🚀 go-pugleaf

Rick Langhorne <rick_l@nr.infi.net> wrote:

>A lot of people have commented about the imprecise wording on the Drake 
>(Sylvan) exams.  I agree, although my gripe is with the tests that use a
>simulator that does not work well.
>
>The simulator for a MTL search in the Service and Support took almost 10 
>minutes on one or more searches. The Simulator on the 3 to 4 Update exam
>locked up and refused to continue.

I had the test software lock up on me last time, but luckily the site
administrator was able to solve the problem quickly. Not very good for
your concentration, but I survived. The test software is remarkably
robust: they had to reset the machine, but it came back into the same
test, same question with the right amount of time on the clock (and
they checked for that!). I guess it's impossible to completely prevent
this kind of problems.

>Even more disturbing is the fact that Sylvan knows they have equipment
>problems at some locations, but continue to offer the exams that do not
>run properly on their limited systems for $85 each.

I have noticed sometimes the test machines seem slow, in a way that
makes my intuition want to check if they've got enough RAM. Not slow
enough to really interfere with the testing, but enough to be
irritating. I don't know if Drake/Sylvan provides the testing centers
with hardware or that they just give them minimum specs. In either
case I think they could up the specs a bit.

I think they should add some monitoring code to the test software to
determine if performance and stability of the system was OK. This
would enable them to track bad tests and bad test centers, and take
action.

Talking about $85, I got some 'free' extra questions after my last
test: a survey asking, among other things, if I'd still do the tests
if they'd cost $130! Better hurry with the rest of tests, before
you're paying $130 to have the stuff go down on you. I've answered
'not bloody likely' because I pay my own tests and at $85 they're
pretty expensive to me already.

>I was notified by the testing administrator before my Update exam that
>the server was not working properly. Sure enough the server console
>was full of a whole screen of memory errors. I told the admin I would
>reschedule the exam after their proplem was resolved.  The Sylvan admin
>told me that their policy required me to take the exam and pay for it 
>anyway.  I found that policy to be unbelievable!

Their normal policy is that rescheduling a test must be done at least
a workday in advance, which is not unreasonable: it would be hard for
them to plan things properly if people often changed test times and
dates at the last possible moment. However, that applies when *YOU*
want to reschedule.

If *THEY* are not able to properly test your knowledge at the
appointed time and date then it is a failure of them to keep their
terms of the agreement. It's completely unreasonable to expect you to
pay when that happens. If you take a test you are entitled to working
testing equipment in the same way as you're entitled to a chair to sit
on and a reasonably quiet environment. You should get a free retest or
your money back.

We have to cut the Sylvan/Drake some slack here. They cannot retest
everyone who thinks the test machines weren't as fast as their
"Pentium 166 MHz with all extras" at home. But 10 minutes waiting time
is ridiculous. Lockups that prevent you from completing the test are
unacceptable.

You might want to attempt to contact someone higher in hierarchy of
Sylvan. Most likely, they do have a policy on handling problems with
test software and hardware, and your site administrator didn't know
(or care) about it.

If there is another test center in your area you can look if they have
better facilities. Even though we are at the mercy of one testing
organization, you have a free choice of test center.

--
Sander Plomp                                plomp@together.net