by shortkm1 » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:34 am
I just got back to the office from taking the 5.0 PPD exam and thought it would download my thoughts in case it is useful to others: (Please let me know if I have divulged too much information here. I will be happy to alter or delete anything as needed. It is my understanding, that all of this information regarding the interface, etc, is available to testers prior to taking the exam.)
Some background: I transitioned from 4.0 (passed the first try: CDS, PPP, and SPD in that order) to 5.0. This was my first exam of 5.0. I had given myself about a month to study for it which is what I had done for each of the 4.0 exams (SPD I only studied for 2 weeks).
The interface of 5.0 was alright, had some lag time (but I think the clock stops during these lags too...they were not more than a second but still noticeable).
Things I liked:
Off the bat, I DO like the new testing style. It seems more in tune with the way architects actually work (referencing other materials rather than memorizing, etc). Being able to navigate to the harder areas first (case studies) was great! I was also very grateful for the set of resources that is provided in the interface. I found it so helpful and was relieved that I didn't have to cram so many equations in my brain.
Things I hated:
I HATE the way they make you highlight and strike through now. It is absolutely NOT user-friendly, especially for someone who gets jittery hands during a test. Also, the calculator!!!! You have to click each number you want to type in which was a problem for me (see previous sentence about jittery hands). Why oh why could they not make it work with the keypad on the keyboard!!
Multiple Choice:
The questions were similar to those of the 4.0 exams. I even had some of the EXACT SAME questions that were on my SPD exam which I had taken about a month prior. For some reason, that gave me confidence But in reality, I don't know (and will never know) if I got those questions right either time, so really doesn't help. I guess that does just tell us that the questions are generally from the same pool and not some new set of material that we are supposed to study. There were times during the test that I thought, "I am doing so great!" And then, there were times where I thought "no way I am passing this" (usually while reviewing my questions). Some questions were more specific than I had expected but overall they seem like something you would know if you studied and have worked in the "real world" for a bit. Also, I LOVED the new hot spot and drag/drop questions. I think these were by far the easiest (although I am not really sure why feel that way). There were very few of these that I flagged for review when going through the test (and I am a frequent flagger).
Case Studies:
First of all, the interface was mediocre for these. Although I like that you can tab through the pages while the question remains at the bottom, I did not like that when I changed tabs or clicked a "link" to a section in the code, the page scale went back to "Full View" even though it was still set to 100% or whatever. I had to reset it every time if I wanted to navigate the document quicker. This of course only took seconds but those seconds ended up being precious for me. I also don't like that you cannot highlight anything in the resources or that if you highlight something during a question in the scenario, the highlights do not carry over to the next question. But, with that said, I think it was all made up for by the fact that you can search the resources with keywords.
The questions of the case studies ranged from what I thought was too easy (felt like it was a trap) to being too hard that I ended up completely guessing. I spent WAY too much time on these case studies! Like 2 hours!!! That was a terrible mistake. My problem was that I KNEW (or maybe just felt like) all of the information I needed to answer the question was in the reference material somewhere. This sent me searching and searching through the documents multiple times. I eventually made a guess and moved on, but came back to them if I found something during another question that was helpful for the others.
The format of the case study questions are similar to that of the Multiple Choice - some multiple choice, type in the number, drag and drop, or hot spot. I really like the format of being able to reference lots of material at once. I feel like it is definitely more similar to the way architects actually work rather than memorizing everything for one 4 hour span.
Time:
I navigated first to the case studies which I still think was a good idea. As I mentioned before, I spent WAY too much time on these. Although I answered all questions in the multiple choice and case studies, I ran out of time while I was reviewing. Thank goodness I did the case studies first or I probably would have run out of time for answering them in the first place! I did take my optional 15 minute break before I reviewed my answers. This helped (slightly) relieve some of the heart pounding stress I was feeling since I didn't have much time left.
Overall, I feel the same as I did when I left the 4.0 exams - like it is 50:50 whether I passed. I do feel like it is an accurate assessment but it is A LOT of material to cover. If you are looking to just bust through these like I am, my recommendation for studying is to give yourself at least 1.5-2 months (if your weekends are busy like mine) of study time for PPD (or 1-1.5 months if you are able to spend all weekend, every weekend studying). I was only able to get through the Ballast sections before testing. I would have liked to review the 4.0 materials for the tests that transferred over for this 5.0 exam but didn't get to it in time. I think that would have really helped solidify my understanding of the information.
PS - The Ballast book seems to be absolutely riddled with errors. Not like "oh that is incorrect information." More like "where did the rest of that sentence go" or "why is the answer to this question in the practice exam the exact text from the next question" So I would suggest getting additional study material.