|
Home > Archive > microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd > November 2002 > Latest passing score for VC++ desktop exam 70-016
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Latest passing score for VC++ desktop exam 70-016
|
|
| Vijay Jain 2002-11-25, 11:23 am |
| Xref: tkmsftngp01 microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd:18945
Could somebody tell me the latest passing score for VC++ desktop exam
70-016?
I've heard somewhere that passing score for this exam has been changed
to 790 (old passing score was 534). But this news is not confirmed
yet.
If somebody has taken this exam very recently, please let me know.
Eagerly waiting for any reply...
Regards,
Vijay Jain
Nov 25, 2002
| |
| Garry 2002-11-25, 12:23 pm |
| It's still 534... and VC++ Dist is still 540 as of mid-October.
<Soapbox>This has always amazed me. Honestly, 790 is really closer to what
it SHOULD be! This is really very basic stuff! It would make our MCSD
certs more relevant and valuable. Ain't we certifying that we are the best
of the best of the best? 534? Are you kidding me??? If you just guess you
are half way there! Then, of course the *$&% braindumpers are the other
problem. I've had more than one prospective employer completely dismiss MS
certs (et al) out of hand because cheating and braindumping on the web has
become so rampant. Very sad. Whatcha gonna do!?!</Soapbox>
Whew! I feel much better, thanks! ;-)
"Vijay Jain" <vg_jain@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1430f77d.0211250900.7d6788a9@posting.google.com...
> Could somebody tell me the latest passing score for VC++ desktop exam
> 70-016?
> I've heard somewhere that passing score for this exam has been changed
> to 790 (old passing score was 534). But this news is not confirmed
> yet.
> If somebody has taken this exam very recently, please let me know.
>
> Eagerly waiting for any reply...
> Regards,
> Vijay Jain
> Nov 25, 2002
| |
| Alan Davis 2002-11-26, 2:23 am |
| >It's still 534... and VC++ Dist is still 540 as of mid-October.
>
><Soapbox>This has always amazed me. Honestly, 790 is really closer to what
>it SHOULD be! This is really very basic stuff! It would make our MCSD
>certs more relevant and valuable. Ain't we certifying that we are the best
>of the best of the best? 534? Are you kidding me??? If you just guess you
>are half way there! Then, of course the *$&% braindumpers are the other
>problem. I've had more than one prospective employer completely dismiss MS
>certs (et al) out of hand because cheating and braindumping on the web has
>become so rampant. Very sad. Whatcha gonna do!?!</Soapbox>
Your right, so very sad.
I don't know what can be done to get rid of the brain dumps. It's hard
to get third world countries and the likes of China and Korea to close
sites which operates in their countries. It's much like the
counterfeiting syndicates which operate out of those countries, much
of which is sponsored by 'government' officials. My own view is we
should not trade with those corrupt countries.. But this has nothing
to do with mcsd.
| |
| Vijay Jain 2002-11-26, 9:23 am |
| I hope Microsoft will pay attention to this sooner or later..
Personally I feel VC++ is complex enough to honestly score 534 for an
intermediate developer. Their main idea was to certify the average
VC++ guys. But now this braindump and all other stuff has made life so
easy for those guys who don't even know the basics of this subject.. I
think the best solution would be to keep changing the exam questions
on a regular basis rahter than changing the passing score. Exams
should not remain same for a longer period because that in fact
destroys the spirit of exam.
"Garry" <GarryL@Optonline.net> wrote in message news:<1PtE9.6978$Go1.2207@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> It's still 534... and VC++ Dist is still 540 as of mid-October.
>
> <Soapbox>This has always amazed me. Honestly, 790 is really closer to what
> it SHOULD be! This is really very basic stuff! It would make our MCSD
> certs more relevant and valuable. Ain't we certifying that we are the best
> of the best of the best? 534? Are you kidding me??? If you just guess you
> are half way there! Then, of course the *$&% braindumpers are the other
> problem. I've had more than one prospective employer completely dismiss MS
> certs (et al) out of hand because cheating and braindumping on the web has
> become so rampant. Very sad. Whatcha gonna do!?!</Soapbox>
>
> Whew! I feel much better, thanks! ;-)
>
>
> "Vijay Jain" <vg_jain@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1430f77d.0211250900.7d6788a9@posting.google.com...
> > Could somebody tell me the latest passing score for VC++ desktop exam
> > 70-016?
> > I've heard somewhere that passing score for this exam has been changed
> > to 790 (old passing score was 534). But this news is not confirmed
> > yet.
> > If somebody has taken this exam very recently, please let me know.
> >
> > Eagerly waiting for any reply...
> > Regards,
> > Vijay Jain
> > Nov 25, 2002
| |
|
| "Garry" <GarryL@Optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1PtE9.6978$Go1.2207@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> It's still 534... and VC++ Dist is still 540 as of mid-October.
>
> <Soapbox>This has always amazed me. Honestly, 790 is really closer to
what
> it SHOULD be! This is really very basic stuff! It would make our MCSD
> certs more relevant and valuable. Ain't we certifying that we are the
best
> of the best of the best? 534? Are you kidding me??? If you just guess
you
> are half way there!
By the way, I'm sure this is one of the reasons that MS is hiding scores on
new exams. I bet they would say (and have beta results to back it up) that
these exams are no easier or more difficult than the corresponding VB6
exams. It just so happens that for the questions they created, a person
'minimally qualified' in the skills listed for the exam is likely to score
534 or 540. For the VB6 exams, a minimally qualified person will score about
200 points higher. The exams are trying to assess different skills using
different questions.
I agree that a score in the low 500s, with most questions being multiple
choice with 4 options, looks dangerously close to being passable with blind
luck. But MS has real psychometricians who know a lot more about this stuff
than I do. I trust that they've made it 'scientifically' valid, but the
perceived value by laymen is also important. So while I miss the scores,
this is one way I think it's a positive change.
| |
| Alan Davis 2002-11-26, 12:23 pm |
| >I agree that a score in the low 500s, with most questions being multiple
>choice with 4 options, looks dangerously close to being passable with blind
>luck.
Did I read some where that biz talk was about 480???
| |
|
| "Alan Davis" <.> wrote in message
news:95c7uugf23f1u4e3ae2ip6r47
mgvd0as35@4ax.com...
> >I agree that a score in the low 500s, with most questions being multiple
> >choice with 4 options, looks dangerously close to being passable with
blind
> >luck.
>
> Did I read some where that biz talk was about 480???
Wow. I never heard anything about its required score, so can't confirm or
deny the rumor.
There was one MCSE exam, a core one I think, that had a required score in
the low 500s for a little while at least. It was changed to that shortly
before MS switched to 'no scores', and I got the impression that the flak
about it specifically contributed to the change.
| |
| Glenn D. Crosse 2002-11-26, 2:23 pm |
| The 70-210 was 520.
The passing score was way too low imo.
The typical pass (MCSE) was around 750 or higher.
The 219 was about 600 but it was a very hard test so I understood why.
Glenn
"Tim" <spammers@begone> wrote in message
news:#uH1nHYlCHA.2000@tkmsftngp04...
> "Alan Davis" <.> wrote in message
> news:95c7uugf23f1u4e3ae2ip6r47
mgvd0as35@4ax.com...
> > >I agree that a score in the low 500s, with most questions being
multiple
> > >choice with 4 options, looks dangerously close to being passable with
> blind
> > >luck.
> >
> > Did I read some where that biz talk was about 480???
>
> Wow. I never heard anything about its required score, so can't confirm or
> deny the rumor.
>
> There was one MCSE exam, a core one I think, that had a required score in
> the low 500s for a little while at least. It was changed to that shortly
> before MS switched to 'no scores', and I got the impression that the flak
> about it specifically contributed to the change.
>
>
| |
| Alan Davis 2002-11-27, 6:23 am |
| Below is part of a thread to this group from last year: -
Subject: Re: Biztalk 70 230
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 21:49:54 +0100
Hi.
The passing score is only 480 !
If you know well the product, it will not be a problem.
Bye.
--
Thierry DEMAN-BARCELÒ.
MCSE+I,MCSE2K,MCP XP,MCDBA7,MCDBA2K
Site personnel:
http://www.deman.nom.fr/thierry/pageprincipale.htm
"Jordan Richards" <jnr@icm-computer.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uLezSnvUBHA.2044@tkmsftngp07...
> I'm thinking of doing the Biztalk 70-730.
> Anyone done the beta yet? or even had a sniff at the exam.
> I've had a look on the web and it doesnt seem like transcenders are doing
a
> test exam for this (yet! please oh please guys do one!).
> Any one tried any other test software? I just want to get a feel for what
> I'm up against
>
> Jordan R MCSD
>
>
| |
| Alan Davis 2002-11-27, 6:23 am |
| >The 70-210 was 520.
>The passing score was way too low imo.
>The typical pass (MCSE) was around 750 or higher.
>The 219 was about 600 but it was a very hard test so I understood why.
>Glenn
I know that MS had to keep lowering the passing score for exchange 5.5
because too many people were failing it. I do believe it was renowned
for being one of the hardest nt4 electives though.
Bit of a sickner for those who just failed when it was at a higher
pass mark?
Did 219 not start out with a higher pass mark?
| |
|
| "Alan Davis" <.> wrote in message
news:19b9uu46vpj3p6s8em9lde9n8
e4aqb8quo@4ax.com...
> I know that MS had to keep lowering the passing score for exchange 5.5
> because too many people were failing it. I do believe it was renowned
> for being one of the hardest nt4 electives though.
>
> Bit of a sickner for those who just failed when it was at a higher
> pass mark?
>
> Did 219 not start out with a higher pass mark?
I think this is another reason scores are now hidden. Passing scores for MS
exams have and I'm sure still do change occasionally, but at least in the
last few years, this *never* means the exam has become easier or more
difficult to pass. It means the question pool has changed significantly and
MS has determined that the new questions are relatively easier or more
difficult for a qualified person. So they adjust the required score so that
the exam still represents the exact same measurement. MS does not have a
goal for a passing percentage on any exam - the goal is to verify minimal
competence with the published set of skills. Anyone who meets those
requirements should pass, and anyone who doesn't should not. Whether that
results in a pass rate of 10% or 90% is irrelevant and out of MS's hands.
Another reason to hide the scores is that because of changes to the question
pools, a score of 800 on an exam may be quite different than a score of 800
on the same exam at another time. And passing by 150 points over the
required score may also be different than clearing the required score by 150
at another time. But when we all have the numbers, comparison is a pretty
normal instinct, even though in many cases it's not valid.
I do get the impression that years ago, the MS exams may not have been as
psychometrically valid, but I know they've paid a great deal of attention to
this since at least the Windows 2000 MCSE exams. So perhaps the Exchange 5.5
exam did get toyed with in order to produce a desired pass rate. I took the
exam a couple of years ago and found it pretty easy and hadn't heard about
any unusual reputation either way. I actually heard after I took it that
there was a very popular exam guide book from a big publisher that had
review questions that were essentially a braindump.
| |
| Alan Davis 2002-11-27, 12:23 pm |
| Once again Tim, a thought out reply.
|
|
|
|
|