Well, exam time is fast approaching, and I'm wondering if anyone has seen a copy of this years Fed exam on-line.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Huh?
 

You need help on an open-book test?
Good luck with that! :)
mick

In my association, the Part I fed exam is closed book.

Hmmm.
 

You need help on a closed-book test?
I would, too.
But,<B> <U><font color = purple>I</font></U></B> wouldn't "scoop" it.
mick

I'm trying to turn my closed book test, into an open book test like everyone else gets to take ;)

Not everyone else. My association still gives the closed book test.

Now that we're getting some varied responses on whether or not you get an open book exam or not, I'm just wondering what the passing grades are??

For the closed book Part 1 exam I write, a passing grade is 80%, if you take the closed book IAABO exam instead, the passing grade is 86%

Passing was 72 out here, before the board decided to drop the exam completely last year.
I think that is a poor decision.
Since it is a True or False test, I also advocate scoring the exam a little differently.
In order to discourage people from inflating their scores by random guessing, each correct answer should receive +1 point, each question left unanswered gets zero, and -1 is tallied for each incorrect response.

This means that a person who knows 60 of the 100 questions would be much more likely to score near 60 as opposed to near 80 if he just guessed on the other 40 questions.

The test here is an open book. However it is more of an english exam than a rules test. I just wish they would ask the question without trying to confuse you. It's hard enough to remember the right ruling let alone add to the confussion.

Clay,
Actually that may be kinda cool*!
Sounds like Fed asks questions just like some of the game participants. :)
mick

<small>*Note: Michigan still requires no test once an official is registered.</small>

To be a Class 2 ref in Ohio (certified for JV and below), the test is open book.

After 2 years as a Class 2, you take the test closed book to be Class 1 (certified for Varsity).

Then you have to pass the brown nosing tests to actually be assigned a varsity game. :) At least that's what I've heard.

I always get a chuckle out of this characterization of the test.

It's generally written in the same language as the rules. How can anyone claim they understand the rules but cant understand the questions?

Granted, there are 1-2 questions that are poorly worded or those that are largely irrelavant to the game.

Nevada, I don't want this to turn into a staring contest but realistically speaking shouldn't we be encouraged to take a stab (guess?) at the right answer? After all, how often do we get to declare a do-over because we're not sure?

While I hear your point Dan, but I believe that the goal of a written exam is different.
IMO the written exam should help an official to determine exactly what and how much he knows and doesn't know.
Rules study is all preparation, and there is no need to guess during preparation.
My experience is that if someone randomly guesses on a bunch of questions, that person usually does not make the effort to go back and learn anything from the questions that he happened to get correct. This is not constructive.
Part of the problem lies with the local associations. Some don't treat the exam as a learning opportunity and a teaching tool.
A few organizations don't allow their officials to keep a copy of the questions after taking the test. Some don't even tell the officials which questions they missed; just their final score is given.
With my idea, it would be much clearer to the official that he doesn't know something (those he had to leave blank). That alone is worth the hassle of taking the exam.
I think that there is a big difference in seeing your exam score be a 60 as opposed to an 80 with the same amount of knowledge. Perhaps this will shock some people and motivate them to study the rules more.
Heck, maybe there is also some parallel between not guessing on the exam and the "if you're not sure, don't call it" philosophy on the court.

I would agree that the wordings of the questions are mostly okay, but I do think that people who don't understand them might still know the rules very well. In learning the rules, one can take time and spend energy discussing, describing different situations and studying various resources. In taking the test, however, one must hope to gosh one understands at first glance whatever situation they are trying to talk about. If you can't understand it very well (such as when your English is a work-in-progress), tough tea-bags. I think the Fed would accomplish better results if they'd fully describe a certain situation, and then ask several questions about that situation. It would take more paper, perhaps, but would unquestionably get more to the root of what a testee knows.