or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Pass rates on PSIA level 3 exam?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pass rates on PSIA level 3 exam? - Page 11

post #301 of 538

They also instituted a requirement that Level IIs and IIIs become Children's Specialists.  That makes total sense because so much teaching is for kids. The instructors I know who have gone through the CS process have said good things about it.

 

But changing the number of components you have to pass on the exam - why did they do that?  They are making the test harder to pass when the fail rate is already very high.  What's up with that? 

post #302 of 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

They also instituted a requirement that Level IIs and IIIs become Children's Specialists.  That makes total sense because so much teaching is for kids. The instructors I know who have gone through the CS process have said good things about it.

 

But changing the number of components you have to pass on the exam - why did they do that?  They are making the test harder to pass when the fail rate is already very high.  What's up with that? 

 

Really...  What I'm reading about the Eastern Division makes it seem like the test will be easier if you get to bank your successful modules.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

post #303 of 538

Easier in the long run. Harder for the first attempt. Given the high fail rate on the first attempt, presumably there is a high percentage of exam takers on a second or subsequent attempt. My bet is that this small increase in difficulty will increase the first time fail rate a few percentage points, but that this will be more than offset by the increase in the pass rate for retakes.

post #304 of 538

I don't think it's more difficult.  It was always the skiing part that was the main obstacle for most, and I don't think that's changed.  (I only know one guy who passed the skiing but never passed teaching.)  Requiring passing marks on every teaching module (rather than the old combined scoring) is an improvement.  That makes it a little harder, but the lifetime skiing qualification and banking teaching module scores makes it a little easier, and less time consuming.  Overall, I think it's an improvement.

The biggest recent improvement was that they now require Childrens Specialist training as a prerequisite.  That makes a lot of sense, but it also makes the whole process a lot more costly and time consuming. 

 

BK

post #305 of 538

The point was that last year it was possible to pass your first attempt at the teaching portion of the cert without having consensus passing marks in ALL modules of the teaching exam. This year it is not. We've already from one poster who would bit have passed under this change.I was trying to point out that this change will increase the first time failure rate for the teaching exam only by a small amount.

post #306 of 538

I received my SnowPro magazine today from PSIA-E.  It has two articles delineating the differences in the Level II and Level III exams in detail.  It appears that this must be the first in-depth explanation to the membership.  

 

The changes apply to Alpine only (nothing new for Nordic, Snowboard, or Adaptive ... yet). The Level II and Level III Skiing and Teaching exams previously required a pass for 2 out of 3 modules (for each of the four tests). That is no longer the case.  A candidate must now pass all 3 modules on each of these four exams.  Once a candidate passes any of the modules, that "pass" is good for life.  There will be partial exams called "Reassessments" that you can take to try again to pass the ones you failed.  You can keep taking these as long as you want; the old passed portions don't expire after two years like they used to.

 

The exams don't appear to be changing; the difference is simply that you now need to pass everything on both exams to get your Level II and everything on both exams for your Level III.    

 

There will be new training to "improve exam preparedness."  These newly designed training sessions will be two day clinics directly targeting Level IIs who are preparing for their Level III Skiing Exams.  It doesn't look like there's anything new in the training department for Level I instructors training for Level II skiing; nor is there anything new on the clinic list designed to better prepare the teaching exam candidates at either level. 

 

One reason given for the exam changes is to assure that "all performance areas are validated to be at or above the National Standard."  I assume this means it's time to make sure all Level II and III instructors are actually good enough to wear their respective pins.

 

The reason given for the low pass rates is that a higher percentage of ski instructors in the East are part-time.  They don't have the time to build skiing and teaching skills that full time instructors have.  Why are there fewer full timers and more part-timers?  That isn't addressed.  

 

I would expect the fail rate for all four exams to go down to even lower levels in the future because of these changes.  If people keep trying, eventually the ones who pass might number more than in the past since people don't have to keep re-taking modules they previously passed.  PSIA just needs to keep them trying until they pass.   

 

Is this whole thing good?  I'd say yes only if there were renewed vigor in preparing candidates for all four exams, not just LIII skiing.  No matter what the reason, there ought not to be such low pass rates as we currently have.  Just because it's always been so doesn't mean it can't change.

post #307 of 538

LF

I have the same SnowPro. but I got a different impression than you.

In the past, there was a 3 part exam: writtten, skiing and teaching,  You needed to pass skiing first, then you has 2 seasons to pass the written and teaching.

Passing skiing meant 2 of 3 examiners needed to pass you.  I don't think that has changed. What has changed is that you never need to take the skiing exam again.

Previously, passing teaching meant that you needed a score of 10 our of 16 on the four modules.  You could get a zero on one module, and still pass. ( I actually did that.)

The two new things are that once you pass skiing, you have forever to pass the written and teaching, but now you need to pass every teaching module to pass teaching.  I think that makes it a little harder, but it's also better.

If the new plan were in effect when I took the exam, I would have failed teaching on the first try, but I would have come back and murdered the module that I missed.  That would have been more painful for me, but maybe a better experience.

 

BK

post #308 of 538

Bode, as I read it, the Skiing Exam is still scored by three examiners, one for each chunk of a day.  They each score the skier on three newly identified "performance areas"; the skier gets a score for each of these "performance areas" from each examiner.  The skier must pass each of those three skill sets.  Not two of the three.  So passing had changed from 2 out of three examiners, to 3 out of 3 skill sets.  The three "performance areas" are:

 

--mountain skiing

versatility/agility

skiing at skill level

 

The clincher:  the same skiing tasks as always are what the skiers will be doing in front of those examiners.  

 

Sounds like 3 out of 3 to me.

post #309 of 538

The description in the SnowPro starts with "The changes to the skiing exam will be barely noticeable to the candidate."  You still only need to pass 2 of 3 examiners, and the tasks haven't changed, but now you can get a partial pass.  I think that makes it easier.   Suppose each examiner failed you a on different area?  That's a pass now, but it could have been a fail before.  Also, I think a partial re-take is easier than doing the whole thing all over.  I think the teaching exam changes are an improvement, but I'm not so sure the skiing changes do anything but make it easier.

 

BK

post #310 of 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

I received my SnowPro magazine today from PSIA-E.  It has two articles delineating the differences in the Level II and Level III exams in detail.  It appears that this must be the first in-depth explanation to the membership.  

....

One reason given for the exam changes is to assure that "all performance areas are validated to be at or above the National Standard."  I assume this means it's time to make sure all Level II and III instructors are actually good enough to wear their respective pins.

 

 

The reason given for the low pass rates is that a higher percentage of ski instructors in the East are part-time.  They don't have the time to build skiing and teaching skills that full time instructors have.  Why are there fewer full timers and more part-timers?  That isn't addressed.  

 

 

 

I believe this issue is traditionally where exam changes are explained. Usually proposed exam changes are discussed in the region meetings in the spring. The feedback from those meetings is incorporated into the final decision over the summer.

 

I would not read too much into the "All performance areas" statement. Since it was possible to be substandard in one of the teaching modules and still pass, the premise under the old exam format was that the candidate overall was still an excellent teacher (and that the strength in the other two modules made up for the weakness in the "substandard" module). If you compare the alpine teaching components against the snowboard teaching components, you'll see that the snowboard teaching components make the alpine components look relatively subjective (i.e. creativity, kids, movement analysis vs professionalism, group safety, creating a positive learning environment, communicates ideas and concepts, presents ideas in a logical order, organize group/keeps on task, demonstrates varied feedback, pace [talk vs action]). Having taken exams in both disciplines in the East, my experience is that behind the scenes both disciplines are looking for pretty much the same things (e.g. if you stop your group in an unsafe spot you get dinged even though there is no group safety score in Alpine and if you are not creative you won't score well in ideas and concepts). So the "all performance areas" thing sounds good, but it's a pretty minor point when you consider that one reason for these changes is people failing areas that had previously been passed. This is one of these six vs half dozen things.

 

I would love to see the data behind Peter's more part timers comment. Although this does not match my (albeit limited) observations, it is not hard to believe. At my resort, we actually have more full time instructors than we had 10 years ago, because we've been using South American kids as full time instructors to augment our staff. Of course, those kids won't be showing up at L2/L3 exams. I have seen more "recent retirees" come work full time, but they don't seem to last as long as the full timers who have "seasonal" day jobs. The old guys face an uphill battle when going for exams. With global warming, I have seen some encroachment where the demands of the (more profitable) seasonal day job extends into ski season.  If Peter's implication is true (i.e. the ratio of part time to full time has changed significantly in the last 3-4 years), I'd bet that the "encroachment" phenomena is a part of that. One thing I've seen that definitely kills full timers is bad weather seasons. Once they learn that they can not get a steady income through a full season, the once bitten twice shy phenomenon hits. Remember we had the winter that wasn't two seasons ago. Teaching for most part timers is an expense. Less teaching is less of an expense. Bad weather seasons don't decimate part timer ranks like they do for full timers. Finally, it will take 2-4 part timers to replace every full timer. In the East, the percentage of full timers was not very high to begin with. It would not take much to make full timers even more of a rarity. 

post #311 of 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

There will be new training to "improve exam preparedness."  These newly designed training sessions will be two day clinics directly targeting Level IIs who are preparing for their Level III Skiing Exams.  It doesn't look like there's anything new in the training department for Level I instructors training for Level II skiing; nor is there anything new on the clinic list designed to better prepare the teaching exam candidates at either level. 

The PSIA east has clinics specifically designed for exam prep, both skiing and teaching. They are available for level 2 or 3 prep.

There are for 13-14 season 8 level 2 teaching clinics, 11 level 2 skiing, 5 level 3 ski prep, and 2 level 3 teaching prep. In addition there are specific tracks for these at projam.

 

I can't think of any improvements to the schedule that would make this prep any better.

post #312 of 538
OK, I see where I got confused.  Each examiner scores each candidate on the three "performance areas."  Those scores for each of those three, given by any one examiner, need to be at a certain level to pass, for that examiner.  Now, how many of those 3 performance areas X 3 examiners (9 scores) does the candidate need to pass, to "pass" the whole exam?  I'll quote from Haringa's article to show where the confusion came in - for me:

 

"The candidate needs an average passing score from a minimum of the two of the three half day sessions [i.e., examiners] to successfully complete the performance area [this applies to each performance area.]  If the candidate is successful in each of the three performance areas, he/she will have passed the skiing exam."  

 

So let's say two examiners pass a candidate on all of the three performance areas.  One examiner fails the candidate on all three.  OK, I get it.  The candidate passes the exam.  Bode is right; I was wrong.  Other combinations of pass/fail that split things up differently will still result in a pass.  The candidate needs to pass each performance area in the eyes of 2 out of 3 examiners.  Whew - I hope this is worth it. 

post #313 of 538

Link to the PSIA-E web page describing the changes to the LII and LIII exams in case anyone is confused about the revised process.

 

http://www.psia-e.org/exams/

post #314 of 538

And the reasoning behind the changes.

 

http://www.psia-e.org/exams/reference/howard.htm


Edited by BillA - 10/6/13 at 1:47pm
post #315 of 538

Being a CS makes no sense to me unless that is where one teaches. personally, I think exams are often about the money. That is: "Ho much can we squeeze out of the candidates?" It is an expensive process and unneeded or irrelevant certs. and specialties are costly. What ever happened to common sense and a deep knowledge of the sport prior to the modern era and it's endless specialties? 

post #316 of 538

The above reply was to Liquid Feet's post. Guess I hit the wrong button.

post #317 of 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimidee33 View Post
 

Being a CS makes no sense to me unless that is where one teaches. personally, I think exams are often about the money. That is: "Ho much can we squeeze out of the candidates?" It is an expensive process and unneeded or irrelevant certs. and specialties are costly. What ever happened to common sense and a deep knowledge of the sport prior to the modern era and it's endless specialties? 

 

Being that the vast majority of lessons are for kids, and that about 40% of PSIA members have been in for 5 years or less, I'd say there's a need. Unless one's been around kids a lot or coached them in other sports, it's a pretty unique set of information that the average person doesn't have.

post #318 of 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

 

Being that the vast majority of lessons are for kids, and that about 40% of PSIA members have been in for 5 years or less, I'd say there's a need. Unless one's been around kids a lot or coached them in other sports, it's a pretty unique set of information that the average person doesn't have.

 

I was once a Jr. race coach and have taught children in other venues. These days mostly private lessons to the kids when I am not teaching adults.. As a father I think the most necessary tribute is empathy and kindness. Children are not just little adults. Not saying CS cert. is bad; it isn't. Just stating my case regarding the endless parade of specialties which I see in part as a way to give more cash to PSIA. Need? Hardly. Good, yes.  But not a necessity.

post #319 of 538

For you and your experience set, no, not needed. 

post #320 of 538
I'm a an eastern L3

Since psia e went to the two part exam in the late 90's the pass rate for each part of the L3 exam was around 30%. Recently it has gone down which is prompting the changes. I'm not a fan of the "banking" change for L3. I think it can reduce the value of having to truly bust your butt to make it. L3 is supposed to be the top of our profession. Now you could get lucky and bank a part of it. Either you ski at the level or you don't. There is no sort of.

It could lead to higher fail rates as more less trained staff try to just pass one section to bank it and then focus on the next section.

I think that eliminating the two year window for passing the teaching makes sense. Also I think that the banking makes sense for L2 as staff accumulate knowledge and ability. I would have preferred they test this at L2 before trying at 3
post #321 of 538

Coach z, how long ago did you pass L3...it seems from your picture, it was a long time ago.

post #322 of 538
1997

Not sure what you are inferring. I passed the ski cut for DCL a few years back and just missed asking the team by one spot
post #323 of 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimidee33 View Post
 

Being a CS makes no sense to me unless that is where one teaches. personally, I think exams are often about the money. That is: "Ho much can we squeeze out of the candidates?" It is an expensive process and unneeded or irrelevant certs. and specialties are costly. What ever happened to common sense and a deep knowledge of the sport prior to the modern era and it's endless specialties?

I hear this all the time and I think its just bunk.  Like it or not, certification matters in hiring, pay, job selection, assignments and prestige so we have an organization to certify as do other nations.  PSIA is non profit and driven by industry trends and requests from membership to meet those demands.  I think PSIA does a fine job of delivering value considering the clout they have, the resources they have to work with and the job pressures asked of them  I personally cannot see how it is possible for them to consider squeezing more out through an expensive process.

 

Programs like CS evolved as an attempt to meet some form of formal apparatus to differentiate within certification levels for the purposes of hiring, pay and job selection within special areas of ski schools.

 

What you might be concluding as an attempt to squeeze more money out of you is a response from districts trying to insulate examiners and retain examiners through preventing burnout.  I am not an examiner for this reason. I don't feel like having every session be about teaching someone to a test or judging them before they go to an exam only to have them go to an exam, get nervous and come home without the pin only to shoot me and their examiners for their efforts.

 

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be passionate about teaching and skiing then being in an exam situation where you see little things you could correct but have to keep your mouth shut and in the end flunk 90% of your candidates?    In order to keep your mouth shut about what you see in an exam and not have your guts torn out emotionally for flunking everyone you would have to distance yourself from the exam candidates and also the candidates back home.  Burnout doesn't begin to really describe it.  A lot of examiners just plain give up on PSIA and teaching altogether because even after they burn out and leave PSIA, everyone still wants them to teach to the test for them.  I think they must draw straws for the level III exam.  Short straws get the level III group.  Long straws get skiing development.

 

I think much of the changes and requirements are attempts to meet the demands and get candidates better prepared or at least have them look in the mirror if they don't pass rather than stab the examiner for flunking them.   I think much of the way exams unfold is an attempt by examiners to convince candidates whom are not going to pass to come to that conclusion and look in the mirror instead of for the dagger when they don't pass.

 

Sorry for singling you out.  My response is not about you, heck I don' even know if you really believe what you typed or were just playing devils advocate. My response is to your general statement. You just happen to have unlucky timing of your post.:beercheer:

post #324 of 538
Really interest post, Pierre!
post #325 of 538

As a non examiner trainer, how do I know when a candidate is ready to pass level III?

 

There is always the question of "Well you are not an examiner so how do you know what they are looking for?".

 

That is a very good question that deservers and answer but if the candidate seems preoccupied with the question and pushes back on details, I know they are not ready to pass level III even though I might occasionally see it in their skiing.

 

In my opinion the quickest way to set yourself up for a flunk is to focus heavily on the details you think the examiners want to see in the skiing tasks.  I think the skiing tasks are more designed to isolate and pinpoint skill deficiencies out to the candidate rather than anything the examiner wants to see in particular.  I think the skiing tasks might help the examiner write something on the final paperwork but that is about the extent of it.  You either have it or you don't and they can see it on the warmup runs.

 

It is important that you understand what skill the task is suppose to show but every little detail used to write a description of the task is not on the examiners mind.  They are lucky to keep one detail about your run and its usually what glaring thing they can write about on the paperwork to convince you they did not see the skill.  They really don't give a damned about the glaring detail itself but it give them something of a starting point to write from.

 

If you practice all the little details and get hung up on what the examiners want to see you will likely flunk the exam because you will perform them robotically and probably ski a bit that way too. What flunks most candidates is dynamic flow.  In other words true fluid upper and lower body separation.  A focus on details within skiing tasks that you think the examiner wants to see is a sure road to poor upper and lower body separation in the exam.

 

If the examiner see it in your free skiing you can blow many of the little details of a skiing exam and still come home with the pin.  If the examiner does not see a skill consistent in your skiing you will likely flunk a task even if you managed to pull off what you think is nailing the task description.

 

If you are ever asked to teach something you think you might have blown in a skiing task, the examiner might have seen the skill somewhat in your skiing and try to bring it out of you without saying anything.  Sometimes they just need to confirm your understanding if they don't see it 100% of the time.  The examiners are looking for anything to justify passing you rather than flunking you if you are close.

 

You want to pass? Learn how to listen and then learn how to rip.  Skip the BS details and ski it don't get lost in the task descriptions.

 

Just my two cents and my opinion only.

post #326 of 538

Great Post Pierre. You hit the nail on the head.

post #327 of 538

The opposite of banking credits. This was the early CSIA penalty for not paying dues by Oct. 31....1 level demotion :-)

 

 

 

547957_10150710571324644_1064283379_n.jpg

post #328 of 538

How to piss people off and loose members. Bureaucracy at it's best. Guess they were in the drivers seat at the time.

 

Sounds like when Metro North changed their tickets from good for 6 months from purchase to 2 weeks. The slight amount they may have saved was more than lost by how much they enraged people including the conductors who had to deal with it and let people slide half the time.

post #329 of 538
This post is in reponse to Pierre. Certifying ski instructors is necessary. No argument there. I am full cert. and have been for a very long time. What I am addressing are the endless specialties. I think something such as CS endorsement can be beneficial. Necessary? No. That is, once one already has some level of certification. I do believe PSIA views it's membership with some degree of avarice.I have watched it evolve over the decades and can reach no other conclusion. I think it necessary, but really only view my cert. As a license to teach; I.e., get a job. Good post on your part but we disagree . No, I am not playing the "devil's advocate".I believe what I state.
post #330 of 538
Quote:
Quote:

Being a CS makes no sense to me unless that is where one teaches. personally, I think exams are often about the money. That is: "Ho much can we squeeze out of the candidates?" It is an expensive process and unneeded or irrelevant certs. and specialties are costly. What ever happened to common sense and a deep knowledge of the sport prior to the modern era and it's endless specialties? 

 

Quote:

 

I hear this all the time and I think its just bunk.  Like it or not, certification matters in hiring, pay, job selection, assignments and prestige so we have an organization to certify as do other nations.  PSIA is non profit and driven by industry trends and requests from membership to meet those demands.  I think PSIA does a fine job of delivering value considering the clout they have, the resources they have to work with and the job pressures asked of them  I personally cannot see how it is possible for them to consider squeezing more out through an expensive process.

 

Programs like CS evolved as an attempt to meet some form of formal apparatus to differentiate within certification levels for the purposes of hiring, pay and job selection within special areas of ski schools.

 

What you might be concluding as an attempt to squeeze more money out of you is a response from districts trying to insulate examiners and retain examiners through preventing burnout.  I am not an examiner for this reason. I don't feel like having every session be about teaching someone to a test or judging them before they go to an exam only to have them go to an exam, get nervous and come home without the pin only to shoot me and their examiners for their efforts.

 

Do you have any idea how hard it is to be passionate about teaching and skiing then being in an exam situation where you see little things you could correct but have to keep your mouth shut and in the end flunk 90% of your candidates?    In order to keep your mouth shut about what you see in an exam and not have your guts torn out emotionally for flunking everyone you would have to distance yourself from the exam candidates and also the candidates back home.  Burnout doesn't begin to really describe it.  A lot of examiners just plain give up on PSIA and teaching altogether because even after they burn out and leave PSIA, everyone still wants them to teach to the test for them.  I think they must draw straws for the level III exam.  Short straws get the level III group.  Long straws get skiing development.

 

I think much of the changes and requirements are attempts to meet the demands and get candidates better prepared or at least have them look in the mirror if they don't pass rather than stab the examiner for flunking them.   I think much of the way exams unfold is an attempt by examiners to convince candidates whom are not going to pass to come to that conclusion and look in the mirror instead of for the dagger when they don't pass.

 


The coolest thing about these kinds of discussions/disagreements is that there is a lot of truth on both sides of the argument. As much as all PSIA organizations are non-profit and the Eastern division (at least) running events at cost (this dispelling the notion that there is financial incentive to force members to attend more events), there are "powers that be" that treat event fees as income and thus behave as "the more the better". Businessmen often mistake revenue for profit. We should not expect that some within PSIA would not make the same mistake. For examiners who get paid by the event and make a profit from this work, this is not a mistake for them as individuals. But it is a mistake for the membership to keep examiners who let "profit" drive their decision making on the payroll. It's hard to make the case that the number of these examiners is zero. But it's even harder to make the case that the percentage is 100.

 

When I look back at the 20 years of my membership, I see steadily rising costs for dues and certifications. With that as the only context, the perception that the organization is out to squeeze the membership is inevitable. I've also been involved enough in the organization to see the reasoning behind most of these cost increases.  For example, lengthening the cert2 and cert3 exams from one 3 day event to 2 day events is more than a 33% cost increase because 2 events means twice the travel cost. But the reasons for the change were 1) a response from members that studying for teaching and skiing at the same time was too difficult, and 2) an attempt to improve pass rates. If you weren't in the meetings where the PSIA leadership explained the proposed changes and asked for feedback, you'd almost have to say it was bunk that the increase in certification revenue was not part of the discussion. It would be naive not to expect that within today's culture of business (e.g. insider trading) and political scandals that some would interpret this lack of discussion as proof of evil intent. The reality in the Eastern division is that, with respect to more costly exams, candidates have already been successfully squeezed for more for over 15 years now. Although pass rates went up initially after the change, it is likely that the lower number of people failing has not offset increased cost of certification for all candidates. Will this change in the East now that we have banking? Stay tuned. The argument for blatant profiteering hangs in the balance.

 

Like it or not certification does not matter as much as PSIA would like. It certainly does not matter much to the guests who are taking lessons. It is certainly a financial loss for the vast majority of certified part time instructors. When members don't use PSIA discounts on Suburu's, lift tickets, books, magazines, gear, hotels, etc. and see that certification impacts their pay in cents per hour instead of dollars, it is understandable the "value" of PSIA membership/certification is often questioned. Personally for me, the biggest value of PSIA certification has been the increase in my ability to make an impact in other people's lives. It is frustrating that the value discussion is more focused on the former instead of the latter. PSIA would be a much stronger organization if we could increase the effectiveness of our communications on this topic. Trying to focus on a direct dollar benefit of membership/certification is a losing proposition in the long run. The system will work much better when pay is derived from performance and discounts are a thank you bonus.

 

Within the topic of "impact", it is thus understandable why PSIA has increased the focus on CS accreditation. The majority of our lesson takers are children. Although I may personally disagree with linking CS accreditation to the exam process (primarily for the increase in cost), I understand why some have the strong belief that this is important. The main benefit of any exam or accreditation is the definition of a road map for acquiring skill and knowledge. PSIA's main role in the industry is to help instructors improve their skills and knowledge. Raising the bar in this area of ski teaching is long overdue. Accreditation and certification mean far less than the results that are delivered every day. These things can help you get in the door, but they won't keep you in the room. It's hard to see the value in arguing about this ... unless one likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

Those of us who have been around a while have certainly witnessed and heard from examiners that the examiners pretty much know who is going to pass within the first 2 runs. The rest of the time is effectively just justifying a "score". Yet, how many of us have not seen an exam where an examiner repeats a task either to "send a message" or give someone "an opportunity to pass"? At least at my resort I'm hearing a lot less griping from failed candidates about how unfair the process is and a lot more comments that the failed exam was a learning experience (compared to 15 years ago). Although there used to be a widespread perception that some examiners take pride in their high fail rates, I've met many who have made a special emphasis that they would much rather pass every candidate. Yet I've seen those same examiners do tasks that are "tricky". The explanation I've been given is that these tricks are designed to make evaluation easier as opposed to finding excuses for flunking candidates. The concept of "trick" tasks does wonders for fixing the problem of "prepping just for the exam tasks" as opposed to improving one's skiing. Over the years I've heard all these topics as conspiracy theories. There's not even any winning for losing in these discussions.

 

Jimidee,

What is the difference between "deep knowledge" and "unneeded certs"? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Pass rates on PSIA level 3 exam?