Return-Path: owner-judge at synchro.com Received: from srvr7.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr7.engin.umich.edu [141.212.2.69]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA16716 for ; Thu, 29 May 1997 08:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (0 at judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu [141.211.83.37]) by srvr7.engin.umich.edu (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id IAA29411 for ; Thu, 29 May 1997 08:31:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) with X.500 id IAA10082; Thu, 29 May 1997 08:31:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uu6.psi.com by judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.8.5/2.2) with SMTP id IAA10063; Thu, 29 May 1997 08:31:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uu6.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.071791-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA03525 for spencer at umich.edu; Thu, 29 May 97 08:31:04 -0400 Received: (from majordom at localhost) by synchro.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07887 for judge-digest-outgoing; Thu, 29 May 1997 07:52:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 07:52:28 -0400 Message-Id: <199705291152.HAA07887 at synchro.com> From: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com To: judge-digest at synchro.com Subject: judge-digest V1 #1447 Reply-To: judge at synchro.com Errors-To: owner-judge-digest at synchro.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO X-Status: judge-digest Thursday, 29 May 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1447 ============================================================================ J u d g e N e t - t h e b e e r j u d g e d i g e s t ============================================================================ Moderator: Chuck Cox Archivist: Spencer Thomas Publisher: SynchroSystems Submissions: judge at synchro.com Subscriptions: judge-request at synchro.com Archive: http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge BJCP info: geninfo at bjcp.synchro.com ============================================================================ contents: RE: Relevance of the exam Re: judge-digest V1 #1446 Re: exam feedback Re: exam feedback The Relevance of the Exam, Part II Re: judge-digest V1 #1446 Exam again? retesting Judging Chili ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:44:46 -0700 Subject: RE: Relevance of the exam Hi all, Kieran questions the relevance of the exam, pondering whether it tests the tools appropriate for good judging. I believe that a person does need to have a fair amount of technical brewing knowledge to be a great judge. The exam does a good enough job at testing this. I know people that have a tremendous number of judging points, but can't get the grade necessary to be promoted to the level their points would allow them to be. In almost every case it is because the person in question does not brew often, and does not mash. While technical brewing can be learned by reading, a deeper and more complete understanding will be gained from actually brewing. These skills translate directly to the score sheet; the comments will be more complete and accurate. I believe that the test does not do a terribly good job of testing judging skills, though. We have all experienced the "Body right for style, 3 out of 5" syndrome. The test does not correct this. Sure, if you write this on your exam you'll lose points, but you'll never know it: we don't get the exams back! The grader only gets to write a brief commentary about the test. It is far from adequate. I agree with Kieran that promotion in the BJCP is too easy. You may recall back in Jan. or Feb. when I ranted about a Certified judge that did a very poor evaluation of a Weizen because he didn't know the style. You should not be able to be Certified if you can't at least describe the basic, easily obtained styles! I guess the exam wasn't enough, in this case. Of course, as Kieran points out, the logistics of maintaining a system that could better evaluate judges would be cumbersome, but maybe there would be enough of us interested in participating to make it feasible. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) ------------------------------ From: David E Drinkwater-Lunn (David Drinkwater) Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 09:27:58 -0500 Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1446 > Re: The Relevance of the Exam > two replies to george and one to kieran > Re: Scoresheet evaluation, legibility > any information on spirit of Belgium competition? > Re: exam feedback > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >From: John Wilson >Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 19:57:22 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: Re: The Relevance of the Exam > > > Why is there all this talk regarding the exam and its' supposed >difficulty? If there is one thing the exam should be is DIFFICULT. If >someone is trying to achieve a national or master rank and does not score >high enough, they should look at their study techniques and the manner in >which they communicate what they know--they should not gripe to JudgeNet >saying the exam is too difficult or tests the "wrong information." Second! >[snip] The reason we, as judges, have >to know so much about brewing techinques is for the purpose of feedback. >For example, say a premium lager beer is excessively estery, the >proper feedback requires that we know possible sources for said >flaw. This also holds true for flaws due to contamination. It is >precisely this depth of knowledge that provides the foundation for a >superior judge. It is absurd to propose that we need not have >fundamental knowledge of the antecedent techniques of the very thing we >are supposed to be judging. Period. Although I do believe that feedback >to judges themselves is a good idea and should be pursued. I'll get off my >soapbox now. With the caveat that practical knowledge of styles is crucial (ie tried this, tied that, _NOT_ merely book learning), I agree with this part, too. I also think it really does help if the judge of a homebrewed beer is a homebrewer, because otherwise it's hard to appreciate how much work is or is not involved in doing it right (sanitation, pitching rates, oxygenation, refrigeration, etc...). I am not saying I do all of these things right, but I continue to push my envelope with different little tricks that will help my batches along. Next step, yeast on steriods! ;) >------------------------------ > >From: jdecarlo at mail04.mitre.org (John A. DeCarlo) >Date: Tue, 27 May 97 08:18:22 -0400 >Subject: Re: exam feedback [cited post deleted] >So, how did you get all your experience? There definitely seems to be an >emphasis on having BJCP judges at competitions, rather than others. Sort of a >Catch-22: how can you be a good judge (and do well on the judging part of the >exam) without actual experience judging, yet how can you get experience without >having passed the exam? Easy. You go to study session and practice. Now, it may be that there are not a lot of people in your area to set up a study group with. That does make things more difficult, but it does not seem likely that someone who is going to take the BJCP exam has not heard of the BJCP, therefore this person should be aware that the BJCP test involves scoresheets. Knowing that, the person should look for one and figure out what the scoresheet is asking for. Being the somewhat facetious academic type, I refer to that aspect of the test (and the "describe the advancement process in the BJCP" part) as "free points." (That's not my idea, but I liked it, so I kept it...) It's just like studying to take the the SAT: you learn that you can, statistically speaking, "gain" free points if you always guess when you can eliminate at least one of the answers to any given question. You should know about the test you are going to take. And anyone who is not going to do the work required to score an 80 (or 90) and above does not, IMnsHO, deserve to be a National- or Master-ranked judge. Just passing the test should not be too difficult, and from there, the person has a file with the BJCP and can store up judging experience points as long as he or she wants to. - -- David Drinkwater, drin0004 at tc.umn.edu, NetNick=Demodave, Homepage at http://www.tc.umn.edu/nlhome/m020/drin0004 Chilling in Minneapolis at the University of Minnesota Happy to hear from you! :-) ------------------------------ From: "Bryan Cronk" Date: 28 May 1997 10:26 EDT Subject: Re: exam feedback John DeCarlo wrote: >>This is a scary statement, to me. I certainly wouldn't want to have >>taken the exam without having had significant practice in scoring >>beers before hand. > > So, how did you get all your experience? There definitely seems to > be an emphasis on having BJCP judges at competitions, rather than > others. Sort of a Catch-22: how can you be a good judge (and do > well on the judging part of the exam) without actual experience > judging, yet how can you get experience without having passed the > exam? John, are there really that many BJCP judges in your area that novices don't get a chance? My experience is the opposite, that we are always able to ensure one BJCP judge at a table, but often the one or two others are novice (with experience) or first time judges. In addition, when I judge, I try to call upon the stewards to taste and evaluate to give them a chance to comment and get used to the score sheet (they also sometimes can pick up things I miss). Is this catch-22 a red herring? =========================== On a related note, I would be in favor of a re-examination on the judging part of the test for people progressing to National status and above. In fact, I'd like to have the option of paying a modest fee and re-taking just the judging part anytime an exam was held in order to get feedback. My result on the test was much better on the written portion, and while I think I'm a better judge now, I could use some feedback, maybe including a discussion with the proctors. Cheers, Bryan (cronks1 at mindspring.com, bcronk at nortel.ca) ------------------------------ From: Spencer W Thomas Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:05:19 -0400 Subject: Re: exam feedback >>>>> "John" == John A DeCarlo writes: John> So, how did you get all your experience? I got my experience by pulling together a group of like-minded judge wannabes and a few judges who wanted to improve their scores. We met monthly, focussing on a different style each month, and judged then discussed the beers and our scoresheets. You can do this whether or not there are any competitions nearby. John> There definitely John> seems to be an emphasis on having BJCP judges at John> competitions, rather than others. Yes, but you can almost always find an opportunity to "sit in" at a table with experienced judges, filling out score sheets along side, and getting feedback from them on the spot. =Spencer ------------------------------ From: "Kieran O'Connor" Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 11:20:15 -0500 Subject: The Relevance of the Exam, Part II As I figured, the comments in the previous Judgenet did not go to the heart of my comments about the exam, but to the periphery: "we can't do this, we can't do that, not enough time, etc". What I was hoping to encourage is a dialogue on: 1) What the exam asks 2) How we ask it. 3) How we evaluate it, both on the exam and long term. [As an aside, I have been an exam grader (on hiatus right now) and am a National Judge. So my comments aren't whiner comments in that I couldn't achieve a high enough score. And I know how the exam is graded since I've done it.] I see a problem in that what we ask people to show us is not generally used on scoresheets. Just as an example: one of the questions asks the examinee to discuss the malting process. To earn a perfect score on that question, one needs to know quite a bit of detail about the malting process. But, does one need to know that detail to provide feedback on style and technical issues on a scoresheet? I don't think so. Let me say this clearly: **a judge needs technical knowedge and style knowledge. **. I don't want to remove that. But we are asking judges to not only show that they can judge, but that they know a lot about beer. There is crossover between being a beer judge and a beer geek, no doubt! But one does not need to be a beer geek to be a beer judge and discuss style and technical flaws intelligently. I would simply argue that the depth examinees need is just a wee high, especially in the technical area. My second point is that we only see if judges can judge on the exam. After that, they simply collect points by judging at competitions and then advance in rank (score permitting, and I am guilty as charged!). But, they can advance without anyone providing feedback on the *judge's feedback!*. So we have a system all about feedback to entrants, that doesnt provide feedback to the judges! (Bill Giffin tried this and I thought it laudable.) I agree with the point that it's difficult to evaluate judge's scoresheets without knowing the beer. No doubt. My suggestion, which I didnt clearly state, would be to look at judge scoresheets for completeness, comments and accuracy (does the judge use technical terms correctly, appear to know the style). At least we could evaluate judges on those areas rather than what we do now: nothing after the exam. Again, is it work: yes. I am willing to help on this. It absolutely is easy to provide suggestions without the help, but I am willing to help. But even if I weren't, would making the suggestions be less valid? So, just a few thoughts. Kick it around and think about it. We've been doing the same exam format for 10 years. Does it do what we think it does, or want it to do? What can be changed? Kieran _______________________________________________ Kieran O'Connor OCM BOCES: Serving Cortland, Chittenango, APW, Lansing Syracuse, NY USA koconnor at cnyric.org (607) 753-6061 or (315) 433-8335 _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Bergsman Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 08:55:12 -0700 Subject: Re: judge-digest V1 #1446 John DeCarlo, jdecarlo at juno.com wrote: > Spencer W Thomas wrote: > >Jeremy wrote: > >> Many people taking the exam are judging out beers with a score > >> sheet for the first time, or nearly so. > >This is a scary statement, to me. I certainly wouldn't want to have > >taken the exam without having had significant practice in scoring > >beers before hand. > So, how did you get all your experience? I know John is asking Spencer, but: I had never judged at a competition when I took the exam, but I did mock judgings with my club with experienced judges. (We saved extra entries from a comp we ran for this purpose.) My poor exam grade probably reflects in part my lack of experience at that point. I find that many people are hesitant to offer their services as judges when they haven't taken the test--they don't feel qualified. And I'd venture to say that many people do learn a lot of what they need to know by preparing for the exam (definitely a strong point of the exam system!). Since stewarding lacks somewhat in glamour, busy people seem to find it hard to make time to drive a distance to serve beer to other people. This is unfortunate since it is probably the best way to get experience if you are hesitant to judge. A program to make stewarding more attractive or, more generally, to introduce people to the judging process would probably benefit the program in the long run. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb ------------------------------ From: Bill Giffin Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 12:47:34 -0500 Subject: Exam again? Top of the morning to ye all, The exam is absolutely wonderful! If someone studies hard, crams his butt off and can judge four beers then without any further evaluation this person can become a MASTER JUDGE. What crap!! The Master judges that we now have have not proven themselfs as it is and we still want to place all our eggs in the basket of the exam. Don't evaluate score sheets as that might take a couple of hours of your time. Don't have peer review prior to the advancement of a judge from one level to another as that might involve a bit of work. The exam is only suitable as a screening device to admit folks into the program. As far as the brewing skills part of the exam is concerned that part of the exam is just pure nonsence. Tell me what is wrong and I can fix it, but it is surely diapointing when a Master judge provides fixs for a brew that are totally incorrect and this happens more often then not. All you have to do to see how well we judge is to honestly evaluate the recipes of the AHA NHC for the past five years. We didn't do a great job! I have not been overly impressed with the judging of the National and Master judges, either judging with them or having them judging my beers. These folks for the most part do not deserve the exalted titles that have been given to them! Bill ------------------------------ From: korz at xnet.com Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 14:56:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: retesting In response to Kieran's second concern, I'd like to again propose that judges be re-tested periodically. 5 years? 10 years? I initially proposed this 5 years ago when a National judge panned my Dubbel for "not having the required lactic sourness." I think the humbling effect of having to study for the exam (or failing it) may help keep high-ranking judges from getting too cocky. Al. ------------------------------ From: hall at galt.c3.lanl.gov (Michael L. Hall) Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 16:08:46 -0600 Subject: Judging Chili I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but I figured we could stand a break for a little humor. I got the following after it had been forwarded several times (you know how humor circles work) so I don't know the original author. Somehow it reminded me of judging beer. Enjoy, Mike >From Cameron, the famous internet writer ---------------- Recently, I was honored to be selected as an Outstanding Famous Celebrity in my Community to be a judge at a chili cook-off because no one else wanted to do it. Also the original person called in sick at the last moment and I happened to be standing there at the judge's table asking directions to the beer wagon when the call came. I was assured by the other two judges that the chili wouldn't be all that spicy, and besides they told me I could have free beer during the tasting, so I accepted this as being one of those burdens you endure when you're an internet writer and therefore known and adored by all. Here are the scorecards from the event: Chili # 1: Mike's Maniac Mobster Monster Chili JUDGE ONE: A little too heavy on tomato. Amusing kick. JUDGE TWO: Nice, smooth tomato flavor. Very mild. CAMERON: Holy smokes, what is this stuff? You could remove dried paint from your driveway with it. Took me two beers to put the flames out. Hope that's the worst one. These people are crazy. Chili # 2: Arthur's Afterburner Chili JUDGE ONE: Smoky (barbecue?) with a hint of pork. Slight Jalapeno tang. JUDGE TWO: Exciting BBQ flavor, needs more peppers to be taken seriously. CAMERON: Keep this out of reach of children! I'm not sure what I am supposed to taste besides pain. I had to wave off two people who wanted to give me the Heimlich maneuver. Shoved my way to the front of the beer line. The barmaid looks like a professional wrestler after a bad night. She was so irritated over my gagging sounds that the snake tattoo under her eye started to twitch. She has arms like Popeye and a face like Winston Churchill. I will NOT pick a fight with her. Chili # 3: Fred's Famous Burn Down the Barn Chili JUDGE ONE: Excellent firehouse chili! Great kick. Needs more beans. JUDGE TWO: A beanless chili, a bit salty, good use of red peppers. CAMERON: This has got to be a joke. Call the EPA, I've located a uranium spill. My nose feels like I have been sneezing Drano. Everyone knows the routine by now and got out of my way so I could make it to the beer wagon. Barmaid pounded me on the back; now my backbone is in the front part of my chest. She said her friends call her "Sally." Probably behind her back they call her "Forklift." Chili # 4: Bubba's Black Magic JUDGE ONE: Black bean chili with almost no spice. Disappointing. JUDGE TWO: A hint of lime in the black beans. Good side dish for fish or other mild foods, not much of a chili. CAMERON: I felt something scraping across my tongue but was unable to taste it. Sally was standing behind me with fresh refills so I wouldn't have to dash over to see her. When she winked at me her snake sort of coiled and uncoiled--it's kinda cute. Chili # 5: Linda's Legal Lip Remover JUDGE ONE: Meaty, strong chili. Cayenne peppers freshly ground adding considerable kick. Very impressive. JUDGE TWO: Chili using shredded beef; could use more tomato. Must admit the cayenne peppers make a strong statement. CAMERON: My ears are ringing and I can no longer focus my eyes. I belched and four people in front of me needed paramedics. The contestant seemed hurt when I told her that her chili had given me brain damage. Sally saved my tongue by pouring beer directly on it from a pitcher. Sort of irritates me that one of the other judges asked me to stop screaming. Chili # 6: Vera's Very Vegetarian Variety JUDGE ONE: Thin yet bold vegetarian variety chili. Good balance of spice and peppers. JUDGE TWO: The best yet. Aggressive use of peppers, onions, and garlic. Superb. CAMERON: My intestines are now a straight pipe filled with gaseous flames. No one seems inclined to stand behind me except Sally. I asked if she wants to go dancing later. Chili # 7: Susan's Screaming Sensation Chili JUDGE ONE: A mediocre chili with too much reliance on canned peppers. JUDGE TWO: Ho Hum, tastes as if the chef threw in canned chili peppers at the last moment. I should note that I am worried about Judge Number 3, he appears to be in a bit of distress. CAMERON: You could put a hand grenade in my mouth and pull the pin and I wouldn't feel it. I've lost the sight in one eye and the world sounds like it is made of rushing water. My clothes are covered with chili which slid unnoticed out of my mouth at some point. Good, at the autopsy they'll know what killed me. Go Sally, save yourself before it's too late. Tell our children I'm sorry I was not there to conceive them. I've decided to stop breathing, it's too painful and I'm not getting any oxygen anyway. If I need air I'll just let it in through the hole in my stomach. Call the X-Files people and tell them I've found a super nova on my tongue. Chili # 8: Helen's Mount Saint Chili JUDGE ONE: This final entry is a good, balanced chili, neither mild nor hot. Sorry to see that most of it was lost when Judge Number 3 fell and pulled the chili pot on top of himself. JUDGE TWO: A perfect ending, this is a nice blend chili, safe for all, not too bold but spicy enough to declare its existence. CAMERON: Momma? +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael L. Hall, Ph.D. | | President, Los Alamos Atom Mashers | | Member, AHA Board of Advisors | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ End of judge-digest V1 #1447 **************************** Send subscription cancellations & changes to judge-request at synchro.com. Messages sent to the wrong address will be ignored.