When you attend the US Open, and it’s workshops, over many years, such as Prof. Sloan has done, you learn how many policies and programs are developed.
Brian: You do not have to be an NTD to be on TDCC. Come to Orlando. Attend the workshop. Make your proposals. Offer your hours to volunteer. I do think, however, you would have to be certified at SOME level, to get some respect for experiencing the program.
But then again, you’ve never needed experience to make any opinion on anything.
One does not have to have seen the actual exams to know what the intent of the exam is. Professor Sloan is a member of the rules committee, and my impression (from attending workshops at four U.S. Opens as a delegate) is that the rules committee and TDCC have something of a working relationship. From talking to members of both committees, I knew that ANTD and NTD exam questions sometimes arise from issues that come before the rules committee. That makes sense; those exams probe the “dark corners” of the rules, in which the clear-cut guidance some expect the rules to provide is nowhere to be found.
If Prof. Sloan were to take the ANTD or NTD exam, I would not be surprised if he were to recognize issues he himself has debated before.
Isn’t it obvious what is intended to be tested? If it weren’t, this thread would provide enough information to anybody bothering to read it.
Once again, we have an area of the USCF where before you have a standing to propose a change to something, you have to be so experienced with the current way of doing things, and so in tune with its mysterious, ineffable, inner logic, for some reason inexplicable to outsiders, and only achieved with years of experience, that you don’t want to change it.
On the other hand, it would be kind of nice if a person proposing a change actually had at least some minimal experience with what that person wants changed.
Even on an obviously good thing like: let’s have a question bank so that people can use it to learn the rules, and we can administer the certification tests on-line. Is there even any point in my going to Orlando?
Yes there is Brian because that is where you get to speak to and convince the delegates of your idea.
Mind you that i support this idea and believe it is the proper path.
It’s not the idea it’s the approach to making the idea reality. There are a lot of personal swipes back and forth in this great thread and that won’t get you anywhere. You’re not the only one doing it though.
I do recommend that if you qualify for the Local TD exam to take it. Then you take away the argument from anyone that you’re not speaking from experience.
Naah, they’ll just shift to arguing that my opinions don’t count because I haven’t taken the Senior TD exam. And so on, ad nauseum. Never mind that a lot people have quite a bit of experience of testing, having taken quite a few tests in their lives. But if they weren’t specifically the USCF TD tests, you don’t know anything about testing. It gets demoralizing.
Brian, you’re asking for change here from what is currently being done. You know from your past professional experience that change is something that is quite loathed, feared, and fought against. You know from your past professional experience that the change agent will have to overcome these odds and show people, through positive means and leading by example, why change should be embraced because it’s for the betterment of the organization.
Trying to enact change and then throwing ones’ hands up when opposition is faced doesn’t accomplish anything.
The arguments are not that an on-line test or test bank is a bad idea. I think you have seen some support for the idea. The disagreement that I have is with your approach and your disparaging remarks of the current system, when you have 0 experience with the current system. What I, and others including Sevan here, are trying to say is that you would have more credability if:1 ) you had actually taken any of the tests that you have disparaged and 2) That you would examine the language you are using in an attempt to see why your choice of words might cause some to react negatively to whatever it is that you are proposing. It comes back to the way to call names and use pejoratives when, again, you might not fully understand what is going on.
For example the hgiher level tests have problem solving questions that are designed to explore the discusion making process of the candidate. Frequently in any referee situation there are mulltiple rules that can or may apply and the key is to reach a conclusion that can be supported by the rukles. There are many times where a discussion of a situation between mutiple experienced TDs can result in differences of opinion, and each opinion can be supported within the rules (just like can happen in the law). So the higher level tests try to get beyond a basic understanding of rules and into the decision process. An on-line test bank of rule based questions, at lweast for higher exams, needs to take this into account if we are to maintain a similar system as to what exists today.
There is an art to getting along with folks to try to cause change. One can stand outside and throw rocks, but that only tends to work if you can gather a whole bunch of folks to throw rocks with you. Without that, being at least somewhat agreeable in language and tone helps a lot.
I have quite a bit of experience with academic tests, and I’ve taken an old form of the LTD test. The LTD test was in an area I had a lot of experience (what should happen in chess tournaments, which one learns as a player as well as a director), but one in which I had never taken a written test. It was not quite like other tests I’ve taken, although typically open-book take-home exams do have a learning component to them. Work like mad for 48 hours almost straight on a take-home math exam, and you learn something there too.
Aren’t you at least curious to know what a TD test is like? I know I was.
PS I thought you were going to the Annual Meeting because you agreed to be a delegate.
You are now a member of the Board of Directors of this organization. Why did you accept this position?
Your obviously good thing IS an obviously good thing in principle. It can only be accomplished now by volunteer labor with a certain amount of expertise in the various parts needed to complete this project.
If you can meet the requirements to complete this project with the needed manpower, I’ll vote in favor for the project. You can’t arrive at the meeting and say, “I have a good idea!”, and expect it to be done without also offering a way to do it. You can’t pass the buck to others to make it so.
Find some volunteers to work on it. For myself, I do not have the time to put more on my plate.
The desirability of a bank of questions for the multiple choice exams was already accepted by the TDCC. That would give more options for test generation and would allow the move to on-line testing.
The essay exams (ANTD and NTD) might not ever have a large enough bank of questions, let alone be able to go to an on-line system. However, as Allen said, what is being tested is not merely the knowledge of the rules but also whether or not the TD can apply them in a logical and justifiable manner. Considering the number of candidates for the ANTD and NTD tests, as opposed to the CTD/LTD and SrTD tests, the primary push will be a large question bank for the lower level tests. Once that is in place (for at least one set of tests) it would become possible to move forward on on-line testing.
One concern I have is that the delegates may be irked enough by the Brian’s presentation to just toss the whole idea out instead of allowing the move forward that was found desirable.
TDCC might support the idea, but I don’t see any member stepping up to do the work. Brian has months to make a package for the delegates. Let’s see how he does.
