>Hi all,
>
>Just a little Monday philosphy ...
>
(((((((((((* major snippage occured *))))))))))))

>this gets an extra dimension when talking certification. It seems to me that the problem with certifications in general are:
>1) they test methodollagy as much as results - If I can doe it just as good and fast with Method "A" and they test on method "B" - I'm sunk!
>2) as with all standardized tests - they are as much about ability to take tests as they are about the material itself
>3) they focus (at least ones I've seen) on memorization more than real world problem solving ability
>4) and most importantly - they fail to measure what I consider to be the greatest skills of all - the abilities to GET ANSWERS QUICKLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THEM and TO LEARN RAPIDLY ON THE FLY


A psychomagician's nightmare. A test must be reliable as well as valid. Even if a few questions ask you for specific knowledge of features you aren't aware of, the over all test should be able to give a reliable picture of your performance. This isn't easy to do, and frankly, some of the questions will be real boners, but when the data is checked, your answers will spell out wether or not you are qualified. Quit worrying about the questions that examine parts of the language that you don't know well, and concentrated on the areas that you are an expert in, and you should be fine in the test, as long as you really are what microsoft considers to be "certifiable" material :-)