Quote:
Originally Posted by Ekka  Guy, we run, more like Len runs a sub forum here with the articles and we can comment etc.
I like the idea personally and read them. |
I just read two; generally good info and based on better sources than some I'd seen in the past. The tests are still the major issue--the wording is way unclear and requires a lot of guesswork on the questioner's intent. Compare them to the Arborist News tests; those HAVE to be more tightly worded, or they get tossed. The MC instead of T-F format makes them much harder, and better verifies understanding.
Again, I'm encouraged by the improvement in the research and the writing, but overall the test quality, and the fact that by taking them arborists can stay recertified without leaving their computers, imo diminishes the value and credibility of certification. This is an ISA-Cert committee issue; no reflection on Len's good efforts.