Ok... I feel better. I took and passed 70-320 today and completed MCAD!!!
Let me tell you, Kalani's book is not nearly as on the mark for this test as
it was for 70-315. I felt like I was taking the wrong exam! Acutally, the
topics were the same but there were questions about things I had never heard
of, and I read Kalani cover to cover twice and did every exercise and
step-by-step at least once. Along with that, most areas I read in Kalani
lead to long meanderings through MSDN and other sites on the topics and
still MS made that exam look pretty foreign.
As it was, I was able to answer about half of the questions absolutely
without doubt.. I knew the answer for sure. The rest of them, I had to
eliminate the obviously wrong answers and take my best guess from the rest.
Oddly, on some of the questions, my elimination process absolutely
eliminated all the answers... I would have to say that this was the most
poorly written exam I have taken from Microsoft. There were some questions
that none of the answers matched the scenario or that the scenario in no way
provided enough information to conclude any of the answers but then what can
you do except try to choose the least wrong answer.
Well, over all, I guess I was able to choose the least wrong often enough!
I'm just glad that one is over.
Dale
MCAD, MCSE, MCDBA
"DalePres" <don-t-spa-m
...@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote in message
...
> Good points, all of them, but I'll let you know Saturday if I feel
better -
> after the test - *laugh*
> Dale
> "UAError" <n...@null.null> wrote in message
> news:ub0he0heilqvqk0ugfg6e44h2raolqavaq@4ax.com...
> > "DalePres" <don-t-spa-m...@lea-ve-me-a-lone--.com> wrote:
> > >or.. would you like a little cheese with that whine?
> > >I'm going to take 70-320 this week... my third and, hopefully, final
exam
> > >for MCAD, though MCSD and renewing my MCSE and MCDBA still loom over my
> > >head.
> > >And with each exam, I have the same complaint. Microsoft sets the
> standards
> > >and establishes the skill sets required to achieve certification.
Having
> > >done so, why do they not prepare training material that teaches those
> > >skills. Teach what they test and test what they teach. If they did
> that,
> > >they'd actually have much better control over the skill sets and
> technical
> > >ability of their Microsoft Certified Professionals.
> > >Novell does it.. Their white books teach everything they expect you to
> know
> > >for the exams...
> > In principle I agree but if we're looking for improvements
> > might as well go further - rather that tailoring towards the
> > exams which "samples" an extremely limited sub-set of
> > knowledge (of the technology), supply training material that
> > covers the "skills being measured" in detail - yes, it would
> > take longer to prepare but at least you would acquire a
> > knowledge base that is (more) well rounded and useful.
> > Maybe there is an ulterior motive of trying to promote the
> > courses that generate more revenue than books (which
> > probably generate very little if any).
> > >The whole "real world" component Microsoft tries to impart is not
> anyone's
> > >real world since the exams are prepared long before anyone has enough
> real
> > >world experience with the final release product to establish a
definition
> > >for real world. Or their real world experience is based on internal
> > >experiences with in Microsoft... Like that's real world for the rest of
> > >us...
> > I might be missing your point here but ever considered that
> > everybody's "real world" is ultimately different? Any "real
> > world" conjured up by any testing organization will seem
> > artificial to a significant portion of the audience unless
> > you are really tightly focused on a particular application
> > area and the associated audience. As far as I can see there
> > really is no "real world" component in the certification.
> > What would you like to see? Something like the Java
> > Developer Certification?
> > http://suned.sun.com/US/certification/java/java_devj2se.html
> > Here you get a programming assignment which you need to
> > complete on your own time (though less than 12 months is
> > recommended) and if accepted you have a follow up exam where
> > you have to justify your design decisions (to ensure that
> > you are actually the author of the solution).
> > The programming assignment will probably not relate to
> > anything you deal with in your business life - so it will
> > still seem "artificial". And while this type of testing does
> > raise the quality of the certification it also becomes more
> > expensive as now at least one warm body who wants his/her
> > paycheck is evaluating your work and laying the foundation
> > for the essay exam and evaluating that too. Furthermore you
> > are now exposed to the risk of catching an evaluator on a
> > bad day were nothing but supreme excellence will do.
> > Yes, it raises the quality of certification but are you
> > willing to pay the price (higher exam fees, increased risk
> > of failure you have little control over, and even more time
> > to complete certification; we should be willing but what
> > business problem is certification solving? At some point the
> > investment into certification isn't worth it, especially as
> > technology doesn't stand still. Unfortunately there are very
> > few effective certification opportunities for "the craft" of
> > creating software solutions.)
> > I'm not saying that the Microsoft Status Quo is ideal - far
> > from it - but careful what you wish for - there is no
> > perfect solution.
> > Maybe somebody thought that they could cut down on the
> > number of exam questions if many questions only addressed
> > 20% of the esoteric niches of the technology - only
> > experienced individuals would ever run into these problems
> > right? This tactic does not address the problem of
> > braindumps. They really should significantly increase the
> > number of questions in their testbank to a point where it
> > becomes impossible to memorize them all (i.e. you actually
> > have to understand the technology); the majority of these
> > questions should address problems that relate to the more
> > mundane areas; maybe they should also increase the number of
> > questions on every test.
> > >And while the NDA is basically a good thing, it has ruined the whole
idea
> of
> > >newsgroups. Why bother to have these newsgroups? Because of the NDA
no
> one
> > >will even talk about the content of the exam in general terms for fear
of
> > >the MS hammer falling on them. There's no peer discussions of the
exams
> or
> > >certification processes going on here; there's only people repeatedly
> asking
> > >the same questions that are clearly answered on the train_cert site at
> > >Microsoft.com.
> > It the old signal to noise ratio thing - unfortunately the
> > signal is buried somewhere. Anyway the NDA basically
> > disallows the discussions of the questions as such. However
> > that doesn't stop anybody from recommending preparation
> > materials after they have taken the tests (just look at the
> > codeclinic links). Over the last few months there were a few
> > posts that suggested that Kalani's 70-315/70-316 coverage of
> > security was weak.
> > There was at least one post that pointed out the lack of
> > soap-header coverage in Kalani's 70-320 guide.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=soap+headers+kalani&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT... > > >If you outlaw discussion about the exams, only outlaws will discuss the
> > >exams.
> > You can still discuss the "Skills being measured" - which
> > are out in the open. However very few individuals are going
> > to be motivated to try to memorize 55-57 questions and then
> > cross-reference study materials and publish them. Apart from
> > the problems this creates. You are supposed to be competent
> > in the domain outlined by the "Skills being measured" - not
> > in the taking of the exam - any exam can only ever cover a
> > minute subset of the "Skills being measured".
> > The codeclinic links are a great resource when it comes to
> > the "Skills being measured" - unless you are merely
> > interested in passing the exam, rather than being proficient
> > in the "Skills being measured".
> > Kalani's guides supply you with a wealth of links to deepen
> > you knowledge in the relevant areas which you are free to
> > pursue. This is even more important when it comes to
> > Cornish's 70-300 exam cram. While the guide is only about
> > 500 pages, exploration of the links at the end of the
> > chapters is essential (and sometimes time-consuming) as the
> > chapters themselves merely gloss over the material.
> > You are always free to ask for clarification on specific
> > items of the "Skills Being measured" and somebody
> > knowledgable may supply you with some relevant material.
> > >Ok.... back to Kalani - second time through because I am trying to
learn
> > >everything under the sun since I don't know what else to do.
> > Check the links at the end of the chapters (see if there is
> > some updated content). Scan the group's past 12-18 months on
> > google to discover shortcomings of the Kalani guides (some
> > reviews on amazon.com can be helpful to).
> > >Geeze, I am
> > >tired of overstudying while the "outlaws" have all the answers before
> they
> > >walk into the room!
> > While I can feel your pain - you can't dwell on it. There
> > are people that got all the way through medical school and
> > residency and who are still lousy physicians.
> > Yes, the certification is worthless (especially in the face
> > of braindumps) - on its own.
> > However make the most of it - show off your work experience
> > (on a resume) in the best possible way - i.e. how you where
> > instrumental in the solution of business problems through
> > cogent application of information technology. Then use the
> > certification to advertise:
> > Oh, by the way I am currently certified in .NET technology.
> > Once you get to the interview you should be able to run
> > circle's around those "outlaws" who were able to memorize
> > exam questions but have no idea what the technology's
> > strengths and limitations are.
> > Ultimately you are doing the certification for yourself - as
> > a milestone to confirm to yourself that you have now reached
> > the point that you have a basic understanding of the .NET
> > technology that allows you to use it (somewhat) effectively
> > as a tool in solution of business problems.
> > >Whew! I'm glad I got that off my chest.
> > >Dale
> > ... feel better now?
