It was a cloudy day in London. I just finished the exam. I laid down my mechanical pencil and asked myself: “Why on earth am I doing this again?” My hand hurt, I was tired, and my heart rate was still too high.

That was my 4th BJCP Tasting Exam. It had been a challenging endeavour. I felt exactly as I did after completing my first-ever BJCP Tasting Exam, 8 years before. Weary and somewhat upset. But a little relieved. It was done.

After a quick chat with the other examinees, I went to the bar and ordered a pint to calm down. The exam administrator then arrived, and the proctors began discussing the six beers we had sampled and their opinions about them.

The exam admin went along unveiling what beers he had selected.

For me, everything began out pretty well. Even the brand of Czech beer we tried was something I had guessed. I was elated.

My heart skipped a beat as we reached the fifth beer, a three-year-old homebrewed Barleywine. My score was a long way off. I performed even worse on the score for the final beer, a combination of a hoppy Duvel and a homebrewed Tripel.

Duvel is one of my favourite beers of all time.

I’d have needed at least an 86 to get to the Master level. After that chat with the proctors, I doubted I succeeded. I quickly calculated my Scoring Accuracy and found that it was just about at the Low National Level (a tad lower). The same scoring accuracy as my last test, in which I received an 80 out of 100 final score.

I was overwhelmed with emotions. Yes, I am the sensitive one. I had put a lot of effort in preparing for this test. And—seemingly—it didn’t pay back.

I felt the urge to storm away and get smashed. Fortunately, I was in London with a number of judges who were very supporting and easy-going. After that chat with the proctors, we all walked to the Beer Mile. We enjoyed a few pints of Anspach & Hobday’s Nitro Porter and laughed about the test. The day eased off.

The London Exam crew at Anspach & Hobday

That was it. The next day I went for a couple of wonderful pints to the Harvey’s Tavern in Lewes, than took my flight back to Rome. All I had to do was wait for the results to come back.

They arrived yeasterday, a few months later. A stunning 91/100! I still can’t believe it. I achieved a 92/100 average on the Written and Tasting exam.  I have become a Master-level BJCP judge! (update: now I have reached Grand Master)

All of the practice and study eventually paid off.

How did I accomplish that? Let’s delve into it.

My Tasting Exam in London

I surely didn’t do that great on Scoring Accuracy. Beers 5 and 6 were the problem. I was probably growing weary and losing concentration as long as the exam went on.

I was aware that test anxiety might cause scoring to get a little confusing. Furthermore, the proctor’s score affects scoring accuracy. Scores can occasionally differ, particularly when stylistic considerations are taken into account. For this reason, I devoted the majority of my study time on honing the three abilities that I had total control over when taking the test: Descriptive Ability, Completeness, and Feedback.

For all three of these abilities, I advanced to Master level compared to my last Tasting Exam where I was stuck at National level. That made the difference.

I also did far better on Perceptive Ability on the first 4 beers, with 3 of them at the Master Level. That is because I had a lot more tasting experience compared to my previous exams.

The key to improving Descriptive Ability, Completeness, and Feedback is a lot of practice. Writing scoresheets requires drinking, and I couldn’t drink that much over a long period of time. No one should. So I started writing scoresheets of imaginary beers, just for practice. It worked out.

Two pages from my Exam practice pad

It also takes a lot of reading to write a great scoresheet. Internet or magazines evaluations of beers may be a reliable source; however they are sometimes overly verbose and ostentatious. A BJCP scoresheet isn’t the place for that kind of writing.

I read a lot of scoresheets instead. Both good and bad.

How did I do it? I became a Grader. Before taking this exam I had already graded 4 Exam Sets, which translates into thoroughly reading almost 70 scoresheets. As a grader, you get comfortable with the scoresheets, knowing exactly what a grader would expect you to write.

I talked about becoming a grader in a previous post. If you are a National-rank judge, please join in. It is a lively community of knowleadgeable people and you will help the program.

There are also several scoresheet examples online (link), but they are quite outdated.

Of course, you don’t have to be a grader to pass the tasting exam with a score of 90+. A little bit of luck with the scoring and more tasting experience would likely be required. And, I suppose, more practice.

As for the Feedback Ability, excellent knowledge is essential. It takes time to hone this. I had previously done a lot of studying for the Written Exam, so I was prepared. I just needed to be efficient and well-organized to quickly get all the information I required from my memory.

I could have easily had a higher score if I hadn’t lost concentration on the final two beers. But I won’t be too hard on myself. I am where I wanted to be. However, I know that I still have a lot to learn. The journey continues!

Here is my Tasting Exam:

 

A list of some of the blog’s BJCP resources that are relevant to the exam:

All the BJCP-related reosurces on this blog are easily accesible here: BJCP Exams: Guides, Resources & Study Tips.


Era una giornata nuvolosa a Londra. Avevo appena finito l’esame. Ho posato la matita meccanica sul tavolo e mi sono chiesto: perché diavolo lo sto facendo ancora? Mi faceva male la mano: ero stanco, il battito cardiaco ancora troppo alto.

Era il mio quarto Tasting Exam. Un’impresa impegnativa. Mi sono sentito esattamente come al mio primissimo esame BJCP, otto anni prima. Stanco e un po’ amareggiato. Ma anche un po’ sollevato. Era fatta.

Dopo due chiacchiere veloci con gli altri esaminandi, sono andato al bancone (l’esame si era svolto presso la Mash Paddle Brewery, lungo il London Beer Mile) e ho ordinato una pinta per calmarmi. È arrivato l’admin (Ken Bazley): i proctor hanno iniziato a discutere delle sei birre assaggiate e delle loro impressioni.

Ken ci ha svelato quali birre ci aveva fatto assaggiare.

Per me è iniziata bene. Avevo persino indovinato che la prima birra era una Guinness, servita come American Stout. Ero raggiante.

Il cuore ha perso un battito quando siamo arrivati alla quinta birra: un Barleywine fatto in casa, invecchiato tre anni. Il mio voto era piuttosto lontano da quello dei proctor: per loro era la migliore birra del set, per me era una birra mediocre, con alcol troppo sparato. La sesta birra è andata anche peggio: un mix tra una Duvel luppolata e una Tripel fatta in casa. Non avevo notato l’eccessiva luppolatura, sebbene avessi avvertito sentori fruttati esotici (che ho attribuito al lievito).

E pensare che la Duvel è una delle mie birre preferite in assoluto.

Mi sarebbe servito almeno un 86/100 per arrivare al livello Master. Dopo quella chiacchierata con i proctor, dubitavo di esserci riuscito. Ho calcolato al volo la mia Scoring Accuracy: era appena sotto al livello Low National. La stessa accuratezza del mio esame precedente, quello in cui avevo preso 80/100.

Ero sopraffatto dalle emozioni. Mi ero impegnato tantissimo nella preparazione di questo esame: a quanto pareva, non era servito a granché.

Ho provato la voglia di scappare via e bere fino a sera. Per fortuna ero in compagnia di un gruppo di giudici molto simpatici e alla mano. Dopo la chiacchierata con i proctor, siamo andati tuutti insieme a farci un paio di pinte. Ci siamo goduti qualche pinta di Nitro Porter da Anspach & Hobday e abbiamo riso su quell’esame. La giornata e l’umore sono tornati posto.

The London Exam crew at Anspach & Hobday

Comunque fosse andata, era fatta. Il giorno dopo mi sono concesso un paio di fantastiche pinte alla Harvey’s Tavern di Lewes, poi ho preso il volo per tornare a Roma. Non restava che aspettare i risultati.

Sono arrivati ieri, dopo qualche mese di attesa. Un sorprendente 91/100! Ancora fatico a crederci. Con il voto di questo Tasting Exam sono arrivato a una media complessiva di 92/100, considerando anche il Written Exam. Dopo tanti anni di studio e tentativi vari, sono finalmente diventato un giudice BJCP di livello Master! (update: ora sono arrivato al livello Grand Master).

Tutta la pratica e lo studio, alla fine, hanno ripagato.

Come ci sono arrivato? Vediamolo insieme.

Il mio Tasting Exam a Londra

Con la Scoring Accuracy è evidente che non me la sono cavata benissimo. Il problema sono state evidentemente le birre 5 e 6. Probabilmente ho perso lucidità man mano che l’esame andava avanti.

Sapevo, per esperienza, che la scoring accuracy è sempre un terno al lotto. Con l’esperienza si migliora, ma capita che i voti non siano perfettamente allineati con quelli dei proctor (che a volte non sono nemmeno allineati tra loro). Per questa ragione ho dedicato la maggior parte del tempo di studio ad affinare le tre abilità su cui si può avere il pieno controllo durante l’esame: Descriptive Ability, Completeness e Feedback.

Su tutte e tre questi parametri sono salito al livello Master, rispetto al mio esame precedente, in cui ero rimasto bloccato al livello National. Questo ha fatto la differenza.

Sono anche andato molto meglio sulla Perceptive Ability nelle prime quattro birre, con tre a livello Master. Questo perché avevo molta più esperienza di assaggio rispetto ai miei esami precedenti.

La chiave per migliorare sensibilmente Descriptive Ability, Completeness e Feedback è stata la pratica. Scrivere schede richiede di fare assaggi, ma non potevo bere così tanto per un periodo prolungato solo per esercitarmi. Così ho iniziato a scrivere schede di birre immaginarie, solo per fare pratica. Ha funzionato. Questo è il mio quadernino degli esercizi.

Two pages from my Exam practice pad

È anche importante leggere molte schede fatte bene per acquisire il vocabolario. Le recensioni di birre su internet o sui magazine possono essere una fonte affidabile; a volte, però, risultano fin troppo prolisse e ricercate. Una scheda BJCP non è pensata per quel tipo di scrittura.

Ha più senso leggere e rileggere scoresheet d’esame, sia scritti bene che male. E questo ho fatto. Ma come me li sono procurati?

Semplice, mi sono offerto come Grader. Prima di sostenere questo esame avevo già corretto quattro esami, il che si traduce in quasi 70 schede lette con attenzione. Facendo il grader si acquisisce familiarità con le schede, capendo esattamente cosa un grader si aspetta di trovare nelle schede quando corregge un esame.

Ho parlato di come diventare grader in un questo post. Consiglio a chiunque abbia raggiunto il rank National di proporsi come grader: è una comunità vivace di persone competenti, si impara molto e, soprattutto, si supporta attivamente il programma nella correzione degli esami.

Esistono anche diversi esempi di schede online (link), ma sono piuttosto datati.

Per quanto riguarda il Feedback, una conoscenza eccellente della materia è essenziale per arrivare al livello Master. Ci vuole tempo per affinarla. Avevo già studiato molto per il Written Exam, quindi ero preparato. Mi serviva solo essere efficiente e ben organizzato per recuperare rapidamente dalla memoria tutte le informazioni necessarie durante l’esame.

Avrei potuto facilmente ottenere un voto più alto se non avessi perso concentrazione sulle ultime due birre. Ma non voglio essere troppo severo con me stesso. Sono arrivato dove volevo essere. So comunque di avere ancora molto da imparare. Il viaggio continua!

Ecco il mio Tasting Exam:

 

Nel seguito, una lista dei post del blog che ho scritto ultimamente per affrontare al meglio gli esami:

Tutte le principali risorse sul BJCP pubblicate sul blog sono accessibili da questa pagina: BJCP Exams: Guides, Resources & Study Tips (la navigazione della pagina è in inglese, ma gli articoli sono tutti accessibilis ia in inglese che in italiano).

 

 

9 COMMENTS

  1. Congrats, Frank! 🎉 Your blog and the resources you shared were a huge help while I was preparing for my written exam. Just got my results back. I scored an 88!

    Not fully satisfied though, since I’ll need a 91 in tasting to reach Master (my highest so far is 87). I’d really prefer not to retake the written…it takes about two months of part-time study. Hopefully I can hit 91+ in my next tasting exam, likely by the end of this year or early next year.

      • I did! I already contacted our regional director and expressed my willingness to volunteer as a grader. Plan to grade my own previous exam again, following the BJCP grading guideline. For me, Descriptive Ability, Feedback, and Completeness are all now in mid-national level. If I can push them to master, a 91 shouldn’t be a problem for me.

  2. Vence here who is preparing another tasting exam next month to hit 91 of master. I’ve been using Gemini to practice OI and it’s somewhat fairly knowledgeable and effective. However, I feel like one input from Gemini about “not making assumption” is weird and would like to have your input.

    Due to the limited time in the exam, I’ve been trying to provide very brief and straight solutions for flaws or style issues. Take T2N (oxidation) for example, I will say “ensure cold storage, prevent splashing the wort post-fermentation, or use antioxygen caps could help”. AI said this is “makiing assumption” and suggest a less commanding and indirect tone. AI prefers “consider evaluating post-fermentation handling to minimize any oxygen pickup during transfer or packaging, focusing on cold-chain storage and using oxygen-absorbing crown caps, assessing brewhouse techniques to reduce cold side aeration such as avoiding vigorous splashing of wort could help”.

    I understand in case of judging it’s more polite and less commanding but I feel like it’s not realistic for an exam due to the time constraint. Do you think my current approach would loss some points in “no assumption” or other rubrics in feedback?

    TIA

  3. In my opinion, your answer is more than fine; I don’t see any major assumptions. I would write “beer” instead of “wort,” since we are talking about the stage after fermentation. I would also recommend capping over the foam, as the effectiveness of oxygen-blocking caps is limited. But these are minor details, nothing that would deduct points. You could also mention avoiding oxidation of the wort during the hot production phase.

    • Thanks! I think that’s the flaw of AI now…for some reasons it’s very knowledeable in chemsitry and techinical solutions, but sometime it makes obvious stupid mistake or gone too far.

  4. Hey Frank,

    Vence here again. My tasting results just came out and I got a 92! This means I am on track to become a master once I accumulate the remaining points I need by the end of this year.

    I really appreciate your articles and our Q&A correspondence for both the tasting and written exams. It is amazing to see how much effective mentoring can be done entirely over a blog. It is also quite funny that while the BJCP is a largely American thing (I believe so?), the most useful publicly available resource out there comes from the EU!

    Thank you again for all your work, and hopefully we will both achieve Grand Master status over the next few years. Now you can write another article titled “How I mentored someone to become a Master-level BJCP Judge” lol.

    • That is great news, Vence, I am very happy for you! I am also very glad that the posts on this blog pointed you in the right direction.

      By the way, I already stepped up to Grand Master, I am actually running for the EMEA Representative position!

      Cheers!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here