Does the MW Program Have to Look Like This?

On feedback, transparency, and the pursuit of an “eminently achievable” qualification

There’s a funny thing about the MW: you have to believe it’s achievable in order to attempt it, even though the vast majority of people who do attempt it don’t achieve it.

We hear plenty of stories from those who persevered and succeeded. But what about the stories we don’t hear? And what does a qualification that describes itself as “eminently achievable” owe its candidates in terms of understanding how to get there?

But first: I do want to give a huge congratulations to those who received happy news. Those who are now that-much-closer to achieving MW. It’s wonderful that you are closing in on a goal you’ve been working toward, and I hope that it opens up whatever doors you wish it to—both external and internal.

For those who didn’t receive the news they had hoped for—you know this, but it’s worth repeating: these results do not define you. They do not represent how knowledgeable or passionate about wine you are or what impact on the wine world you have (or can have!)

Whatever you’re feeling right now: disappointment, anger, frustration, confusion, sadness—or a blend of these and others—is completely valid.

Maybe you received results that left you wondering how close you actually were. Maybe your results were just meh. Or maybe you received your first F grade ever. (Speaking from experience, that can be a humbling and somewhat humiliating feeling.)

Again, feel whatever you’re feeling. But please remember: a single letter grade tells you very little. More on that in a bit… 😉

Don’t just take it from me. MWs on social media and elsewhere have offered messages of encouragement to those whose results weren’t what they’d hoped for last week. Some MWs have shared their own experiences with failing an exam (or multiple exams). But they didn’t let those exam results stop them. They persevered. They didn’t quit.

“Hey, I was in your shoes and I know how it feels. But I kept going! And look what happened: I succeeded!”

And that is a wonderful message to hear. That’s the message you WANT to hear right now, particularly if you’re planning to continue on with the program and sit the exam again.

Hearing success stories is motivating, and necessary if you’re going to embark on a challenge like the MW. But these are not the only stories. There are thousands of us (literally thousands!) who attempted, but did not get there. And rarely, if ever, do we hear from this group.

There are likely several reasons we don’t share our thoughts or experiences with MW. Maybe we’re just done with MW and want to leave it in the past. Maybe we’re still feeling the sting of not achieving something we set out to do. Maybe we feel a little embarrassed for not achieving it. Or maybe we figure nobody wants to hear from us because our stories don’t have the ending that you’re striving for.

The vast majority who attempt MW do not achieve it. But most of us who try (myself included) do so because, if we didn’t, we might always wonder, “What if?”

To pursue something that difficult, we have to have a healthy dose of optimism (sometimes bordering on delusion!) that we will be one of the few who succeed. We have to believe this. Otherwise, why on earth would we spend that much time, energy and money doing it?

And the IMW itself encourages that optimism. The guidance for prospective candidates on the IMW website says that, once candidates “find their own” path and set their minds to it, “the qualification is eminently achievable.”

The MW is not impossible. But “eminently achievable”? That’s perhaps a bit of a stretch. 😉 Understandably, though, the IMW needs to convey that success is within your reach. Otherwise, why would anyone sign up for this thing in the first place?

Candidates need to believe MW is achievable. But if it’s “eminently achievable,” shouldn’t they also be given enough information to understand what achieving it actually requires?

If something is truly within our reach, we need to know how to improve when we fall short.

This isn’t an ideal analogy, but bear with me:

If my goal is to win a marathon, and I don’t win on my first attempt, I can take that “failure” and learn from it. I know roughly how fast I need to run to have a shot at winning, and I can create a concrete training plan for my next attempt. If I also receive a breakdown of my performance at each mile marker, along with details about the course terrain, I can make that plan even more targeted:

• Which mile markers did I maintain my pace?

• Where did I start to lag?

• Do I need to work on pacing on uphill sections?

If the only information I received was something akin to “you were close” or “you were way off,” I’d have no idea how to structure my training plan. I wouldn’t know what, exactly, I needed to work on.

But if I don’t have access to information that tells me what I did well, where I fell short, or what I need to improve, how exactly am I supposed to train differently?

The MW grading system is cloaked in a bit of mystery. A single letter grade collectively represents two or three 1,000ish-word essays within each theory paper, or a written assessment of 12 wines within each practical paper. You don’t know which essays you did well on, which ones you struggled with, or which aspects of your tasting need more work. The result gives you very little information about what, specifically, you should do differently the next time around.

Currently, the pass rate for MW hovers around 10%. If candidates received more specific feedback on their exam performance, they would have a better understanding of their knowledge gaps and, in all likelihood, be better equipped to address them. More candidates would likely succeed, resulting in more individuals achieving the MW qualification.

And therein lies the uncomfortable question: what would happen to the elite status of MW if more candidates succeeded? If better feedback leads to more MWs, does that necessarily diminish the exclusivity that makes the title so prestigious?

If the group gets “too large,” would MW still be considered “elite”?

That question was on my mind when, after leaving the MW program, I was asked to complete an exit survey. It reminded me of the exit interviews I used to do in the corporate world: you take the time to give feedback after you’ve left, but wonder whether it will actually be received and heard, or dismissed as irrelevant (or worse, “sour grapes”) because you’re no longer part of the organization.

Regardless of whether my feedback was read or shredded, I wanted to give it. So I did.

One of the survey questions was:

Was there anything the IMW could have done differently to support you while you were on the study programme?

This was my response:

The feedback received after completing the S2 exam is not commensurate with the hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars spent in the program. Perhaps the single letter grade “feedback” is in keeping with the British grading system, but as it is a global organization - I encourage the IMW to rethink the unavailability of feedback after exams. Particularly if they desire to appeal to younger generations who place high value on transparency and access to information and results.

What happens when a qualification built around a certain educational culture meets a generation that expects something different? Research suggests that Gen Z places a high value on transparency, learning and development, and clear guidance and feedback. A single letter grade may not provide the kind of information that future generations expect from an educational experience.

WSET Diploma, a certification often seen as a “stepping stone” to MW, provides students with an opportunity to receive feedback on their exams—for a fee. Granted, WSET is a much larger organization than the IMW, with more administrative resources and employees available to take on the additional work of providing individualized feedback when requested. So I recognize that implementing something similar may be more challenging for the IMW.

But assuming each exam essay or flight of wines is carefully reviewed and assessed against an objective marking key, the graders presumably have some insight into why a particular letter grade was assigned. Perhaps that insight could be distilled into just a few key pointers: here’s what you did well, here’s where you fell short, and here’s what you might work on next time.

When I submitted my feedback to IMW (oh, the irony!) I didn’t have delusions of optimism that things would change. I still don’t. I know it’s their game, their rules.

But the game becomes so much less enjoyable when we’re not sure how to play it. And the younger generation may decide they don’t want to play in the first place.

Difficulty and opacity are not the same thing. The exam can remain extremely difficult while still giving candidates better information about how they performed.

This wouldn’t be lowering the bar. The bar remains in exactly the same place. It’s simply providing more transparent, individualized information to candidates so they better understand what they need to do to succeed in this “eminently achievable” qualification.

And yes, perhaps that would mean more MWs in the world. Perhaps the title would become a little less elite and exclusive. But maybe that isn’t such a bad thing. Maybe it just means there are more people at the top who can reach down the ladder and help pull others up. 😊