NABCEP test disclosure [RE-wrenches]

Sun Nov 30 20:23:32 PST 2003

Kirk,

Here's a link to the relevant NY case law. It appears (and coincides with my
memory) that NY passed a disclosure law, so SAT had to disclose nationally to
keep a level field. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c30/a14.html It's
abit obtuse (it's law...), but it appears to only apply to tests that are used
for entrance to college and beyond.

That said, I don't think that disclosure would make the test easier to pass (and
why would I advocate that? I passed :)  and the Study Guide, along with the one
day course that NYSERDA sponsored, did an excellent job of preparing me. In
fact, the one day course represented well over half of my study time! So far as
it not being biased, it's very hard for any one individual to say it is or is
not. I am NOT saying that it is, but bias is actually incredibly difficult to
not have in a test. We all have our biases, both technical and societal. (I
mean, everyone knows that sealed gel batteries are the way to go, right?) Some
of the possible bias I saw was that all the calcs needed to be performed
according to FSEC methods. I disagree with some of them, in trivial,
unimportant ways, that would have changed my test answers. But because I used
the Study Guide, I knew how NABCEP wanted me to calculte numbers, and that's
what I did. Because the FSEC numbers are not "fact" (how much do you lose from
cell mismatch), this may represents bias. (The bias may have been removed by
making the possible answers far enough apart that small differences in
calculation method would be irrelevant). Serious? It would be if you failed
because you didn't use the study guide and calced the numbers in a defensible,
yet different, way. Disclosure lets the person who failed prove that either
they deserved to fail, or deserved to pass.

Bob O's comments about the certification to ISO whatever and the independent
review help. (And the fact that a couple of questions where thrown out. I can
guess which ones!) It's actually surprising to me that the IBEW tests are
secret. I'm guessing (and open for correction) that most of their questions are
right out of the NEC code book. It's much more black and white than the example
given above. Another problem with secret tests is that portions of them have a
way of leaking out (I know the rules, but everyone knows that the rules are for
us good guys who obey them) and then providing unfair advantage to a few.

But overall it sounds like the items that would generally be handled by
disclosure are being handled in other ways. It will be interesting to see how
this all develops, part of which will be seen in the passing rate, part in the
diversity (in all senses of the word) of the folks who pass vs take the test. I
would expect round two to be similar to round one, and then for it to fall,
(but not much) as less qualified folks begin to figure out that they will need
to take this test. Sounds like we had about a 70 - 75% pass rate. PE tests have
60% pass rate. Anyone know what IBEW has?

I'll retire from this subject now, as it's getting to have a lot less to do with
wrenching, which is what I've got to get back to now.

Jeff

Jeffery D. Wolfe, P.E.
NABCEP Certified Solar PV Installer™

Global Resource Options, LLP, Solar  Wind  Energy Solutions
A Woman-Owned Limited Liability Partnership
601 Old River Road, Suite 3
White River Junction, VT 05001-9030
800-374-4494 Toll Free
802-295-4415 Phone
802-295-4417 Fax
Jeff at GlobalResourceOptions.com
www.GlobalResourceOptions.com

Quoting "Kirk Herander, VSE" <kirk at vtsolar.com>:

> What is the purpose of dislosure? To correct/prevent bias or to better
> prepare future takers to pass it? The test is not biased. Doesn't it cheapen
> the results of those who passed this first round if disclosure makes the
> test "easier" to pass? IMO, disclosure already exists in the form of the
> study guide. If you understood the study guide material and do not get
> nervous taking tests you have an excellent chance of passing. As I recall
> some of the test questions were more or less verbatum from the study guide.
> It is ill-advised to push for disclosure. BTW, I wonder what % of us who
> passed took a prep workshop vs. % of us who didn't take a workshop. It's the
> installer's job to take advantage of all prep materials and resources, of
> which there are several. Disclosure does not need to be added to that list.
>
> Kirk

- - - -
To send a message: RE-wrenches at topica.com

Archive of previous messages: http://www.topica.com/lists/RE-wrenches/

List rules & etiquette: http://www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/etiquete.htm

Check out participant bios: www.mrsharkey.com/wrenches/index.html

Hosted by Home Power magazine

Moderator: michael.welch at homepower.com
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: michael.welch at homepower.com

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Qcs.bz9JC9.bWljaGFl
Or send an email to: re-wrenches-unsubscribe at topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------