Just call me Certified Arborist, Utility Specialist-----
Yeah, I just got my passing notice. I'm happy, on one hand, but to tell you the truth, most of the test could have been written in Spanish, which I speak on a so-so level, and I probably would have done almost as well as I did.
To get into ISA's problem, as I see it, when it comes to its testing program: When I walked/stalked out of the testing room, I knew/thought I missed at least twenty-three questions. I wrote them all down, in my truck, to study up on them, later. As my score showed, I probably did miss most of those questions.
OK, so now, how the heck do I find the answers to those questions? ISA does not let you know what you missed, so the whole test is an "Ah-hah! Got you, sucker!" experience rather than a learning one. They lamely assert that the reason they don't let you know exactly what you missed is because they don't want people "cheating" by getting the answers from somebody else. ------ WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
They do NOT have their heads screwed on straight, to say the least. If they were testing for knowledge base, they certainly DO want people getting the answers, as in factual acquisition, as opposed to 1A, 2D, 3C, etc., etc. To learn the answers to questions in order to pass a test is GOOD! What ISA confuses, here, is blind memorization of number/letter combos, as above, with the actual learning of the right answer for the right question. By using the most basic test question randomization programs, ISA could easily stop 1A, 2D, 3C cheating, no ifs, ands or buts.
As a former high school Biology and Chemistry teacher, I can tell you that students who were lacking in intelligence, and who failed an initial exam, could be given all of the answers to a given test in factual format, as above, go in and take the test and------fail again! They did not learn anything, even when given the answers, because they did not study and internalize what they were presented with. If ISA allowed you to see exactly what you missed, real learning would take place, as long as they stressed that the multiple choice distractors would appear in a different order on later re-tests.
Now I'm going to order utility arborist books from another source. As an excellent student in college, I know for a fact that profs almost never use the assigned course books to compose tests. The trick to getting good grades is to figure out what books the prof is using to make up tests. By going in during office hours and casing the prof's desk, the task is made far easier. It never failed me, literally or figuratively. ISA does NOT use their Study Guide to compose the Utility Arborist Test. Less than 1/3rd of the material on the test I took came from the guide. The guide is from 2002, the test was copyrighted 2009.
Anyway---I'm still available for study group work if any of you are getting ready to take the test. I do not understand certain folks, on here, who have failed the test a few times yet are hesitant to get involved with a study group. Study groups were the other reason I did well in college. They work!