PD program tests

[RiverAux]

Stimulated by several recent threads I was thinking about whether our current PD program was really worth it or not.  I haven't come to a firm conclusion on that yet, but it does seem to me that we could benefit by having better training available for those in the various specialty tracks.  Many of these tracks are still very open to pencil whipping since there aren't always very strict (if any) standards, especially in regards to the knowledge requirements. 

However, some tracks have required those in them to pass tests in order to advance (I know this has been a feature of Comm for quite some time).  And, as it stands now, there are online tests for 5 PD tracks (Comm, AE, Cadet Programs, IT, and Safety Officer).  Not all have real online training course associated with them, which is probably the way to go in the long run, so I'm assuming that they're basically testing your knowledge of applicable regs. 

I haven't taken any of these online exams, so don't know how comprehensive or helpful that they are.  Several are only 25 questions, which doesn't seem like it is really enough (especially for an open book test). 

What do those of you who have used these online tests think of them?  Did preparing for them really help you learn some of the basic info that people in those tracks should know?  Is it worth expanding this concept to other PD tracks? 

[Pingree1492]

What do those of you who have used these online tests think of them?  Did preparing for them really help you learn some of the basic info that people in those tracks should know?  Is it worth expanding this concept to other PD tracks? 

Just finished up my Cadet Programs Master Rating last weekend by taking the online test.  The test basically just ensures that the person has actually read and comprehended the pertinent regs for cadet programs- mainly CAPR52-16 (obviously) though there were others there.  Basically, I did nothing to prepare for the test, and was able to answer most questions without having to look them up.  But again, I've been doing this a while, and had completed the rest of the training in the track.

But if you take a look at 216, it is a fairly comprehensive document now, and does a lot to help prepare a member for service in that specialty.  The cadet programs shop at national has been doing a lot of work, and a lot of really good stuff has come out of there in the last several years.  Hopefully, other aspects of the organization will follow their lead.

I would like to see other tracks go the online testing route, especially ES.  Getting rid of an outdated correspondence course would be a great thing there- go with an online version that can be easily updated as regs and our missions change and evolve.

That said, however, the Aerospace Ed. Track tests really were a joke.  If we're going to use anything as a model, I would definitly recommend the Cadet Programs stuff.

Not all have real online training course associated with them, which is probably the way to go in the long run, so I'm assuming that they're basically testing your knowledge of applicable regs. 

Yes, all the tests I've taken (CP & AE through Master, and IT Technician) are just testing the regulations.  Trying to do more than that just isn't worth it- that's where the other aspects of the PD training should come in.  There is A LOT they are all missing about how to do the job properly, but it is at least making sure that you've read through the regs once.  And the progression from Technician to Master was good, in that the emphasis at Technician Level was pretty much at the squadron, where most of the Master questions dealt with Wing-Level stuff.  This way, it forces you to look at the higher (or lower) level stuff, even though you may not have served on a Group or Wing staff in that specialty before.

[Eclipse]

I've found more value in the knowledge topics than the actual test.

For my self and my subordinates, I have them complete the questions in writing.  It forces them to look up the answers and always results in something learned, be it steak or sizzle.

The document then becomes part of the substantiation that they completed the track.

[Dracosbane]

I've taken the safety tests (tech and senior, but I'll probably go ahead and do master too) as SE for my unit, and as DA as well, I've looked through both PD pamphlets for my own PD.  Safety is definitely more specified a job, so I can see why safety requires a comprehensive test.  Admin requires knowing where to look in the regs and what forms to fill out, but it's not as mission specific or labor/knowledge intensive as safety.

I don't want my PD pencil whipped, and I'm trying to get at least tech in all of my specialties (personnel too), but I'm already ready for admin and personnel because they're not as specific as safety.  I'm only a step or two away from safety as well.

Could there be a comprehensive test for admin or personnel?  Sure.  Should there be?  Probably not.

Granted, I'm one of those people that will probably get other ratings even after I post the requirements for promotion, just because I want to have knowledge in each area I'm going to be working with, including CP, ES, and comm.  Will I hold all those positions?  Probably not.  But with the current PD program, it's possible for me to be a well rounded officer even if some of the programs are easier than others. 

[Hawk200]

Is it worth expanding this concept to other PD tracks?

I'd say yes. I've done the Cadet Programs track before, but I did the test to see how I'd do. Passed it first time, but got a few tidbits out of it anyway.

The pamphlets are a good start, but only a start. An actual test helps determine whether or not someone has missed something.