Subject: Digest for the period 3/31/2004 - 4/1/2004 Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 01:03:49 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re:BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) (dave sapsis) (Tom Schmidlin) 2. BJCP exam committee plans (Scott Bickham) 3. seperate tests for certified/master (Nathaniel Lansing) 4. RE: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) (Bill Wibble) (Stephen Silverthorne) 5. Re: question availability (Jeff Renner) 6. Including the recipe... (Bev Blackwood II) 7. Partial retakes (Scott Bickham) 8. Testing Levels (Bill Wible) 9. RE: Digest for the period 3/30/2004 - 3/31/2004 (BigWayne19) 10. Call for Judges & Stewards - AHA NHC 1st Round Mountain Regional (Jon Douglas) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Schmidlin Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:13:15 -0800 Subject: Re:BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) (dave sapsis) Apologies in advance for the length of this message - Dave Sapsis wrote in response to a message from Alan Hord: < possibly you dont know or forgot who Scott Bickham is, but you must understand that when he states things like he does, he is doing it from a position of significant experience> And also wrote: Dave - I have to disagree with you here. I have administered an exam where I would only allow 2.5 hours for a partial retake of the written portion. Here is an excerpt from an email exchange I had with Peter Garofalo who, in case you didn't know or forgot, is the BJCP Western Exam Director. I asked: "The exam procedures seem to say that if someone is doing a partial retake of the written portion, they will only have 2.5 hours to complete it. Is that an accurate interpretation?" His reply: "As for the timing of partial retakes, it is usually handled by giving the Essay portion all at once, then doing the Taste in 30 minutes. Thus, 2.5 hours for the written portion." So as you can see I thought the procedures were saying one thing, and it turns out I was correct. So you were right about the procedures' clarity. Unfortunately that doesn't match your opinion of how explicitly the procedures say that retakes get 3 hours. Perhaps it is a matter of the aforementioned Scott Bickham (Exam Director East) and Peter Garofalo (Exam Director West) facing off with over-carbonated lambics at 20 paces and 'discussing things'? (Although Scott has not come out either way on the timing of partial retakes, it would still be fun to see.) Or perhaps this is not the intended interpretation, in which case the procedures are not as clear as you believe, either to me or an Exam Director. I would be interested to know how other exam administrators have handled the partial retakes, and what the actual intentions were of The Powers That Be, or whoever wrote the exam procedures. Finally, Dave Sapsis also wrote: "I dont believe that "obsolete" can be used as a verb." Actually, obsolete can be used as a verb in the transitive sense, as in to make something obsolete. So Alan's usage ". . . move to obsolete the current practice" is correct. Tom tschmidlin`at`earthlink.net "I think the mistake most of us make is believing that the state appointed psychiatrist is our friend." - JH ********************************************************************** * 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: Scott Bickham Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:36:39 -0500 Subject: BJCP exam committee plans Folks, I think it has been a fairly fruitful discussion so far, and has been mentioned earlier, the exam committee is being reformed with people who have substantial educational, judging and grading experience. Most of them are also JudgeNet subscribers and have been reading and/or responding to the various threads. In addition, several proposals have been proposed by other members of the pool of ~35 exam graders, so I think we are armed with a good amount of data and problem statements. Some of you may recognize that we are applying a six sigma process, which I think is an excellent approach. In the meantime, I suggest that we take a breather on this topic and let the exam committee take your input and try to incorporate your concerns into a better exam system. There has been a lot of misinformation propagating, and I've observed that other exam graders and myself have been expending a lot of time and effort making corrections and clarifications when we could be forging ahead with exam committee work. In the meantime, exams are still being offered at a near record-pace, so it's also a question of how to allocate our volunteer resources. I think we can make some significant improvements in the next few months and get them implemented soon thereafter. We'll continue to communicate some of the outputs of the exam committee to this forum and hopefully get more input as we sculpt them into the next incarnation of the BJCP exam. Good brewing, Scott ********************************************************************** * 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: Nathaniel Lansing Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:56:46 -0500 Subject: seperate tests for certified/master No sir, don't like it. First, I believe that 2 different tests will give the graders a bias that would amount to; "Well this is the Master's test, it's harder so we should score gentler." This bothers me as much as the old, "This is a harder style to get right, so with its' flaws it should score higher than that *perfect* SNPA clone." One exam that tests very difficultly is the way to go; it makes a clear delineation for all the levels of knowledge in one format. The novice's experience (or lack thereof) will show, the Master's well rounded contrast/compare + history will show. Would we need to have different beers for the tasting section, so the Masters have "more difficult to brew" beers and the novice have the "easy beer to brew"? The one thing that seems to be recurring in our discussions here is the one word comments on score sheets. That is something that needs fixed. Do we need to demand the judging coordinator review sheets at each flight and send those sheets back immediately to the offending judge? There are so many things that_could_be changed we need to sort out those things that will actually provide improved judging and feedback from those things we _like_to see. Thanks to those that assisted in judging our comp last weekend. N.P. (Del) Lansing ********************************************************************** * 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: Stephen Silverthorne Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:52:37 -0500 Subject: RE: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) (Bill Wibble) I recently assisted the judging in a competition for the first time and plan on taking the exam later this year. As one of the novice judges that asked Denis this question, I'd like to clarify. My idea was that a recipe without the brewer's particulars would be presented to the judges after the judging of the beer was complete and the score had been finalized in order to allow (perhaps) better and more on target feedback to the specific process or ingredients used. This should in no way affect the scores of the beers - these should be tallied in advance. It would be more like a second-round look at each beer to compare score sheet to recipe and process in order to provide feedback. I have seen score sheets where the judge listed the most common possible cause(s) of a problem but a look at the recipe would suggest that this was not the cause. For example a beer may seem underhopped for style. It is possible that not enough hops were used or hopping schedule was incorrect or also that hops were old or improperly stored and therefore didn't yield the expected character although the recipe itself is sound. A look at the recipe and process (if provided correctly by the brewer) would allow a better and more focussed feedback than "underhopped for style - check hopping rate and schedule". Further problems - oxidation "possibly caused by improper or overly long storage" (more likely with an older beer) or by "problems in process when racking or bottling" (more likely younger beer but also possible in an older beer). As to Bill's postulation that not "every brewer fills out the recipe section completely and honestly every time," I would suggest that this is immaterial to the discussion. A brewer that doesn't fully provide the recipe is probably not a brewer that is looking for, or really cares for, feedback. Not every brewer is looking for feedback, some are just looking to win or to measure how their beer compares to their peers. The quality of the feedback in these cases is not really at issue although perhaps that happens more with seasoned brewers than novices (personal assumption). You can't teach those that do not want to learn. I have more or less the same response to the situation where a brewer enters a beer into a different category than intended when brewed. Of course this does happen, but again this is not necessarily the situation where a brewer is most looking for feedback. They know there were issues with the beer. Perhaps this would lead to brewers actually admitting on their score sheets that they set out to brew one thing but found the final beer more suited to another and feedback could be addressed to possible reasons why the beer ended up seeming more like one beer than another (although I doubt most would be so candid). I would suggest that this would help most in determining the problems with beers that score in the lower end of the scale where the brewer needs and more probably wants feedback as to what they can do to improve their beer. Those who are already brewing very good to excellent beer may just be looking for a bench-mark. <- Stephen Silverthorne Montreal, QC, Canada ********************************************************************** * 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: Jeff Renner Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:20:59 -0500 Subject: Re: question availability Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer(R) wrote >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. A personal anecdote a propos of nothing. In 1990, the late Bill Pfeiffer (charter member of BJCP) twisted the arms of several local homebrewers, including me, to take the exam. He said we needed qualified judges. So I sat the exam cold with about a week's notice. Did OK because I'd been a brewer and an avid reader of beer stuff for years and retain well. Except for that first question. BJCP? What's that? I had no idea. I didn't even attempt an answer. I guess it gave me more time for the rest of the questions. I always wondered how many points I lost for blowing that "gimme." Regarding Tim Oborn's thought that we should give examinees a chance to show what they know, I am reminded of a favorite thought from Winston Churchill. I read this years ago in his 1930 autobiography, "My Early Life: A Roving Commission," which was made into the movie "Young Winston" in 1972, starring Simon Ward as Churchill and Anne Bancroft, looking fantastic, as his mother. Good movie and good book. Anyway, Churchill did not do well in many subjects in school. He wrote, "I should have liked to be asked to say what I knew. [The examiners] always tried to ask what I did not know. When I would have willingly displayed my knowledge, they sought to expose my ignorance. This sort of treatment had only one result: I did not do well in examinations." I tried to remember this when I taught public school back when the movie came out. Jeff -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner`at`comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 ********************************************************************** * 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: Bev Blackwood II Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:41:57 -0500 Subject: Including the recipe... Denis Barsalo requests that judges be given the recipe in order for a judging panel to offer better comments regarding the beer being judged. Speaking as a competition organizer, I am not only against this, but vehemently against it. It adds a layer of complexity to the paperwork, which for a large competition is already tough enough. Add to that the fact that judges within a club may recogonize a particular entrant's handwriting or ingredients which could skew their assessment if they had a mind to cheat. Only if the recipe were "sanitized" (more complexity) to enable them to be seen in plain text without any handwriting could they be used, IMO. (And that still doesn't get around the "special ingredient" issues...) Not just no, a resounding no... -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Co-Competition Coordinator The Foam Rangers http://www.foamrangers.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: Scott Bickham Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:47:28 -0500 Subject: Partial retakes One loose end I would like to address is the confusion about the time allotted for partial retakes of the exam. When this option was first offered in ~1996, we attempted to be fair to the hundreds of people who had retaken the exam prior to that date while responding to the requests of many BJCP judges. The former established that a full retake would still be 3 hours. For a essay-only retake, we assumed that the fastest judges need about 7 minutes to fill out a complete scoresheet, or about 30 minutes for 4 exam beers. So 2.5 hours was deemed appropriate for an essay-only retake. The fastest judges would benefit from not having to worry about the tasting portion, but the slower judges would get that benefit as well as additional time. The tasting only retake was set as 1 hour, which is a decent pace in a competition and enough to allow the administrator to serve beers and collect glasses. So the total time allotted for 2 partial retakes is 3.5 hours, which skews the time in the favor of retakes, but that's not a bad thing. Of course the loophole that only one judge to my knowledge has taken advantage of is to pay to retake the entire exam, but only work on the essay portion. In any case, this is not perfect and will be revised, but I hope you can see the logic in having 2.5 hours for a partial retake in the current system. This has been the case since ~1996 and is not intended to kick those of you who are already upset at the BJCP. Scott ********************************************************************** * 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: Bill Wible Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:54:43 -0500 Subject: Testing Levels Question - should someone have to be a brewer to be a beer judge? I'd say yes, under the current BJCP exam. But it should it be that way? The current BJCP exam and its questions seems to revolve more around brewing beer rather than tasting beer. What if someone who is not a brewer or has never brewed a batch of beer wants to be a judge? The current test questions pretty much guarantee that he or she will fail the test. And that isn't going to help us widen the judge pool by attracting some people who might be good potential judges, but just aren't brewers. a) There's a recipe question. Someone who doesn't brew won't be able to answer that. b) There are questions about common faults and what causes them. Again, non-brewers won't know that stuff. There is a significant part of the test that someone who has never brewed won't be able to answer, or answer well. I was thinking more about this, and about the recent post regarding different tests for different levels. Maybe the first level, "Recognized", doesn't have brewing questions - just tasting questions and basic beer questions. For example, "What is the difference between beer, lager, and ale?" Purpose of the BJCP can still be on that. And maybe some other basic questions about beer, some style questions, etc. No ingredients, no recipe formulation. The "Recognized" test might even consist of a couple essay, and some multiple choice questions. Hey, its for the lowest level - it shouldn't be the same test a master judge takes. MAYBE the Recognized test even has no tasting portion. Because lower level judges are still learning, and most competitions will put them in pairings with higher level judges anyway. 2 judges that are "recognized" level should probably never be judging a flight together by themselves, anyway. And I think most of the competitions already handle that. Then, as the levels progress, we should have more brewing questions, and more tastings. I would think a Master level test might have as many as 8 beers for tasting, and possibly fewer but more involved questions. As the level goes up, we should also have more tasting. And on a different note, as far as tastings, how many judges were given "doctored" beers as part of their tasting section of the exam? I wasn't - and I scored poorly on the tasting section, because I was "looking" for faults, figuring that I'd be given at least one doctored beer to see if I could identify the faults. After all, isn't that part of the test, or shouldn't it be? There should be some testing of whether judges can identify the faults. I think this is a great idea to have different versions of the test, with different questions, and even different formats, for each level. This is certainly a topic worthy of further discussion. Bill ********************************************************************** * 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: BigWayne19 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:21:32 -0800 Subject: RE: Digest for the period 3/30/2004 - 3/31/2004 ---------- 1) one of the style guides that i attempt to adhere to is - that i wish others would adopt is : praise in public; chastise in private . . . 2) the bjcp is doing an incredibly good job in every category. i hope i don't need to add that it doesn't charge money nor does it pay any of its operatives . . . 3) the test is given to provide a benchmark, for beer-judging venues, about prospective judges and, as a way to alert brewers to their own weaknesses. having a two-tier test doesn't match the real world where judges may be expected to judge/critique not only (although rarely these days) spoiled beer, but also world-class brews. 4) if a brewer would like to submit his recipe along with his beer, why not ? if the judges have time and the inclination, they might want to provide some feedback, there, too . . . > The biggest problem I see with the exam is that it tries to test too = > much of a range of knowledge. It is as if we gave a test for > physics that was to test everyone from someone who had never taken =3D > calculus to the hardest questions of quantum mechanics. I believe this is exactly what the test is intended to do, should do, and currently does, with regard to separating the truly advanced judges = A Master judge should have excellent breadth of knowledge on the wide range of subjects within the broad discipline(s) of home brewing and beer styles. In this regard, the current exam model serves to excellently separate out those that are capable of clearly communicating important aspects of the BJCP program, beer styles, and beer technical knowledge under a time constraint that requires organization and well-outlined discussion from those that cannot. ----------- i believe that we needn't change the format of the bjcp test. Big ********************************************************************** * 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: Jon Douglas Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:43:03 -0700 Subject: Call for Judges & Stewards - AHA NHC 1st Round Mountain Regional Greetings Fellow Judges! Here's hoping that many of you can answer the call to help judge the largest homebrew competition in the world! The new Mountain region of the National Homebrew Competition will be judged in Denver on May 1 and 2, 2004. The judging will be held at the Breckenridge Brewery at 471 Kalamath Street in Denver, CO. We expect approximately 500-600 entries so we ask all BJCP judges to step up to help us out! As usual, lunch will be provided on Sat. May 1, and we will have a thank you party for the judges and stewards on Saturday night. Sunday juding will only occur if needed. If you have friends or spouses/significant others who would like to steward, please let us know as well! We hope to have online judge registration available soon. If you are a local (Denver area) judge and have space for an out of town judge or two to stay with you for a night or two, please let me know so we can get that organized. For those of you from out of town who would rather stay in hotels, please contact me for more info. For more info on the National Homebrew Competition in general, go to http://www.beertown.org/events/nhc/index.html. Please email me at hopfenkopf`at`hotmail.com if you can help! Thanks for your time & I hope to see you in Denver in May! Jon Douglas Judge Coordinator National Homebrew Competition - Mountain Region _________________________________________________________________ All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn ********************************************************************** * 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 3/31/2004 - 4/1/2004 Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 01:03:49 -0500 Table of contents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re:BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) (dave sapsis) (Tom Schmidlin) 2. BJCP exam committee plans (Scott Bickham) 3. seperate tests for certified/master (Nathaniel Lansing) 4. RE: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) (Bill Wibble) (Stephen Silverthorne) 5. Re: question availability (Jeff Renner) 6. Including the recipe... (Bev Blackwood II) 7. Partial retakes (Scott Bickham) 8. Testing Levels (Bill Wible) 9. RE: Digest for the period 3/30/2004 - 3/31/2004 (BigWayne19) 10. Call for Judges & Stewards - AHA NHC 1st Round Mountain Regional (Jon Douglas) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tom Schmidlin Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:13:15 -0800 Subject: Re:BJCP exam (Scott Bickham) (Alan Hord) (dave sapsis) Apologies in advance for the length of this message - Dave Sapsis wrote in response to a message from Alan Hord: < possibly you dont know or forgot who Scott Bickham is, but you must understand that when he states things like he does, he is doing it from a position of significant experience> And also wrote: Dave - I have to disagree with you here. I have administered an exam where I would only allow 2.5 hours for a partial retake of the written portion. Here is an excerpt from an email exchange I had with Peter Garofalo who, in case you didn't know or forgot, is the BJCP Western Exam Director. I asked: "The exam procedures seem to say that if someone is doing a partial retake of the written portion, they will only have 2.5 hours to complete it. Is that an accurate interpretation?" His reply: "As for the timing of partial retakes, it is usually handled by giving the Essay portion all at once, then doing the Taste in 30 minutes. Thus, 2.5 hours for the written portion." So as you can see I thought the procedures were saying one thing, and it turns out I was correct. So you were right about the procedures' clarity. Unfortunately that doesn't match your opinion of how explicitly the procedures say that retakes get 3 hours. Perhaps it is a matter of the aforementioned Scott Bickham (Exam Director East) and Peter Garofalo (Exam Director West) facing off with over-carbonated lambics at 20 paces and 'discussing things'? (Although Scott has not come out either way on the timing of partial retakes, it would still be fun to see.) Or perhaps this is not the intended interpretation, in which case the procedures are not as clear as you believe, either to me or an Exam Director. I would be interested to know how other exam administrators have handled the partial retakes, and what the actual intentions were of The Powers That Be, or whoever wrote the exam procedures. Finally, Dave Sapsis also wrote: "I dont believe that "obsolete" can be used as a verb." Actually, obsolete can be used as a verb in the transitive sense, as in to make something obsolete. So Alan's usage ". . . move to obsolete the current practice" is correct. Tom tschmidlin`at`earthlink.net "I think the mistake most of us make is believing that the state appointed psychiatrist is our friend." - JH ********************************************************************** * 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: Scott Bickham Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:36:39 -0500 Subject: BJCP exam committee plans Folks, I think it has been a fairly fruitful discussion so far, and has been mentioned earlier, the exam committee is being reformed with people who have substantial educational, judging and grading experience. Most of them are also JudgeNet subscribers and have been reading and/or responding to the various threads. In addition, several proposals have been proposed by other members of the pool of ~35 exam graders, so I think we are armed with a good amount of data and problem statements. Some of you may recognize that we are applying a six sigma process, which I think is an excellent approach. In the meantime, I suggest that we take a breather on this topic and let the exam committee take your input and try to incorporate your concerns into a better exam system. There has been a lot of misinformation propagating, and I've observed that other exam graders and myself have been expending a lot of time and effort making corrections and clarifications when we could be forging ahead with exam committee work. In the meantime, exams are still being offered at a near record-pace, so it's also a question of how to allocate our volunteer resources. I think we can make some significant improvements in the next few months and get them implemented soon thereafter. We'll continue to communicate some of the outputs of the exam committee to this forum and hopefully get more input as we sculpt them into the next incarnation of the BJCP exam. Good brewing, Scott ********************************************************************** * 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: Nathaniel Lansing Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:56:46 -0500 Subject: seperate tests for certified/master No sir, don't like it. First, I believe that 2 different tests will give the graders a bias that would amount to; "Well this is the Master's test, it's harder so we should score gentler." This bothers me as much as the old, "This is a harder style to get right, so with its' flaws it should score higher than that *perfect* SNPA clone." One exam that tests very difficultly is the way to go; it makes a clear delineation for all the levels of knowledge in one format. The novice's experience (or lack thereof) will show, the Master's well rounded contrast/compare + history will show. Would we need to have different beers for the tasting section, so the Masters have "more difficult to brew" beers and the novice have the "easy beer to brew"? The one thing that seems to be recurring in our discussions here is the one word comments on score sheets. That is something that needs fixed. Do we need to demand the judging coordinator review sheets at each flight and send those sheets back immediately to the offending judge? There are so many things that_could_be changed we need to sort out those things that will actually provide improved judging and feedback from those things we _like_to see. Thanks to those that assisted in judging our comp last weekend. N.P. (Del) Lansing ********************************************************************** * 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: Stephen Silverthorne Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 08:52:37 -0500 Subject: RE: Recipe access while judging (Denis Barsalo) (Bill Wibble) I recently assisted the judging in a competition for the first time and plan on taking the exam later this year. As one of the novice judges that asked Denis this question, I'd like to clarify. My idea was that a recipe without the brewer's particulars would be presented to the judges after the judging of the beer was complete and the score had been finalized in order to allow (perhaps) better and more on target feedback to the specific process or ingredients used. This should in no way affect the scores of the beers - these should be tallied in advance. It would be more like a second-round look at each beer to compare score sheet to recipe and process in order to provide feedback. I have seen score sheets where the judge listed the most common possible cause(s) of a problem but a look at the recipe would suggest that this was not the cause. For example a beer may seem underhopped for style. It is possible that not enough hops were used or hopping schedule was incorrect or also that hops were old or improperly stored and therefore didn't yield the expected character although the recipe itself is sound. A look at the recipe and process (if provided correctly by the brewer) would allow a better and more focussed feedback than "underhopped for style - check hopping rate and schedule". Further problems - oxidation "possibly caused by improper or overly long storage" (more likely with an older beer) or by "problems in process when racking or bottling" (more likely younger beer but also possible in an older beer). As to Bill's postulation that not "every brewer fills out the recipe section completely and honestly every time," I would suggest that this is immaterial to the discussion. A brewer that doesn't fully provide the recipe is probably not a brewer that is looking for, or really cares for, feedback. Not every brewer is looking for feedback, some are just looking to win or to measure how their beer compares to their peers. The quality of the feedback in these cases is not really at issue although perhaps that happens more with seasoned brewers than novices (personal assumption). You can't teach those that do not want to learn. I have more or less the same response to the situation where a brewer enters a beer into a different category than intended when brewed. Of course this does happen, but again this is not necessarily the situation where a brewer is most looking for feedback. They know there were issues with the beer. Perhaps this would lead to brewers actually admitting on their score sheets that they set out to brew one thing but found the final beer more suited to another and feedback could be addressed to possible reasons why the beer ended up seeming more like one beer than another (although I doubt most would be so candid). I would suggest that this would help most in determining the problems with beers that score in the lower end of the scale where the brewer needs and more probably wants feedback as to what they can do to improve their beer. Those who are already brewing very good to excellent beer may just be looking for a bench-mark. <- Stephen Silverthorne Montreal, QC, Canada ********************************************************************** * 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: Jeff Renner Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:20:59 -0500 Subject: Re: question availability Jay Hersh aka Dr. Beer(R) wrote >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. A personal anecdote a propos of nothing. In 1990, the late Bill Pfeiffer (charter member of BJCP) twisted the arms of several local homebrewers, including me, to take the exam. He said we needed qualified judges. So I sat the exam cold with about a week's notice. Did OK because I'd been a brewer and an avid reader of beer stuff for years and retain well. Except for that first question. BJCP? What's that? I had no idea. I didn't even attempt an answer. I guess it gave me more time for the rest of the questions. I always wondered how many points I lost for blowing that "gimme." Regarding Tim Oborn's thought that we should give examinees a chance to show what they know, I am reminded of a favorite thought from Winston Churchill. I read this years ago in his 1930 autobiography, "My Early Life: A Roving Commission," which was made into the movie "Young Winston" in 1972, starring Simon Ward as Churchill and Anne Bancroft, looking fantastic, as his mother. Good movie and good book. Anyway, Churchill did not do well in many subjects in school. He wrote, "I should have liked to be asked to say what I knew. [The examiners] always tried to ask what I did not know. When I would have willingly displayed my knowledge, they sought to expose my ignorance. This sort of treatment had only one result: I did not do well in examinations." I tried to remember this when I taught public school back when the movie came out. Jeff -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner`at`comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 ********************************************************************** * 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: Bev Blackwood II Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:41:57 -0500 Subject: Including the recipe... Denis Barsalo requests that judges be given the recipe in order for a judging panel to offer better comments regarding the beer being judged. Speaking as a competition organizer, I am not only against this, but vehemently against it. It adds a layer of complexity to the paperwork, which for a large competition is already tough enough. Add to that the fact that judges within a club may recogonize a particular entrant's handwriting or ingredients which could skew their assessment if they had a mind to cheat. Only if the recipe were "sanitized" (more complexity) to enable them to be seen in plain text without any handwriting could they be used, IMO. (And that still doesn't get around the "special ingredient" issues...) Not just no, a resounding no... -BDB2 Bev D. Blackwood II Co-Competition Coordinator The Foam Rangers http://www.foamrangers.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: Scott Bickham Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:47:28 -0500 Subject: Partial retakes One loose end I would like to address is the confusion about the time allotted for partial retakes of the exam. When this option was first offered in ~1996, we attempted to be fair to the hundreds of people who had retaken the exam prior to that date while responding to the requests of many BJCP judges. The former established that a full retake would still be 3 hours. For a essay-only retake, we assumed that the fastest judges need about 7 minutes to fill out a complete scoresheet, or about 30 minutes for 4 exam beers. So 2.5 hours was deemed appropriate for an essay-only retake. The fastest judges would benefit from not having to worry about the tasting portion, but the slower judges would get that benefit as well as additional time. The tasting only retake was set as 1 hour, which is a decent pace in a competition and enough to allow the administrator to serve beers and collect glasses. So the total time allotted for 2 partial retakes is 3.5 hours, which skews the time in the favor of retakes, but that's not a bad thing. Of course the loophole that only one judge to my knowledge has taken advantage of is to pay to retake the entire exam, but only work on the essay portion. In any case, this is not perfect and will be revised, but I hope you can see the logic in having 2.5 hours for a partial retake in the current system. This has been the case since ~1996 and is not intended to kick those of you who are already upset at the BJCP. Scott ********************************************************************** * 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: Bill Wible Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 12:54:43 -0500 Subject: Testing Levels Question - should someone have to be a brewer to be a beer judge? I'd say yes, under the current BJCP exam. But it should it be that way? The current BJCP exam and its questions seems to revolve more around brewing beer rather than tasting beer. What if someone who is not a brewer or has never brewed a batch of beer wants to be a judge? The current test questions pretty much guarantee that he or she will fail the test. And that isn't going to help us widen the judge pool by attracting some people who might be good potential judges, but just aren't brewers. a) There's a recipe question. Someone who doesn't brew won't be able to answer that. b) There are questions about common faults and what causes them. Again, non-brewers won't know that stuff. There is a significant part of the test that someone who has never brewed won't be able to answer, or answer well. I was thinking more about this, and about the recent post regarding different tests for different levels. Maybe the first level, "Recognized", doesn't have brewing questions - just tasting questions and basic beer questions. For example, "What is the difference between beer, lager, and ale?" Purpose of the BJCP can still be on that. And maybe some other basic questions about beer, some style questions, etc. No ingredients, no recipe formulation. The "Recognized" test might even consist of a couple essay, and some multiple choice questions. Hey, its for the lowest level - it shouldn't be the same test a master judge takes. MAYBE the Recognized test even has no tasting portion. Because lower level judges are still learning, and most competitions will put them in pairings with higher level judges anyway. 2 judges that are "recognized" level should probably never be judging a flight together by themselves, anyway. And I think most of the competitions already handle that. Then, as the levels progress, we should have more brewing questions, and more tastings. I would think a Master level test might have as many as 8 beers for tasting, and possibly fewer but more involved questions. As the level goes up, we should also have more tasting. And on a different note, as far as tastings, how many judges were given "doctored" beers as part of their tasting section of the exam? I wasn't - and I scored poorly on the tasting section, because I was "looking" for faults, figuring that I'd be given at least one doctored beer to see if I could identify the faults. After all, isn't that part of the test, or shouldn't it be? There should be some testing of whether judges can identify the faults. I think this is a great idea to have different versions of the test, with different questions, and even different formats, for each level. This is certainly a topic worthy of further discussion. Bill ********************************************************************** * 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: BigWayne19 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 14:21:32 -0800 Subject: RE: Digest for the period 3/30/2004 - 3/31/2004 ---------- 1) one of the style guides that i attempt to adhere to is - that i wish others would adopt is : praise in public; chastise in private . . . 2) the bjcp is doing an incredibly good job in every category. i hope i don't need to add that it doesn't charge money nor does it pay any of its operatives . . . 3) the test is given to provide a benchmark, for beer-judging venues, about prospective judges and, as a way to alert brewers to their own weaknesses. having a two-tier test doesn't match the real world where judges may be expected to judge/critique not only (although rarely these days) spoiled beer, but also world-class brews. 4) if a brewer would like to submit his recipe along with his beer, why not ? if the judges have time and the inclination, they might want to provide some feedback, there, too . . . > The biggest problem I see with the exam is that it tries to test too = > much of a range of knowledge. It is as if we gave a test for > physics that was to test everyone from someone who had never taken =3D > calculus to the hardest questions of quantum mechanics. I believe this is exactly what the test is intended to do, should do, and currently does, with regard to separating the truly advanced judges = A Master judge should have excellent breadth of knowledge on the wide range of subjects within the broad discipline(s) of home brewing and beer styles. In this regard, the current exam model serves to excellently separate out those that are capable of clearly communicating important aspects of the BJCP program, beer styles, and beer technical knowledge under a time constraint that requires organization and well-outlined discussion from those that cannot. ----------- i believe that we needn't change the format of the bjcp test. Big ********************************************************************** * 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: Jon Douglas Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:43:03 -0700 Subject: Call for Judges & Stewards - AHA NHC 1st Round Mountain Regional Greetings Fellow Judges! Here's hoping that many of you can answer the call to help judge the largest homebrew competition in the world! The new Mountain region of the National Homebrew Competition will be judged in Denver on May 1 and 2, 2004. The judging will be held at the Breckenridge Brewery at 471 Kalamath Street in Denver, CO. We expect approximately 500-600 entries so we ask all BJCP judges to step up to help us out! As usual, lunch will be provided on Sat. May 1, and we will have a thank you party for the judges and stewards on Saturday night. Sunday juding will only occur if needed. If you have friends or spouses/significant others who would like to steward, please let us know as well! We hope to have online judge registration available soon. If you are a local (Denver area) judge and have space for an out of town judge or two to stay with you for a night or two, please let me know so we can get that organized. For those of you from out of town who would rather stay in hotels, please contact me for more info. For more info on the National Homebrew Competition in general, go to http://www.beertown.org/events/nhc/index.html. Please email me at hopfenkopf`at`hotmail.com if you can help! Thanks for your time & I hope to see you in Denver in May! Jon Douglas Judge Coordinator National Homebrew Competition - Mountain Region _________________________________________________________________ All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn ********************************************************************** * 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 * **********************************************************************