Challenging Master Judge's Questions

[QansasjayhawQ]

OK - not meaning to cheat here at all . . . but I did think that these questions on the Master Judge test were worth consideration because:

1) They illustrate that the Master Judge's test is not a simple to complete test.
2) The questions are fun to ponder and
3) They are somewhat subjective, just like judging!

Here's the first really challenging question from the test:

If you, as a judge, see one of your fellow judges doing the following: not judging in order, going back to compare, tasting and then writing down the scores, what procedure would you follow?

What's your answer? I already have mine.

Oh, and by the way, a Master Judge has to get 90% correct in order to pass. I only had to get 70% correct for my MySQL Administrator certificate . . .

And Dave (Rookie4 . . . please let others answer before you answer! :-)

[mobow]

knock him up side the head with my cooler.

[gmholler]

Originally Posted by QansasjayhawQ

If you, as a judge, see one of your fellow judges doing the following: not judging in order, going back to compare, tasting and then writing down the scores, what procedure would you follow?

That same question was on the test I took back in 2009. I thought it could've been worded more directly and I believe I mentioned that - but I guess I wasn't talking to the "right" person about it! I get the general gist of what it's trying to say and see what's being driven at, but when it says "tasting and then writing down the scores", part of me wants to say "There's something wrong with that? I'm not supposed to taste and write down the scores?" which leads me to want to overthink the question, and that's never a good thing!

Lynn H.

[QansasjayhawQ]

Originally Posted by gmholler

That same question was on the test I took back in 2009. I thought it could've been worded more directly and I believe I mentioned that - but I guess I wasn't talking to the "right" person about it! I get the general gist of what it's trying to say and see what's being driven at, but when it says "tasting and then writing down the scores", part of me wants to say "There's something wrong with that? I'm not supposed to taste and write down the scores?" which leads me to want to overthink the question, and that's never a good thing!

Lynn H.

Exactly. The problem is 'comparing' which we, as judges, are trained not to do.
Tasting and then writing down a score, then going back and 'comparing' . . . that's the problem. The judge has not been properly trained. Each entry needs to stand on its own merits.

But, what procedure would you follow?
(I think that's the important part of the question.)

[EatonHoggBBQ]

That question is not that hard to answer. Just use common sense. C'mon now.

Originally Posted by QansasjayhawQ

Exactly. The problem is 'comparing' which we, as judges, are trained not to do.
Tasting and then writing down a score, then going back and 'comparing' . . . that's the problem. The judge has not been properly trained. Each entry needs to stand on its own merits.

But, what procedure would you follow?
(I think that's the important part of the question.)

Also, you are assuming that the judge is a KCBS certified judge. What if the judge was not a certified judge?

[bover]

Originally Posted by EatonHoggBBQ

Also, you are assuming that the judge is a KCBS certified judge. What if the judge was not a certified judge?

Shouldn't matter. The instructions given on the CD during the judges meeting clearly says that each entry is to be judged on its own merits. Even non-certified judges should know better, assuming they actually paid attention.

[gmholler]

Originally Posted by QansasjayhawQ

The judge has not been properly trained.

I disagree with that statement. His/her training was likely fine, and the CD that's played at every judge's meeting, as well as the rep's comments, also serve as good reminders. Most of the time, people that feel the need to go back and taste and compare feel THEIR method is better than what they were taught. And if there are no immediate consequences of their method, they have no problem doing it over and over.

As a TC, I've had some judges tell me they did "it" (the whole method in question) at their training class and "no one said anything". I try not to make a big deal of it, and remind them of the procedure they should use in judging and how ultimately they shouldn't compare entries with one another, how it's not fair to the cooks to do that. Usually, this is all it takes, but sometimes the person is adamant that their way is best; that's when a discreet wink to the rep works best.

(and remember, if non-CBJs are used, they are instructed just before judging to judge each entry on its own merits and not compare entries as well)

Lynn H.

[U2CANQUE]

Table captain informed?

[QansasjayhawQ]

Originally Posted by EatonHoggBBQ

That question is not that hard to answer. Just use common sense. C'mon now.



Also, you are assuming that the judge is a KCBS certified judge. What if the judge was not a certified judge?

Another good question.

[QansasjayhawQ]

Originally Posted by bover

Shouldn't matter. The instructions given on the CD during the judges meeting clearly says that each entry is to be judged on its own merits. Even non-certified judges should know better, assuming they actually paid attention.

Exactly. Assuming they paid attention.

On one occasion, I actually suggested to a rookie, non-certified judge that they might want to shut their mouth so they could listen to the instructions on the CD.

[Smoke'n Ice]

As a judge, you should really be watching what YOU are doing and not what your fellow judges are doing. The TC should be the one to observe this going on and then proctor the judge that this is an incorrect method. If this fails, then the rep should be involved. There were several instances at a recent Sams event where, as TC, I casually mentioned to all at the table the once a score is written, it should not be changes and another time, asked if anyone would like to fill out the comment cards. Both the question and comment had the desired effect without creating a major issue.

Was this correct? I don't really know but it had the desired results without embarrising a judge or causing an incident.