Exam Tactics: How to Present Style Knowledge in Advanced and Master Exams

Every year I repeat this scene scores of times: a candidate nervously settles into his or her seat across the table and quick greetings are exchanged, but time is short, so I jump straight to the first question: “Today we’re going to talk about Weizenbock. Start by giving me the quantitative parameters of the style, stating the top and bottom of the range for ABV, IBUs, and SRM.”

With these words we begin a key exercise featured in both Advanced Cicerone^® and Master Cicerone^® exams: a beer styles oral examination. Of course, the exact style we query changes on each exam. Those who have studied usually do pretty well on this first task. Some nail the exact values while others still get full credit for answers that fall within the acceptable range for each value. We don’t demand perfection so we won’t quibble about a couple of tenths of a percent ABV or a few points of color.

Then we move on to the hard part: the qualitative description. Typically we ask candidates to give a “comprehensive flavor profile” of the style. The exact wording varies a bit from exam to exam, but the essence of what we want remains the same. A good answer covers all aspects of the aroma, flavor, mouthfeel, and finish using solid flavor descriptions and accurate indications of the level at which each flavor should occur.

Although we publish a syllabus for each level of the exam that lists the styles we’ll cover, some candidates flounder on these questions. Some, clearly, have not given adequate study to the style in question. At this level, candidates must learn all these details for a multitude of styles.

But among those who have studied well, I see two other issues. A basic issue comes in weak flavor descriptions. A more advanced problem comes in not giving a full and complete description. Let me delve into each a bit further.

Strong Flavor Descriptors

Through the Cicerone program, we hope to encourage the use of specific, descriptive flavor words by everyone who participates at any level. We try to gently move people away from using non-specific words like “rich,” “bold,” “nice,” and “flavorful” to describe beers.  We are thrilled when a Certified Beer Server appropriately describes the flavor of a beer as “malty,” but from a Certified Cicerone^®, we would hope for more detailed malt descriptions such as “toasty,” “caramel,” or “nutty.” And by the time we get to the upper levels, we hope for greater specificity on words like “citrus,” for example expanding to name specific citrus fruits (e.g., “tangerine,” “lemon,” “pomelo,” etc.) and even potentially specific varieties of fruit (e.g., “ruby red grapefruit,” “Meyer lemon”) or specific parts of the fruit (e.g., “grapefruit pith,” “grapefruit peel,” “grapefruit flesh,” etc.)

Most of us use these broad terms like “citrus” or “spicy” a lot and we often feel they have a definite meaning. But here’s the thing: words like these cover a lot of ground. For instance, “spicy” might refer to the flavor of mint, clove, or cinnamon. It can also be used to describe the flavors imparted by garlic or onions. Others think of black pepper. And of course many people use it to describe the presence of chili-pepper heat. If I tell you something you haven’t tasted is “spicy” the odds are good that what I mean and what you envision will differ. Borrowing from the food context, people sometimes use it just to mean “not bland.”

So, when I hear a candidate for upper level certifications dismiss the malt side of a beer as having “low malt flavor” and then cover the hops saying it has “spicy European hop notes,” it demonstrates that they haven’t really developed their flavor vocabulary to the level that’s required. This observation holds true not only in the oral style exam, but also in various tasting exam sections, essays, and other oral exams. A strong flavor vocabulary is essential for a Cicerone.

Covering the Whole Beer

The second common deficiency in style exams involves incomplete descriptions. Some candidates limit their description only to the most notable traits of the style. While this might be adequate in describing the style to a consumer, it ignores the “comprehensive” portion of the question we are trying to assess. Telling me all about the hop flavors in an IPA using specific and relevant flavor words is great, but that is not the whole beer. The beer also has some malt (it is a beer, after all) and it was fermented. What flavors do we get from those? Even if the expected levels are “low to none,” they have an expected character, be it water cracker, pie crust, chocolate cookie, or espresso bean.

When I hear a “highlight” description, I recognize its origin. People focus on key traits when they study styles. In the exam setting, when they flip their mental notebook to the page that says “Weizenbock” (if that’s what we’re testing), they go with the key points found there. But those highlights aren’t the whole style.

In thinking about how to move candidates beyond the highlights, I’ve realized we could help by putting forth a formal framework for describing styles. What I have in mind is a checklist of traits to cover when describing a style. I imagine the major sections (appearance, aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel let’s say) would be easy enough to remember, but that the sub-points might be something memorized by way of a useful mnemonic. The framework would serve two purposes. First, it would give advanced students of beer styles a consistent and comprehensive method of organizing the traits of various styles. (I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this as a tool for those just beginning to study styles.) Second, it would give candidates a template for presenting their knowledge to ensure that they had covered every aspect of the style.

A Proposed Framework

With this goal in mind, I have drafted a framework which might be used for learning and presenting style information. I provide it here as a first draft, a work in progress. I will be happy to hear input from those who give it a try to see what adjustments or rearrangements might improve it. Just remember that this is a framework for talking about a whole group of beers with common traits. When we move to assessing the actual flavor of a single beer, we would want to edit this tool to suit that purpose.

The information provided for each item below should list the expected characteristics of the style. Specific flavor compounds such as DMS, diacetyl, and lactic acid should be mentioned where perceived when they are characteristic of the style—for instance, lactic acid in a Berliner Weisse.

Description of a Beer Style:

Quantitative Values:

• ABV range
• IBU range
• Color range
• If other than “normal,” mention: carbonation level, attenuation level

Appearance:

• Color (descriptive)
• Clarity
• Head color, density (bubble size), formation, and retention

Aroma: (Mnemonic: MaHoYO?)

• Malt traits, levels.
• Hop traits, levels.
• Yeast/fermentation traits, levels.
• Other traits: special ingredient traits, levels. 

Palate:  MaHoYo + Balance

• Malt traits, levels.
• Hop traits, levels.
• Yeast/fermentation traits, levels.
• Other traits: special ingredient traits, levels. 
• Level of perceived bitterness: low, moderate, pronounced, assertive, highly assertive
• Balance: overall impression of sweet or dry, relative levels of malt and hops.

Mouthfeel:

• Body: light, medium-light, medium, medium-full, full
• Attenuation: should be mentioned if a level outside of “normal” on either end of the scale is characteristic of the style. An explanation for why this occurs or how the brewer creates this effect may be appropriate.
• Carbonation level: low, medium-low, medium, medium-high, high
• Other possible traits: creamy, astringent, neutral, crisp, etc.

Worth the Effort?

Honestly, you’ll find nothing new in this framework. You see most or all of this information in the common style descriptions published by BJCP and the Brewers Association. But the point here comes not in learning the styles. The point comes in presenting the styles. When you sit down across the table and I ask you to tell me about the style of the day, your presentation as well as your knowledge needs to be sharp.  A clear, sure-footed recitation of the information goes a long way toward improving your score. First, when you confidently present information it gives the impression that you have mastered it. Second, a quick and sure presentation helps your score by ensuring that we’ll get to the other parts of the question with enough time to discuss and explore less rote aspects of the style. Candidates who hem and haw or have to be prompted to get through the flavor details generally lose significant points.

By learning this framework—or another that covers all the same information—you can ensure that you’ll present well and make your point efficiently so that we can move on to other aspects of the question, thus giving you a shot at scoring the maximum number of points in your oral exam. For these reasons, I hope you’ll give this a try.  

So: take a look at the framework. Work with it a bit as a presentation tool. If you have thoughts about how it might be improved, by all means let me know.

Cheers!

Ray Daniels
Founder and Director,
Cicerone Certification Program