Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.21]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA05160 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 01:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA21093 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 01:06:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/26/01 - 8/27/01 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 01:03:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC11213AE248" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC11213AE248 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "memorising" style categories (Robert Paolino) points for commercial judging and heresy (BrewInfo) --Next_Part_SYNC11213AE248 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC11213AE248" --Message_Part_SYNC11213AE248 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from out0.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net ([169.207.1.78]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC11003ADEAE for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:01:57 -0400 Received: from pop3.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (pop3.nwbl.wi.voyager.net [169.207.1.83]) by out0.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.11.4/8.11.4/1.7) with ESMTP id f7Q81HI02944 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from earth (rpaolino at earth.execpc.com [169.207.16.1]) by pop3.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7Q81EX25121 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Paolino Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: "memorising" style categories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Randy Paul wrote (and others as well on the same point): > > From: Randy Paul Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:05:53 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Commercial Judging & memorizing [snip] > I'll vote to provide the guidelines in exams but no open book. There are > many competitions using outdated guidelines or tailored guidelines so > judges need to be adaptable to the numbers du jour more than be fixated on > a description they memorized. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to alter the > guidelines and take points for an evaluation scoresheet that overlooked > it. For example, raise the German Wheat OG and use a sample like > Schneider Edel-Weisse. A great beer, but using the current guideline it > should be too strong for the style. If the judge says "too strong" he > scores lower because he missed the change. What do you think? I think that much of this discussion mischaracterises the issue as rote memorisation of the style guidelines in calling to make them available during the exam. No one is asking an examinee to commit every detail of a particular style guideline to memory, and if someone does (s)he is probably going about it the wrong way. It's not that someone needs to know every numerical specification for a given style, but instead that (s)he KNOW and understand beer styles. Knowledge of styles is tested not only in the tasting portion of the exam (for which the argument is that "we see the descriptions in the competitions, why not in the exam?") but also in the essay portion. We are asked to describe and compare-contrast different styles, to develop recipes, et cetera. Having the guidelines in front of us diminishes the capacity of the question to test that knowledge. And "knowing" rather than "memorising" (or reading) the guidelines matters in the tasting portion, too. I recently re-took the exam after eight years of "recognised forever" status. Two of the four beers turned out to be commercial beers of styles other than the styles we were told to judge. (For those who recall the "Dutch Pilsener" thread of a couple months ago, it was in the exam that I encountered what turned out to be a Heineken we were told to judge as a German Pilsener.) In judging those beers (the other was a Bell's Kalamazoo Stout-- 6.5% alcohol and full bodied-- that we were told to judge as a dry stout), not only did I note the technical flaws (namely, the big hit of "skunk" in the "German Pilsener"), I noted (and scored accordingly) why each did not match the announced style well by my written comments in the flavour, mouthfeel, and overall sections. Both of the beers were, for what they were, fine beers (well, except for that skunk thing), but we were also being tested for knowledge of styles and needed to show that we could score them appropriately and explain why (rather than just judging them for "drinkability" regardless of style considerations). For neither beer did I need to know the exact OG or IBU ranges to be able to say that they weren't characteristic of the announced style, but I did need to "know the styles" well enough to be able to say that these were different. Would the exam have the same capacity to distinguish among examinees in their knowledge if the guidelines were provided in an "open book" fashion? I would not favour changing the exam to "open book," even for the tasting portion. If you want a suggestion on changing the exam, the one I'd make would be to provide more time. The consensus of those taking the exam when I retook it is that the questions were fair and we mostly knew the material but (myself included) did a lousy job budgeting time for writing. Someone who doesn't know the material isn't going to be helped by an extra 30-60 minutes, but the extra time would benefit those who know their stuff but simply may not be good "test takers" by allowing them to present what they know in a clearer, more organised fashion without the "ten minutes and three more questions to go" panic. -- Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Madison I can taste my beer; can you? Support your local craft brewers! --Message_Part_SYNC11213AE248 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC11103AE019 for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:38:11 -0400 Received: from typhoon.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id NAA25619 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:37:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by typhoon.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947) id 8590F3869A; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:37:25 -0500 (CDT) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: points for commercial judging and heresy Message-Id: <20010826183725.8590F3869A at typhoon.xnet.com> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:37:25 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I am in favour of awarding points for judging commercial beers. Actually, the work is probably harder than judging homebrew. Also, someone (sorry) suggested the real question was whether points should be awarded for non- sanctioned competitions. I disagree and think the question really is "should commercial competitions be sanctioned by the BJCP?" I would vote "yes." As for whether the BJCP exam should allow the use of style guidelines and the broader question of whether the exam should be open book, I have my opinions. Dave (I think... darned memory) makes a few good points regarding being a BJCP judge 24/7. We really should be able to talk beer any time of day or night. I also believe that on no exam is anyone ever asked "what is the official BJCP style guideline IBU range for IPA?" You are asked either "compare these three commercial beers from three different styles" or "give a recipe for X style." While knowing the exact IBU and ABV and OG ranges for the styles in question would help, I feel that any judge worth Certified or above rank, should be able to give an IBU level that is *in* the range of a given style. Similarly with OG and ABV. It has been a few months since I last judged and I haven't looked at a style guideline since then, but I can still tell you that 1.055 is in the range of OG for an O'fest and that you can't go wrong with 45 IBUs for an IPA or that 9% is a safe bet for a Barleywine ABV. You really only need to be able to hit the ranges for the exam. Therefore, I would vote against using guidelines for the exam. As for open book, I would vote against it too, since we should be able to judge beers quickly and even in practice (at a competition) we shouldn't be looking in books to help an entrant. If I know that an entrant has a particular problem with their beer that requires detailed explanation, I'll refer them to one book or another that I know explains it well. Al. Al Korzonas, Homer Glen, Illinois, USA korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ --Message_Part_SYNC11213AE248-- --Next_Part_SYNC11213AE248-- Received: from srvr22.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr22.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.21]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA05160 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 01:06:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by srvr22.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA21093 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 01:06:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/26/01 - 8/27/01 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 01:03:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC11213AE248" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC11213AE248 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "memorising" style categories (Robert Paolino) points for commercial judging and heresy (BrewInfo) --Next_Part_SYNC11213AE248 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC11213AE248" --Message_Part_SYNC11213AE248 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from out0.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net ([169.207.1.78]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC11003ADEAE for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:01:57 -0400 Received: from pop3.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (pop3.nwbl.wi.voyager.net [169.207.1.83]) by out0.mx.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.11.4/8.11.4/1.7) with ESMTP id f7Q81HI02944 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: from earth (rpaolino at earth.execpc.com [169.207.16.1]) by pop3.nwbl.wi.voyager.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7Q81EX25121 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Paolino Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: "memorising" style categories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message Randy Paul wrote (and others as well on the same point): > > From: Randy Paul Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:05:53 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Commercial Judging & memorizing [snip] > I'll vote to provide the guidelines in exams but no open book. There are > many competitions using outdated guidelines or tailored guidelines so > judges need to be adaptable to the numbers du jour more than be fixated on > a description they memorized. It wouldn't be a terrible idea to alter the > guidelines and take points for an evaluation scoresheet that overlooked > it. For example, raise the German Wheat OG and use a sample like > Schneider Edel-Weisse. A great beer, but using the current guideline it > should be too strong for the style. If the judge says "too strong" he > scores lower because he missed the change. What do you think? I think that much of this discussion mischaracterises the issue as rote memorisation of the style guidelines in calling to make them available during the exam. No one is asking an examinee to commit every detail of a particular style guideline to memory, and if someone does (s)he is probably going about it the wrong way. It's not that someone needs to know every numerical specification for a given style, but instead that (s)he KNOW and understand beer styles. Knowledge of styles is tested not only in the tasting portion of the exam (for which the argument is that "we see the descriptions in the competitions, why not in the exam?") but also in the essay portion. We are asked to describe and compare-contrast different styles, to develop recipes, et cetera. Having the guidelines in front of us diminishes the capacity of the question to test that knowledge. And "knowing" rather than "memorising" (or reading) the guidelines matters in the tasting portion, too. I recently re-took the exam after eight years of "recognised forever" status. Two of the four beers turned out to be commercial beers of styles other than the styles we were told to judge. (For those who recall the "Dutch Pilsener" thread of a couple months ago, it was in the exam that I encountered what turned out to be a Heineken we were told to judge as a German Pilsener.) In judging those beers (the other was a Bell's Kalamazoo Stout-- 6.5% alcohol and full bodied-- that we were told to judge as a dry stout), not only did I note the technical flaws (namely, the big hit of "skunk" in the "German Pilsener"), I noted (and scored accordingly) why each did not match the announced style well by my written comments in the flavour, mouthfeel, and overall sections. Both of the beers were, for what they were, fine beers (well, except for that skunk thing), but we were also being tested for knowledge of styles and needed to show that we could score them appropriately and explain why (rather than just judging them for "drinkability" regardless of style considerations). For neither beer did I need to know the exact OG or IBU ranges to be able to say that they weren't characteristic of the announced style, but I did need to "know the styles" well enough to be able to say that these were different. Would the exam have the same capacity to distinguish among examinees in their knowledge if the guidelines were provided in an "open book" fashion? I would not favour changing the exam to "open book," even for the tasting portion. If you want a suggestion on changing the exam, the one I'd make would be to provide more time. The consensus of those taking the exam when I retook it is that the questions were fair and we mostly knew the material but (myself included) did a lousy job budgeting time for writing. Someone who doesn't know the material isn't going to be helped by an extra 30-60 minutes, but the extra time would benefit those who know their stuff but simply may not be good "test takers" by allowing them to present what they know in a clearer, more organised fashion without the "ten minutes and three more questions to go" panic. -- Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Madison I can taste my beer; can you? Support your local craft brewers! --Message_Part_SYNC11213AE248 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from mail.xnet.com ([198.147.221.67]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC11103AE019 for judge at synchro.com; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:38:11 -0400 Received: from typhoon.xnet.com (typhoon.xnet.com [198.147.221.66]) by mail.xnet.com (8.9.3+Sun/XNet-3.0R) with ESMTP id NAA25619 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:37:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by typhoon.xnet.com (Postfix, from userid 4947) id 8590F3869A; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:37:25 -0500 (CDT) To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest Subject: points for commercial judging and heresy Message-Id: <20010826183725.8590F3869A at typhoon.xnet.com> Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:37:25 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message I am in favour of awarding points for judging commercial beers. Actually, the work is probably harder than judging homebrew. Also, someone (sorry) suggested the real question was whether points should be awarded for non- sanctioned competitions. I disagree and think the question really is "should commercial competitions be sanctioned by the BJCP?" I would vote "yes." As for whether the BJCP exam should allow the use of style guidelines and the broader question of whether the exam should be open book, I have my opinions. Dave (I think... darned memory) makes a few good points regarding being a BJCP judge 24/7. We really should be able to talk beer any time of day or night. I also believe that on no exam is anyone ever asked "what is the official BJCP style guideline IBU range for IPA?" You are asked either "compare these three commercial beers from three different styles" or "give a recipe for X style." While knowing the exact IBU and ABV and OG ranges for the styles in question would help, I feel that any judge worth Certified or above rank, should be able to give an IBU level that is *in* the range of a given style. Similarly with OG and ABV. It has been a few months since I last judged and I haven't looked at a style guideline since then, but I can still tell you that 1.055 is in the range of OG for an O'fest and that you can't go wrong with 45 IBUs for an IPA or that 9% is a safe bet for a Barleywine ABV. You really only need to be able to hit the ranges for the exam. Therefore, I would vote against using guidelines for the exam. As for open book, I would vote against it too, since we should be able to judge beers quickly and even in practice (at a competition) we shouldn't be looking in books to help an entrant. If I know that an entrant has a particular problem with their beer that requires detailed explanation, I'll refer them to one book or another that I know explains it well. Al. Al Korzonas, Homer Glen, Illinois, USA korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ --Message_Part_SYNC11213AE248-- --Next_Part_SYNC11213AE248--