Sun Education's Candidate Misconduct Agreement and Sun's Pre-Test Agreement state: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The content of all tests and test materials are proprietary and confidential information of Sun. Candidates may not disclose or share any of the content of these materials ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently a thread was removed from this Forum because it summarized Use Case states that could only be known from reading test materials provided to SCEA candidates by Sun. The moderators of this forum strive to provide an environment to assist the intellectual exchange of the many talented people that use this forum. Java Ranch must handle any direct reference to certification exam content in a serious manner. Your solution techniques are okay to discuss, but information that is extracted from or summarized from the SCEA Business Analyst's Design cannot be posted on this forum. The forum moderators would like to thank you in advance for your professional and courteous observation of this policy. [ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Pearson ]
Actually I've read that post mentioned above. First of all I think it barely constitutes a breach of the agreement (even if the candidate is bound by that agreement). Even if he/she is, by all means it should be determined by the point of law, not by instinct, as far as only an extract of a small part with totally different wording is concerned. The quote by the moderator appears in 2 places as far as I can found - one in "SUN CERTIFICATION PROGRAM POLICY ON CANDIDATE MISCONDUCT"(the Policy), another in the "Pre-Test Agreement"(the Agreement). As you need to click to accept the Agreement only when you do the Test in an examination center, whether the Agreement is applicable to part 2 assignment is doubtful. We never need to click any button before downloading the assignment from galton website. So the following discussion only investigates whether the part 2 assignment is bound by the Policy. Since it's more accurate to interpret the meaning of any single sentence or paragraph in a wider context, I try to interpret its meaning by reading the whole Policy. I believe the main rationale of the 'Pre-Test Agreement' and the Policy is clarified in a paragraph quoted from the Policy as below: "The credential conferred by the Certification Program delivers its greatest value to you only as long as the Test is secure and continues to operate as a measure of personal knowledge and skill. Sun requires every candidate for Sun Certification to assist in maintaining the integrity and security of the Tests." And the quote by the moderaor is actually only part of a larger paragraph, as follows: "The content of all tests and test materials are proprietary and confidential information of Sun. Candidates may not disclose or share any of the content of these materials; nor may candidates ask for, write (in any media), publish, or otherwise disclose any test questions or answers." Both of these confirm my assertion that Sun mainly concerns about the Test questions they designed for use in the examination centre. That's the reason why we only need to click the button when we do the test in the exam center. If these questions are released, the credential of the certificate will be in doubt. For the part 2 assignment: Firstly there is no time-limit. Secondly, you can submit the assignment only when you paid Sun the fee, not at your wish. As such, even if a candidate get the assignment earlier it'll never DEVALUE the certificate as he/she is given an UNLIMITED time in the first place! We understand it's the moderator's prerogative to delete any threads which he/she deems in breach of the javaranch policy. However whether it's actually the situation in this case I'm really in doubt. And the quality and popularity of this kind of forum to a certain extent depend on whether the moderator can exercise this discretion wisely. Being said so, alas... I agree myself that the easiest way to resolve a controversial issue like this is to remove it before it matures. Anyway, let's improve ourselves along this line. [ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Yip ]
posted 17 years ago
Well, I would like to thank Kevin very much for for clearing that up. I also would like to point out the unprofessional conduct by the moderators of this group who evidently did not bother to investigate the issue and got manipulated by someone who just burns to exersice a little power.
First, I'd like to thank the moderators for their efforts on behalf of this forum. I have never known the moderators to be heavy-handed, and I thought that this latest issue was very well handled, and does much in furthering JavaRanch as a fun and respectable place for discussion. A little off topic, but I believe that Part II is really the heart of the SCEA certification, and makes it special by giving the candidates something that simulates the experience of being an architect. So unlike some other exams that merely test knowledge, SCEA also provides experience. Having made a living doing work like this myself, the only things I see missing are working out a project schedule, projecting milestones, and coming up with a budget! I think it's important that we respect that there are others here who are working on this assignment, or will be in the future. Kevin, You have some very well thought out points. But I do not think that it is acceptable under the agreements to post sections of the assignment here, and I don't think it would be good for JavaRanch either. Though you've certainly showed this view to be debatable, I think that the agreements apply equally to all three exams of the SCEA battery, and I think that Sun would agree, if we asked for clarification (anyone want to ask?) Part II is especially vulnerable and in need of protection precisely because time is unlimited, which is why there is a Part III verification phase. In case anyone is wondering, I am the person Gennady is referring to who "manipulated" and "burns to exercise a little power". Gennady, Please don't be upset. I assure you that I have the best of intentions here, and I do not think that I gave you any cause to insult me personally. From your posts here, you seem to me to be a genuinely nice and intelligent individual, and we have a shared interest in J2EE architecture. If I was a bit abrupt when I first saw the post in question, it was because of dismay at what I saw as a breach, and not because I am out to get you. I understand your frustration, and sympathize, but this particular forum has historically been more circumspect than what you seemed to be expecting, and what little moderating happens here follows precedent, more or less.
This is my favorite show. And this is my favorite tiny ad:
how do I do my own kindle-like thing - without amazon