My Experience with the CKA Exam and PSI Browser Issues

Hi,

Today I experienced the same issue again during the exam. This is not the first time it has happened. The main exam page was lagging, especially when accessing the questions and clusters.

Because of this, it becomes very difficult to continue the exam properly, and then I need to wait 3–5 days for the Linux Foundation to reset the exam attempt.

I also had similar lagging issues during the CKS exam earlier and created a ticket about it, but responses usually take time and the issue doesn’t seem to get resolved quickly. From what I’ve seen on the forums, I’m not the only one experiencing problems with PSI — many other candidates are reporting similar issues.

Unfortunately, this ends up wasting a lot of my tiem ,you have to re register and wait for support response .

I had the same type of issues previously with the CKA and LFCS exams as well.

Reference: /TCCS-168963

I am posting this because my exam attempt was derailed over a device setup that is not prohibited by the Linux Foundation or PSI rules.

My microphone is a Shure SM7B, which requires an external audio interface/mixer to connect to my computer. A microphone is required for the exam, and PSI’s published requirements say the microphone must be functional and turned on for the entire session. PSI also says not to use a headset or earbuds, which means a headset mic was not an acceptable fallback for this exam setup. At the same time, I have found no published rule explicitly banning a studio microphone, external microphone, or audio interface/mixer.

During check-in, I successfully completed the room scan and desk scan. The problem began when the proctor did not understand the purpose of the mixer/interface on my desk. That device was not optional clutter. It was the required interface for the microphone I was using.

Instead of continuing check-in, the proctor delayed the process by contacting Technical Service, even though there was no technical malfunction to troubleshoot. I asked what Technical Service was expected to do, because the issue was not that my microphone had failed. The issue was that the proctor did not understand the hardware.

That delay mattered. You cannot simply swap microphone inputs inside the PSI exam environment at will. My only practical option was to disconnect the external device and attempt to reconnect with a different setup. But because of the delay caused by the proctor escalating a non-technical issue as though it were a technical one, I lost the time window needed to reconnect successfully, even after I had been assured I would be able to reconnect.

I was attempting to connect from approximately 1:30 PM EDT until 2:41 PM EDT.

What is especially frustrating is that this setup was not novel or suspicious. I have used this same microphone/interface arrangement for two previous CNCF exams without issue. So this was not a rules violation. It was not an unsupported microphone. It was not a prohibited device. It was a proctoring failure caused by a lack of understanding of basic audio hardware.

The published rules require a microphone. They prohibit headsets/earbuds. They broadly require a clear workspace and only necessary equipment. A microphone and the required interface that makes that microphone usable should obviously qualify as necessary equipment in a legitimate exam setup. Nothing in the published rules I found says otherwise.

This is exactly the kind of problem that should never happen in a high-stakes exam environment. If Linux Foundation and PSI require a working microphone while restricting headset-based alternatives, then proctors need to be trained well enough to understand that some microphones require an external interface. That is not exotic. That is normal audio hardware.

I am asking for this to be addressed seriously, because candidates should not lose an exam attempt or a testing window simply because a proctor does not understand a device that is not banned by the rules.

Note:
Every time someone reports a PSI problem on these forums, a Linux Foundation representative eventually appears with the same stock response:

“We do apologize for the frustration these issues have caused. The Linux Foundation strives to provide a smooth exam experience for everyone, but sometimes issues do arise. Since you have opened a ticket with the Customer Support Team, someone from that team will be in touch soon to assist you.”

That response has been showing up in thread after thread for years, while candidates continue reporting the same categories of failures. Publicly, PSI currently sits at 2.8/5 on Trustpilot with 1,851 reviews, and BBB shows 550 complaints closed in the last 3 years and 114 in the last 12 months. Those are not the numbers of an isolated or occasional issue.

Stop being sorry, and drop PSI as your exam vendor.