Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA08002 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA17122 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:07:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/27/01 - 8/28/01 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:04:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- More time for the test & open book or not (John B. Doherty) --Next_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA" --Message_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web5501.mail.yahoo.com ([216.115.106.184]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC11283AEC1F for judge at synchro.com; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:15:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20010827121511.21012.qmail at web5501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [199.164.25.2] by web5501.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:15:11 PDT Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:15:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "John B. Doherty" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: More time for the test & open book or not To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message > From: Robert Paolino Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:14 -0500 (CDT) > Subject: "memorising" style categories > > ... 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. I must say that I agree 110% with Rob in regards to having more time to take the exam. I could have used an extra 30 minutes to convey some more of my knowledge onto paper - I can only write so fast while keeping things readable for the graders. I also think that the tasting portion of the test should be truly separate from the written portion. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time, but its difficult to try to answer a written question asking you to compare Dortmunder vs. Koelsch vs. Cream Ale while trying to score a tasting sample of Vienna. I'd prefer three uninterrupted hours to answer the written questions and then follow that with the four tasting samples for another 30-45 minutes. I realize that this would extend the test duration, but only marginally. This would also more easily facilitate the re-taking of only one part of the test - i.e. show up at 8:00 for the written test, 11:00 AM for the tasting portion. As with most of my engineering finals in college, if you don't know the material, all the time in the world will not help you. But if you do know the material, being given a little extra time is reasonable. I recall many "4" hour final exams which were extended past 5 hours. Some people left after 2 hours and some stayed past 5 hours, but the extra 3 hours would not have helped those who left early. Regarding the question of "open book" tests, I was on the fence about this issue until I thought of it in the context of my previous idea - make the tasting portion come after the written one. You take the written portion "open brain" only and your answers are collected. Then, style guidelines are handed out and the tasting portion is taken "open book". Plus it would be fun to see all the head slapping during the tasting portion when people realize what they screwed up in the written portion (and are now helpless to fix!) :) Cheers, -John Doherty BJCP Certified Lakeville, MA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ --Message_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA-- --Next_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA-- Received: from srvr20.engin.umich.edu (root at srvr20.engin.umich.edu [141.213.75.22]) by srvr5.engin.umich.edu (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA08002 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:07:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from synchro.com (cccox.ne.mediaone.net [24.147.232.105]) by srvr20.engin.umich.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id BAA17122 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:07:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" To: "Digest Recipients" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Subject: Digest for the period 8/27/01 - 8/28/01 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:04:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Next_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA" X-Hops: 1 Status: RO --Next_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- More time for the test & open book or not (John B. Doherty) --Next_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="Message_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA" --Message_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-Path: Received: from web5501.mail.yahoo.com ([216.115.106.184]) by synchro.com with SMTP (Mailtraq/1.1.5.1167) id SYNC11283AEC1F for judge at synchro.com; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:15:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20010827121511.21012.qmail at web5501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [199.164.25.2] by web5501.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:15:11 PDT Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:15:11 -0700 (PDT) From: "John B. Doherty" Reply-To: "JudgeNet - the beer judge digest" Errors-To: judge-owner at synchro.com Sender: judge at synchro.com Subject: More time for the test & open book or not To: JudgeNet - the beer judge digest In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Hops: 3 X-POST-MessageClass: 10; Mailing List Message > From: Robert Paolino Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:14 -0500 (CDT) > Subject: "memorising" style categories > > ... 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. I must say that I agree 110% with Rob in regards to having more time to take the exam. I could have used an extra 30 minutes to convey some more of my knowledge onto paper - I can only write so fast while keeping things readable for the graders. I also think that the tasting portion of the test should be truly separate from the written portion. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time, but its difficult to try to answer a written question asking you to compare Dortmunder vs. Koelsch vs. Cream Ale while trying to score a tasting sample of Vienna. I'd prefer three uninterrupted hours to answer the written questions and then follow that with the four tasting samples for another 30-45 minutes. I realize that this would extend the test duration, but only marginally. This would also more easily facilitate the re-taking of only one part of the test - i.e. show up at 8:00 for the written test, 11:00 AM for the tasting portion. As with most of my engineering finals in college, if you don't know the material, all the time in the world will not help you. But if you do know the material, being given a little extra time is reasonable. I recall many "4" hour final exams which were extended past 5 hours. Some people left after 2 hours and some stayed past 5 hours, but the extra 3 hours would not have helped those who left early. Regarding the question of "open book" tests, I was on the fence about this issue until I thought of it in the context of my previous idea - make the tasting portion come after the written one. You take the written portion "open brain" only and your answers are collected. Then, style guidelines are handed out and the tasting portion is taken "open book". Plus it would be fun to see all the head slapping during the tasting portion when people realize what they screwed up in the written portion (and are now helpless to fix!) :) Cheers, -John Doherty BJCP Certified Lakeville, MA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ --Message_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA-- --Next_Part_SYNC11453AF5FA--