Just passed my first ever FED test! Interesting. Even if you know the rules, the seemingly simple true/false questions take some thinking.

It is like math: a "-" x a "-" = a "+" ( I think )

The way the questions are written in requards to the title is very thought provoking. Couldn't they make it easier to be more thorough? Even the ones I got correct I had to re-read and figure out how I did it!!!

The more it gets you thinking, the better it is. Most of the questions are easy enough to those like us who have hung around the boards, but I can see how they might trick the unsuspecting first-year ump. I'm sure you did fine.

P-Sz

It also tricks umps who are not so good at English. Although I know the rules well, I have never been able to score above 75 on the FED test. I always get confused on the tricky language.

I recently moved and we are required to score 80 in order to umpire high school here. Since I got 73 on the test this year, I will have to sit out the season. This would be my fifth season umpiring in the states.

I have been reading this place for three months and it has helped my English. Maybe next year I will do better. My wife helped write this.

Spazzzz, Out of the mouth of Babes
 

Come thoughts like yours.

I have been taking FED test in basketball and baseball for 35 years and it never ceases to amaze me at how bad the test are written . . . expecially when you consider that they are written by people directly associated with education.

We have, for the last ten years, tried to get FED to recognize that their tests are tests that prove you can take a test, not know the rules of baseball.

Again, I find fault in the basic premise of your post.

It is a very hard test because it is a poorly written test.

Just for you to chew on, this comes from a guy that the last two times he took the test he scored 100. Not that I know the rules that well I just know how to take a FEDlandia test.

Hope ESL can find another avenue to take the test FAIRLY.

Tee

FED TEST
 

Most people get to take the test with an open book, but the key to passing a fed test is to read the case book, so many question's come right out of the case book and they key on the rule changes of that year , So with a change in the appeal's rule this year you are sure to find a lot of question about these rule scattered through out the test.

Taking the test is a great way to keep up on the lastest changes, My favorite is the way the Batter/Runner is some- times just mentioned as a runner or the double negative in a statment which is rare,The whole test is about keeping current with the rules so it's a good thing.

mac

Nope,
 

"Most people get to take the test with an open book . . ."

MAC:

I have worked in associations from Seattle to San Francisco and NONE of them have EVER allowed an open book test on Test II.

Test I can be used as a take home or open book test but Test II has ALWAYS been closed book in my areas.

Must be a different view from your local group.

Interesting, since you only have to score a 75% to be "certified" by FED I hope you have a 100% certified group.

The "Original"
(And ever slimming),

Tee

Re: FED TEST
 

There were actually a few outright errors on last years test. I remember mine was scored out of 94, because they apparently threw out 6 questions for everyone.

I'm glad you have joined us, ESL Ump. Indeed, this message board will help your English and your understanding of the rules. Perhaps you can petition the state high school league to somehow get certified; perhaps they will allow you to prove your knowledge in another way. Hopefully, you won't have to sit out of all umpiring; you can usually work subvarsity games without registration.

P-Sz

I admit that after I took my Fed tests, I had no idea that I had "passed with flying colors" as they told me later. We had to get an 85, and if they told me I had flunked, I wouldn't have been surprised. But so many of the questions involved embossed stamps on equipment, balls going over a media area, colored gloves, confining people to the bench, tobacco-like substances, and other things that have nothing to do with the game. I just guessed on those. Usually, at least two answers could be eliminated as absurd (though in Fed, you can't assume anything). Plus, I took both softball and baseball on the same day, which added to the confusion.

And yes, the test is terribly written. So what would it cost them to have a professional editor do the job? A couple of hundred bucks? If Educational Testing Service wrote the SAT that badly, they'd have to rescind half the questions. So ESL, the "tricky" language may well be simply "flawed" language.

Carl Childress knows both rules and English. I'm surprised he hasn't become involved, because the rule books are badly written, too, with dozens of textbook examples of grammatical mistakes. And it's not simply to be a purist with the language. Grammar mistakes very often contribute to misunderstanding. Examples abound in the rule books and case books.

Whowefoolin: Could you go over that math equation again? If you meant minus a times minus a, that equals a-squared.

<b>"There were actually a few outright errors on last years test. I remember mine was scored out of 94, because they apparently threw out 6 questions for everyone."</b>

I would assume that was done at the local or state level. I don't believe that was an action taken nationally.

6 q's thrown out??????? PsZ you outa try football!!!!!Can't comment on this years bb test, did not take it, only doing fill in work. Got kids....

As a newly certified teacher (yeah!), I can tell you that the use of true/false tests is discouraged because it doesn't show whether or not a learner can USE the material. A well written multiple choice test can.

Rita

I think the Fed tests should consist of essay questions only.

Grey remember, I said...I THINK (grin)

I was instructed in math by the same people that wrote the tests!!!!

The more often you take the test the easier it becomes. 1st time I took the test it took me at least 8 hours. Now I can get it done in about 2. Keep this year's test and at least 5 - 10 of the questions usually will pop up next year. You know those answers are correct and just work on the new ones. The trick is not to read anything into the questions and write the reference rule to the right for easy reference to see where you might have gone wrong.

That seems likely. I remember the questions were regarding a batter (one that never became a runner), yet the heading for them said, "A runner is out when..."

P-Sz

Huh,
 

"1st time I took the test it took me at least 8 hours. Now I can get it done in about 2."

You're pulling our leg, right?

An expereinced umpire should take no more than 15 mins to do Test II in the closed book method.

2 hours, Ouch . . . maybe you should work on your timing.

Tee

"5 sport ref" took the one with the essay questions.

tim c
 

Tee , I would love to see part II we take part 1 up here in ct. I've asked about part part II , but the look's you get are strange to say the least, They use to give out an answer sheet with the test year's ago for the old time umpire's to be sure they passed the exam, a little piece of soiled underwear for sure, I don't want to say to much as other member's troll the board's lol

mac

OK, new information
 

Took Federation Test 2 last night.

22 mins -- score of 96.

It took at least 10 mins to argue the answer of the "now famous" #32.

Some of the tougher questions:

It is a strike when:

"A batter swings and misses."

"A ball bounces through the strike zone."

WOW! FED rules are really tough,

Lah Me!

(The Original & Ever Slimming),

Tee

Tee:

You just have to assume a stricter sense of logic when dealing with #32. Steps back does not equal steps off or steps off the back or anything you would assume it does.

Unlike Rita, this certifed teacher finds that T/F test CAN be useful when well written and utlized in specific areas. I remember that in Logic 225 T/F tests were the ultimate measuring devices.

I scored the same 96 in about the same amount of time, Tee.

If I need a 70 to pass one of these tests, I don't waste any time. A 70 is as good as 100 in my book.

I took the softball test this year. I may even work softball. But, knowing as little as I do, I still scored an 82. Another non-softball guy scored an 85.

Common sense should get you a 70.

Rich

Fed Test
 

ESL UMP

New Jersey chapters give their own test as refreshers. Only the cadets take the Fed test for certification. It's offered just once a year , (last Saturday in April).
In regard to ESL UMP, a chapter is allowed to give a test orally to the learning disabled. If understanding the language is a problem, check with your State Association for provisions for test taking under those circumstances.

In NJ, passing grade is an 85. Having been being in education for 31 years, I'll agree that part of the secret to success in this test is understanding the semantics of the English language.

[Edited by NJumpire9 on Mar 5th, 2003 at 07:44 AM]

Rich,
 

For the first time in Oregon history the OSAA (head of FED) requires an official to score 90 in any sport to qualify for state playoffs.

I am not eligible anyway since I did not work last year.

Lah Me!

Tee

Read my post again, Garth. A T/F test can be useful but only tests knowledge, not analysis. It is a very difficult type of test for some people.

We aren't saying the same thing.

Rita

Rita:

In logic class, a true/false test does test analytical skills:

Tor F

If ^ = ! and ! = ** and ^># but < !! and !! = $ and $>@ then @ > ^

In logic, symbols have clear, agreed-upon meanings, and the student starts from a platform of uniformly defined terms: equals, greater than, less than, not equal to, some, all, if, only if, and so on. Every statement can be <i>proved</i> to be either true or false. All the analysis goes into determining truth value, so tests in logic pretty much have to be true/false in one form or another.

One problem with true/false tests in sociology, history, psychology, baseball, and so on, is that ambiguity (which is not found in logic, as least as far as I remember) involving a single word can affect the perceived truth or falseness of the entire statement. Look at the problem we had with "<i>first</i> base after an award" versus "<i>next</i> base after an award." T/F tests can sometimes be useful, but they have to be constructed very intelligently.

I'm reminded of a quasi T/F questionnaire my Congressman sent me not long ago. He listed a bunch of statements, and I was supposed to check either the "agree" or the "disagree" box next to it. I think there was also a "no opinion/not sure" box, too. One of the statements was "I would like to see the U.S. resume trade with Cuba." Anyone can see where my Congressman was coming from, but to me the answer to that question requires an explanation and not a true/false answer. Other statements were similar: "The government should do more to help the public schools," "reasonable firearms laws would help keep guns out of the hands of schoolchildren," "the rich should pay their fair share of taxes." To answer these questions, you have to do something familiar to most people who take a lot of tests: try to read the mind of the questioner and answer accordingly.

PS. I did not check any boxes but instead wrote out answers. I was amazed when I received a response indicating that somebody had actually read what I wrote!

greymule:

Absolutely. True/False tests are very weak devices to measure skill and even overall knowledge in many areas. My point was only to indicate that they can measure both and even analytical skill in some areas and shouldn't be painted with a broad brush.

My study emphasis and graduate paper while I was in the "Ed Block" (the fifth year certification program in California) were both on pre- and post assessment. (testing) While I do not profess to be an expert, I have spend a lot time on evidence and the thought of others as well as my own on the subject.

That interest was, in part, what lead me to become the head of the evaluation committee for two associations.

Due to the previous discussion, I'm just curious what question #32 is on the FED test.