Subject: Digest for the period 3/28/2004 - 3/29/2004 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:04:08 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: BJCP exam's the problem, not the path (Chuck Cox) 2. question availability (Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer(R)) 3. Godwin's Law (Gordon Strong) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Cox Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:36:12 -0500 Subject: Re: BJCP exam's the problem, not the path At 01:04 AM 3/25/2004, Tim Oborn wrote: >When did we forget that this is a beer judging exam and not the entrance >exam into the Hitler Youth? http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox at fas.harvard.edu, www.synchro.com ********************************************************************** * 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: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:04:52 -0500 Subject: question availability > >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. I don't know what corner of the world you are in Alan, but while the particular questions on any exam do change from exam to exam, the pool of questions (publicly available at http://www.bjcp.org/study.html#quest ) hasn't changed in the last 8 years. Also the format of the exam itself hasn't changed. It still consists of the "gimme" question 1 which is 50% on the BJCP and 50% on reasons for boiling. One recipe question. The remaining 8 questions are split between 4 questions on ingredients, brewing process and troubleshooting, and 4 questions on style identification, description and history. This hasn't changed in well over 8 years. 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 * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gordon Strong Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:08:31 -0500 Subject: Godwin's Law For longtime Usenet readers, you will note without irony that any thread left active long enough will eventually cause Godwin's Law to be invoked. For those newbies, Godwin's Law is "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." The most commonly accepted implication of its use is "If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end." QED. Just to make this an "on topic" post (and, in the same breath, violate my own observation), I'll note that I just saw two exams in the last week where a *first time* exam taker scored a 90 on either the written portion of the exam or on the full exam. So despite suppositions to the contrary, people are achieving master-level scores the old-fashioned way. Through hard work. My take is that the exam can evolve (if we can tackle the style guidelines after a five year lapse, maybe it's time to refresh the exam), but that the underlying system is sound. Besides, if you come up with a complicated advancement system, think of how hard it would be to answer BJCP exam question 1(a). Talk about unintended consequences. A tasting-only exam that would allow someone to test for an Honorary master rank (which allows someone to wear the Master pin), is certainly feasible and could be done without changing anything about the current system. Just have a panel of three master or GM judges taste the same beers and evaluate the scoresheets of the applicant. Do it at the AHA NHC, MCAB and/or other big competitions. Easy. No writing. Tests real judging skills. Doesn't require changes to the current system. And it could be done for other ranks as well, if we create Honorary National or Certified ranks. But I'd think that restricting it to Master (or possibly National) would be sufficient since a test score of 70 is fairly easy. Gordon ********************************************************************** * 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 3/28/2004 - 3/29/2004 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:04:08 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: BJCP exam's the problem, not the path (Chuck Cox) 2. question availability (Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer(R)) 3. Godwin's Law (Gordon Strong) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chuck Cox Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 12:36:12 -0500 Subject: Re: BJCP exam's the problem, not the path At 01:04 AM 3/25/2004, Tim Oborn wrote: >When did we forget that this is a beer judging exam and not the entrance >exam into the Hitler Youth? http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html -- Chuck Cox SynchroSystems chuck`at`synchro.com, cccox at fas.harvard.edu, www.synchro.com ********************************************************************** * 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: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:04:52 -0500 Subject: question availability > >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. I don't know what corner of the world you are in Alan, but while the particular questions on any exam do change from exam to exam, the pool of questions (publicly available at http://www.bjcp.org/study.html#quest ) hasn't changed in the last 8 years. Also the format of the exam itself hasn't changed. It still consists of the "gimme" question 1 which is 50% on the BJCP and 50% on reasons for boiling. One recipe question. The remaining 8 questions are split between 4 questions on ingredients, brewing process and troubleshooting, and 4 questions on style identification, description and history. This hasn't changed in well over 8 years. 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 * ********************************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gordon Strong Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:08:31 -0500 Subject: Godwin's Law For longtime Usenet readers, you will note without irony that any thread left active long enough will eventually cause Godwin's Law to be invoked. For those newbies, Godwin's Law is "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." The most commonly accepted implication of its use is "If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end." QED. Just to make this an "on topic" post (and, in the same breath, violate my own observation), I'll note that I just saw two exams in the last week where a *first time* exam taker scored a 90 on either the written portion of the exam or on the full exam. So despite suppositions to the contrary, people are achieving master-level scores the old-fashioned way. Through hard work. My take is that the exam can evolve (if we can tackle the style guidelines after a five year lapse, maybe it's time to refresh the exam), but that the underlying system is sound. Besides, if you come up with a complicated advancement system, think of how hard it would be to answer BJCP exam question 1(a). Talk about unintended consequences. A tasting-only exam that would allow someone to test for an Honorary master rank (which allows someone to wear the Master pin), is certainly feasible and could be done without changing anything about the current system. Just have a panel of three master or GM judges taste the same beers and evaluate the scoresheets of the applicant. Do it at the AHA NHC, MCAB and/or other big competitions. Easy. No writing. Tests real judging skills. Doesn't require changes to the current system. And it could be done for other ranks as well, if we create Honorary National or Certified ranks. But I'd think that restricting it to Master (or possibly National) would be sufficient since a test score of 70 is fairly easy. Gordon ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************