Recently I have spoken with relatives, friends and associates who were training for various professional fields where additional licensing or testing was required for the State in which they live. Each one has told the same story: the required reading in preparation to take the necessary test for Accreditation was not quite like the exam. It appears that the wording is a bit different in the actual exam or perhaps even different. Bear in mind that each test has a cost to take and some charge a retake fee, often the testing agency is a contract vendor (supposedly to give an air of neutrality to the government body). Given that the months and years of training required for these professions why is it that these States make this accreditation exam just different or hard enough that a extremely small margin could create a retake situation. It is well known that some folks are not great at taking tests but know their subject well. It appears to me that the reasonable way to do this would be to have the exam wording reflect the actual training or reading materials as related to the subject matter. This may never happen but wouldn’t you think that States would rather have people who have to pay the professional fees, pay those fees for the many years that they will pay them than have that person dump the training because of a flawed testing system which requires payment for retakes on possibly flawed testing material?
Please Donate
Michael1942's Blog 