I don't think that was soap boxy at all. I agree with what you have said. I found it to be a fair test. And, I wouldn't want to go through that if it was for something watered down. We would disagree some, but not all on the speed element, but better self preparation through additional study can over come that for test purposes. I find myself in situations where speed is importaint and where the pressure is on, so I get it to an extent. The time factor is fair for simulation. I agree with your view on teaching to take the test, vs teaching the content, to the point of this. If you bill yourself as a school who is training you to pass this test, that is what you'd better be doing. You'd better have simulations of that test, and you'd better work it and work it and work it. My time is such a class made it easy for me to assess what I knew and what I didn't know, with the exception of the part B. I quickly found that I knew how to search and use the code. I've been doing that for years. My weakness in that area was doing it fast, especially in areas I do not have to use in daily work life. So, I practiced speed, and read, studied and worked on my weak parts. I think the fruit of that was that I'm more knowledgable than I was before. Enough that I feel the part C went fine for me under a clock. Similarly, for part A, it quickly became obvious in practicing and study, that the areas I am weaker in, are the same areas I found weakness in while studying for part C. Logically, those should be similar in part C, and they are for me. However, part B is different in that you add the element of test pieces and tools. Added are additional elements from different industries, which are fair, as you should be able to switch between, but can really screw you up if you have had no practice doing that in a time crunched situation. Again, it's a fair test. Back to the part about teaching you to take a test. This simply was not done for part B. There was no real preparation given. Can I do the work? Yes I can. Could I do it accurately in the given time, bringing all the elements together on that day? Nope. And because of that, I do feel that I'm not ready to carry that certification. Now that I have taken the test, I know exactly what it is like. I know where I need to work. I know the things that now take me 6 min to figure out, and need to take me 2. I'm happy to know those things. I'll get better, and I'll get more comfortable doing it. I'll pass it, and be better because I studied those things.
The shame is that I can do the work, I just needed to learn to do it fast. I needed to be trained to take a test. There are people who use that type of training to find where they are weak, then study the heck out of it. I didn't just want to pass, I want to pass knowing I'm reasonably strong in all the areas needed. As I said, studying to take part A & part C revealed areas of study I was weak in. I'll continue to study those areas. But we had no such study for part B. There was no way we could reveal our weaknesses until we cracked open that booklet. Now we know, and the smart ones will use it to be better at what they do.
Where we were failed I believe is that we had no practice that would reveal that prior to the test. I think Hobart decided to teach less, thinking if they taught to the old part B, people would come out saying that practice was nothing like the new part b. So, they went light, choosing to wait and see how it turned out. It was a bloodbath. I think future classes will get the benefit of this. There will be more time spent doing practice tests that reveal which areas you are weak in, and allow you to make a choice to better yourself in those areas through further study and practice. We just didn't get that tool in this class until we took the test in real time. I won't waste it. I would not have wasted it had we had the chance prior. We just didn't get it.
Some people choose to learn to only pass a test, some people choose to use that knowledge to find their weakness, and improve their skill through study. I'm the latter of the two. It's not good enough to just pass. Regardless, of how some choose, it was not delivered in this class. As it relates to the new part B, I believe it may not make a difference. If Hobart didnt teach anyone to take it, they were without a valuable tool to learn from. They didn't teach this class to take it, so we went without. If the old part b would have been taught similarly, I suspect it would have been the same bloodbath.
I look forward to learning more and tackling this again. I'm glad it will be meaningful to say CWI. Otherwise, why do it?
Welcome to the forum, glad to have you. 
