>I took it and failed (barely). And there wasn't a single question that I felt like I was unprepared for. I knew all of the subject matter very thoroughly, But the test format got me.

I think maybe my ignorance was my strength--I hadn't taken ANY tests before this one, so I learned the format at the same time. I also was somewhat fatalist, since I didn't expect to pass, and took the beta just because I thought it was a cheap way to study for it.

>I wasn't able to attend any of the recent study sessions for the 70-100, but I looked in on a couple of the logs, and judging by the general sentiment apparent there, most people are as confused by the format as I was.

FWIW I felt this was the hardest test of the ones I took (also took the VFP tests, and 70-029) Unfortunately, I had to take the VFP tests the same day--and go to a job interview after, so I am not holding much hope for them either. I was a bit fuzzy for the interview. :)

>I think it's ridiculous that test taking skills need to have so much to do with whether you pass or fail.

I agree with you there, but then again, testing format is always the hurdle, look at all the controversy surrounding the SAT's and IQ tests.

>Maybe I am just bitter. :-)

I don't think, I think you are making valid points, and more imporantly preparing those who want to take them, which is why we are up here in the first place.

The bottom line is that MS as the test maker has the responsibility to refactor the test format as much as or more so than the subject material, if the tests are measuring the test takers ability to take tests more than the subject matter.

I have always been a good test taker, but I felt that these tests have made it tough to just "take the test." I know I wouldn't have passed without the knowledge of the subject matter, but as you are pointing out, the format is also apparently a sticking point.

Best,
Bill