My other reaction is that if the tasting portion of the test reliably identifies individuals with exceptional tasting ability, it would not be such a crisis to have to take the test again for no additional charge. If you did well in the SATs in October, you’ll most likely do well in November. I think the angst about those whose certifications were voided tends to reveal a suspicion that the test is not that reliable.
-Al
Forgive me please, but being a master somm is worthy of a Monty Python skit. It’s like becoming an Eagle Scout. It looks good on your resume but it won’t get you far. So I say this in all seriousness, who gives a crap? It’s amusing. Very amusing. My dad is one of the foremost experts alive on railroad pocket watches made between 1810 and 1830. Every year he and the two other foremost experts on the subject shake hands at some predetermined place and retire for the evening. Like I said, a Monty Python skit.
Except the salary average difference between a master somm and a level 3 is substantial…
+3.14159
Tom
And the questions raised about conflicts inherent in the process call into question the integrity of the process not only with the group currently in question but in past groups members of which the perp may have “counseled”
That’s an interesting question. It could be like the SATs. Or it could be like running a 2 hour marathon. Or it could be like getting onto the Supreme Court.
Who said anything about judging?
But regardless, barring question makers from mentoring candidates does not in any way stop this from happening again. Cheating can always still happen
Of course it’s not reliable. Anyone who’s done a blind tasting knows this. I suspect the “Tasting” portion of the M.S. exam has more to do with evaluating a candidate’s skill for generating a long and convincing stream of B.S. on-the-spot, much like how rappers tend to judge each other on their ability to freestyle.
And generating a response to the question of whether the judges actually want them in the club or not.
I had this discussion today and thoroughly believe that the primary reason they haven’t taken a more data-driven approach to this is that they don’t actually have data. The tasting portion simply has a high degree of arbitrariness. The master and advanced somms that I know are all really impressive people, but my impression of the organization isn’t much.
The same argument holds for mentors being involved in the testing process in any way. Yes, even if mentors are not involved there can still be other ways of cheating. So, if there are other ways of cheating, we should allow this one, too?
A certification process that cares whether the public (or the group seeking certification) respects its decisions needs to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
-Al
“So, if there are other ways of cheating, we should allow this one, too?”
At no point have I condoned any cheating. Please point out where I think we should allow for cheating, I’d like to see it.
I personally don’t really see the impropriety in testmakers mentoring trainees on how to play the game of blind tasting. There are already so few people who have even passed this exam, it’s not like these people who want to give up their time to teach AND passed the exam just grow in trees. It takes an incredible amount of pessimism to think that such mentoring would greatly increase the odds of cheating. A world where you ban testmakers from mentoring doesn’t at all change the likelihood of cheating in my opinion
Wine geeks that trash blind tasting in general and the Master Sommelier program in particular remind me of non-wine-geeks who trash the idea that there is a difference between expensive wine and plonk.
I don’t think you condoned cheating. But the problem with conflicts of interest is that they allow cheating or unintentionally giving something away, and all the shades of gray in between. They also give the appearance there might have been unfair assistance given to the student by the mentor. Those who weren’t students of a mentor involved with the test will wonder when one of the mentor’s students passed, which provides an incentive for them to find a mentor involved with the test, which means a mentor involved with the test can profit from playing both roles.
The integrity of the process requires them to remove conflicts of interest. It’s no different than numerous other situations
I very much respect their ability to identify wine. But like my dad the expert on railroad pocket watches, what practical usefulness does it have? Monty Python skit; “Ooooo, it’s an identified glass of wine! It might be dangerous. Certain white wines have been known to spontaneously combust! Let’s get a Master Somm here immediately to identify it!”
Lots of reasons. A customer likes a certain style of wine, a sommelier can offer suggestions that might be similar in style or might appeal to that customer. Or knowing what wines will pair well with different foods. Etc.
Master Sommeliers are usually tasked with building wine cellars for restaurants, finding new and interesting wines at different price points, selecting wines based on a number of different criteria, etc. It is their profession. Demonstrating the ability to distinguish different types of wines, regions, grapes, etc. is part of building the expertise necessary to accomplish their professional duties. In particular, they should have greater expertise than even wine geeks like us. It goes to credibility. In the end, the CMS merely certifies that the expertise claimed by these professionals is verified by an independent body of experts, much in the same way that tech companies verify that tech professionals are experts in their field.
Stepping out of character and getting serious for just a minute, the value of a Sommelier to me is helping me chose a good bottle of wine from a restaurant wine list. Something that will compliment the meal and not break the bank. Most of the time I’m in a familiar place and I can get along on my own. I want the bottle presented to me unopened. I want it opened and poured professionally and then we’ll drink it. The rest of it is parlor tricks. Not that I’m opposed to parlor tricks and people taking the time to learn and polish the natural gift of a good palate. It’s just not that important to me.
Nothing wrong with that. And that is the role of most Sommeliers, whether credentialed or not (and I emphasize that one does not need credentials to be a good Sommelier).
The role of the Master Sommelier is often different, though. Yes, they sometimes work the floor, but more often they are concerned with things like making sure the wine list fits the menu, training and mentoring those on the floor, ensuring that wines are stored properly, served properly, and overseeing the wine program at very expensive restaurants (or groups of restaurants). This expertise has value to restaurants and companies.
And some of the best Sommeliers I have encountered go beyond and introduce me to wines that I normally wouldn’t have tried. Interestingly enough, a couple of these went on to become Master Sommeliers.
My brother is a doctor, and he runs (or has run) a fellowship program in his subspecialty field. So he teaches/mentors students in his subspecialty field. He also agrees to administer some of the exams in his field. As far as I can tell, this isn’t an uncommon scenario.
Bruce
While the expertise certainly can have value, I’m not sure that the “Master Sommelier” designation is inherently more valuable (from a skills set perspective) than someone who is simply a highly-trained somm.
This brouhaha involved the blind tasting portion. While I’m always impressed when people in the wine world can identify wines blind, it has almost nothing to do with being a practicing somm. Whether you can
identify blind some high falutin’ big name wine isn’t that important. Whether you can quickly identify flaws in the wines on your list, create a list that matches the cuisine AND that will sell, etc., is much more
valuable. And from my perspective as a customer, I need you to make good recs based on my price range. That you can identify blind some other wine doesn’t really help me as a customer.
Bruce
^+1