Subject: Digest for the period 3/27/2004 - 3/28/2004 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:02:17 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) 2. I want Pete Bussa's computer (Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer(R)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Hord Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 02:21:05 -0800 Subject: BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) >>Did you tell these people that (a) all of the questions are known in advance (b) there is 30% overlap between the questions on two given exams (c) retesting the two portions of the exam separately gives one a time bonus of 16.7%. << Friends - I have listened patiently, privately, personally and quantifiably to the arguments and opinions regarding the Exam. Once again I am moved to make daring comments, but I wish to provide clarification ONLY as we are all capable of forming the rest ;o) and follow though with tendered PROPOSALS (if the community are willing): With regard to the points above - (a) Fact: The Questions change from year to year. I have taken the Exam 4 times in 8 years; the format has changed each time in small aspects, and of late it has oriented towards a compare-contrast model relative to the multiple-guess format of earlier years. I completely disagree with the comment 'all of the questions are known in advance'. The BJCP in my corner of the world has been extremely concerned about leaking past exam questions out and NOT publicizing them. Our Study Group has been respectable and responsible in this regard, and we have not posted Exam questions on any public forum so as to preserve the true blindness of the Exam regardless of our personal opinions to maintain the Status Quo. (b) This cannot be validated unless one is diligent enough to know in advance the Exam cycle. It is an interesting bit of inside information that in my mind has just now obliquely invalidated the Exams unknowingly. Useful info - Yes, but now the cover is blown. (c) I respectfully disagree. On my last Exam I requested to take the Written part only as my tasting was very high. The day before the Exam my Administrator tells him the BJCP will only give me 2.5 hours to complete the written-portion instead of 3 hours. The policy is unclear, but I am appreciative to see an opinion given. Hopefully we can ferret out a reasonable process for section retakes that is explicitly clear. Folks: Please drive on this point ~ this is a good policy but rather dim on precise ruling. Exam Subjectivity - With respect to my friends within the BJCP, and the extended family involved in the whole process of management, grading, IT and so forth, I tender an apology first because I know and understand how thankless these jobs can be; we are born critics, yes? Given we are human, I have a human solution: It begins with PROCESS. Each and every person within the embodiment of the BJCP works within a process that encompasses resolute and critical thinking. The aspiration to be the Best of the Best is to attain the high ranks of Master et al, but resides purely in the performa of the individual to attain that goal through explicit and very tasking study, contribution via judging/administrative/grading, or other Quid pro quo. I would like to remind those of this alias once again that we are all human and imperfect, though we all strive to be perfectionists if I may be so presumptuous! Flaws in the Exam process happen. Personally I am tolerant, I am patient, I am diligent, and I teach what I know to the best of my ability and willingly almost to a fault. CHANGE in the Process begins with recognizing the flaws, taking stock of the rewards, and measuring the efficiency of throughput; make use of policies that are heuristic, but accept that processes are maturing. Demonstration of acceptance of Change is critical: The current path began most recently with a statement by Michael Hall on March 6th to all our benefit. We are growing! IMHO the various paths to advancement within the BJCP may be numerous but akin to Quid pro quo. The Exam may be flawed but the theory of the Exam process is sound. The resolution of process should confine itself within a coda akin to typical University-style exams and move to obsolete the current practice. Therefore I propose the following yet dramatic change: PROPOSED and Formally Advanced - With regard to maintaining universal ability to generate any question regarding stylistic examination conundrums, I suggest we leave this task to the clever Exam Committee to confound us as they wish with unannounced and unanticipated questions. [Bottom line: no change] With regard to the Examination Process and scratch sheets, I propose we move to accept the traditional 'Blue Book' Essay format to remit our answers. The high degree of honorarium and status befitting of judges promotes an exclusionary format of formal tasking, and yet replete of the strenuous undertaking of such a novel and challenging aspiration: Beer Judge! With regard to Exam Questions and Rebuttals by Evaluators, I state boldly and completely that we REQUIRE our exam questions to be remitted with our Exam reviews because it completes a fruitful and productive service towards the fledgling prospective judge to understand and comprehend why the answers were graded relative to the questions. It is a huge flaw within the BJCP organization to withhold critic of answers given without providing the questions, and I believe I have the majority support of ALL judges in this regard. Bottom line: How does the BJCP expect us to improve given the critique without the associated questions. This is non-negotiable and a positive fruitful demand-request. Please allow US to grow with relativistic feedback as apportioned; Quid pro quo. With regard to Stylistic changes: Baltic Porter - OK - off topic and completely disengaged from above... Baltic Porters have a legacy owning to the interruption of trade between the Baltic States and Britain due in large part to the Napoleonic Wars. The Style manifests from the desire to continue the expression locally as best interpreted using indigenous processes and ingredients. BP can be regarded loosely as Imperial Porter, but more precisely they are an amalgamation of Continental ingredients and processes. Therefore the BP style appears on the face as a hugely chocolately and malty confection with a deep complexity; IMHO it is like taking a Young's Double-Chocolate Stout (Nitro-Can) sans roasty character, and crossing it with the luxurious Traquiar House/Orkney Skullsplitter/Belhaven Wee Heavy or a Spaten Optimator; [READ: huge clean complex malt + chocolaty malty porter]; the malt side will be dark fruit/raisin, plum, figs while the choco side will be akin to British Cadbury's Purple Milk Chocolate ~ so insatiably very rich and undeniably the very best of all goodness embodied in a blessed well-aged bottle preferably and low-hopped (Baltica excluded), but accepting of the peculiar variances (Saku) which are still delightfully welcomed if not altogether extreme pale versions of the appellation. Fruity esters may be subdued due to lagering in some versions, and hops may feature continental more than British. It is my favorite new style this year and it is my mission to champion BP this year in the Pacific NW. Should I ever be so fortunate to win the Lotto, my next life will include a long tour through the Baltic states! Truly ~ I love this style! Thank you BJCP/AHA for giving it consideration! Cheers to one and one, and I apologize for being long-winded. Alan Hord, National near :o) ********************************************************************** * 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 Hersh aka Dr. Beer(R) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:33:28 -0500 Subject: I want Pete Bussa's computer Pete wrote >into that zone - I frequently do E-Mail 2 pints into the evening - but no >solid bets on improved legibility... ((-'pb Pete, you've figured out how to email pints? Cool, can you email me a few? sorry, just figured I'd inject a little levity into what's been an otherwise sober and serious debate. I'll be anxiously checking my email for Pete's reply while trying to figure out how to tap my computer for those pints he'll be sending me :-). Jay H Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts ********************************************************************** * 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 3/27/2004 - 3/28/2004 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:02:17 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) 2. I want Pete Bussa's computer (Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer(R)) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alan Hord Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 02:21:05 -0800 Subject: BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) >>Did you tell these people that (a) all of the questions are known in advance (b) there is 30% overlap between the questions on two given exams (c) retesting the two portions of the exam separately gives one a time bonus of 16.7%. << Friends - I have listened patiently, privately, personally and quantifiably to the arguments and opinions regarding the Exam. Once again I am moved to make daring comments, but I wish to provide clarification ONLY as we are all capable of forming the rest ;o) and follow though with tendered PROPOSALS (if the community are willing): With regard to the points above - (a) Fact: The Questions change from year to year. I have taken the Exam 4 times in 8 years; the format has changed each time in small aspects, and of late it has oriented towards a compare-contrast model relative to the multiple-guess format of earlier years. I completely disagree with the comment 'all of the questions are known in advance'. The BJCP in my corner of the world has been extremely concerned about leaking past exam questions out and NOT publicizing them. Our Study Group has been respectable and responsible in this regard, and we have not posted Exam questions on any public forum so as to preserve the true blindness of the Exam regardless of our personal opinions to maintain the Status Quo. (b) This cannot be validated unless one is diligent enough to know in advance the Exam cycle. It is an interesting bit of inside information that in my mind has just now obliquely invalidated the Exams unknowingly. Useful info - Yes, but now the cover is blown. (c) I respectfully disagree. On my last Exam I requested to take the Written part only as my tasting was very high. The day before the Exam my Administrator tells him the BJCP will only give me 2.5 hours to complete the written-portion instead of 3 hours. The policy is unclear, but I am appreciative to see an opinion given. Hopefully we can ferret out a reasonable process for section retakes that is explicitly clear. Folks: Please drive on this point ~ this is a good policy but rather dim on precise ruling. Exam Subjectivity - With respect to my friends within the BJCP, and the extended family involved in the whole process of management, grading, IT and so forth, I tender an apology first because I know and understand how thankless these jobs can be; we are born critics, yes? Given we are human, I have a human solution: It begins with PROCESS. Each and every person within the embodiment of the BJCP works within a process that encompasses resolute and critical thinking. The aspiration to be the Best of the Best is to attain the high ranks of Master et al, but resides purely in the performa of the individual to attain that goal through explicit and very tasking study, contribution via judging/administrative/grading, or other Quid pro quo. I would like to remind those of this alias once again that we are all human and imperfect, though we all strive to be perfectionists if I may be so presumptuous! Flaws in the Exam process happen. Personally I am tolerant, I am patient, I am diligent, and I teach what I know to the best of my ability and willingly almost to a fault. CHANGE in the Process begins with recognizing the flaws, taking stock of the rewards, and measuring the efficiency of throughput; make use of policies that are heuristic, but accept that processes are maturing. Demonstration of acceptance of Change is critical: The current path began most recently with a statement by Michael Hall on March 6th to all our benefit. We are growing! IMHO the various paths to advancement within the BJCP may be numerous but akin to Quid pro quo. The Exam may be flawed but the theory of the Exam process is sound. The resolution of process should confine itself within a coda akin to typical University-style exams and move to obsolete the current practice. Therefore I propose the following yet dramatic change: PROPOSED and Formally Advanced - With regard to maintaining universal ability to generate any question regarding stylistic examination conundrums, I suggest we leave this task to the clever Exam Committee to confound us as they wish with unannounced and unanticipated questions. [Bottom line: no change] With regard to the Examination Process and scratch sheets, I propose we move to accept the traditional 'Blue Book' Essay format to remit our answers. The high degree of honorarium and status befitting of judges promotes an exclusionary format of formal tasking, and yet replete of the strenuous undertaking of such a novel and challenging aspiration: Beer Judge! With regard to Exam Questions and Rebuttals by Evaluators, I state boldly and completely that we REQUIRE our exam questions to be remitted with our Exam reviews because it completes a fruitful and productive service towards the fledgling prospective judge to understand and comprehend why the answers were graded relative to the questions. It is a huge flaw within the BJCP organization to withhold critic of answers given without providing the questions, and I believe I have the majority support of ALL judges in this regard. Bottom line: How does the BJCP expect us to improve given the critique without the associated questions. This is non-negotiable and a positive fruitful demand-request. Please allow US to grow with relativistic feedback as apportioned; Quid pro quo. With regard to Stylistic changes: Baltic Porter - OK - off topic and completely disengaged from above... Baltic Porters have a legacy owning to the interruption of trade between the Baltic States and Britain due in large part to the Napoleonic Wars. The Style manifests from the desire to continue the expression locally as best interpreted using indigenous processes and ingredients. BP can be regarded loosely as Imperial Porter, but more precisely they are an amalgamation of Continental ingredients and processes. Therefore the BP style appears on the face as a hugely chocolately and malty confection with a deep complexity; IMHO it is like taking a Young's Double-Chocolate Stout (Nitro-Can) sans roasty character, and crossing it with the luxurious Traquiar House/Orkney Skullsplitter/Belhaven Wee Heavy or a Spaten Optimator; [READ: huge clean complex malt + chocolaty malty porter]; the malt side will be dark fruit/raisin, plum, figs while the choco side will be akin to British Cadbury's Purple Milk Chocolate ~ so insatiably very rich and undeniably the very best of all goodness embodied in a blessed well-aged bottle preferably and low-hopped (Baltica excluded), but accepting of the peculiar variances (Saku) which are still delightfully welcomed if not altogether extreme pale versions of the appellation. Fruity esters may be subdued due to lagering in some versions, and hops may feature continental more than British. It is my favorite new style this year and it is my mission to champion BP this year in the Pacific NW. Should I ever be so fortunate to win the Lotto, my next life will include a long tour through the Baltic states! Truly ~ I love this style! Thank you BJCP/AHA for giving it consideration! Cheers to one and one, and I apologize for being long-winded. Alan Hord, National near :o) ********************************************************************** * 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 Hersh aka Dr. Beer(R) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:33:28 -0500 Subject: I want Pete Bussa's computer Pete wrote >into that zone - I frequently do E-Mail 2 pints into the evening - but no >solid bets on improved legibility... ((-'pb Pete, you've figured out how to email pints? Cool, can you email me a few? sorry, just figured I'd inject a little levity into what's been an otherwise sober and serious debate. I'll be anxiously checking my email for Pete's reply while trying to figure out how to tap my computer for those pints he'll be sending me :-). Jay H Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************