5 replies to this topic

[TobyD]

Having just completed my CLAD exam (I only missed one question ) I came away a bit upset with the wording on a few of the questions. I was forced to give the answer I knew NI was looking for, but on at least two of the questions I could have made a very good argument as to why it was not technically the correct answer based on the wording of the question. Unfortunately I cannot discuss any of them.

When I took all of my Microsoft certification classes years ago to become a MCSE, they gave me the option to "comment" on any of the questions on the test (this was not timed and occured after you ended the exam but before your score was shown if I remember correctly). The comment would not affect the outcome of the exam, but could perhaps influence Microsoft to change the wording or remove the question from future exams. I would like to see a similar feature on NI's exams.

[BobHamburger]

I just recertified my CLD, which required me to take the multiple-choice test which I believe is identical to the CLAD exam. In my opinion, this exam contained largely irrelevant material and poorly constructed questions with ambiguous answers. It's very clear that these exams are authored by folks in Customer Education who have had little or no real programming or development experience with the tools upon which the tests are based. Many of the questions cover arcane and trivial details that have little applicability to real-world issues. NI needs to wake up and restructure their exams so that they provide an accurate and credible assessment of the test taker's LabVIEW development skills.

[jaegen]

I'll add a "me too". When I wrote the CLAD exam it was on paper - I probably spent more time adding comments to the wording of the questions than actually answering them.

Jaegen

[David Boyd]

I recall one problem in my multiple-choice CLD recertification where I was convinced there was no correct answer (but exactly one answer which seemed close). When I got back to the office I even re-sketched the BD snippet and the list of answers (from memory) and sent it in to the certification folks. Never got a reply. But hey - I tried.

Apart from that, I had no complaints about either the original CLD test or the recertification.

Dave

[Justin Goeres]

QUOTE(jaegen @ Sep 4 2007, 12:09 PM)

I'll add a "me too". When I wrote the CLAD exam it was on paper - I probably spent more time adding comments to the wording of the questions than actually answering them.

QFT.

[crelf]

QUOTE(BobHamburger @ Sep 5 2007, 02:58 AM)

In my opinion, this exam contained largely irrelevant material and poorly constructed questions with ambiguous answers. Many of the questions cover arcane and trivial details that have little applicability to real-world issues. NI needs to wake up and restructure their exams so that they provide an accurate and credible assessment of the test taker's LabVIEW development skills.

I dunno, I think the CLAD is good for college students, the CLD is good for engineers that have been in professional business for three or so years, and the CLA for engineers that are senior and have more than 5 years experience. That said, I'm not sure the recerts are very apparopriate, but I do like the original exams. Certification isn't about real-world issues, it's about the ability to use the tool, not be a good engineer.


QUOTE(BobHamburger @ Sep 5 2007, 02:58 AM)

It's very clear that these exams are authored by folks in Customer Education who have had little or no real programming or development experience with the tools upon which the tests are based.

There's an excellent answer to this: contact NI customer education and offer to help. If you really want to further the certification process, then the NI customer education team are very open and keen to get outside assistance. Dave Corney is the guy to talk to: he's a LAVA Member, likes a good cup of English tea and is a very very approachable in my experience.