AutoCAD Exam success
31 messages in this thread
Here is a copy of the CIS email msg that Elton sent me on this:
Wayne,
<< We used Alan Kalameja's practise book heavily and focused on time saving
techniques to get through the various styles of questions.>>
How valid is this? I can read Cliff Notes on a great piece of literature, write
a report and pass. Does this make me an expert on the subject?
A high school student taking AutoCAD could review Alan's book, work
with AutoCAD in class for a semester, take the ACE and pass. He gets
a certificate indicating he is Certified Level 1 AutoCAD. If I am an
employer and hiring people with CAD experience, should I hire an
individual with 5 years practical, hands on AutoCAD without the
certificate, or the individual who is CERTIFIED?
<<If anyone has accurate statistics on the average pass rate for past exams I
would like to hear about it as soon as possible.>>
How about posting the statistical results of ALL ACE examines on C-Serve? How
many people have taken the exam in the last two years? What is the Pass/Fail
rates (for drawing and general knowledge sections)?
Steven…
PMJI here, but…
I'm on the Certification Exam Board with Wayne and would like to provide some
insights in support of the question you'd raised to Wayne regarding an
individual being able to be a "Cliff Notes" operator.
While this has the potential to be true for the General Knowledge
(multiple choice and fill in the blanks) questions, you'll be hard
pressed to "Cliff Notes" your way through the Drawing problems. Keep
in mind that the General Knowledge questions are not only randomized,
but they'll be acquired from a "pool" of Drawing Type, Layering Type,
Dimensioning Type, or Plotting Type of questions. Therefore, one's
Cliff Notes approach will need to be quite thorough. The Drawing
problems actually test for numerous drawing skill features, such as;
accuracy, speed, and form.
The test is being validated (at every taking) by Drake Training and
Technologies. This is the company that actually administers and
monitors the test. We as the "board" simply build and manage the
tests, but the folks at Drake are tracking its every "burp". We know
right away if questions or drawing problems are invalid, worded
incorrectly, too easy, too hard, or simply too lame!! With this
triangular team (Autodesk, the Exam Board, and Drake) we have some
well established checkpoints to weed out the Cliff Notes
operators….
Hope this helps…
Hit Return…Bill Elliott
Bill,
<<While this has the potential to be true for the General Knowledge (multiple
choice and fill in the blanks) questions, you'll be hard pressed to "Cliff
Notes" your way through the Drawing problems. Keep in mind that the General
Knowledge questions are not only randomized, but they'll be acquired from a
"pool" of Drawing Type, Layering Type, Dimensioning Type, or Plotting Type of
questions.>>
My point is, that a high school of a two-year tech school student, who has
spend considerable time working with AutoCAD over a period of time (hands on in
a class room environment) could meet the criteria that you have just outlined
and pass even the drawing problems. Give these student credit, there are many
bright and intelligent CAD users coming out of high school programs now. There
level of expertise may be high, but they lack the PRACTICAL knowledge gained
from day-to-day application of AutoCAD.
I was at an AutoCAD users group meeting last night and ran into several
individuals, including one with 8,000 hours of hands-on experience with AutoCAD
who was not aware of how to de-select items from a selection set by doing a
SHIFT-Select or how GRIPS worked. Does that handicap him as a AutoCAD user? NO!
I talked to one company who weeds out potential employees by giving them an in
house CAD test as part of the interview process. Being certifed "AutoCAD" is
not as important to them as bringing practical knowledge of how to apply
AutoCAD.
<<The test is being validated (at every taking) by Drake Training and
Technologies. This is the company that actually administers and
monitors the test. We as the "board" simply build and manage the
tests, but the folks at Drake are tracking its every "burp". We know
right away if questions or drawing problems are invalid, worded
incorrectly, too easy, too hard, or simply too lame!! With this
triangular team (Autodesk, the Exam Board, and Drake) we have some
well established checkpoints to weed out the Cliff Notes
operators…. >>
Does DRAKE keep demographics on the ACE? If not, why? Everything is "being
tracked. . ." and if so this information should be compliled for analysis. I
would like to see the statistics.
Thanks,
Steve
Steve..
Great!!! Rigorous discussion over the Certification Exam….cool!!
You point regarding the typical student (high school or otherwise) is well
taken and acknowledged. We realize that a lot of folks get bonafide hands on
time using AutoCAD, but I think you have a misunderstanding of WHAT the
certification is all about. As a reference, in the midst of your comments you
stated…
> There level of expertise may be high, but they lack the PRACTICAL
> knowledge gained from day-to-day application of AutoCAD.
…careful big fella…PRACTICAL knowledge is a very tough "high bar" to jump.
In other words, you're expecting Certification to be a measurement of their
"after they've held a job" experience..when in fact the Certification process
is really intended to verify that they can perform WHEN they get the job. You
see, you've got a potential Catch-22 since you're proposing a person have
Practical Knowledge to be certified, but they can't get certified until they
are employed (which gives them the practical knowledge.
Babble, babble, babble…. actually, the numerous education programs I've seen
(and heard of), provide the students with real time application projects to
give them the "before you get there" experience of having the actual job. So
effectively they do get the Practical experience…
Keep in mind that practical experience is actually "what you've done", when
Certification means you now have the tools to "go do something".
As a closing…you'd asked about the various tracking records from the testing
process. We, as a Board, are hopefull to provide the statistics from the
testing processes as they become available. Keep in mind that the test has
just begun being held in the private sector with the new Electronic process and
Drake combination. Early on the stats appear to be proving a stable test, and
one that can be used without question (no pun intended) as a tool for
certification…We'll be posting those as released by the folks a Drake and
approved for release by Autodesk…
Hit Return…Bill Elliott
Bill
<<We realize that a lot of folks get bonafide hands on time using AutoCAD, but
I think you have a misunderstanding of WHAT the certification is all about.>>
What is it really about? Doesn't it act as a screen to employers for
individuals who claim to be be an AutoCAD user? Isn't it being suggested that
it serves as part of the mechanism to assist employers in making decisions in
promotion from one level to another within a company?
<<…careful big fella…PRACTICAL knowledge is a very tough "high bar" to
jump. In other words, you're expecting Certification to be a measurement of
their "after they've held a job" experience.when in fact the Certification
process is really intended to verify that they can perform WHEN they get the
job.>>
I think you are reading me wrong. I am not saying that certification is " a
measurement of their "after they've held a job". If an employer is told that
those who have passed the certification exam is a more knowledgeable CAD user,
then what's the benefit of having no certificate and years of PRACTICAL
knowlege brough on by hands-on experience? A person with years of PRACTICAL
experience may not have the certificate for various reasons. Putting the two
(student who knows AutoCAD and has the certificate, and the experienced user
without the certificate) up for comparison, which one is more qualified?
<< Early on the stats appear to be proving a stable test, and one that can be
used without question (no pun intended) as a tool for certification…We'll be
posting those as released by the folks a Drake and approved for release by
Autodesk…>>
I am not as interested in the verification of it being a "stable test", I am
interested in the demographics tracking the results (such as geographic
distribution, number of taking, pass/fail rates by section, etc.). This should
be readily available data being generated and tracked by Drake and Autodesk. My
interests are in the observing trends gleaned from such data. This to me is
important in looking at future directions in CAD education and professional
staff development in the field of CAD. Without such data, the validity of the
process boils down to nothing but a test.
NEW QUESTION :
How does the test relate to the National Skills Standard for CAD? What links
are there in the skills specifications proposed and the ACE?
Steve:
Interesting discussion here. I'd like to offer another viewpoint. I see
certification as an evaluative tool that shows that a CAD user knows the
product, but has also kept current with the upgrades and the new tools that
increase productivity. A user with lots of experience runs the risk of not
being familiar with all the new goodies that can be a big benefit.
I personally know of several CAD jockeys that have been using AutoCAD for many
years. They get their job done, because they're using the same tools they
learned 5 years ago. I'd bet they know nothing of some of the basic tools that
could be a big help to them, like grips and selecting entities by Fence (as an
example).
Certification is tied to a specific release of AutoCAD (right, Bill?), so the
user getting certified (or is that certifiable? <g>) needs to be up on ALL the
ins and outs of the program.
I think if I was an employer presented with two chioces: a new graduate with a
certificate in hand, or an experienced user with no certification, it would be
a tough call.
-KLF
Ken,
<<I see certification as an evaluative tool that shows that a CAD user knows
the product>>
BTW — I view it as a DIAGNOSTIC tool in evaluation and weeding of personnel.
But it needs to be carefully integrated into the employee evaluation process.
Practical application, good references and a portfolio contributes more weight
in the selection process also! However, the examine does not take into
consideration an individuals true KNOWLEDGE of CAD. I have been using CAD for
20 years. Used numberous CAD packages for numberous applications and in a wide
variety of positions in industry. The test does not take that prior knowledge
or expertise into account. It is focused specifically on only ONE program.
Therefore, It would not measure my true level of knowledge or skills. To me CAD
is just a tool to solve specific engineering and design problems, no matter the
application.
<<Certification is tied to a specific release of AutoCAD (right, Bill?), so the
user getting certified (or is that certifiable? <g>) needs to be up on ALL the
ins and outs of the program.>>
Don't you think the test should be generic to all versions of AutoCAD. If I was
working for a company that was working on R9, R10, or R11, maybe they are
satisified with that version and don't want to move up to R12 or R13. Could be
too expensive both hardware or software wise for them. They may know the
package inside and out. Through out an R12 specific question that they have
never seen that poof . . . that blows the results.
What about a user of AutoCAD LT . . . no AutoLISP, not customization (or
limited). Yet it still is compatable with R12. Or… how about a user of R12
Macintosh!
<< I personally know of several CAD jockeys that have been using AutoCAD for
many years. They get their job done, because they're using the same tools they
learned 5 years ago. I'd bet they know nothing of some of the basic tools that
could be a big help to them, like grips and selecting entities by Fence (as an
example).>>
Gee . . . I beg to differ. I went to our local AutoCAD user group last week and
met several individuals who were very experienced users of the product (8,000
hours), who kept up with the package (R12, R12 Windows). . . hated Grips and
turned them off! They didn't know how they worked … so they claimed (provided
them with a bit of education). They wouldn't fare too well on that portion of
the test would they.
Thanks for the reply,
Steve Foster
Ken..
You are absolutely right…
> Certification is tied to a specific release of AutoCAD (right, Bill?), so
the
> user getting certified (or is that certifiable? <g>) needs to be up on ALL
> the ins and outs of the program.
..Autodesk is very interested in having only one test…the current version of
AutoCAD, but there will always be a little overlap time when a new release hits
the streets (approx 6 months).
Hit Return…Bill Elliott
Hi Steve and others, glad to see the interest in testing, certification and the
AutoCAD Exam here. Steve, as I related to you in a previous email, we are VERY
involved in the National CADD Skill Standards and will be ensuring that our
exams reflect this standard as it develops. As I mentioned the Skill Std is
heading into Phase II, which is the certification and testing phase so this
discussion is both timely and of great value. Keep it going!
wayne
Wayne,
<<this discussion is both timely and of great value. Keep it going!>>
Guess I'll have to be the one to put his head on the chopping block and ask all
those "right angle questions" <G>. PLEASE be kind to me!
Steve
<<The test is being validated (at every taking) by Drake Training and
Technologies. This is the company that actually administers and
monitors the test. We as the "board" simply build and manage the
tests, but the folks at Drake are tracking its every "burp". We know
right away if questions or drawing problems are invalid, worded
incorrectly, too easy, too hard, or simply too lame!! With this
triangular team (Autodesk, the Exam Board, and Drake) we have some
well established checkpoints to weed out the Cliff Notes
operators…. >>
As a member of the ACE Board, are you getting any statistics from Drake
concerning the test? If so, does DRAKE keep demographics on the ACE? If not,
why? If, everything is "being tracked. . .", then this information should be
compliled for analysis, if it hasn't already been done so. I would like to see
the statistics, can and will it be placed on C-Serve?
Steve…
Yes Drake is tracking quite a bit of data with each test we give.
They are in the early stages of the data, since the Electronic Exam
just began "formally" running in February. Count on it, when we get
enough viable data, it'll be posted for the entire CAD world to
see….we're not gonna be bragging, simply touting the success and
viability of the Certification process. Thanks for your interest and
interaction…
Bill
<<Yes Drake is tracking quite a bit of data with each test we give. They are
in the early stages of the data, since the Electronic Exam just began
"formally" running in February. Count on it, when we get enough viable data,
it'll be posted for the entire CAD world to see….we're not gonna be bragging,
simply touting the success and viability of the Certification process. Thanks
for your interest and interaction…>>
Hopefully the data will be detailed enough to perform analysis? It also should
be available as RAW data, not summarized and nor pastuerized. What I, and many
others in the CAD world would like to view is:
1. Breakdown by geographic region, test site and date of testing.
2. Pass/Fail rates by geographic region/Test site.
3. Number of individuals taking the test by geographic region/Test site.
4. Number of individuals repeating the test, by section.
5. Score averages, by section and by geographic region / Test site.
<<the Electronic Exam just began "formally" running in February.>>
Well, gee . . . How about throwing out some historical data to do trend
analysis? How does the new version compare with the old? Same questions for
satistical comparison.
Would like to get some other opinions and thoughts here. Anyone else out there
in the C-Serve universe got comments? Don't be shy. You can send your messages
via private mail if you would like.
Steve…
Boy, you're asking for quite a bit of data….most of which will take some
gathering time (aging of the test). You'll be hard pressed to get RAW data
from these test (let alone be able to interpret it – I've seen some)…
> 1. Breakdown by geographic region, test site and date of testing.
> 2. Pass/Fail rates by geographic region/Test site.
> 3. Number of individuals taking the test by geographic region/Test site.
> 4. Number of individuals repeating the test, by section.
> 5. Score averages, by section and by geographic region / Test site.
These questions are being "preserved" for the boarded review and consideration.
Be advised, though, that this data (when fully compiled) will not be
distributed at will by anyone on the Exam Board or by Drake. Autodesk will
likely publicize them when they are confident we're not looking at "trend"
scoring, or special regional characteristics. Your interests are really
appreciated, but you're basically asking us to give a complete and thorough
analysis/report about a "brand new home we've just had custom built, moved
into, but not even finished decorating"….
We'll get to the "here's the facts" and the "State of the Exam" addresses
later….currently we're closely monitoring the "awareness" levels of the test
and the currently running tests… the ATC's have had first dibs on being a
Drake Testing Center (the only place people can take the Exams), but there
appears to be wide-spread lethargy or apathy…so the places to take the test
aren't as numerous as projected to this point.
Hit Return…Bill Elliott
Bill,
<<These questions are being "preserved" for the boarded review and
consideration. Be advised, though, that this data (when fully compiled) will
not be distributed at will by anyone on the Exam Board or by Drake. Autodesk
will likely publicize them when they are confident we're not looking at "trend"
scoring, or special regional characteristics.>>
Shame, Shame, Shame on you Bill!
Sounds to me that you guys don't want to let the public know how the
certification process is fairing (good or bad)? I am often asked professionally
about how the ACE is being accepted. I guess I'll have to tell everyone that I
don't have any ideal of the success of the effort because the historical data
on that is. . . "being "preserved" for the boarded review and consideration. Be
advised, though, that this data (when fully compiled) will not be distributed
at will by anyone on the Exam Board or by Drake." May I quote you as a ACE
board member?
<<currently we're closely monitoring the "awareness" levels of the test and the
currently running tests… the ATC's have had first dibs on being a Drake
Testing Center (the only place people can take the Exams), but there appears to
be wide-spread lethargy or apathy…so the places to take the test aren't as
numerous as projected to this point.>>
Really nice to hear this from a member of the ACE Board. Gee Bill, WHY? This
may tell you that something is just isn't quite right. Does professional CADD
users in industry and the world of work see testing and certification
differently than what Autodesk perceives as the test? I get many negative
comments on the test from individuals that I deal with in industry on the
concept and importance of the ACE. Hopefully you should see the importance and
the reason why I am so curious on the demographic data on the ACE. You comments
reflect the underlying reason why I want to see such information. This data is
VERY important in my area of interest, professional CADD staff development.
I like to step back and take view the whole process of testing and
certification, not just a small chuck of the issue- that results in a myoptic
view of the world. I want to spread the gospel of having qualified personnel in
technical fields (i.e., CADD). Without good RAW data to make judgements on the
subject, there will be little or no progress in this field.
You stated "there appears to be wide-spread lethargy or apathy" about the
places to take the test, especially in the ATC's. Have you noticed something in
how this thread has been going in the forum? Mainly its been you, an
occassional word from Wayne and primarily little ole me! This is the Education
Issues forum. Why hasn't the ATC's jumped in and responded more? I thought I'd
have them all over my case for some of the comments that I made?
Playing devil's advocate can be dangerous in this game (Wayne will atest to
this). Haven't recieved much comments or hate mail on the subject from the rest
of the world on the topic also. So, what's the scoop? Is this a hot topic? YES!
Is it a topic of importance? YES! Then why so cool a response? We may never
know, what a shame! Is the issue of the importance of testing and
certification, the ACE a topic for UNSOLVED MYSTERIES? By then it will be too
late for all concerned. This is TOO important of a topic to let fade! What
should be done to get everyones attention?
Steve
Hi Steve, OK, let me take a run at some of your questions and comments:
First re the distribution of the data, we have no problem sharing the data ONCE
WE HAVE IT and when it can be compiled into a recognizable and comparable
format. While we have "had" an exam for several years now, it has gone through
many purposeful changes. All of these have been improvements based on the
experiences that preceeded them and on input from the examinees, employers,
ATC's, dealers and others. Some of the improvements that we have made are in
the very area of data collection and analysis that you too are putting a focus
on in this discussion. We could not agree with you more about the importance
of this data, but "garbage in/garbage out" as you know is a concern with data
and the results of the changes to our exams over the years has been that the
data we have is not very comparable. Also, in relative terms of the sampling
one needs to make such data have any accuracy, our numbers are very small. So
please do not misinterpret Bill's comments nor our limitations in terms of data
distribution as any indication of our desire to constrain such disclosures.
Not sure how up to date you are on the status and history of the exam, but we
have only gone to the new computerized implementation of the exams and two
levels of exams as of this month! So please bear with us and continue to help
us understand how to further improve the exam process and especially the
benifits to our customers and instructors.
On this later topic of instructor development, can you comment on how you would
see the exam best serving the needs of instructors?
Re our ongoing efforts to increase the number of testing sites out there, this
whole area of electronic/computerized testing is VERY new to all and thus
brings with it the usual challenges of "bleeding edge" endevors! <g> It
requires a significant investment in training, equipment, facilities and time,
so I don't think it should be too surprising that growth of these sites is
going as fast as we would like. (we are often impatient!)
One last request in conclusion here (for now); could you summarize or otherwise
give us some insight into what you are hearing when you say "I get many
negative comments on the test from individuals that I deal with in industry on
the concept and importance of the ACE." What specifically are their concerns?
What would they like to see changed? What benefits do they want?
And one clarification; when you ask "Does(sic) professional CADD users in
industry and the world of work see testing and certification differently than
what Autodesk perceives as the test?", you should be aware that our decision to
enter the area of testing and certification came from pressures and demands
from users, employers, dealers and other vendors. As I believe you are also
aware, the needs and attention being focussed on such things as skill standards
are global and universal. This is why we are making such commitments to skill
standards movements internationally, certification and testing. It is no
conincidence that you are seeing so many vendors introducing certification and
testing programs, governments introducing skill standards initiatives,
political attention on this area such as the recent G7 "Jobs Summit" and so on.
So, while I am sure that there are differences of opinions as to how to address
the needs best, my point is that this is NOT an "Autodesk centric" situation.
We are doing what we think will best meet the needs of our customers and
improve the overall quality of the CAD community. Keep the input coming and we
will surely succeed in such improvment, albeit never soon enough!
Well, lucky for you I am out of battery power here on the airplane, so back to
you…..
wayne
=====
Hey Wayne. Still have pulled the plug yet on my interest in this issue.
I just got through talking to a person who is looking at the Novell
certification program and He brought up an interesting point on their
certification test. If I take all the courses that Novell requires to become a
Novell certified engineer (and thats around $6,000, price controlled by NOVELL,
so Boo Hiss!) and I fail the exam, what does that tell me?
1. That the course material and content do not REALLY prepare me for the test.
2. That the fact that I took the courses through a NOVELL authorized are
questionable, especially since they do not provide the necessary knowledge to
pass their test.
3. That the testing procedure and the fact that being a NOVELL training center
are not at the same level.
If an individual or a company is spending big money to train someone to be a
NOVELL certified engineer, then the courses should be the driving force. If I
take the courses and sucessfully jump the hoops set by NOVELL, then I sure as
heck better be certified after spending $6,000. If Not, then, someone needs to
do some explaining. I think I would demand my money back after spending all
that time in an authorized training program and come out empty handed. (We know
how NOVELL or the training center would respond to that!)
The testing is also in electronic format (by Drake!). If I take the test and
fail it, then I would want to know exactly what questions I missed so I could
at least know what areas of weakness I might have. You don't get that on the
electronic testing! In fact, do you even get a print out showing you what
questions you answered correctly or incorrectly, not just a summary? When I was
in grad school, I had that courtesy for my written exam. I knew the results of
the written prior to being grilled in my orals. If the feedback (to the
student) on the exam is presented as a percentage pass/fail, you don't even
know the questions/areas that you are weak in.
The courses in the ATC need to be detailed enough that if you take them
(through a fully authorized ATC) then the certificates issued should have some
merit! Otherwise, its just a piece of paper to decorate the wall. So, the
student learning ACAD goes through Level I to Level II, and so on. Are you
implying that this appoach of training with certificates issued at each level
of successfully passing the training is not as valid as taking the ACE? Maybe,
there needs to be more emphasis on testing at each level within the ATC program
and less emphasis on the final testing?
Steve
Steve…
Normally, I don't do this….
> Sounds to me that you guys don't want to let the public know how the
> certification process is fairing (good or bad)? I am often asked
> professionally about how the ACE is being accepted. I guess I'll have to
> tell everyone that I don't have any ideal of the success of the effort
> because the historical data on that is. . . "being "preserved" for the
> boarded review and consideration. Be advised, though, that this data
> (when fully compiled) will not be distributed at will by anyone on the
> Exam Board or by Drake." May I quote you as a ACE board member?
..a blatant NO!!! You may not "quote" me, since I'm a Board member….you
don't seem to possess the gift of communicational understanding. Somehow, the
e-mail interpreter has told you something different than I passed to it.
The "data" that IS being preserved are the five (5) questions you had regarding
the test/data/raw materials. I have "captured" them into a file that is being
distributed to each member, and "preserved" by me to take to the table at our
next formal gathering. As Wayne has recently shared with you, these past recent
months are the first in the newly published test format (electronic platform),
there-in, there's not much data collected yet.
Regarding the absence of the ATC public over this subject…some of your
approaches and critically judgmental positions are being shared by them, and
unknowingly..you may be their spokesman. What is really needed here is
constructive, healthy criticism…accusations and downplay is what we've been
getting from some of the ATC's….
We'll yap about this with you-all 'til the moon spins around, but when we
settle in to bantering….
Hit Return…Bill Elliott (602) 596-1350 MST office hours
<<….you don't seem to possess the gift of communicational
understanding. Somehow, the e-mail interpreter has told you
something different than I passed to it.>>
Gee, you're reading me TOTALLY WRONG! Your own statement "being
"preserved" for the boarded review and consideration. Be advised,
though, that this data (when fully compiled) will not be distributed
at will by anyone on the Exam Board or by Drake." apparentently may
be interpreted in several ways! The wording that you have selected
may not be representative of what YOU are trying to communicate to me
and others who are interest in the progress of ACE.
I think there exists a question of semantics in your choice of the
word "PRESERVED". Part of the definition of this word includes "to
keep, guard,observe". Which when taken in context with the
statements and course of this thread could indicate other meanings.
You need to COMMUNCATE what you mean more precisely inorder to avoid
others misinterpreting the context of your statement.
<<Regarding the absence of the ATC public over this subject…some of
your approaches and critically judgmental positions are being shared
by them, and unknowingly..you may be their spokesman. What is really
needed here is constructive, healthy criticism…accusations and
downplay is what we've been getting from some of the ATC's…. >>
Now, that's pushing it a bit too much Bill! I particularly disagree
with you labeling me with the statement "some of your approaches and
critically judgmental positions are being shared by them, and
unknowingly..you may be their spokesman." I am not a "spokesman" for
any group or cause as you have implied here. I do not support this
statement or its context in any form. So Please don't try to pigeon
hole me on this! If there is a "group" of individuals who share such
"approaches and critically judgmental positions", then why don't THEY
come forward! I am not speaking for them. I am trying to bring to the
table issues of data for use in research on professional CADD staff
development. The issue of testing and certification is a serious
concern with in industry that has not been properly documented.
Hi Steve,
Still have that Goofy hat?
Wow, did you ever get warmed up on this one! I've been following the discussion
on testing with some interest since we used to be a test site. We only had a
showing of 1 to 4 for each exam and the College wasn't willing to ante up $500
although it would have continued to provide a facility under the previous
arrangement.
How valid a benchmark is the test? very! What do employers really know or care
about testing? not much I think I'm particularly interested in the availability
of the kinds of statistics you seek. Any employer would also like to see the
pass/fail ratio. Is this common knowledge? Would people be discouraged from
taking the exam if the fail ratio is high? What about instructors? I would much
rather see some sort of instructor certification that validates the colleges
and ATCs and serves to add credibilty to students who graduate from same. I
like the idea of the employers coming to schools and looking for training
experience as much or more than test scores.
A meritocracy is not easy if people don't want to wear the stinking badges!
<bg>
I'd like to hear some of the success stories from anyone who has 'em. Thanks
-Dick L. Palomar College
Hey Dick! Good to hear from you! YES, I still have my Goofy hat. It comes in
handy from time-to-time when I lecture about selecting, implementing and
managing CADD.
<<Wow, did you ever get warmed up on this one!>> Gee, this is something I've
been interested in for several years now. Next ATC meeting we'll have to talk
more about the subject.
<<How valid a benchmark is the test? very! What do employers really know or
care about testing? not much I think I'm particularly interested in the
availability of the kinds of statistics you seek. Any employer would also like
to see the pass/fail ratio. Is this common knowledge? Would people be
discouraged from taking the exam if the fail ratio is high? What about
instructors? I would much rather see some sort of instructor certification that
validates the colleges and ATCs and serves to add credibilty to students who
graduate from same. I like the idea of the employers coming to schools and
looking for training experience as much or more than test scores.>>
I like your commentary. GREAT points, especially when it comes from someone
else out in the real world. Since you have been following the thread, you may
be seeing what I am in the responses that I have been getting (or rather not
getting) on the subject. That really tells me something, especially since the
RAW data from the ACE is not to be found, and probably never to be really
released to the general public.
<<the discussion on testing with some interest since we used to be a test site.
We only had a showing of 1 to 4 for each exam>>
Such high response! We've put out the word in each class, send out flyers,
advertised the ACE availability. Only 1 person even interest, only tested 2 or
3 under the old system. About like your figures. What gives?
Wonder how the other ATC's are fairing? Communication on C-Serve is quiet from
these folks.
Steve Foster
Steve:
I have offered the exam every time it was available in paper format. My
registrations varied from 4 people to 9 people.
We are now a Drake testing site, but I am not scheduled to give my first exam
until April 16th. I have had a LOT of calls about testing (I'm guessing at
least 20), and I am also highly suggesting our own students take the exam just
before they graduate in May.
I will be offering the exam the 3rd Saturday of each month. Hopefully, I'll
have to add more dates to meet the demand.
-KLF
tsk, tsk, tsk, Steven, falling into the 'ole "does the test tell me
everything" syndrome! I'm surprised that we could catch an old
"andragogue" like yourself! <g> Not to worry, I'm sure these are
only "right angle" questions meant to produce a lively discussion, (a
favorite ploy of mine too), and look, it worked! <g>
In any case as for your question of the person with the certificate
and no experience and vice versa, hardly a comparative sample I
should think. Depending on the job opening, pay scale and other
conditions it would be an easy decision I think. The point of the
exam is to provide a DIAGNOSTIC tool, more than ANY other attribute.
Upon exiting the exam, an individual has in their hands a complete
breakdown of how the rated in 14 different areas of AutoCAD use. Each
of these 14 are independent, and depending on what the individual
used AutoCAD for on the job, it could be totally acceptable that they
scored low on an area that they have no need for. All of this is
also aimed at preparation for the MODULAR approach to learning,
wherein the student would need to know what they do and do not know
before they can choose the module they need. Think about it as an
educator, how much would it help you to know more accurately what
each of your students knows and doesn't know as they come to you? Now
imagine if you could "map" this against a given job or list of
competencies for an occupational cluster to know just what the student
needs to focus on!
Whoa! Hang onto those hot little typing fingers! I am NOT saying we are there
already, far from it. We have a long way to go to be sure, but would you have
us not even start? We think not, and have spent a lot of time getting the
AutoCAD exams to where they are now and more time on the National Skill Stds to
add to this. Just wanted to lay out some of the background that has lead us to
where we are currently. So now that we are all up to date, let's roll up our
"sleeves" and get down to some serious discussion on the "where to from here"
issues. We are always looking for "course correction" in our journey's so any
and all critique, suggestions, and ideas will be openly and gladly received.
wayne
<<In any case as for your question of the person with the certificate
and no experience and vice versa, hardly a comparative sample I
should think. Depending on the job opening, pay scale and other
conditions it would be an easy decision I think. The point of the
exam is to provide a DIAGNOSTIC tool, more than ANY other
attribute.>>
I totally agree with your statement that the exam is a DIAGNOSTIC
tool… specifically focused on one CAD package (i.e., AutoCAD). To
me it should be only used as a diagnostic tool in weeding out
individuals who don't have the knowledge of AutoCAD that you are
testing for. But… what happens to those who fail! Does that mean
they don't have the skills? Look at all the research that has gone
into testing over the last several decades, especially IQ, SAT and
ACT type tests. Intelligent and skilled individuals may not do well
on tests for numberous reason, that doesn't mean that they are less
intelligent or skilled. They may have problems in processing the
questions (i.e., wording), or the thought of testing or being tested
puts the individual under due stress and pressure. The result is poor
scores and results. Computerize the process, and increase the stress
levels in some individuals. What will the result be? Make the
questions too specific or too difficult, then guess what. . .
failure, low scores, etc.
<< All of this is also aimed at preparation for the MODULAR approach
to learning, wherein the student would need to know what they do and
do not know before they can choose the module they need.>>
Hey . . . I am a big advocate of the MODULAR approach to learning, especially
in the development of training. You should know that! However, we can
compartmentalize knowledge into too many and too small packets. The map that
you can be too hard to navigate if we're not careful. That's part of what I am
going to talk about at AU!
<<We think not, and have spent a lot of time getting the AutoCAD exams to where
they are now and more time on the National Skill Stds to add to this. >>
Gee Wayne . . . I got a lot of "right angle" questions that I want to bounce
off you concerning the National Skill Stds. That's another e-mail. How about
summarizing it for the others out on the forum? I'm looking at a copy of it
RIGHT now ….
Uhm, is this the place for discussing *AutoCAD* education issues, or does that
belong in the AutoCAD Forum?
John – for better or worse, this is the place. I think AutoCAD education
issues belong in the ACAD Forum, but there isn't room for any more sections
there.
Dave
Wayne,
The AC can only improve the overall quality of those TAXI DRIVERS (you know the
people who drive you to you destination via the senic route, you still get
there but at what expense?) who apply for a job as a CAD operator, but have no
real idea how to make the software cook. They cost industry millions in lost
productivity, as they play on your system for 90 days, before you realize that
you have been had. On the other hand those who have years of hands-on
experience are, for the most part, easier to deal with in the CAD World. Yes, I
know that the infamous Catch 22 is in effect, but with thw AC this effect
should be minimal, thereby placing all combatants on an equal playing field.
And Now For Something Completely Different!
There is something that REALLY bothers me with all the rhetoric concerning AC.
Everyone looks to AC as the means to judge the operator, what about the
instructor who trained that operator? Don't get me wrong, I am not referring to
ATC's or those schools who really care (though those a in the minority), but
rather all of those quick buck artists who run night school classes, are part
time or for that matter full time college/high school CAD teachers. I've run
into many, many people teaching CAD who have only a cursory knowledge of the
product. They would never last in a production office.
I know, I know educational funding cutbacks have impacted upon the teaching
profession greatly. Teachers are expected to do more with less and have no time
to keep abrest of industry standards. Well, excuses are cheap. If you want to
teach a subject you must know that subject. Too many times I've encountered CAD
teachers who have never installed or configured autocad and are at a total loss
when something goes wrong. Others have worked with older versions for years and
now must teach the current release. No problem, eh? Well they have never taken
an upgrade course and teach R12 using R10 thinking. I even know one who uses
numbers (1-8, because that is how
[<<< Message: 93116 Continued >>>]
many pens are in the plotter) for layers in all disciplines, because the kids
don't need to know anything else.
As an industry standard AutoCAD is getting a bad rep because the people coming
to industry are not functionally literate in it. We cannot place the blame upon
the students completely, their instructors MUST shoulder the blame. Let's get
those trainers up to speed. Have them certified! Check the institutions using
AutoCAD for basic instructor competency. Make sure that night school class
instructors are included in this radical idea, afterall most of industry send
their staff to learn at night.
This may be just an isolated incident limited to the area I live, but I think
not. I have been on both sides of the fence and know of which I speak.
Nick
Hi Nick, thanks for the input on the AutoCAD Exam. This type of input is what
we want LOTS more of (hint to all!).
Glad to hear that you think this exam will have a significant and positive
effect on the overall quality and discernability out there in the working
world.
Also pleased to know that you share our goal of having the highest quality of
instructors/trainers/teachers out there. Re the effect of the exam on this
situation, we feel there will be a postivie effect on this too. In general we
would see the exam leading to a type of "guaranteed learning" type of situation
out there. Users could indeed expect that after taking a course with a content
matching or exceeding that covered by one of the Autodesk exams, (and after an
appropriate amount of hands-on time to gain a reasonable level of proficiency,
they would be "guaranteed" to pass the exam. In any case the quantification of
an individuals skill/knowledge will certainly provide a tangible measurement of
the success of a course including such factors as: the student's
retention/attention, the curriculum, the learning materials, and the
instructor.
However, IMHO, the greates value of all to learning will be to have the
"diagnostic" information that the exams provide. As per my previous emails, we
are focussing the exams on this aspect much more so than the "pass/fail"
objective of an exam. Think about the consequences of knowning what an
individual knows and does not know relative to their ability to accurately
select specific learning outcomes to target, helping the instructors to deliver
just what the student really needs, customizing the learning process, etc.
We also share your concern for some action re the status and situation with
instructors and as a result we have had VERY significant professional
Instructor Development programs in place for years. Of course as you note,
there are more than a few instructors out there in the world and so we haven't
quite reached them all yet, and then this darn Autodesk company keeps bringing
out new releases and products that gets it started all over again! <g> (a bit
like painting the Golden Gate bridge!) So we will continue to put major
emphasis on this program. Indeed this is why Customer Education & Training
(CE&T) manages and coordinates all these areas of Instructor Development,
Learning Resources (materials), learning transfer (ATC) and Certification &
Testing.
Well, enough for now, thanks again for the input, please keep in coming!
wayne
========
Nick,
I just caught your response to the issue concerning the ACE. You bring
up some good points concerning the quality of the instruction. One
point you have made ws " Don't get me wrong, I am not referring to
ATC's or those schools who really care (though those a in the
minority), but rather all of those quick buck artists who run night
school classes, are part time or for that matter full time
college/high school CAD teachers." I really am concerned that AutoCAD
is becoming such a wide spread and readily available application, that
training is going to suffer and you are going to get poorly trained
individuals falling through the cracks.
You have high schools providing some AutoCAD training, especially in
vocational/technical trades (i.e., Drafting). Many of these
instructors are doin a good job with their limited resources. Others
may be doing an injustice to themselves, the student and eventually
to employers. Autodesk is putting forth an effort to provide training
to these teachers through the Teach Training programs they sponsor.
One thing I think industry should do is spend some time with local
teachers who are implementing CAD into their programs and provide
them some much needed guidance and technical assistance. I personally
have "adopted" several local high schools that use AutoCAD and spend
a little time with each instructor. Beleive me, this really helps
both the instructor and the student. Hey, I can't solve all the
problems, but I can provide some light where I can. If others would
do this, it would really help and improve education.
As far as the "quick buck artists", that's what Autodesk is hoping (or
at least I see it that way-AM I RIGHT WAYNE?) is trying to do weed
out such "fly by night" operations through the AutoCAD Training
Centers. There the quality of curriculum, state-of-the-art
facilities, and qualified instructors are carefully monitored. What
we have to be concerned here is the number of sources of AutoCAD
training that is outside the umberella of the efforts of Autodesk to
insure the quality of training.
<<I know educational funding cutbacks have impacted upon the teaching
profession greatly. Teachers are expected to do more with less and
have no time to keep abrest of industry standards. Well, excuses are
cheap. If you want to teach a subject you must know that subject. Too
many times I've encountered CAD teachers who have never installed or
configured autocad and are at a total loss when something goes
wrong.>>
I would also encourage industry to set up summer intern programs for
these teachers. Doesn't cost a lot of money, but it does take a bit
of time. I know of several vocational instructors who work six to
eight weeks each summer to work with Architects or Engineers in
boning up on their skills, especially those involving CAD. Industry
also needs to encourage the networking of their employees with these
individuals to help with configuration and installation problems. The
instructors should be able to pick up a phone and talk to someone who
KNOWS AutoCAD.
I have been involved with CAD for 20 years now. Way back in the early
days of my career, my employer put togeather a faculty exchange
program. This was designed to bring teachers/instructors into our
organization to help them keep their skills up-to-date in high
technology areas like CAD. I spent over six months traveling through
7 south-east states working with small to medium sized colleges in
training staff and instructors in CAD. This was BEFORE AutoCAD ever
existed. The program was an outstanding success and I still stay in
contact with some of the staff I trained after all these years.
My suggestion is that if industry is concerned with the quality of
the employees that they are getting, then they need to become more
involved at the grass roots level of eduction. I every industry who
uses CAD would take some time with local educational institutions,
then we might not have to worry so much about poor quality of
instruction wouldn't we? So, I suggest that we all get involved, I
am, and I will continue to be.