Subject: Digest for the period 2/3/2004 - 2/4/2004 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 02:29:04 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Run by volunteers (David Craft) 2. practice makes perfect (Jay Spies) 3. RE: BJCP apologists? (Joel Plutchak) 4. Re: Fed up with the BJCP (Vernon, Mark) 5. FW: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004 (KCT) 6. Paranoia (was: FW: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004) (Chuck Cox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Craft Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:31:18 -0500 Subject: Run by volunteers <<>>\ The preceding examples may be "run" by volunteers but they certainly do NOT depend on volunteers to handle all the minutae behind the scenes. My local Scout Council has 20-30 full time paid employees. Let's have dues, hire an assistant to keep all of the paperwork and to "ride herd" on all of these "volunteers" or we could keep our mouths shut. :>) David B. Craft Battleground Brewers Guild Crow Hill Brewery and Meadery Greensboro, NC ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Spies Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:01:26 -0500 Subject: practice makes perfect Steven Johnson questions whether those who complain about the testing time and not being able to write enough comes from lack of practice... While I cannot speak for everyone, I can shout out a big no to your question for me, and I'll tell you why: When I studied for the MD bar, We spent countless hours doing practice essay questions to get the timing right and put down the right mix of "substance" and "skim". I did the same thing for the BJCP. There is one major, major difference between the two approaches, though..... Bar exam answers are a known quantity. We as testees KNOW what the exam graders expect in terms of content and substance, and what is ok to skim over. BJCP testees do not. I have a feeling that in your line of work you make quite sure that your pupils know what kind of answer is to be expected. You don't send them in blind, do you? In the admission of several of the exam graders, what they look for indivdually varies from grader to grader. Bar exams have a pretty set standard. If you know the content of the law and are familiar enough with it to sift through it all and pull out what you need for each given question scenario, you'll do fine. If you don't know enough or get bogged down, you'll fail. However, we all know the depth of answer that's expected. In the BJCP, the only example essay given is the Trappist/Abbey one. I just don't buy that writing that depth of answer over and over again for the pool of questions is going to make you a better answerer or a faster writer. I'm a pretty slow writer. No way in hell could I have written 10 of those essays and evaluated 4 beers thoroughly in the given time. Just not gonna happen, for me... So I had to pick and choose what I wrote to complete the exam in the allotted time, and I also had to significantly abbreviate my tasting (just the facts, ma'am). Yes, I hear you that the BJCP is a volunteer organization. So are the lawyers who grade bar exams. believe it or not, and they grade upwards of 700 of those eye-wateringly boring puppies every round. And guess what.....they get them in on a deadline. And they have families to feed and lawns to mow too. Like I said earlier, I passed the bar, and I hope I passed the BJCP. The questions themselves are fine, but I think there needs to be some evaluation of the exam method, or at least the expected answer requirement, for it to be truly representative of a testee's knowledge base. One last thought.........is it a coincidence that the latest version of the BJCP exam study guide on the BJCP website is from 1998? Jay ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joel Plutchak Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:07:29 +0000 Subject: RE: BJCP apologists? >1. Yes, I know BJCP depends upon volunteers. So are a >lot of well-run organizations, including the Boy >Scouts, virtually every club and many states' bars. >Those organizations still manage to meet their >obligations. That was my entire point. Your examples are apples and oranges. For example, the Boy Scouts national organization consists of many paid employees (e.g., see the "Employment Opportunities" section of their web site). While it's true that on the local scale Boy Scout organizations are volunteer, that's also where you have the same issues, and worse, as you claim the BJCP has. For instance, local scout troops have completely folded due to lack of volunteers. I know, I have children in scouting organizations. Same deal with local clubs-- the scope and organization is much, much smaller in most cases, and even then it takes a few very dedicated people to keep clubs going. Again, I know of clubs in this region that have fizzled due to lack of volunteers, and others where the number of people who keep things going can be counted on one hand (but there's always a vocal minority around that doesn't contribute more than complaints and whining). >According to the BJCP's own tally, only one >competition is deliquent, and that one was held at the >end of November. The rest are in the completed list. In that case, the blame can be one of two places. Either the organizer of the individual competition failed to submit your name, or you failed to submit the proper paperwork to that organizer. In either case the BJCP as an organization is not the problem. AFAIK there are no mind readers in the BJCP administration. (I have organized competitions, and have been slow to file reports. I have also had to remember who judged because they failed to sign and/or hand in the Judge Waiver which we use to form the judge list for submission to the BJCP.) >3. (I'm showing great restraint here)... Perhaps even more is in order. :-) >Now here's what you all missed: I think we got the point. The BJCP is not a good match for you-- your expectations don't match the reality, for whatever reason. The organization belongs to its members. Either join in and try to help *your* BJCP meet your expectations, or quit. (What was it JFK said in his inaugural address?) Don't misunderstand-- I have had a few frustrations with slowness regarding the BJCP, but I take it as a feature. I know the people involved do a heckuva lot of work for the good of the organization, and I know it takes time and effort on their part, so I accept occasional slowness as a part of the package. And as a homebrew activist on my local front, I know that simply complaining about the status quo is *not* an effective means to any useful end. _________________________________________________________________ What are the 5 hot job markets for 2004? Click here to find out. http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/WPI_WhereWillWeFindJobsIn2004.htm?siteid=CBMSN3006&sc_extcmp=JS_wi08_dec03_hotmail1 ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vernon, Mark Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:47:40 -0600 Subject: Re: Fed up with the BJCP Wow whoever sent this out this link (http://207.89.201.107/Reports/completed.html) certainly did the BJCP no favors. Look towards the end and see that they are at least 5 if not 6 mos behind in recording points. There are events from August 2003 that were filed on time but not recorded. I too share a lot of dis-satisfaction with the less than timley postings. All this hue and cry of "but we are a volunteer run org" is true BUT you still have an obligation to provide things within the range you promise (points in 2 - 30 days?) If things are that far behind maybe you need to ask for more volunteers? Mark Vernon This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. Francais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KCT Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:42:51 -0500 Subject: FW: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004 Please find below the somewhat "overly sensitive" response to my comments concerning Mr. Beron's post from 2/2/04. It appears that Mr. Beron is not the only one who touched on a delicate note. My, My! -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Cox [mailto:chuck`at`synchro.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 11:24 AM To: KCT Subject: RE: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004 Please send judgenet postings to judge`at`synchro.com. And while you're at it, please consider providing a more meaningful subject. Thanks. At 11:11 AM 2/3/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Mr. Beron makes many valid points, especially about volunteerism (e.g. Boy > >Scouts). Point of the matter is, there should be some way to bring BJCP > >administrative processes (i.e. test scoring turn around, posting of points > >etc.) into the modern world; and we should all take the constructive > >criticisms in the spirit intended. We must all be mindful that exchange >and > >development of ideas generally follows a certain degree of dissent. > >Sincerely, Kent Turner > > -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox at fas.harvard.edu, www.synchro.com Less Government Please ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Cox Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:12:32 -0500 Subject: Paranoia (was: FW: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004) I can assure you your posting received no special treatment. Whenever anyone quotes an entire digest and adds a few lines of original content I ask them to resubmit a more concise posting. Whenever anyone sends a posting to my personal address I ask them to send it directly to JudgeNet. As any regular reader knows, I continually urge posters to use a more meaningful subject than "Re: Digest for the period..." JudgeNet has over 400 subscribers who are taking time out of their day to read your posting. I don't think it is too much to ask you to spend a few seconds to review your message and extend the simple courtesy of eliminating extraneous quotes and including a meaningful subject. You might want to reconsider which of us is "overly sensitive". At 11:42 AM 2/3/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Please find below the somewhat "overly sensitive" response to my comments >concerning Mr. Beron's post from 2/2/04. It appears that Mr. Beron is not >the only one who touched on a delicate note. My, My! -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox at fas.harvard.edu, www.synchro.com Less Government Please ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** Subject: Digest for the period 2/3/2004 - 2/4/2004 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 02:29:04 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Run by volunteers (David Craft) 2. practice makes perfect (Jay Spies) 3. RE: BJCP apologists? (Joel Plutchak) 4. Re: Fed up with the BJCP (Vernon, Mark) 5. FW: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004 (KCT) 6. Paranoia (was: FW: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004) (Chuck Cox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Craft Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 06:31:18 -0500 Subject: Run by volunteers <<>>\ The preceding examples may be "run" by volunteers but they certainly do NOT depend on volunteers to handle all the minutae behind the scenes. My local Scout Council has 20-30 full time paid employees. Let's have dues, hire an assistant to keep all of the paperwork and to "ride herd" on all of these "volunteers" or we could keep our mouths shut. :>) David B. Craft Battleground Brewers Guild Crow Hill Brewery and Meadery Greensboro, NC ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay Spies Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:01:26 -0500 Subject: practice makes perfect Steven Johnson questions whether those who complain about the testing time and not being able to write enough comes from lack of practice... While I cannot speak for everyone, I can shout out a big no to your question for me, and I'll tell you why: When I studied for the MD bar, We spent countless hours doing practice essay questions to get the timing right and put down the right mix of "substance" and "skim". I did the same thing for the BJCP. There is one major, major difference between the two approaches, though..... Bar exam answers are a known quantity. We as testees KNOW what the exam graders expect in terms of content and substance, and what is ok to skim over. BJCP testees do not. I have a feeling that in your line of work you make quite sure that your pupils know what kind of answer is to be expected. You don't send them in blind, do you? In the admission of several of the exam graders, what they look for indivdually varies from grader to grader. Bar exams have a pretty set standard. If you know the content of the law and are familiar enough with it to sift through it all and pull out what you need for each given question scenario, you'll do fine. If you don't know enough or get bogged down, you'll fail. However, we all know the depth of answer that's expected. In the BJCP, the only example essay given is the Trappist/Abbey one. I just don't buy that writing that depth of answer over and over again for the pool of questions is going to make you a better answerer or a faster writer. I'm a pretty slow writer. No way in hell could I have written 10 of those essays and evaluated 4 beers thoroughly in the given time. Just not gonna happen, for me... So I had to pick and choose what I wrote to complete the exam in the allotted time, and I also had to significantly abbreviate my tasting (just the facts, ma'am). Yes, I hear you that the BJCP is a volunteer organization. So are the lawyers who grade bar exams. believe it or not, and they grade upwards of 700 of those eye-wateringly boring puppies every round. And guess what.....they get them in on a deadline. And they have families to feed and lawns to mow too. Like I said earlier, I passed the bar, and I hope I passed the BJCP. The questions themselves are fine, but I think there needs to be some evaluation of the exam method, or at least the expected answer requirement, for it to be truly representative of a testee's knowledge base. One last thought.........is it a coincidence that the latest version of the BJCP exam study guide on the BJCP website is from 1998? Jay ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joel Plutchak Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:07:29 +0000 Subject: RE: BJCP apologists? >1. Yes, I know BJCP depends upon volunteers. So are a >lot of well-run organizations, including the Boy >Scouts, virtually every club and many states' bars. >Those organizations still manage to meet their >obligations. That was my entire point. Your examples are apples and oranges. For example, the Boy Scouts national organization consists of many paid employees (e.g., see the "Employment Opportunities" section of their web site). While it's true that on the local scale Boy Scout organizations are volunteer, that's also where you have the same issues, and worse, as you claim the BJCP has. For instance, local scout troops have completely folded due to lack of volunteers. I know, I have children in scouting organizations. Same deal with local clubs-- the scope and organization is much, much smaller in most cases, and even then it takes a few very dedicated people to keep clubs going. Again, I know of clubs in this region that have fizzled due to lack of volunteers, and others where the number of people who keep things going can be counted on one hand (but there's always a vocal minority around that doesn't contribute more than complaints and whining). >According to the BJCP's own tally, only one >competition is deliquent, and that one was held at the >end of November. The rest are in the completed list. In that case, the blame can be one of two places. Either the organizer of the individual competition failed to submit your name, or you failed to submit the proper paperwork to that organizer. In either case the BJCP as an organization is not the problem. AFAIK there are no mind readers in the BJCP administration. (I have organized competitions, and have been slow to file reports. I have also had to remember who judged because they failed to sign and/or hand in the Judge Waiver which we use to form the judge list for submission to the BJCP.) >3. (I'm showing great restraint here)... Perhaps even more is in order. :-) >Now here's what you all missed: I think we got the point. The BJCP is not a good match for you-- your expectations don't match the reality, for whatever reason. The organization belongs to its members. Either join in and try to help *your* BJCP meet your expectations, or quit. (What was it JFK said in his inaugural address?) Don't misunderstand-- I have had a few frustrations with slowness regarding the BJCP, but I take it as a feature. I know the people involved do a heckuva lot of work for the good of the organization, and I know it takes time and effort on their part, so I accept occasional slowness as a part of the package. And as a homebrew activist on my local front, I know that simply complaining about the status quo is *not* an effective means to any useful end. _________________________________________________________________ What are the 5 hot job markets for 2004? Click here to find out. http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/WPI_WhereWillWeFindJobsIn2004.htm?siteid=CBMSN3006&sc_extcmp=JS_wi08_dec03_hotmail1 ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vernon, Mark Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:47:40 -0600 Subject: Re: Fed up with the BJCP Wow whoever sent this out this link (http://207.89.201.107/Reports/completed.html) certainly did the BJCP no favors. Look towards the end and see that they are at least 5 if not 6 mos behind in recording points. There are events from August 2003 that were filed on time but not recorded. I too share a lot of dis-satisfaction with the less than timley postings. All this hue and cry of "but we are a volunteer run org" is true BUT you still have an obligation to provide things within the range you promise (points in 2 - 30 days?) If things are that far behind maybe you need to ask for more volunteers? Mark Vernon This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail, in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended", this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment, or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing purposes or for transfers of data to third parties. Francais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: KCT Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 11:42:51 -0500 Subject: FW: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004 Please find below the somewhat "overly sensitive" response to my comments concerning Mr. Beron's post from 2/2/04. It appears that Mr. Beron is not the only one who touched on a delicate note. My, My! -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Cox [mailto:chuck`at`synchro.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 11:24 AM To: KCT Subject: RE: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004 Please send judgenet postings to judge`at`synchro.com. And while you're at it, please consider providing a more meaningful subject. Thanks. At 11:11 AM 2/3/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Mr. Beron makes many valid points, especially about volunteerism (e.g. Boy > >Scouts). Point of the matter is, there should be some way to bring BJCP > >administrative processes (i.e. test scoring turn around, posting of points > >etc.) into the modern world; and we should all take the constructive > >criticisms in the spirit intended. We must all be mindful that exchange >and > >development of ideas generally follows a certain degree of dissent. > >Sincerely, Kent Turner > > -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox at fas.harvard.edu, www.synchro.com Less Government Please ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Cox Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:12:32 -0500 Subject: Paranoia (was: FW: Digest for the period 2/2/2004 - 2/3/2004) I can assure you your posting received no special treatment. Whenever anyone quotes an entire digest and adds a few lines of original content I ask them to resubmit a more concise posting. Whenever anyone sends a posting to my personal address I ask them to send it directly to JudgeNet. As any regular reader knows, I continually urge posters to use a more meaningful subject than "Re: Digest for the period..." JudgeNet has over 400 subscribers who are taking time out of their day to read your posting. I don't think it is too much to ask you to spend a few seconds to review your message and extend the simple courtesy of eliminating extraneous quotes and including a meaningful subject. You might want to reconsider which of us is "overly sensitive". At 11:42 AM 2/3/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Please find below the somewhat "overly sensitive" response to my comments >concerning Mr. Beron's post from 2/2/04. It appears that Mr. Beron is not >the only one who touched on a delicate note. My, My! -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox at fas.harvard.edu, www.synchro.com Less Government Please ********************************************************************** * JudgeNet - the beer judge digest * * Send plain text only, no HTML, MIME, encoded text or attachments * * Send subscription requests & changes to judge-request`at`synchro.com * **********************************************************************