass the candidate on the tailing loop
tasks even on the CCI exam if the rod tip is literally shoved up into the path
of the line. That's is very different, since that is certainly not the
way most casters make an unwanted tail.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Gary Eaton:
Gordy,
Thanks. I will ready myself.
Gary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary ...... Way to go !!!
A, "can't miss" attitude
! Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~