The Road Goes Ever On wrote: > > ""n rf"" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the > population hasn't > > accelerated THAT dramatically. > > > > Having said that, I will say that the CCIE has most likely > gotten less > > rigorous and therefore less valuable over time. I know this > is going to > > greatly annoy some people when I say this, but the truth is, > the average > > quality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is probably > lower than the > > average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. > > > I respectfully disagree. True, there are more cheaters out > there, and more > practice labs, and the like. OTOH, Cisco is turning over the > tests more > often, and the test I saw a couple of mopnths ago was every bit > as difficult > as the one I saw a couple of years ago.
You just said it right there, though, Chuck. More cheaters and more practice labs. That makes the process ultimately easier. I would add other factors, like changing the test from 2 days to 1, but I think you catch my drift. > > The exam still seems to thrive on silliness ( build a six > router network > with every known routing protocol, and force any and all > peering to occur > through at least two redistribution points, while forbidding > static routes, > routes to null 0, and default networks, and by the way, all > your /22's must > be reachable in all of your classful protocol routers which are > all /29's or > /28's, and try to get anything to work with the bizarre > combinations of > physical interfaces and subinterfaces that we give you ) > > But IMHO the test is no easier today than it was three years > ago, anyway. In > fact, I think the case can be made that the test is more, not > less relevant > than it was for those with numbers in the 4000-6000 series, > where there was > still substantial emphasis on obsolete vendor proprietary > protocols I think the test itself is probably of comparable difficulty. But I'm talking about the entire test 'environment' which ultimately makes things easier. Bootcamps, practice labs, and all that. Let me put it to you this way. Let's say that I set a competition where everybody who runs 100 meters in 10 seconds or less gets a prize. My first batch of runners runs without the benefit of nutritional or chemical supplements. My second batch of runners have available to them anabolic steroids, androstenedione (think Mark McGwire), creatine, blood-doping, and every other supplement in the world. Sure, the test itself (can you run 100 m in 10 seconds) is of equivalent difficulty, but surely you would agree that things are easier for the second group of runners? Practice labs and braindumps would be the chemical supplements of the CCIE world. Now, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with bootcamps necessarily. But it does mean that Cisco needs to constantly raise the bar in order to keep the overall testing environment the same. For example, I should probably adjust the test difficult so that the second group has to run faster than the first group in order to win the prize, simply because the second group is chemically enhanced. > > just another opinion, worth hat you paid for it ;-> > > > > > > > > Before any of you high-number CCIE's decides to flame me, ask > yourself if > > you were given the opportunity to trade your number for a > lower number, > > would you do it? For example, if you are CCIE #11,000 and > you could trade > > that number for CCIE #1100, would you take it? Be honest > with yourself. > > I'm sure you would concede that you would. By the same token > we also know > > that no low-number CCIE would willingly trade his number for > a higher one. > > The movement is therefore all "one-way". If all CCIE's were > really > "created > > equal" then nobody would really care one way or another which > number they > > had. Therefore the CCIE community realizes that all CCIE's > are not created > > equal and that intuitively that the lower number is more > desirable and the > > higher number is less desirable (otherwise, why does > everybody want a > lower > > number?). Simply put, the test is not as rigorous as it was > in the past, > > which is why lower numbers are preferred. > > > > Or, I'll put it to you another way. Let's say that starting > at #12,000 > > Cisco makes the test ridiculously hard, putting in all kinds > of funky > > technologies, and making the pass rate less than 1% or some > other > god-awful > > number. What would happen? Simple. Word would get around > that the "new" > > CCIE was super-rigorous and therefore very prestigious to > pass. > Eventually, > > numbers greater than #12000 would be coveted, and everybody > would want to > > trade in their number for one greater than #12000. > Recruiters and HR > people > > would start giving preference to CCIE's with numbers greater > than #12000. > > The point is that when rigor increases, prestige and > desirability tends to > > follow. When rigor declines, so does prestige and > desirability. > > > > > > And what is the cause of this decline in rigor? Well, you > alluded to > > several factors. While it is still rather controversial > exactly how the > > switch from 2 days to 1 day impacted the program, it is > widely conceded > that > > it probably didn't help. Nor does having all these > braindumps all over > the > > Internet, and not just for the written, but the lab as well. > The CCIE has > > certain arcane logistical rules that people have figured out > how to > 'game' - > > for example, for example, some people who live near test > sites just > attempt > > the lab every month over and over again. Finally, there is > the consensus > > that the CCIE program has simply not kept up with the growing > amount of > > study material, bootcamps, lab-guides, and so forth. We all > know there's > an > > entire cottage industry devoted just to helping people to > pass the lab, > and > > while there's nothing wrong with that per se, it does mean > that Cisco > needs > > to keep pace to maintain test rigor. To offer a parallel > situation, when > > the MCSE bootcamps started to proliferate, the value of the > MCSE plummeted > > because Microsoft did not properly maintain the rigor of the > cert. > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70303&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
