# Anyone taken the ISA Utility Arborist test, lately?



## Sunrise Guy (Sep 8, 2009)

I want to know how it lines up with the study guide. Was it tough? Many tricky questions? Pretty straightforward? Many questions on exact working distances for specific voltages? Many pictures of electrical components to ID? Any other info is appreciated. Thanks, in advance.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Sep 10, 2009)

*OK, I guess it's not a very popular test/certification*

Very strange----to post in here and not get a single reply. Oh well.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Sep 12, 2009)

*Is there another board, somewhere online, for utility arborists?*

Apparently this board has no Certified Utility Arborists on it.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 12, 2009)

Sunrise Guy said:


> Apparently this board has no Certified Utility Arborists on it.


you said "lately". i took it a couple years ago; and do not remember pics of components. there were a few questions about how far to stay away based on voltages.

Studying for it was a learning experience in itself, and worthwhile.

try the archives here; it's been discussed before.


----------



## Shaun Bowler (Sep 12, 2009)

Yes!
I have taken the test twice and failed it twice.
I felt it was more difficult than the CA I took about a illion years ago. 
I am a CA, WCISA, CTW, and an ACRT CLCTT.
The study manual is VERY small. Like a Archie Comic Book. 
Most of the questions have little or nothing to do with the real life industry.
I have missed the minimum passing score by two points both times.
I should not even be in the bottom end. I should have passed at 100%.
I was shocked both times because my lowest scores were at the "emergency responce section".
At this time in my life, being a "Muni Forester" this is where I "shine."
Nevertheless, it has been the section of the test where I have recieved my lowest score.
I will continue to take the test until I pass.
BUT AS TREE CARE PROFESSIONALS WE HAVE TO LET THE ISA KNOW THAT THERE HAS GOT TO BE AN END TO ALL THESE MONEY GENERATING SPECIAL POSITIONS THAT KEEP BEING PRESENTED.
A CA used to be the peak in our industry.
The first time I took it the tree ID had to be spelled correctly in Latin or you failed.
You also had to be vetted by two CA's who would recommend you before you could even sit for a test. That was in the 1980s-John Britton, wack job.
DID YOU/MY PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ISA CERTIFIED TREEWORKER, AND A WESTERN CHAPTER CERTIFIED TREE WORKER?
Call the ISA.
WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU ARE! THAT IS THE RULE!:jawdrop: 
Any human being on the planet can take the CA test and be a CA.
Anybody.
I have been told by a friend at the ISA that they are working on a CERTIFIED GROUND WORKER CLASSIFACATION. CHA CHING...


----------



## treeseer (Sep 12, 2009)

"... my lowest scores were at the "emergency responce section".... this is where I "shine."
Nevertheless, it has been the section of the test where I have recieved my lowest score."

Why do you think that is?

"A CA used to be the peak in our industry."

that was 20 years ago.

"DID YOU/MY PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ISA CERTIFIED TREEWORKER, AND A WESTERN CHAPTER CERTIFIED TREE WORKER?"

yes--no need to shout. the wcisa leads the way--setting a ropesaver from the ground will be required next year

"they are working on a CERTIFIED GROUND WORKER CLASSIFACATION"

do you like the current level of quality and respect in this position?


----------



## Shaun Bowler (Sep 12, 2009)

No.
It is very difficult to take direction from a CA that has never used a chainsaw, tied a knot, or been able to understand the dynamics of a tree.
Any tree.
These CA certs that were really important/a prize, to me 10 -15 years ago, are now being handed out in classrooms (collage), and Boy Scout Troops.
To be an ISA Certified Arborist is only about sending in the money, getting a test date, passing the test, and then, "hanging out your shingle."
There is no way anyone can prove this wrong.
As professionals, paying lots of money to the ISA so we can call ourselves a Certified Arborist is a waste.
My next door neighbors step son is a CA.
19 years old. Never used a chainsaw in his life.
I know;when he helps me on side jobs no matter what he will not use a saw.
Certified Arborist


----------



## clearance (Sep 13, 2009)

Shaun Bowler said:


> No.
> It is very difficult to take direction from a CA that has never used a chainsaw, tied a knot, or been able to understand the dynamics of a tree.
> Any tree.
> These CA certs that were really important/a prize, to me 10 -15 years ago, are now being handed out in classrooms (collage), and Boy Scout Troops.
> ...


Ouch. Well said Shaun, "never used a chainsaw, tied a knot....." Here in this province you have to work (with a chainsaw, climbing, in a bucket with a trimsaw) for 1200 hours to be certified. Among other things. Kind of puts the ISA utility certification in its place.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 13, 2009)

Yes college credits are inflated as ceu's. Special interest at work.

Yes BC's utility cert means a lot more. Apples and oranges.

No the ISA certs are not a waste; just different. You can get CEU's free by reading and understanding articles. No, chainsaw usage has nothing to do with being an arborist. I might go a week without starting one up, but I'm still working as an arborist.

"... my lowest scores were at the "emergency responce section".... this is where I "shine."
Nevertheless, it has been the section of the test where I have recieved my lowest score."

Trying again; honest question: Why do you think that is? Is it the wording of the questions or the concepts or procedures or purposes involved, or what, do you think?


----------



## Shaun Bowler (Sep 13, 2009)

I guess I just have not prepared well enough.
The ISA UA test may not be the SOP for the industry, but it is thier test to give. I want the UA Cert. so I will do it their way 
I believe in the ISA Cert System. It is obviously not perfect.
Without it our profession would not have made the gains it has in the last 25-30 years.
So I will keep paying my dues, and going to seminars. 
I have written two letters to the ISA in the last year. I never got a responce.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 13, 2009)

:agree2:



Shaun Bowler said:


> I have written two letters to the ISA in the last year. I never got a responce.



This seriously sucks. I'm used to having communications sent to the Membership and Cert depts blown off, and that's not right for a "member-driven nonprofit org".  Pick up the phone, or resend with the dept head or your chapter rep or the exec copied; that might work.

The Education dept is just as if not more busy, but they are a lot more responsive.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Oct 3, 2009)

*Studying for the ISA Utility Arborist test? PM me!*

I just took it, and you will want to know what I have to say.


----------



## treeseer (Oct 4, 2009)

*why so shy?*



Sunrise Guy said:


> I just took it, and you will want to know what I have to say.



Any probem posting this> legal if not quoting questions.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Oct 4, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Any probem posting this> legal if not quoting questions.



PM's are the way I choose to go, on this.


----------



## clearance (Oct 4, 2009)

Sunrise Guy said:


> PM's are the way I choose to go, on this.



Come on buddy, share it, no one is going to get you!


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

*Are there any Certified Utility Arborists anywhere?*

In looking at TCIA's classifieds, I could not find anyone seeking CUA's. If you actually know any CUA's, I'd like to know what they're doing and what kind of $$$ they're making doing it. Thanks.


----------



## BRCCArborist (Oct 15, 2009)

I don't know of too many people that benefit from the utility specialist/municipal arborist credentials. They appear to be a revenue generating deal for ISA and little else in my opinion. 

Try the TCIA stuff. I really like what the TCIA is doing in terms of certifications and training. It's not perfect, but it's the best thing out there in terms of tree care organizations.


----------



## Shaun Bowler (Oct 15, 2009)

I will be taking the test in the SF Bay Area again this November.
My understanding is that most of the companies who require/ would like this certification, lobby for this.
The companies involved in line clearance/maintenance have a stake in it as well. 
It is very unfortunate that the ISA has found another venue to draw "blood" from its members.
A UA certification should benefit the worker.
Not be a "band-aid" to mitigate law suits.
The ISA has attorneys.
Davey, Asplunde,Lewis, etc have theirs as well.
Both feed off each other to create a culture that is sucking money out of tree workers.
I would like to see an action from people on this site to question the ISA regarding the need, benefit, and purpose for "another" certification.
A certification that ONLY benefits the power companies, and maintenance CORPORATIONS! 
Is the ISA a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION?


----------



## treeseer (Oct 15, 2009)

Shaun Bowler said:


> A UA certification should benefit the worker.
> ... sucking money out of tree workers.


Well mine benefits me; I learned more about utilities while I studied for it, and learn more by getting relevant ceu's. This helps as a commercial arborist and also as a consulting arborist.

costs pennies a day to keep current. I lose a lot more blood a lot of other ways with no return.

I'd rather see niche certs than to have the public think that All CA's know All about All of tree care.


----------



## clearance (Oct 15, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> I think you guys are right.
> 
> The ISA has become a money grubbing org and is function more like a trade union these days catering the big businesses in the trade!
> 
> ...



How things have changed since I joined this site over four years ago. I was a voice in the wilderness, now many share my opinion. No hard feelings, whatever, it is what it is.


----------



## clearance (Oct 15, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> You were on to them early on but in the past four years here in the states they have metastasised and are on the verge of sucking the lifeblood out of their host.
> 
> 
> 
> /



Thanks Dan. I really had hoped they would get it together, but, when they tell guys how to do work they have never done, its no suprise.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Oct 16, 2009)

*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!


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 16, 2009)

With respect to tests: Most tests of this nature take a great deal of time to make up, and all the questions & answers are subject to careful scrutiny. Some questions are specifically and carefully worded to determine if you read the specific book they want you to read.

Most of the questions in the CA exam are of this nature, since the questions do not seem oriented so much towards real world problems as they do to providing the correct understanding of ISA approved terminology, dogma, and methodology.

If they tell you the answers you missed, it would be meaningless without knowing the questions themselves, so they just keep it all to themselves. If they let out the questions, then they would soak up all their time in committees writing new questions.

Then there is the general philosophy among test writers to include about 70% core knowledge questions so that if you know all of the important stuff material, you do fine while performing the work. So they make 70% of the test practical knowledge that you must know to perform the work. Then fill up the last 30% of the test with tricky, difficult questions, so that anyone who knows the basic material thoroughly will barely pass, and anyone who only knows the basics marginally will not luck out on the last 30% of the test material. If they let out the tricky questions, then the tricky (but less than knowledgeable) students will pass easier.

Some questions were written to define the bell curve, not to find out what you know.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Oct 16, 2009)

pdqdl said:


> With respect to tests: Most tests of this nature take a great deal of time to make up, and all the questions & answers are subject to careful scrutiny. Some questions are specifically and carefully worded to determine if you read the specific book they want you to read.
> 
> Most of the questions in the CA exam are of this nature, since the questions do not seem oriented so much towards real world problems as they do to providing the correct understanding of ISA approved terminology, dogma, and methodology.
> 
> ...



Hmm--I taught for a while, and I have given and taken numerous tests, and I have to say that I disagree with you, here. First off, I'm talking about the CUA exam, not the CA exam, since I took the CA exam a good while back.

The questions on the CUA exam were very poorly worded, in many cases, and if memory serves me well, the same situation existed on the CA exam. At times, it was impossible to understand what they were asking and/or what they were looking for. As noted in my previous post, most of the questions were not from their own study guide, so that rules out their checking to see if I read a specific book. Since I've read all of the additional reference books listed in the guide, this fails your guideline, as well. As far as telling you what you missed, there are many ways this can be done without giving you the exact question that you missed along with all of its distractors. No, this is not meaningless. As a teacher who let many students retake failed exams after prep, I assure of this. I'm not aware of the 70/30 "general rule" for test writing. Since the CUA exam required a 75% to pass, I suppose you might mean that your "rule" would be 75/25, here. I view that as complete bs. In all of the classes I taught, my tests checked to see if students had learned the material I presented in lectures, plain and simple. While I suppose we can debate the existential realities of test triumphs and failures versus the sublime mechanics of writing tests based on this or that arcane philosophy, in the end I believe in the KISS principle as in "Keep it simple, stupid!" You should learn what you don't know when taking a test and also affirm what you do know by finding out exactly how you did on any given test. Letting a person know the correct answers, in context, to missed test questions, is a valid learning experience if the person then studies up on what he/she missed and goes on to give the correct answer, next time around. As I posted, above, those who are given the correct answers and who subsequently never internalize the same go back into the testing room and fail again.

You also write: "Some questions were written to define the bell curve, not to find out what you know." Those questions should NOT be on the test, to begin with. The bell curve is self-defined by the scores of those taking the test. Those scores will fall in along the continuum as long as the test questions are well-written and test for what should have been learned prior to sitting for a given exam. If everyone passes, that is not a bad thing, necessarily, although some would certainly say otherwise.


----------



## Shaun Bowler (Oct 16, 2009)

So, Sunrise,
Are you going to give up the torch?
How many more ISA Certs. are we going to have to suffer through to prove we know what we are doing?:greenchainsaw:


----------



## treeseer (Oct 16, 2009)

as a test-taker i agree; it is a shame you cannot review. /And re the poor wording, too bad you can't access those questions and ask them, wtf are you after? wish they could make them available but keeping the cert's test integrity inviolate is job 1. the ideal test would grade skills in the field but there is no way to make that uniform internationally.

i never worked on a test committee but have written a couple hundred for other isa formats and yes it is hard writing a good question. it's even hard to write a bad question!

re the carping about cash grabs, compute the pennies/day the cert costs you first, then beyotch. I keep 4 up and do not notice the expense; pales in the big picture.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Oct 16, 2009)

Shaun Bowler said:


> So, Sunrise,
> Are you going to give up the torch?
> How many more ISA Certs. are we going to have to suffer through to prove we know what we are doing?:greenchainsaw:



Not exactly sure I understand about the torch. As far as taking more tests, I'll probably start studying for the muni test once I get the answers to the 23 CUA questions I put in my "wtf?" section on my scrap paper. I'm ordering the utility arborist manual from ACRT. It sounds pretty good, online. The site isn't secure, though, so I'll order it on the phone, come Monday. You might want to check it out, or wait until I have it and then I'll let you know if it's worth the $139.

Tests are good, as they do motivate you to learn more. The trouble is, ISA's testing program is poor, for all of the reasons I've gone over, in previous posts. The studying, though, and the learning is well worth the trouble, at least for me.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Oct 17, 2009)

treeseer said:


> (snip)i never worked on a test committee but have written a couple hundred for other isa formats and yes it is hard writing a good question. it's even hard to write a bad question!
> 
> (snip)



I'm curious about when, where and why you have written test questions for ISA. Enlighten me. What are your qualifications? I'm honestly wanting to know.

My tests, as a high school Biology and Chemistry teacher, were always very fair and well-written. Other teachers used my tests in their classes, at times. I could write a 100 question CUA test for ISA, right this minute, no lie, that would kick the :censored: out of the test I took two weeks ago. Test writing comes easily to some, and I lucked out, there. The folks who write the questions for ISA exams seem to be all over the place when it comes to uniformity of purpose.

The test writers may be experts in their fields, but that does not make them expert test writers. That is painfully evident to those going through the process of getting certified.


----------



## pdqdl (Oct 17, 2009)

I said:



pdqdl said:


> With respect to tests: Most tests of this nature take a great deal of time to make up, and all the questions & answers are subject to careful scrutiny. Some questions are specifically and carefully worded to determine if you read the specific book they want you to read.
> 
> ....
> 
> Some questions were written to define the bell curve, not to find out what you know.



Sunrise: when you were teaching, you probably had good education as your primary goal. With government and "certification grade" tests, that is not the purpose of the test. These tests are written to pass everyone up to a certain standard, and then reject the rest. 

Since there is no reward for getting beyond a passing score, the fail limit is generally set at a 70% passing score, and the test is engineered to eliminate anyone who doesn't know 100% of the bare minimum to do the job.


----------



## treeseer (Oct 17, 2009)

Sunrise Guy said:


> I I could write a 100 question CUA test for ISA, right this minute, no lie, that would kick the :censored: out of the test I took two weeks ago. Test writing comes easily to some, and I lucked out, there.


Well then maybe you could improve things by getting on the cert committee, and showing them how it is done. I'm serious; send them clips to the dept and see what happens.

Most of mine were for ceu articles. the attached are from 3-4 years ago and my very first for isa so they are not an example of the best by any means. but if you want to comment/critique/correct go ahead. the ceu questions are typically written by the authors with ed dept staff. i think these are consistently effective, but i have sent in comments and suggestions, fwiw.

again i have no experience with cert tests themselves aside from making copious scratch pad notes when taking them. unfortunately those committees have to work in a sort of vacuum due to security concerns.

o darn i am at another computer and no access to ceu articles, which i have attached at this site about 8000 times already. seek and ye shall find.


----------



## Sunrise Guy (Oct 17, 2009)

treeseer said:


> Well then maybe you could improve things by getting on the cert committee, and showing them how it is done. I'm serious; send them clips to the dept and see what happens.
> 
> Most of mine were for ceu articles. the attached are from 3-4 years ago and my very first for isa so they are not an example of the best by any means. but if you want to comment/critique/correct go ahead. the ceu questions are typically written by the authors with ed dept staff. i think these are consistently effective, but i have sent in comments and suggestions, fwiw.
> 
> ...



OK, thanks. I have written to Derek Vannice many times and offered to write questions for the exams. He responds with these "slippery" politician-type lines that get me po'd, and I give up, after a while. Each time I deal with ISA National, in matters pertaining to their testing program, I come away from the experience with a resolve to never do so again. Then I get a wild hair, and it starts over. I was thinking about making up an exam from the 2002 CUA guide and sending it to him, but I think it may be a waste of time. While I have grad hours under my belt and a very high GPA at UT, Austin (Hook 'em Horns!-they just beat OU), I am not a PhD, and so I lack "expert credentials." As I posted, before, experts in a given field do not necessarily write expert-quality exams. That is one of ISA's big problems, along with having no system for giving great feedback on missed questions.

While I'm on the subject: Here's my idea about giving feedback on a missed question. I'll be really general here:

Let's take a sample question: 

1. When a tree is subjected to XYZ, it will experience:

A. condition 22.
B. condition 23.
C. condition 24.
D. both conditions 22 & 24.

Now, let's say you missed this question on a given ISA exam. For each question missed, it is a very easy matter to program a "learning experience" into each and every question on a given exam. When the scantron marks the item wrong, with the very advanced scantrons out there these days, a "learning experience" coded for the item would print out on a sheet that would be mailed to you with your score. So, let's say the answer is "D." and you missed it. You would receive a sheet that would have on it: "When a tree is subjected to XYZ, it will experience both conditions 22 & 24. (Understand that I'm using letters and numbers for the sake of simplicity. The conditions would actually be written out, such as canopy die-back, chlorosis, veinal necrosis, etc.) You would then actually learn something, provided you studied your "learning experience" list for a while. No cheating or cheapening of the test would take place. You would simply learn what you didn't know, before the test, and then expect to do better on the re-take. Now, I can see someone going into an exam, cold, and figuring, "Hey, I'll just guess at everything and they'll send me what I missed." That person might just pass the exam the second time around, but only if he/she actually goes over the list received and internalizes it. As long as he/she does know the material, now, who is to say that he/she is not deserving of the certification sought?


----------



## Drake (Dec 23, 2015)

I took the test once, am scheduled to take it again today. Unfortunately I feel this test is so poorly written the questions don't make sense. Since it is such a specialty test who is in charge of making it and who reviews it? They did a poor job. The questions literally misuse double negatives and are impossible to interpret. If I find the same situation this time around I will attempt to make some sort of complaint to the ISA. As a urban Arborist in a subtropical climate I am surrounded by power lines regularly and come across horrendous situations of tree vine and power. I do not know much about hydro axes and many other things in this field and on this test. I still however could be involved in storm cleanup and line clearance in my urban setting provided I could get the certification. Is there any better prep then the book because it does not cover much of the test.


----------

