Subject: Digest for the period 3/19/2004 - 3/20/2004 Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:04:11 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Specific proposal (Jeremy Bergsman) 2. RE: Alternate path to rank (Vernon, Mark) 3. Competiton Organizers Reports (Mark McAndrews) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeremy Bergsman Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:27:07 -0500 Subject: Specific proposal In my last post I tried to lay out the important issues on the question of alternate route to judge ranks. Here I lay out my specific proposal. I believe it satisfies most of the concerns expressed in the posts on this subject. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Initially make no change to the rules. Rather, see whether the exam can be improved to the point where people are then happy with the current system. 2 If after the exam has been addressed, people still complain, the membership should be surveyed to determine whether the complaints are from a vocal few or really represent a cry for change. (There are sites that allow you to set up web surveys.) 3 If the membership is in favor of change, the alternate route should not be based on experience points. Experience points are already in the equation. Likewise, no "service" (e.g. exam grading) should substitute. The value of the exam is that it is an independent measure of a judge's skill--as opposed to participation. I am in favor of BJCP-certified educational activities, such as the palate training mentioned by George, as the exam alternative. The exact system for how such activities would substitute for exam score obviously waits until such a program is in place, but I would suggest that a complete activity (e.g. a full flight of ~10 doctored beers) count for 1 exam point. 4 Limit the amount the exam score could be increased to 7 points. As an exam grader I know that there are people who achieve a certain decade on the exam by being given the benefit of the doubt. In some cases there is a question in one grader's mind whether the person deserves the rank. The idea that this person move up yet another rank seems wrong to me. This person should be able to retake the exam and improve their score enough to advance in rank if they really deserve it. Put another way, as I said in my last post, if the exam has any value, you must trust that it is a reasonably accurate measure. 5 In no case may someone advance more than 1 level beyond their tasting score on the exam. (i.e. if they got 85 essay, 79 taste, for an average of 83, they meet the 7 point criterion, but still may not increase to master.) I hope with the new computerized system that this is not too difficult to implement. 6 One may not increase to recognized or grand master with this scheme. (There is no excuse for not being able to pass the exam other than inexperience with it and judging. These people need to retake the exam. Likewise, a grand master should be sufficiently skilled that he/she can overcome test taking limitations to perform well on the exam.) 7 I think it might be too difficult to implement, but in theory I am not opposed to a plan where individuals who can demonstrate a true disability are allowed to petition the BJCP on a case-by-case basis for an exam based on tasting with 2 other judges of apppropriate qualifications in a judging-like setting. Many safeguards would have to be imposed to keep this from being abused or becoming a burden on the BJCP. -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremy`at`bergsman.org http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy ********************************************************************** * 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: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:28:19 -0600 Subject: RE: Alternate path to rank I thought I would put my $0.02 in on a couple topics. 1. Several people have put forth that allowing people to up their test score by using points could allow bad judges to advance. What makes you think that a bad judge could not score well on the test? In my line of work there are a lot of technical certifications that people can test for....I have met more than my fair share that can take and pass the test but could not do the work to save their lives. Anyone with the time can memorize most (if not all) of the info on the written portion - so you get an 86 on the written and a 70 on the taste...viola 81 and you are National..... 2. As others have said - lets not limit this to Master level, this should be an option for any level 3. I am one of those would probably be stuck at Certified...I have two young kids, a home, a job....to put it simply - I have a life outside judging. It is not realistic for me to try and memorize the necessary numbers to get an 80 or 90 or whatever. Now I know that some out there are saying "But you don't have to memorize things" Well when I took the test (2 yrs ago) I received a 76 on the written and the comments specifically said - you need to show the numbers when comparing styles....and I was not the only one that saw that....so maybe the graders are not following the guidelines. All I know is that virtually every judge that I talk to says they also believe you must memorize the styles to get a high (80+) score. Mark Vernon - Certified with points to spare (if the BJCP ever catches up on their back log!!!) 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: Mark McAndrews Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:17:20 -0600 Subject: Competiton Organizers Reports Having been one of the critics, I feel a duty to report on improvements to the recording of experience points. Last weekend the 4th Annual Iowa Brewer's Union Open Homebrew Competition was held. The day I mailed the organizers report I received an e-mail notifying me of the option to enter the report on-line. I've just completed the on-line organizers report and expect that most organizers will find that only a bit more time consuming than the paper reports. I expect there is still a bit of review, but since most experience points will be recorded nearly automatically this should be a great improvement in the process. I'll reserve final judgement until this process has been up and running for a bit, but my first impression is that it's a job well done. Mark McAndrews ********************************************************************** * 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 3/19/2004 - 3/20/2004 Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:04:11 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Specific proposal (Jeremy Bergsman) 2. RE: Alternate path to rank (Vernon, Mark) 3. Competiton Organizers Reports (Mark McAndrews) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jeremy Bergsman Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:27:07 -0500 Subject: Specific proposal In my last post I tried to lay out the important issues on the question of alternate route to judge ranks. Here I lay out my specific proposal. I believe it satisfies most of the concerns expressed in the posts on this subject. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Initially make no change to the rules. Rather, see whether the exam can be improved to the point where people are then happy with the current system. 2 If after the exam has been addressed, people still complain, the membership should be surveyed to determine whether the complaints are from a vocal few or really represent a cry for change. (There are sites that allow you to set up web surveys.) 3 If the membership is in favor of change, the alternate route should not be based on experience points. Experience points are already in the equation. Likewise, no "service" (e.g. exam grading) should substitute. The value of the exam is that it is an independent measure of a judge's skill--as opposed to participation. I am in favor of BJCP-certified educational activities, such as the palate training mentioned by George, as the exam alternative. The exact system for how such activities would substitute for exam score obviously waits until such a program is in place, but I would suggest that a complete activity (e.g. a full flight of ~10 doctored beers) count for 1 exam point. 4 Limit the amount the exam score could be increased to 7 points. As an exam grader I know that there are people who achieve a certain decade on the exam by being given the benefit of the doubt. In some cases there is a question in one grader's mind whether the person deserves the rank. The idea that this person move up yet another rank seems wrong to me. This person should be able to retake the exam and improve their score enough to advance in rank if they really deserve it. Put another way, as I said in my last post, if the exam has any value, you must trust that it is a reasonably accurate measure. 5 In no case may someone advance more than 1 level beyond their tasting score on the exam. (i.e. if they got 85 essay, 79 taste, for an average of 83, they meet the 7 point criterion, but still may not increase to master.) I hope with the new computerized system that this is not too difficult to implement. 6 One may not increase to recognized or grand master with this scheme. (There is no excuse for not being able to pass the exam other than inexperience with it and judging. These people need to retake the exam. Likewise, a grand master should be sufficiently skilled that he/she can overcome test taking limitations to perform well on the exam.) 7 I think it might be too difficult to implement, but in theory I am not opposed to a plan where individuals who can demonstrate a true disability are allowed to petition the BJCP on a case-by-case basis for an exam based on tasting with 2 other judges of apppropriate qualifications in a judging-like setting. Many safeguards would have to be imposed to keep this from being abused or becoming a burden on the BJCP. -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremy`at`bergsman.org http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy ********************************************************************** * 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: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:28:19 -0600 Subject: RE: Alternate path to rank I thought I would put my $0.02 in on a couple topics. 1. Several people have put forth that allowing people to up their test score by using points could allow bad judges to advance. What makes you think that a bad judge could not score well on the test? In my line of work there are a lot of technical certifications that people can test for....I have met more than my fair share that can take and pass the test but could not do the work to save their lives. Anyone with the time can memorize most (if not all) of the info on the written portion - so you get an 86 on the written and a 70 on the taste...viola 81 and you are National..... 2. As others have said - lets not limit this to Master level, this should be an option for any level 3. I am one of those would probably be stuck at Certified...I have two young kids, a home, a job....to put it simply - I have a life outside judging. It is not realistic for me to try and memorize the necessary numbers to get an 80 or 90 or whatever. Now I know that some out there are saying "But you don't have to memorize things" Well when I took the test (2 yrs ago) I received a 76 on the written and the comments specifically said - you need to show the numbers when comparing styles....and I was not the only one that saw that....so maybe the graders are not following the guidelines. All I know is that virtually every judge that I talk to says they also believe you must memorize the styles to get a high (80+) score. Mark Vernon - Certified with points to spare (if the BJCP ever catches up on their back log!!!) 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: Mark McAndrews Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:17:20 -0600 Subject: Competiton Organizers Reports Having been one of the critics, I feel a duty to report on improvements to the recording of experience points. Last weekend the 4th Annual Iowa Brewer's Union Open Homebrew Competition was held. The day I mailed the organizers report I received an e-mail notifying me of the option to enter the report on-line. I've just completed the on-line organizers report and expect that most organizers will find that only a bit more time consuming than the paper reports. I expect there is still a bit of review, but since most experience points will be recorded nearly automatically this should be a great improvement in the process. I'll reserve final judgement until this process has been up and running for a bit, but my first impression is that it's a job well done. Mark McAndrews ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************