garrett allen wrote: > > you make an a priori argument that lower is better. is a lower > number > cpa better than a higher numbered one?
You got me wrong. I didn't say that lower is better at all times. Read my entire post again. I said that more rigorous equates to prestige. This is why I included my example of what would happen if Cisco decided to change the CCIE exam to become extremely rigorous - then eventually people would prize "high-number" CCIE's who passed the more rigorous version. The fact is, prestige follows rigor. If something is more rigorous, then it becomes rigorous and vice versa. This is why graduating from MIT is more prestigious than graduating from Podunk Community College. But the fact is, the CCIE on the whole has probably gotten more rigorous (i.e. chopping the test from 2 days to 1, eliminating the dedicated troubleshooting section, more bootcamps/braindumps, more cheating, etc. etc.) which is why it has become less prestigious. >actually, probably the > inverse > is true as the more recent the certification the more recent > the > material covered. this is balanced against with age comes > opportunities and experiences. Unfortunately, the free market disagrees with you. The fact is, a growing number of recruiters, headhunters, and HR people are starting to give preference to lower-number CCIE's. Go check out the groupstudy.jobs forum. Yet I have never heard of any recruiter giving preference to higher-number CCIE. It's always one-way, and that's my point. > > threads like this are like discussing the maximum number of > angels > dancing on the head of a pin. i vote we kill the thread before > it > spawn. > > later. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: n rf > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2003 5:16 pm > Subject: RE: number of CCIE [7:70151] > > > Well, there are still less than 10,000 CCIE's. So the > population > > hasn'taccelerated 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 > > averagequality of the later (read: high-number) CCIE's is > probably > > lower than the > > average quality of the higher (read: lower-number) CCIE's. > > > > 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 > > createdequal 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 > > #12,000Cisco 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 > > consensusthat 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 > > plummetedbecause Microsoft did not properly maintain the > rigor of > > the cert. > > Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=70302&t=70151 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
