Failed, then 30 days later passed?

vonoventwin

JDMurray wrote: »

In all seriousness, you will need to prove actual monetary damages to a U.S. court of law to win a civil case. Unable to earn an income due to the emotional stress may do it, but it's too soon to know if that's gonna happen.

What is my job states that I need to have my CISSP? And now that I don't I will be released... That good enough for a case?

JDMurray

Webmaster wrote: »

I think you can be pretty sure they made sure the results are accurate the second time.

Yeah, this is an excellent point. They probably already hand-graded the exams for September/October to find out when and where is this problem started and ended.

Because the exams are given on a Scantron form, I assume they are machine-graded. You run the key through first and then the exam. If I remember correctly, each exam booklet has two serial numbers; one for the exam series of the booklet and the other is the booklet's unique serial number. It's possible the correct serial numbers were paired, but the keys themselves were manufactured with errors.

Again, I'm guess at all this.

JDMurray

vonoventwin wrote: »

What is my job states that I need to have my CISSP? And now that I don't I will be released... That good enough for a case?

No, because you can't prove that. No employer will tell you exactly why you were let go for legal reasons. And anyway, you'd be more correct to sue your (former) employer and not the cert vendor that made an incidental error. It's the employer that made the actual decision to let you go.

vonoventwin

JDMurray wrote: »

This is an excellent idea. The (ISC)2 does accommodate such requests. I'm sure a lot of other candidates in your situation will be doing the same.

Do you know how I can do this?

JDMurray

vonoventwin wrote: »

Do you know how I can do this?

On the email that was sent you from the (ISC)2, was an address given for questions that you may have? If not, registrar@isc2.org is a good one to try.

blittrell

Hi All,

Was looking online to see if I could find any reason ISC2 may have had an issue and I came across this posting. I got the exact same email. I took the test on Sept 25 and walked out being the first one to finish the test and feeling pretty good about it. Waited about 4 weeks and sent an email asking for my test results, got them a couple days later saying I failed. I was mostly upset that I took a week off of work as a super cram session before the test and still failed. I was going to let it go and just put it on the back burner. After the test I had a headache for 3 days after all. Just got an email a few days ago, exact same wording as the original poster saying I passed. I did not get a score like I did with the failed email. The thing I remember about the failed email is that I really did bad in areas I did not think I did that bad in.

I considered the non-grade questions but from my failed exam score I figure it would have had to be quite a few question that were non-grade questions. I am almost wondering if either the scantron machine started reading the tests wrong and they caught the issue or someone mixed up the tests.

It seems to make most sense that the scantron machine was misreading the tests and after a few complaints they rechecked the tests and found that it was faulty, then regraded the tests.

As mentioned in earlier posts, it does show the quality of professionalism at ISC2 for finding the mistake and then going out of it's way to correct it on it's own. You do not see that to often.

apr911

vonoventwin wrote: »

The preamble to the Code of Ethics states, “Safety of the commonwealth, duty to our principals, and to each other requires that we adhere, and be seen to adhere, to the highest ethical standards of behavior.” Does ISC2 practice what they preach? Is this ethical behavior in any way what so ever? Absolutely not! Therefore, I am begging you as a member of the Board to take appropriate action and re-award everyone that just got their CISSP stripped due to this technical error.

I agree that it was a very big screw up on the part of ISC2, especially for someone like you who made it all the way through the endorsement process and were awarded the certification before being informed, however, I have to take exception to your argument regarding fairness and ethics.

I know it seems unfair to you that they are stripping your credential, if I were in the same position I would feel the same way but consider the fairness to the certification and all other CISSP's out there if they were to allow you to keep the credential even though you did not pass. Where would the fairness be in that?

For the ethics portion, JDMurray has already commented on this and I echo his response, by owning up to the mistake and correcting it, ISC2 is being more ethical than by denying it ever existed. Additionally, in a similar way to my argument about the fairness, how would it be ethical to let someone who didnt pass keep their certification?

I will also remind you of the full code of ethics, not just the preamble:

1. Protect society, the commonwealth, and the infrastructure
2. Act honorably, honestly, justly, responsibly, and legally
3. Provide diligent and competent service to principals
4. Advance and protect the profession

I think in admitting their mistake and revoking the certification, they are doing more to adhere to the code of ethics than if they were to allow you to keep it.

In doing so they are Protecting the Profession by protecting the certification, Providing diligent and competent service to the principals (other CISSPs), and acting honorably, honestly, justly, responsibly and legally.

You may not agree with the last one but they were honest, held themselves responsible for the mistake and preserved their honor by offering you the opportunity to take the exam again for free. I dont know where legal falls with this and justly is the same/similar to fairness which I have already pointed out.

I really am sorry for what you are going through. I also dont want to discourage you from presenting your case to the board however, I also dont think arguing it with the board on the "Code of Ethics" grounds is going to get you very far.

I also do agree that the board needs to do something to correct this error. It would be difficult to streamline the entire process of certification as it does take time to grade the exam but perhaps, in addition to the free retake, eliminating the endorsement/audit phase for those who had already made it through? (Not to be confused with eliminating this phase for all people receiving reversal notices, just those who already completed it successfully)

vonoventwin

Just found out I get to keep my CISSP for 1 year. I can retake the exam within a year or get a full refund. In order to maintain my CISSP, I have to retake before the year is over. I guess I can live with this since I am CISSP and won't lose my job. However, I still want my test manually regraded. I still think I did really well, so I want to know what the heck is going on.

vonoventwin

apr911 wrote: »

I agree that it was a very big screw up on the part of ISC2, especially for someone like you who made it all the way through the endorsement process and were awarded the certification before being informed, however, I have to take exception to your argument regarding fairness and ethics.

I know it seems unfair to you that they are stripping your credential, if I were in the same position I would feel the same way but consider the fairness to the certification and all other CISSP's out there if they were to allow you to keep the credential even though you did not pass. Where would the fairness be in that?

For the ethics portion, JDMurray has already commented on this and I echo his response, by owning up to the mistake and correcting it, ISC2 is being more ethical than by denying it ever existed. Additionally, in a similar way to my argument about the fairness, how would it be ethical to let someone who didnt pass keep their certification?

I will also remind you of the full code of ethics, not just the preamble:

1. Protect society, the commonwealth, and the infrastructure
2. Act honorably, honestly, justly, responsibly, and legally
3. Provide diligent and competent service to principals
4. Advance and protect the profession

I think in admitting their mistake and revoking the certification, they are doing more to adhere to the code of ethics than if they were to allow you to keep it.

In doing so they are Protecting the Profession by protecting the certification, Providing diligent and competent service to the principals (other CISSPs), and acting honorably, honestly, justly, responsibly and legally.

You may not agree with the last one but they were honest, held themselves responsible for the mistake and preserved their honor by offering you the opportunity to take the exam again for free. I dont know where legal falls with this and justly is the same/similar to fairness which I have already pointed out.

I really am sorry for what you are going through. I also dont want to discourage you from presenting your case to the board however, I also dont think arguing it with the board on the "Code of Ethics" grounds is going to get you very far.

I also do agree that the board needs to do something to correct this error. It would be difficult to streamline the entire process of certification as it does take time to grade the exam but perhaps, in addition to the free retake, eliminating the endorsement/audit phase for those who had already made it through? (Not to be confused with eliminating this phase for all people receiving reversal notices, just those who already completed it successfully)

Part of the email I received:

If you have an endorsement on file, we will keep it on file until such time as you do retake and pass the examination. You will not be required to resend your paperwork.

blittrell

Didn't realize this was such a hot topic, read the first few posts and wanted to post that I got the same thing as the original poster, then saw there were two pages and it was the bad side and the good side.

Although I hope those that passed then failed find out that they did in fact pass I sure hope this whole thing doesn't reverse again and it turns out I failed again. I think I will just keep my mouth shut about passing for a few months to make sure it actually happened..

As far ethically speaking, it is a tough one, ethically I agree with the forum admin but it sucks all around. There is no way I would take that test again anytime in the future, especially when I did about as best as I could.

JDMurray

vonoventwin wrote: »

Just found out I get to keep my CISSP for 1 year. I can retake the exam within a year or get a full refund. In order to maintain my CISSP, I have to retake before the year is over. I guess I can live with this since I am CISSP and won't lose my job. However, I still want my test manually regraded. I still think I did really well, so I want to know what the heck is going on.

It looks like the (ISC)2 has awarded a provisional "Associate of (ISC)2 for CISSP" certification for this incident. Very nice! I commend that decision.

bracer

No, but feel blessed and run with it.

joking

I would like to show my sympathy to the victims in this incident as i was suffering for q a long while as well
After 3m of self studies, i showed confident in the exam n told my peers that i could pass till the 404 notice on oct 20. In between, i hv reg for dec cisa exam.
Retake? Noway if my score is only 404! I hv written a compliant email to isc2 and stopped thinking abt it. For the whole month, i m rlly depressed, no show on social events, kept working, and also couldnt start my cisa studies. And right now, my emotion is rlly complicated after receiving this update....

The next is to think on how to make the system better.

I do think the computer grading is very mature and applicable in other pro exam. And i wont challenge on its tech against manual grading. But isc2 should increasw the sample rate for qc. As the month after exam is rlly painful, i would mind to waitfor extra half month and so

doughud

What email address did you send your complaint to? I have been dealing with someone on this all day....

rogue2shadow

doughud wrote: »

What email address did you send your complaint to? I have been dealing with someone on this all day....

Try registrar@isc2.org. JD had that email address in an earlier post.

Here's a number I found as well; use option 5:
+1-727-785-0189 (might be US only?)

Source:

facebook ISC2 group wrote:

(ISC)2 ‎(ISC)² sincerely apologizes for the erroneous exam result notification some of our candidates received last month. This was a unique occurrence, and we have confirmed that all affected candidates have been contacted via email. If you have not received notice by now, you can be sure that the exam results you received are accurate. Affected candidates can call (ISC)² Customer Support at +1-727-785-0189 and select menu choice 5 to begin the reimbursement process or discuss registering for an upcoming exam at no cost.

colemic

While I think that is it embarrassing for ISC2, saying that they did the right thing is only partially true - they didn't make it right until they granted the one-year CISSP. I think that is a very reasonable solution.

Is it Associate, or the full-fledged CISSP?

WilliamK99

colemic wrote: »

While I think that is it embarrassing for ISC2, saying that they did the right thing is only partially true - they didn't make it right until they granted the one-year CISSP. I think that is a very reasonable solution.

Is it Associate, or the full-fledged CISSP?

You know honestly, they probably could have done nothing and nobody would have known. I had just assumed I had failed along with other candidates and was re-studying attempting to figure out where I went wrong. The fact that ISC2 admitted their errors, contacted everyone affected, and then offered free re-tests for those told they passed but really fails speaks wonders about the integrity of the organization...

Mistakes can happen to any organization, and the fact that ISC2 is admitting their mistakes and taking steps to ensure these mistakes don't happen again gives me confidence in the organization.

nth9pole

Where are you getting the report that they are granting everyone affected an Associate CISSP for one year? It seems to me that is the logical thing to do, plus free voucher to redo the exam.

I have had a couple of thoughts since getting the ill report:
1. If this is an accredited agency that the DOD recognize as a measure of excellence, then there is a problem somewhere.
2. Do I sue or file a consumer compliant with the Attorney General's office?
3. How long has this issue gone undetected? Maybe they need to re-certify all CISSPs from 1920
4. Is this some fraudulent revenue generating stunt from ISC2 ?
5. Is someone trying to tarnish the image of ISC2 and ruin the organization?

And, the thoughts are endless. I can't find an answer to this completely embarrassing situation, I now have a complete bad impression of the whole ISC2 organization. I am wondering, who are the people managing this organization? Do they even re-examine their own activities apart from asking people to register for exam, seminars and all. With all due respect to current CISSP's, I am beginning to think the CISSP is not has strong as it has being portrayed, the recognition awarded to it by the government should be reconsidered, until a quality assurance report is provided dating back to at least the last ten years. One of the exam proctors recently told me, that the whole ISC2 organization and the CISSP certification is one big hell of a scam, I wonder if that is true. Maybe Security+, CISA/CISM is much better. I wonder if ISACA can experience this type of problem, and my answer is NO! That is why they conduct their exams only twice in a year, they don't look like a money making machine to me.

SephStorm

colemic wrote: »

While I think that is it embarrassing for ISC2, saying that they did the right thing is only partially true - they didn't make it right until they granted the one-year CISSP. I think that is a very reasonable solution.

Is it Associate, or the full-fledged CISSP?

For people who failed? Can't you see how that could cause problems? While I completely understand the feelings of all those who worked hard, only to pass and then fail, I have never heard of any such thing being extended in any industry... If you were awarded the Nobel Prize, then they found out you really didnt, I dont think they would let you hold onto it for a year.

This is the only reasonable thing they can do, and even that is dangerous on some level. These people (CISSP holders) are expected to have a standard level of knowledge and experience, by employers. If someone comes up to them holding a CISSP, (Most people aren't going to tell the employer, it is only valid for a year...) they expect they passed the exam and met that benchmark.

What would that mean for Mr. Braindump, who failed with a 200 anyway, if they blanketed CISSP's for a year? This is the guy who may get hired to protect your networks, against threats. He might not stay hired very long, but your co-workers (and employers)will undoubtedly start looking down on CISSP holders.

If they do the Associate of CISSP, they obviously need to provide clear guidelines for obtaining the full status.

doughud

FYI, if you work for the government as, IAW 8570, you have to be fully certified by Dec 31, 2010. Because of the time issues, many that thought they passed to now find out that they have failed will not met this requirement. The next test date available in my area is Dec 18, and it is full and they will not budge. Therefore, even though they are giving me a voucher to re-take, I have to pay for airfare, hotel, rental car, etc. So, no, I am not that happy w/the arrangement. Not at all. Had I found out that I had failed within 6 weeks, I could have registered for the Dec 18 test, paid for it on my own and saved money rather then having to travel...

tahjiana1224

vonoventwin wrote: »

Just found out I get to keep my CISSP for 1 year. I can retake the exam within a year or get a full refund. In order to maintain my CISSP, I have to retake before the year is over. I guess I can live with this since I am CISSP and won't lose my job. However, I still want my test manually regraded. I still think I did really well, so I want to know what the heck is going on.

Are they automatically granting this to everyone, or do you have to email them?

Also, there was a rumor that the 25 test questions were graded which could've caused this mishap. Has anyone else heard that? Especially since the 'story' keeps changing. Initially it was said that they changed vendors which caused the error, now it's some machine...what REALLY happened? I am still in shock!

JDMurray

nth9pole wrote: »

1. If this is an accredited agency that the DOD recognize as a measure of excellence, then there is a problem somewhere.

I wonder if ISACA can experience this type of problem, and my answer is NO! That is why they conduct their exams only twice in a year, they don't look like a money making machine to me.

I'll say it again: every person and organization is allowed to make errors. If a person or organization has never admitted to making an error, that doesn't mean the person or organization has never made an error. It only means they have not admitted doing so.

Admitting to making an error and doing your utmost to correct it, when you could have easily just hidden it, is a sign of following a higher ethical standard and having a strong personal character. People who hold others to 100% accuracy 100% of the time are being unreasonable and often have character issues themselves.

JDMurray

doughud wrote: »

FYI, if you work for the government as, IAW 8570, you have to be fully certified by Dec 31, 2010. Because of the time issues, many that thought they passed to now find out that they have failed will not met this requirement.

This will not be the case if the (ISC)2 is, in fact, awarding a 1-year Associates CISSP standing to all people that were told they passed, but in reality, failed due to this error. DoD 8570.01 specifies that DoD IA workers only need to pass the CISSP exam and not actually obtain the full CISSP certification.

IT Certifications and DoD Directive 8570.01-M | TechExams.net Blogs

earweed

After having read through this thread and what ISC2 is doing as reparation I have regained respect for ISC2. I think part of the problem, as I stated elsewhere, comes from ISC@ wanting to accomodate people who wish to get their results in a more timely manner. The results should be quality checked and properly vetted before results are published. I think that ISC@ offering the free retake and the 1 year associate for those who actually failed but were informed they passed is above and beyond what ISC2 would ever be obligated to even if they were sued in a court of law.
If you failed but thought you had passed then you should be happy that they are giving you a free retake and that your Dec. 31 deadline (for those who have it) has effectively been extended. I think ISC2 made an error and they are going above and beyond to correct it and to alleviate the problems people may have due to the error.

nth9pole

JDMurray wrote: »

I'll say it again: every person and organization is allowed to make errors. If a person or organization has never admitted to making an error, that doesn't mean the person or organization has never made an error. It only means they have not admitted doing so.

Admitting to making an error and doing your utmost to correct it, when you could have easily just hidden it, is a sign of following a higher ethical standard and having a strong personal character. People who hold others to 100% accuracy 100% of the time are being unreasonable and often have character issues themselves.

I am not holding anyone to 100% excellence, I don't even do that to me The issue here is how thorough and diligent is their process? 4 weeks or more after passing an exam is not a good time to know you have just failed, it's shouldn't be like a marriage proposal where you can just change your mind. If I were involved with ISC2 admin process, I will recommend human review after machine marks to ensure accuracy and eliminate most type of errors. I have done this type of stuff before, even SAT exams are reviewed by humans before its released. It's not like measuring mountains by calculating the number of boulders that makes it up!

Award everyone with a pass mark of 650 full fledged CISSP, provide vouchers to those that didn't make that mark and setup extra exam centre at all locations to help scheduling and timing, and reimburse everyone that failed, with vouchers plus cash reimbursement and provide extra exam centres by ISC2 not private vendors or whatever.

WilliamK99

nth9pole wrote: »

Award everyone with a pass mark of 650 full fledged CISSP, provide vouchers to those that didn't make that mark and setup extra exam centre at all locations to help scheduling and timing, and reimburse everyone that failed, with vouchers plus cash reimbursement and provide extra exam centres by ISC2 not private vendors or whatever.

So have them say screw their code of ethics and hook people up even though they failed the test?

It would be unreasonable to expect them to do so because then they would have to go back 10 years and do the same to anyone else who scored 650 to 699.... They are going above and beyond already.

colemic

SephStorm wrote: »

For people who failed? Can't you see how that could cause problems? While I completely understand the feelings of all those who worked hard, only to pass and then fail, I have never heard of any such thing being extended in any industry... If you were awarded the Nobel Prize, then they found out you really didnt, I dont think they would let you hold onto it for a year.

This is the only reasonable thing they can do, and even that is dangerous on some level. These people (CISSP holders) are expected to have a standard level of knowledge and experience, by employers. If someone comes up to them holding a CISSP, (Most people aren't going to tell the employer, it is only valid for a year...) they expect they passed the exam and met that benchmark.

What would that mean for Mr. Braindump, who failed with a 200 anyway, if they blanketed CISSP's for a year? This is the guy who may get hired to protect your networks, against threats. He might not stay hired very long, but your co-workers (and employers)will undoubtedly start looking down on CISSP holders.

If they do the Associate of CISSP, they obviously need to provide clear guidelines for obtaining the full status.

Absolutely, for those that failed - just look at doughud above - That is EXACTLY why they should give them Associate for one year. btw - assuming JD's theory of what happened is even remotely accurate, there is no way that someone who scored a 200 would be told that they passed - giving them the 25 questions from the unscored ones that (might) have been counted still won't get them close to passing, they wouldn't have been told they passed in the first place. Besides that, even if someone who scored a 200 DID receive Associate status for one year, that is the price ISC2 pays for their mistake. I would assume that they would not do that for those that went fail/fail (failed the initial scoring and failed the 2nd scoring.)

Vonoventwin stated he would receive his for one year, and still had to retest, no matter what - that's pretty clear guidelines for obtaining the full status.

No one knows what DoD will do to those who do not have the required certs by 1 Jan - there's a remote chance they could yank everyone's access that doesn't have the right cert. Not likely, but a possibility. There are a LOT of people within DoD (contractors) that are sweating that out, and doughud above is a perfect example of why they should award provisional (associate) CISSPs good for one year.

JDMurray

nth9pole wrote: »

4 weeks or more after passing an exam is not a good time to know you have just failed, it's shouldn't be like a marriage proposal where you can just change your mind.

If I were involved with ISC2 admin process, I will recommend human review after machine marks to ensure accuracy and eliminate most type of errors. I have done this type of stuff before, even SAT exams are reviewed by humans before its released. It's not like measuring mountains by calculating the number of boulders that makes it up!

The problem may have had nothing to do with the accuracy of the actual exam grading. It may have been an administrative mix-up after the correct results were already determined, such as emails addresses that were inputted incorrectly into a database.

The bottom line is that we have no idea what the actual failure was, so it's impossible to determine what a reasonable amount of time for an adequate response should be.

adeyoe

JDMurray wrote: »

It looks like the (ISC)2 has awarded a provisional "Associate of (ISC)2 for CISSP" certification for this incident. Very nice! I commend that decision.

I sure hope something like this happens for me. I was the "opposite" of those that failed and then passed. And now waiting to hear back from ISC2 in regards to this. An emotiional roller coaster either way between the brutal studying, the long exam, the anxious wait. and then get the excitement, have companies waiting for your final cert. And BAM.. Get an email saying you FLUNKED!!!!!.. "First time in 20 years".

I am waiting to hear back from ISC2 on this. I just finished my resume for my sponsor the night before I got the "corrected email".

I want to know what this "technical error" was? I want to know what was the grade difference from the first time to this, what changed? How?

I am a firm believer that quality of a professional often prevails over a one day certification. But this isn't your typical Certification.

I am not one that has ever been great at book reviews; 10 plus yearsa in the IA, and holding numerous other Certs like GSLC are helpful, but companies want this one.

Now I have companies waiting on my certification, and I have to advise them "no can do at this time".

Am excited for those that had "fail go to pass". But either way yuo look at it. It is a tough emotiional roller coaster ride. And I am not sure when ISC2 is providing the CISSP again in my area.

Am passionate about what I do, and love Information Assurance and Security. But not sure if I can devote the time to get my exam done again soon. Not wtih a deadline of 30 DEC 2010 rolling around to achieve certification.

adeyoe

nth9pole wrote: »

I am not holding anyone to 100% excellence, I don't even do that to me The issue here is how thorough and diligent is their process? 4 weeks or more after passing an exam is not a good time to know you have just failed, it's shouldn't be like a marriage proposal where you can just change your mind. If I were involved with ISC2 admin process, I will recommend human review after machine marks to ensure accuracy and eliminate most type of errors. I have done this type of stuff before, even SAT exams are reviewed by humans before its released. It's not like measuring mountains by calculating the number of boulders that makes it up!

Award everyone with a pass mark of 650 full fledged CISSP, provide vouchers to those that didn't make that mark and setup extra exam centre at all locations to help scheduling and timing, and reimburse everyone that failed, with vouchers plus cash reimbursement and provide extra exam centres by ISC2 not private vendors or whatever.

Pretty much sums up what I have to face now. Again, I am one that likes the old proverb " The difference between an "A" student and a "C" student, is you often call the "C" student "Dr."...

But the waiting.... Some follks are blessed wtih being very good at taking exams. I am more blessed at being Field smart. and with 10 years in IA, and over 20 in the IT commmunity, This hit really hard to get my passing scorew reversed. 1 month after telling everyone I passed and submitted for jobs.

But you keep plugging along.

adeyoe GSLC/SEC+/NET+