I wouldn’t even need the correct answers, just knowing which questions were incorrect would be beneficial to learning.
When I took the Senior exam, one of my “incorrect” answers was a pairing question. Which is probably more of an example of how poor the 4th ed description of pairing rules was.
When I took the senior exam (closed book at the 1987 US Open), I was 1 point short of passing based on the answer sheet, but one of my answers was ‘none of the above’ because I came up with a different ruling (and explanation) and Ira Lee Riddle gave it 4 points, 1 point less than the designated ‘best answer’, so I passed. I don’t recall the specifics any more, but I do know that they changed the rule for the next edition of the rulebook.
But sometimes this isn’t the case, because some NTDs and some members of the TDCC have interpreted a rule differently than other NTDs and members of the TDCC - and in some cases different from the plain language of the rule.
Additionally, the way some tests are written essentially assumes a form of stupidity on behalf of the TD. The question places the TD in a nonsensical situation of their own creation - a situation that an experienced TD would have avoided to begin with - and then asks the TD how to solve it. The BEST solution is to be prepared and not to get into that situation to begin with and to specifically spell out how - but even though the test instruction wording specifically allows better answers, an answer of this nature is not allowed.
Generally, if or when tests and instructions are possibly this poorly designed and worded, its difficult to make them a good learning experience.
Yes, I learned that the exams and instructions are poorly worded, and that members of the TDCC are more interested in right-fighting than a better experience and sensible answers.
I also learned that some TDs will go to great lengths, even misinterpreting the plain language of a rule, to attempt to justify an illogical position.
I would have preferred not to procrastinate. Unfortunately the past year of my life included dealing with the death of both parents, dealing with their estate, putting down two dogs, having three surgeries along with physical therapy recovery, addressing “normal” chess organizing that I generally commit to annually (not to mention special projects, including assisting in combing the U.S. Junior and U.S. Senior with a chess camp I traditionally run) and dealing with a company “merger” and several work (and mandatory compliance changes) as a result. Sometimes life just becomes a bit too much, and rather than say something like “Glenn, I can’t help coordinate this tournament next to the camp.” I thought it important to do my best to do a good job with that and meet those prior commitments. I hope this understanding helps you to understand that perhaps its possible to be a bit slower to criticize. Perhaps as an organization its possible for a committee to consider all the facts and work cooperatively with its members, rather than trying to throw its weight around.
The biggest challenge is still the fact that the TD tests were designed to evaluate knowledge, not impart it.
Once they tell you the answer to a specific question, they probably shouldn’t ask that exact question again. In a structured online learning/testing process (known in some circles as a Keller plan course), they get around this by having so many questions in the test bank that they can ask similar questions multiple times without repeating a specific question. This takes many hours of question-writing.
Maybe with Tim Just’s new column there will be a way to pose situations similar to the ones on the TD exams with explanations of the answers.
By the way, how many of you have heard a TD state about prizes when asked – or pairings for that matter ’
" Well, I just did what the software told me to do" and really had not much of a clue why the software spat out the results ??
Rob Jones
Have any of us not heard that?
Bill Smythe
The best feature of both WinTD and SwissSys is the scapegoat feature. 
Yes. Fortunately, I’m old enough to have actually paired by hand in my misspent youth. (So long ago it does not show up in the MSA.)
I still do prizes by hand first, then see whether the computer agrees with me.
Good for you, Jack, but you may be in the minority.
It’s not whether you are paranoid or not, it’s whether you are paranoid enough.
I also learned to pair before the advent of pairing software. Earlier this year the computer I was using to pair a tournament crashed and I had to switch to pairing cards. The kids had never seen anyone do that, and thought it was magic that I could come up with pairings without a computer.
I gained proficiency in pairing with cards under Scott’s tutelage. I still carry a supply (along with wall charts and pairing sheets) in my kit. Computers fail.
The greatest joy any teacher can know is to have a student whose abilities outshine his own.
I still have pairing cards in several colors, to denote which section is being paired. There are also some adjournment cards and envelopes and all the other paper forms and charts to use. Speed in pairing comes more from printing than doing the actual pairing. Players are fascinated to see “how the sausage is made.” If done right, you can see pairing traps and color problems form in small sections in advance when you pair by hand. Sometimes pairings don’t match the computer, but that is okay. Unfortunately, it is likely that the pairing problems given on the tests only conform to pairing program algorithms and do not match up with what happens in the real world when you have multiple other issues to consider. For example, I prefer not to pair bitter enemies if I can avoid it as no good comes from it for everyone in the tournament. It may be entertaining for some, but most players find it spoils the event. In team tournaments where there is no rule about pairing teams from the same school, my preference is to pair them early if that is the right pairing rather than have them play a last round match where the possibility of a thrown match is possible. Also, I am less color conscious than pairing programs tend to be. I am more likely to pair someone with White twice in a row than Black twice in a row. No one complains about that. In small events, the 75 and 200 point rules are tossed out as otherwise legal pairings may not be possible. I may also not pair two old guys who play till the cows come home in a third round on a Saturday night of a two day tournament as I do not want to be there at 1 am waiting for them to finish their dead drawn book ending. If I have to make that pairing, I go to the car to get a pillow so I can take a nap. Tournament directors have to get their beauty sleep.
In my case I would have to be Rip Van Winkle to get enough beauty sleep to make a noticeable difference.
I still use pairing cards at every tournament, just to keep in practice, and to keep tabs on the computer (occasionally I overrule it). There have been occasions when the computer crashes, or when my computer operator can’t get there until the 2nd or 3rd round. And there have been occasions on which people complained about their pairings, and instead of just saying “That’s what the computer did”, I was able to show them exactly why that pairing was made. The cards do come in handy.
It is never acceptable to just say, “That’s what the computer did”, and leave it at that. The computer isn’t the TD for the tournament.
Saying something isn’t as good as showing it. The example of using pairing cards to show how pairing get done is a good example. It is the same as just saying what the rule is versus stating the rule & then showing the player the rule in the rulebook. You will not find a lot of people that will argue with what is in writing right in front of their face.
On the other hand it might not be a bad idea to post how prizes will be divided under different examples. Sort of like the idea of posting what tie-breaks and the order of tie-breaks being used for trophy prizes.
I would also like to add that asking more experienced TDs is a good way to learn. The USCF should try to establish a TD mentoring program, with online TD lessons for some basic situations. I remember as a player going to the chief TD for the event and asking if I could castle with my rook under attack. I was informed that as long as neither the King or Rook had moved & the King did not go through check that I could castle. I went back to the board, forgot what I was told, didn’t castle, and lost the Rook. When you do something stupid it can stick with you a long time. 
Larry S. Cohen